The American secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, flies to Britain this week
to meet a crisis entirely of London and Washington’s creation. They have no
strategy for the continuing occupation of Afghanistan. They are hanging on
for dear life and praying for something to turn up. Britain is repeating the
experience of Gordon in Khartoum, of the Dardanelles, Singapore and Crete,
of politicians who no longer read history expecting others to die for their
dreams of glory.
Every independent report on the Nato-led operation in Afghanistan cries the
same message: watch out, disaster beckons. Last week America’s Afghanistan
Study Group, led by generals and diplomats of impeccable credentials,
reported on “a weakening international resolve and a growing lack of
confidence”. An Atlantic Council report was more curt: “Make no mistake,
Nato is not winning in Afghanistan.” The country was in imminent danger of
becoming a failed state.
A clearly exasperated Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, has broken
ranks with the official optimism and committed an extra 3,000 marines to the
field, while sending an “unusually stern” note to Germany demanding that its
3,200 troops meet enemy fire. Germany, like France, has rejected that plea.
Yet it is urgent since the Canadians have threatened to withdraw from the
south if not relieved. An equally desperate Britain is proposing to send
half-trained territorials to the front, after its commanders ignored every
warning that the Taliban were the toughest fighters on earth.
Meanwhile Nato is doing what it does best, squabbling. Gates has criticised
Britain for not taking the war against the insurgents with sufficient
vigour. Britain is furious at America’s obsession with spraying the Helmand
poppy crop and thus destroying all hope of winning hearts and minds. Most of
the 37,000 soldiers wandering round Kabul were sent on the understanding
that they would do no fighting. No army was ever assembled on so daft a
premise.
Nato’s much-vaunted 2006 strategy has not worked. It boasted that its forces
would only be guarding reconstruction and training the Afghan police. There
would be no more counterproductive airstrikes against Pashtun villages. The
Taliban would be countered by American special forces, with the Pakistan
army attacking their rear. Two years ago anyone expressing scepticism
towards this rosy scenario was greeted at Nato headquarters in Kabul with
guffaws of laughter. Today that laughter must be music in Taliban ears.
Kabul is like Saigon at the end of the Vietnam war. It swarms with refugees
and corruption while an upper crust of well-heeled contractors, consultants
and NGO groupies careers from party to party in bullet-proof Land Cruisers.
Spin doctors fighting a daily battle with the truth have resorted to enemy
kill-rates to imply victory, General Westmoreland’s ploy in Vietnam.
This is a far cry from Britain’s 2001 pledges of opium eradication,
gender-awareness and civic-governance classes. After 87 deaths and two years
of operations in Helmand, the British Army cannot even secure one dam. Aid
successes such as a few new schools and roads in the north look ever more
tenuous as the country detaches itself from Kabul and tribal elders struggle
to make terms with Taliban commanders.
There is plainly no way 6,000 British troops are ever going to secure, let
alone pacify, the south. More soldiers will simply evince more insurgency.
More American raids across the Pakistan border merely offer propaganda to
Al-Qaeda in its radicalisation of the tribal areas. It was just such
brutalism that preceded the Soviet escalation of the counterinsurgency war
in the 1980s, and the rise of the (American-backed) precursors of the
Taliban.
The best news out of Kabul is the increased disenchantment of the wily Afghan
president, Hamid Karzai. Last week he vetoed the West’s offering of a former
leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats, Lord Ashdown, to co-ordinate
operations in Kabul, whatever that might mean. Liberal democracy is not high
on Karzai’s priority list.
He attacked the British for drawing the Taliban into his unregulated domain.
When outside agents were thought to be negotiating with Taliban elements
behind his back, he instantly expelled them from the country.
Meanwhile he has taken to making his own choice of provincial governors and
commanders, often warlords enmeshed in the booming drugs trade. That trade
offers Afghanistan its one staple income.
While the international community in Kabul wails that Karzai is too close to
the druglords, the warlords and various sinister Taliban go-betweens, they
are at least his warlords and his go-betweens. When Britain sacked the
ruthless tribal chief, Sher Mohammed Akhundzada, as governor of Helmand,
Karzai was furious and rightly predicted it would lead to a surge in Taliban
aggression.
