This is about who we are: We win or we invite hell
WHY are we in Afghanistan? It's not a trick question. But it's one that Gordon Brown is struggling to answer.
His speech on the war last week was inspiring - for our enemies. He sounded like a man who'd given up.
As the death toll mounts and we keep losing ground in Helmand, it raises a horrible question. Is it time to admit defeat?
Brown's speech was supposed to be a call to arms. But it was overshadowed by the resignation of a key aide.
I hate to say this, but Eric Joyce, who quit in protest at the Afghan campaign, has a point. It is nonsense, he said, to claim that British troops are fighting there so we don't face the enemy at home.
Leaving aside the bizarre notion of the Taliban charging the Kent coast, our enemies are of a different kind. It is Britain's home-grown jihadis, like the 7/7 bombers, who are most likely to blow us up.
Take Rashid Rauf, one of the deadliest terrorists in Britain. Birmingham born and bred, and a huge threat.
He's thought to have been killed by a US bomb in his last visit to al-Qaeda's HQ. But he is, let's not forget, a British export.
So why should we bother with Afghan villagers who could not place Britain (or anywhere else) on a map?
It is NOT, as Tony Blair mendaciously claimed, anything to do with the drugs trade or choking the UK heroin supply.
Sure, Afghanistan is the world's No1 opium producer. But the Taliban outlawed opium growing as 'un-Islamic'. When we deposed the mad mullahs, poppies started again.
Nor are we there (as the almost- as-insane Harriet Harman claimed) to make sure girls are educated.
The Afghans are capable of educating women on their own. This was normal until the mid-1990s. It was the Taliban takeover that confined girls to the home. But their rule in Kabul was a fairly recent aberration.
What about denying al-Qaeda a hiding place? If so, we should invade Pakistan's northwest badlands.
Afghanistan could be as safe as Surrey, and al-Qaeda could still be as strong as it is now. This enemy can travel.
So are we there to bring democracy? Hamid Karzai was re-elected last month on a ballot so crooked it makes an EU referendum look fair.
He has become a reclusive weirdo, downing fizzy vitamin C drinks and nurturing a family drugs empire.
So why spend British lives on this mission? I challenge anyone listening to Brown last week to answer. The words were fine, but he read them with the sincerity of a hostage statement. And that's the problem.
Gordo can't even pronounce al- Qaeda. It's as if defence is a foreign language to him.
When he talks about the "threat from Alcy Eda" it sounds like he's hiding from a gin-crazed aunt.
It would be a joke if there weren't lives on the line for lack of resources and political commitment.
So why do we stick at it? Because it's about who we are as a nation: what Britain is for.
For better or worse, the war against militant Islam is taking place in Afghanistan. It is a battle of endurance. If we fail, it sends a message to psycho states around the globe: that the West has no stomach for battle.
It would embolden Iran. Persuade the Taliban to march on Pakistan and get hold of the nukes. Invite hell.
Yet there are signs of victory elsewhere. Al- Qaeda is losing support in its former bases of Libya and Eygpt.
A Cairo cleric, "Dr Fadi", has started blaming Bin Laden for "every drop" of blood spilled in Afghanistan.
This is pure kryptonite to al-Qaeda. The Islamist hardline groups are turning on him.
A few years ago, al- Qaeda pinned all its hopes on Iraq. But the US surge worked: It has been forced to retreat.
Make no mistake: This war on terror is actually being won by simple, old-fashioned perseverance.
What's more, the Afghans WANT us to succeed. The bearded Taliban maniacs are supported by just four per cent of the population.
The emerging Afghan army is effective. It has just 90,000 soldiers so it's too small - but as it grows, it can cope. The Afghani police are proving gutsy and willing to fight, taking some 100 casualties every month.
Again, there are too few of them. But they are competent, providing Karzai and his henchmen pay them.
In six years, 212 British troops have fallen in Afghanistan. It's likely to overtake the Falklands toll.
Then, many asked why we should send so many to die in a forgotten land on the other side of the world.
It was about principle. About who Britain is as a nation. About projecting strength on the world.
Both US and UK commanders want more troops in Afghanistan. They know the conflict is winnable.
Our troops have the resolve to finish the job. But do their political masters? In the next few months, we'll find out.
FRASER NELSON is also Editor of The Spectator
Please note: All comments are moderated.
Tick this box to accept our
TERMS & CONDITIONS
This article has 5 comments
Thank you Mr Nelson, that's an impressively frank piece of commentary and a surprising place to read it.
Your argument cantres on "the Afghans WANT us to succeed. The bearded Taliban maniacs are supported by just four per cent of the population". If that's actually true then hey, great news, the Alliance can finally Westernize Afghanistan and leave a model capitalist state with all the trimmings. No corrupt government, placid universities churning out entrepreneurs, minimal taxation paid by all to providing infrastructure, the works. And, of course, a government voted in by the people with full control of its own foreign policy.
If you're wrong about "just four per cent of the population" the place is going tits up as soon as full control of its own foreign policy is established and we're back to square one. I've no way of checking your four percent and I doubt whether you do either. It sounds like propaganda to me. For as long as the country's run by a propped-up Quisling I'm not sure how anyone's going to find out. The existence of a mass guerrilla insurgency suggests otherwise. They go down at a rate of a hundred to one but they still keep volunteering, don't they. Generating increased resistance by applying pressure is simply blowback and it's inevitable.
Either we're there permanently or the end result is an away loss. If we're there permanently it's called Empire. I thought we'd turned our collective backs on that and rightly so.
By John Harris.. Posted September 10 2009 at 12:26 PM.
It's a sensible comment,pulling out At this juncture is like waving a red rag to a bull.
By Leonard.. Posted September 6 2009 at 11:35 PM.
As the mother of a son serving in Afghanistan i don`t ask this question, its enough that my son and other peoples sons and daughters are out there.
Does my son believe in what he is doing? Yes totally.
He wants his children and his childrens children, to be able to get on a bus train etc and go into town in the years to come without the threat of terrorism.
Do i really want to listen to politicians? No, they will only tell you what you want to hear, and skirt around the truth when they have to.
What do i want?
I want the UK Commanders to be listened to, they are the ones out there, they know what our boys and girls are going through and what is needed out there. This is what they have been trained for, this is their job.
We can`t withdraw untill the job is done otherwise everything our boys and girls have fought for out there will be in vain, the government should let the Commanders do their job.
Then the government should take lessons on how to do their job, its not rocket science, sometimes it only takes comman sense.
By chrissie.. Posted September 6 2009 at 2:05 PM.
Mr Fraser.
I am afraid I believe the British people are sick of this war and the ever rising casualties.
Brown and Cameron are singing from the same hymn sheet, when they say that we are there to prevent terrorism on our streets. If that is the case WHY are the French, Germans, Italians and scandinavians not at the sharp end fighting alongside the Americans and ourselves? It is nonsense.
Bring our troops home. Shore up our island from illegal immigrants and start a real hunt to root out those in our own communities that harbour terroist idea's.
If that means upsetting some immigrant communities- so be it. It is for the welfare of us all that we root them out.
By alan.. Posted September 6 2009 at 12:08 PM.
Thank you for this article. You're right. Any withdrawal would be seen as a weakness and a green light to all those who have similar aspirations. When I was in Kabul some years back I saw men walking in the streets dressed as they have done for centuries. It's a tough nut to crack but it has to be done. We do need to send more troops and if better equipment is required, then so be it.
By Alexandra.. Posted September 6 2009 at 12:51 AM.