The Horror of Helmand

This post has been along time coming, partly because every time I sit down to write something about the number of fatalities the number seems to have grown. The rather excellent http://www.icasualties.org/ informs me that the figure is now 191 for the UK (more than Iraq - though you already know that, unless you've been living in a cave). The US figure is 758. Nobody counts for Afghans.

This recent surge in fatalties has stimulated much discussion in the UK media about whether the price is worth paying in Afghanistan, or whether we should cut and run. I'm going to consider the arguments on both sides before arriving at the position I was in before - we should scarper.

First of all, it is worth acknowledging that there are real and persuasive reasons for our continued presence out there. The first of these, it seems to me, is that pre 9-11 Afghanistan was a terrorists' playground. If we don't do something about it, they'll be free to make it so once again. This is a real worry. Even if the Taliban weren't able to gain control of Kabul again (and maybe they would - I don't know), they already hold large swathes of the countryside. Should they be so inclined, they could welcome Al Qaeda back with open arms. This is a horrible scenario to consider. The question, though, is whether it is within our power to prevent such a thing. We've been there for almost eight years. We've spent millions, if not billions of pounds that we don't really have at the moment. We've lost 191 men and women (not to mention the hundreds of wounded). How long are we really prepared to keep this up? How long would it take to "secure" the whole country, so that AQ, or any other terrorist organisation, would find it impossible to set up camp there? As you'll see, these questions are reocurring ones.

The second best argument for staying the course in Afghanistan is the humanitarian argument that we shouldn't turn our backs on the many, many ordinary Afghans who have already lived under Taliban rule for a crushing 5 years. Make no mistake, these people (the Taliban) are truly awful. During their period of rule, they allowed no political dissent whatsoever and banned, among many things, clapping during sports events, kite flying and beard trimming. They were and are hideous towards women. This being said, we as a nation do not have anywhere approaching the resources necessary to deal with every regime and "government" around the globe that we find distasteful. It's an open question, I suppose, whether we should spend all that blood and treasure fighting for our ideals alone, but I'm not in favour.

The third case for continued action is that, without our help, the Afghan Government would probably fall. Furthermore, our absence would allow the opium growers whose wares end up in Westerners' veins in the form of heroin to flourish. The first point here, about the Afghan Government, is a rubbish one. They're corrupt as all hell. Their fall would only matter for the reasons discussed above, about the security of the country as a whole (or partial) entity. The second factor, the opium production, is, arguably, more compelling, but, even if we did have the power to stamp the trade out at source, is that really a good enough reason for a war? Not for me.

In opposition to these factors, there are many arguments for getting the hell out of there. The best of these, though, is that this operation fails the Powell Test. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell listed the following questions (which he himself inherited for another former Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger), all of which must be answered, before a US military action can rightly be embarked upon:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our actions been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine, broad, international support?

This war fails a number of these questions, particularly the second and fifth, but most interesting is the fourth - alternative, non-military options. Our objectives in Afghanistan, as discussed above, are worthy ones. They're just not worth the blood, treasure and risk of "endless entanglement" that securing them requires. This doesn't mean that we should just give up, though. Instead, we need to look seriously at what can be done with policing, diplomacy and governance. We also need to be realistic - Afghanistan is a long, long way behind the West in terms of development. We are tens and maybe hundreds of years away from seeing liberal democracy emerge amongst the tents, goats and mountains. What is within our grasp, though, is basic security. The right deals struck with the right warlords should see AQ kept out of Afghanistan, or at least operationally incapable.

The biggest reason of all, of course, that we won't cut and run in Afghanistan, is that His Majesty Barack O would be slighted. Whether he privately believes in this war or not, the Yanks aren't going to be happy if their main allies leave them carrying the can on their own. You can make the argument here that British lives should never, ever be expended just to keep non-Britons happy and you'd be (morally) right, but welcome to geopolitics.

We should never have got in in the first place, then. We should get the hell out now. We can't, though, so we should do our best to limit the damage and get serious about the "soft" options instead.