For all his faults, Karzai is both an elected leader and a canny one. He is a
virtual prisoner of the Nato garrison in Kabul but Afghanistan remains his
country and if he thinks he can cut deals across its political heartlands,
let him. If he wants Nato to stop bombing Taliban bases in Pashtun villages
and killing Pashtun tribal leaders, then it should stop.
Withdraw the opium eradication teams from Helmand. Let Karzai barter money for
power and power for peace. The foreign “governance” pundits in Kabul might
dream of Afghanistan as a latterday Sweden, but they are never going to
bring Pashtuns, Baluchis, Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks into a stable
federation.
Only an Afghan stands any chance of doing that, and the one Afghan on offer is
Karzai.
Common sense advocates a demilitarisation of the occupation, with a withdrawal
of western troops to Kabul where they can try to protect the capital and the
northern trade routes. In provinces to the south and east, Karzai’s money,
weapons and negotiating skills must deliver what results they can. The West
cannot possibly police Afghanistan with anything remotely like the resources
it has available.
Behind such a policy shift should lie an even more crucial one. For the past
two decades intelligence lore has held that nothing happens along the
Afghan/Pakistan frontier without agencies of the Pakistan army being
involved. The latter’s pro-Taliban strategy through the 1990s was based on
its obsession with “defence in depth” against India. Pakistan wanted
Afghanistan stable, friendly and medieval. The security of the Punjab rested
on the containment of the Pashtun tribal lands straddling the Pakistan/
Afghanistan border.
George W Bush’s reckless elevation of Al-Qaeda after 2001 promoted a small
group of alien Arab guests into global warriors for Islam. It also destroyed
Islamabad’s hold over the Taliban. America bribed the Pakistan president
Pervez Musharraf with $1 billion a year to declare a U-turn and fight his
former allies.
Musharraf duly broke his non-intervention treaty with the Pashtun and sent his
army against them. The Taliban’s influence increases with every attack and
with every American bombing of villages. The Pakistan army is suffering
greater losses in this war than either the British or the Americans.
Wise heads in Islamabad know that they must withdraw from the border and
restore respect for tribal autonomy. Nothing else will incline the Pashtun
and other tribes to reject Al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. The alternative
is a growing insurgency that must destabilise whatever democratic regime
might emerge from this month’s Pakistan elections. That prospect is far
worse than whatever fate might befall Afghanistan.
There is no sensible alternative to ending military operations against the
Pashtun, flying under whatever flag. Like Iraq’s Kurdistan, Pashtunistan is
a country without a state. It has been cursed by history, but it returns
that curse with interest when attacked. Fate has now handed it a starring
role in Britain’s nastiest war in decades, and offered it the power to wreck
an emergent democracy of vital interest to the West.
To have set one of the world’s most ancient and ferocious people on the
warpath against both Kabul and Islamabad takes some doing. But western
diplomacy has done it. Now must begin the agonising process of escaping that
appalling mistake.
simon.jenkins@sunday-times.co.uk
It is not the 87 dead in seven years, the problem is the money that is spent to keep the rest of the soldiers alive.
Mujo, izmir,
the key word-history followed by geography. afghanistan is a construct of historical waves of central asian warrior armies sweeping through barren highlands to pillage the indian subcontinent, its ethnically mixed population the result, there are no longer afghans but a contested pushtu domain
jamil , al ain, uae
You brits have fought the afghans once, in the time when you had the greatest empire the world has ever known. Victoria (your queen) could very well say: "in my dominions the sun never sets". Yet you could see there was no point in occupying Afghanistan and its fierce people... GET OUT!
salvador hurtado, Mexico city, Mexico
It's really depressing when our supposed allies, the Americans, don't value the effort made by British troops in the field no matter how small it is. They should be grateful that we are there at all, rather than following the sensible European strategy and not getting involved. America asks us to fight harder against her enemies while at the same time mocking our every commitment. Britain in no way has the forces to commit to such operations while maintaining our world commitments. May i say that our entire army is the same size as the United States Marine Corp, just to put into perspective the disparity of our forces.
As for not winning a war in 500 years without American assistance we have won more wars without American assistance than America has ever been involved in, mostly in the last 500 years when we controlled the largest empire ever known. If America has no appreciation of our commitment as their allies then perhaps we shouldnt bother at all.
