Afghanistan, time to get out?

[andyandy]

Afghanistan has risen back to the top of the political agenda in Britain after eight service personnel were killed in 24 hours. The conflict had largely slipped from public consciousness, only for it to be brought firmly into focus both by the recent deaths and because British conflict involvement in Iraq has effectively finished. And people are asking (not before time), what exactly is our exit strategy? At what time did a war against Al Qaeda morph into an eight year war of attrition against the Taliban?

The first question to ask is whether it was worth invading in the first place. Our motivation was to find Bin Laden and to disrupt the international terrorist training camps in the country. On the first count we have failed, but on the second count we have largely succeeded in preventing international terrorist camps operating with impunity in the country.

But having achieved that the second question is what do we do now? The terrorist training camps are now in Pakistan or along the amorphous Pakistan/Afghanistan border. The failed/failing states of Somalia and Yemen provide new safe havens for terrorist training. It's as if we are simply squeezing a balloon, preventing the air from entering one part only to see it filling up someplace else.

So just what is our strategy? Is it now to embark on the global mission of empire building to eliminate all failed/failing states which might serve as terrorist hubs? What is the point of spending another decade in Afghanistan if it won't actually impact on the ability of international terrorists to train over the border in Pakistan?

Is the Afghanistan war going to transform into a retrofit humanitarian mission (like we saw with Iraq), where our continued involvement is reframed in terms of human rights? Because if it is we should start asking from a utilitarian perspective why this conflict and not others. Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Somalia, all spring to mind as more pressing humanitarian missions, but on these countries we spend virtually nothing.

And finally on whose side are we fighting? The Afghanistan government is almost universally decried as corrupt and incompetent, with rule extending little further than the outskirts of Kabul. Regional warlords are afforded significant provincial authority and yet these are the same brutal authoritarian leaders who control violent militia and the drugs trade.

My own suggestion would be maintaining a presence until after the August elections, but then after that realistically starting to look at scaling back involvement. Within two years we should no longer be fighting against the Taliban. We could maintain a capability of disrupting any terrorist training camps (but in any case Pakistan now offers a far superior base, not least because of the impossibility of monitoring British Pakistani visits to the country, which affords perfect cover for the new breed of disaffected second/third generation wannabe jihadis).

Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. The question is however what is the least bad option, and I think we are getting to the point where we should reconsider our involvement in the country.

What do you think?

 

[scissorhands]

This may sound harsh.

With all due respect to those lost in Afghanistan, if all it takes is for an insurgent force to inflict such tiny and militarily insignificant losses in order to make the UK consider an exit strategy, then we may as well forget any idea of fighting wars in the future.

We lost more soldiers liberating a group of insignificant islands in the South Atlantic in a matter of weeks, than we have in seven years in Afghanistan.

The taliban are losing militarily on a daily basis.

Running away is a great way to embolden your enemies now and in the future.

 

[andyandy]

This may sound harsh.

With all due respect to those lost in Afghanistan, if all it takes is for an insurgent force to inflict such tiny and militarily insignificant losses in order to make the UK consider an exit strategy, then we may as well forget any idea of fighting wars in the future.

We lost more soldiers liberating a group of insignificant islands in the South Atlantic.

The taliban are losing militarily on a daily basis.

Running away is a great way to embolden your enemies now and in the future.

the tiny and insignificant military losses suffered by America in Somalia prompting a hasty exit strategy didn't seem to stunt the country's future propensity for conflict......

But I'd agree to a certain extent with your main point, that if we were going to be put off by a handful of deaths in any conflict we shouldn't really be entering into it in the first place. The current situation is however slightly more complex, we've now lost over 180 men in Afghanistan over the past eight years. This level of loss is certainly manageable from a military perspective, the question is whether we can justify the continued loss of life given the nature of the conflict. Losing eight soldiers in one day has certainly made headlines but it is the underlying question of our involvement in Afghanistan which it has served to highlight.

 

[dudalb]

Maybe if it had been 3000 British who were killed on 9/11 andyandy would have a slightly differenet viewpoint on turning the country back over to the Taliaban.
And, guaranteed, a little while after the Taliaban are back Al Qaida will be back.

 

[andyandy]

Maybe if it had been 3000 British who were killed on 9/11 andyandy would have a slightly differenet viewpoint on turning the country back over to the Taliaban.
And, guaranteed, a little while after the Taliaban are back Al Qaida will be back.

No I wouldn't, because the Taliban aren't Al Qaeda. In any case it's not as if Al Qaeda aren't operating terrorist training camps over the border in Pakistan. Even with withdrawal from Afghanistan we could maintain air supremacy and disrupt any international camps in a manner which we are unable to do over the border. As a result why would Al Qaeda prefer to move the camps back to Afghanistan?

 

[Mikister]

I'm very conflicted on this issue.

There is a potential to promote a functional system in a historically violent and regressive region.

However, the civilian causalities resulting from unnecessary bombings is far greater toll than the reason we actually went to war.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Some Other Answer Provided

Answer: when it is politically expedient to do so.

Please remember that war is a subset of politics.