Liam Andrews, Worcester, England
Short and sweet folks,as a brit we need to get out of there as fast as humanly possible!those people have never been crushed,fair enough were giving as good as were getting but they have an endless supplie of fresh troops as its in there backyard and with all the stuff that we do to them they hate us more day by day.we simply cannot sustain this,if the red army cant then thats good enough for me.
grant kane, newmilns, scotland
I have said it before and say it again. NATO should withdraw and let the US show Afghanistan and Iraq how tough it is. Wait 4 or 5 years and when the US is completely spent then NATO can return and take credit for the victory! This is what the Americans did in both WW1 and WW2.
People need reminding the US entered WW2 not because of a love of freedom or democracy but because Japan tinfished the Pacific fleet and herr Hitler declared war three days later. From 1939 to the end of 1941 the US sat on its backside and NATO should follow the US's proud precedent today
Jeff Larsen, Chch , NZ
"Cave dwelling does not an idiot make! "
Nowhere does Kelley suggest that it does, which only goes to prove the second point, but not in the way intended.
Mark Lyndon, London, UK
I did not understand why British Media is portraying Pashtun tribes' role very significant while they are controlled by ISI(Pakistan's Inteligence Agency) officers of Punjab. ISI destroyed the leadership capability of Pashtuns on both sides of the border and turned them into a medeaval tribe in the past 20 years. I guess Britian is exaggerating the role of Pakistan and Pashtun tribes in the war on terror just to keep the 19th century power balance and save her former colony "Pakistan".
It seems that there is growing mistrust among Americans and Karzai's government over the British secrete activities and deals with the Taliban.
Fateh Arezoi, London, UK
Cave dwelling does not an idiot make!
Oh, it is mind boggling, just how utterly supercilious the mind set of the average intelligentsia of the West!
prudence eely bond mcguire, London, England UK
David Taylor, London, Middlesex, America did exist 500 years ago, it was populated by a large indiginous group of Indians who the Americans slaughtered for their land. Land of the Brave? Home of the Free? Yeah right.....
J Roberts, Manchester, UK
im glad they didnt ask for russia to tell them how to wage wars
tom, orlando, fl
The only economically viable crop in Afghanistan is heroin. The West should buy it all up and use it for _medicine_ which we need. The US must stop eradicating it - which loses hearts and minds. (Don't take my word, look at the expert views.) Without that component, where will a military strategy lead? Do we want to waste what we have given already? And do Obama/Clinton or McCain know this yet? If you only listen to the military, you will only hear military solutions. Bigger picture here. This is about the _economy _ first and foremost. The Afghans have the same right to economic progress that we have. This "buy don't wreck " strategy would protect all our children (West/Afghan) from becoming junkies. Let's be smarter than OBL. He isn't that smart anyway.
Ian, Kettering, UK
Russia on its own failed.
A war no-one can comment on because no-one has the
truth........
and probably never will.
Its difficult to believe that all those nations can't defeat one.
When we will get some truth, I wonder.
M walker, bromsgrove, worcs
There is no simple answer to the Afghanistan dilemma. With Pakistan so unstable, the thought of the Taliban and their supporters from Al Qaeda getting acess to Pakistan's Nuclear weapons does not bear thinking about. The border control between the two countries is virtually non-existant.
BENBOW, Andover,
william smith, sarasota, fl/usa,
America didn't even exist 500 years ago...
David Taylor, London, Middlesex
500 years! where were our U.S cousins in our civil war and ?the War of the Roses.Perhaps I missed that when studying history
M.Roper
Northamptonshire .U.K
Margaret.Roper, Daventry, UK
Odd that the Sikh ruler Ranjit Singh had no problem conquering Afghanistan. Centuries before, the Arab Yaqub bin Laith as-Saffar did so. More than a thousand years before that, Chandragupta Maurya ruled all these lands.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned from these commanders? Or will the fiction of the unbeatable Afghans continue?
john smith, NY, USA
...or Mr Smith looked at another way, one the one occasion when we didn't watch your backs, in Vietnam, you got right royally turned over by a different group of third world fighters crawling through tunnels....
As for wars we fought and won over the last 500 years without American help... I think we saw off the Armada, the Dutch in the 1660s, the Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimea, the Boer War, Malaya, the Falklands... apologies if I forget some. And I don't want to get into the standard puerile observations about America turning up late to conflicts only to needlessly slaughter civilians as they spray entire countries with random fire...
In an era when domestic politics and a distate for casualties determines the outcome of wars the only way to make any purchase is to ensure that reconstruction is as rigorously driven through as any military campaign. It really is hearts and minds as Sir Gerald Templer observed. He was right then and he'd be right now.
Jonathan, London,
Europe should be ashamed.
steve, Scottsdale, AZ USA
European countires have totally failed to honour their military committments. They can't be trusted.They have absolutely proved it. We need to maintain our own well resourced Armed Services.
Jane, Sevenoaks, UK
predictable end to the Bush and Blair adventure. The trouble is that they never bothered reading history books or asking the Russians what's it like fighting a war in Afghanistan.
nick, london, UK
So Britain was capable of taking on the mighty German Wehrmacht in 1940 but can't help to squash a few thousand cave dwellers in Afghanistan? My, how things have changed...
Paul Kelley, Columbia, SC, USA
this is why you brits have not won a war in 500yrs without americans doing your dirty work. dunkirk redux
william smith, sarasota, fl/usa
this is why you have noy won a war in 500 yrs without americans doing your dirty work. you have behaved cowardly in iraq and afganistan.you cower in the face of your own muslim population and they smell your fear.
william smith, sarasota, fl/usa
Pure defeatism - withdrawal would only be acceptable if the Taleban can be hermaticaly sealed within Afganistan - an impossible task. There are millions of Afghani women who depend on us. The wests biggest mistake was arming the Taliban in the first place. Without the wests massive arming of the mujahedin, the modernising, albeit Soviet allied, government would still be in power
Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK
HERE WE GO AGAIN.......The left are up and at it again, they
never have the guts to see anything through, first it was Iraq,
lets cut and run, thankfully the Americans did'nt and are now
slowly gaining the victory. The left have shut up on iraq as
British troops are largely leaving, so now it's Afghanistan, lets
cut and run. If we lack the stomach for long campaigns
we should'nt get into them. Jenkins is right in the sense that
Afghanistan or more particularly the Pashtun people are
a major problem. If we cannot pacify the South the country
needs to be partioned so the Northern (Tajik,Uzbek) peoples
can be free of the Taliban-al quada and the south contained.
If we do as the left want cut and run everywhere, we will be
cutting and running from Bradford & Bolton before long. The
left might be cowardly but the British have never been.
Frank, Devon, England
- If you think that the US has any other interest in Afghanistan than protecting the heroin industry, go seek a shrink...
- Or do you think they are there to promote democracy (like in Saudi Arabia) or help building up the country (like in Irak) or liberate the women (so that they can become like American women, brrr) or for the oil (there isn't any) or for the strategic position (between China and the US, study the atlas) or the weather (hahaha) or to keep the military establishment in work ( there is not enough roads for the tanks) or maybe for the beautiful coastline?
-Or maybe for the same reason they were in Vietnam? i.e. no good reason at all...( or was that also the heroin)
P Andersson, London, UK
Excellent article, and common sense. No wonder the French and Germans don't want to get dragged into an ill-fated 'crusade' !
Steve Marchant, Broadhempston, UK
I think we've been here before, in the gardens behind St. George's Hall in Liverpool there is a memorial to those soldiers of the King's Liverpool Regiment killed in Afghanistan, the date ...1870.
Tim, London, UK
The adventure was doomed when it was announced how many US and UK troops were involved. The were never going to enough boots on the ground to hold territory when it when the taleben where driven out.
The Afghan army is not in a state to take over, if it ever will be. Tribal connections are apparently more important that anything else.
The other minor point is, who are the taleben?, they do not look or dress any different to other tribesmen, how many are really taleban or merely Afghans wanting NATO out so that they get get on with poppy growing..
K Wells, Bognor Regis, England
It does not take a genius to look at the history of Afghanistan and know it cannot be conquered.
Why blame the commanders when the politicians decided that the troops should go in..
In Afghanistan battle is a sport, read the history of the Brits there in the 1800.
Eddy Carroll, Yate,
An entirely accurate analysis but which British politician, Labour or Tory, will have the guts to admit we should leave asap? The greatest irony is that the British have been in Afghanistan once before when we ruled India. We also had to retreat on that occasion as well! The Afghans are an ungovernable people because of their myriad tribes and religious fanaticism. I appreciate that if Nato left precipitately then Bin Laden would move back in again at the head of the Taleban but wouldn't this provide Nato with the opportunity to re-group and attack as General Kotousov did when faced with Napoleon's occupation of Moscow? There's no way either Nato or Pakistan forces will flush Bin Laden out of the forbidden lands of the north west frontier of Pakistan. Finally, Afghanistan - and Iraq - has demonstrated conclusively that Nato in its present form is finished. It's now time to look at a new formation of Western military forces - an Atlantic Russian European Alliance (AREA).
Dr David Green, Athens, Greece
The Brits and the Americans created the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq as well . if these people were left on their own to sort their own problems we could not talking about this today. It is not always possible to impose our own values on everybody, If people want to live in medieval times they should be left alone. Leaving today is not fair on the innocent people there , We creates the mess we cant just leave and forget .There is also this arrogance of thinking that we are going to crush the enemy forgeting that its a war and anybodys game. Hope lessons have been learnt.
PETER, wirral, UK
Excellent article. At last a nother writer with guts and more importantly nous and a very good education including study of history. Well done keep up the good work. This morning's news about 'kidnapping' by reformed and heavily padded with $ and possibly even with £ generalissimo Dostun merely confirms the downward path. We should feel sorry for ex uk diplomat Rory Stewart and even Prince Charles for the support of the almost hopelss task of urban regeneration alongside conservation in poor old Kabul.
Nicholas Xenakis, Borough, London, England/UK
get our brave lads and lassies out of their now,we got our arses kicked 200 years ago and we're getting them kicked again,not through the lack of professional training that they get but through the lack of cooperation of our so called nato allies who want the good but not the bad.people don't believe that there is a real war going on ,not guerrilla tactics of hit and run,but a highly organized army who have years of experience in fighting in such terrain against the Russians,the 2nd top super power in the world and they won.we have to go in as one army,ie nato,in sufficiency numbers if not leave now and get our people home.
tojo99, glenrothes, fife
Maybe the best outcome for the world as a whole is to encourage Afghanistan to be broken up into a few new countries according to ethnic lines. The main interests of the world as a whole is that this region should not be a training ground for terrorists and be a place to produce opium. Other than these two global objectives we should let the locals determine their own destinies and wish them good luck. If they want to live in medieval times that is their business. As a region with multistates there is a better chance for the outside world to have some influence on this region. Some of these new countries can then bid for external assistance and it should be given only if they can serve the two global objectives.
Mohommad, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
There is no such thing as a mistake. A mistake is a "planned event" which did not take into account all the data necessary to make the correct decision.
Emotional and political based thinking tend to be limited in the data collection and analysis process. Thus we see the events such as the Afghanistan conflict develope and many others.
The parliamentary system of Britain is desperately in need of reform. If the public had voted on the matter, there would be no Afghanistan. The people should make the decision whether to stay or go from Afghanistan once all the data has been presented to them.
Jim Wills, Brisbane, Australia
There is nothing left to say - you said it all.
Michael, Vancouver, Canada.
87 dead in seven years and you are calling that failure? Even good Democrats are not walking away from this fight, whether Britain is with us or not.
Alex Darcy, Chicago, USA
As someone who has seen a very tiny slice of what is happening in Kabul, I receive chills as I read this.
Anna Reitman, Edmonton, AB
Good luck!
Dan, Council Bluffs, Omaha
Don't spray their poppies, buy all their opium for minimum, but acceptable prices.
It would be cheaper in the long run.
It is the only income they have at the moment.
Later, when things have stabilised, then, gradually other crops will be grown to replace the poppy.
Nigel, Worcestershire,
Afghanistan is long term - no western country has the appetite to support such long term strategy. Nato is US. Nato is just another US way to have a grand coalition to support its doomed strategy to be the dominant power in The Middle East to control energy and keep Russia and China out - It's a continuation of "The Great Game". Engagement and is the only long term answer. Put away the bombs. Come on Brown get at least us (UK) out of this - lets hold our heads high.
Andrewsan, Yokohama,
A bizarrely defeatist and perverse analysis. The equivalent of advising a rape victim to lie back and be sure not to antagonise the rapist.
Very disappointing.
Furriskey, Singapore,
Well said Mr Simon Jenkins.
Some people will never learn the lessons of history in Afghanistan. The Russians have...
jayil, london, uk
Peope forget Russia tried and failed for 10 years.
We should withdraw now!
Martin Hime, London, UK