On the British Presence in Afghanistan

The following post is based on my response to this article on Wired's Danger Room blog.

The reasons for growing opposition to the war in Afghanistan, and Britain's continued participation in it, as I see them, are several and in no particular order:

Firstly the domestic political situation; this is another stick with which to beat an unpopular government despite the fact that any likely replacement would continue with the same policy.

Secondly, the nature of the reporting; certain sections of the media are looking for reasons to paint the conflict in a pessimistic light for the self aggrandisement of some star names and as a result of Andrew Gilligan affair (the BBC journalist forced to resign after allegedly fabricating evidence).

Mr Gilligan has become quite influential in media circles, he now writes for the right of centre London Evening Standard, makes documentaries for Channel 4 and appears on Iranian state TV’s English language channel. He has recently been caught out again, this time sockpuppeting to promote his own views and articles. Each casualty is presented by the broadcast media as an indictment of policy of keeping a British presence and journalist actively seek out and publicise bereaved relatives calling for a British withdrawal.

Thirdly, people are unhappy with the conduct of the war; there is a general perception that we are only there because the Americans want us to be, that there is no British strategy, our troops appear to many to be just holding the ground in Helmand until the either US government decides to pull out or some nebulous victory is achieved.

Fourthly, the failures within the MOD and service leaders back home; the reported lack of transport aircraft, both rotary and fixed wing, is an embarrassment, the management of the size and quality of the Chinook fleet down the years by the RAF is a disgrace, and the MOD’s procurement arm has failed to identify and provide sufficient of the right vehicles in a timely fashion.

The RAF is constantly sniping behind the scenes, trying to take over the air arms of the other two services which does not look good, and the Royal Navy is perceived as having the wrong priorities, spending close to half its resources available for ships and weapons systems on keeping the four Trident submarines. This has brought together an unlikely coalition of those, such as CND, who have opposed nuclear weapons and those who wish to see a capable blue water navy that can operate worldwide.

Finally there is the influence of a small but vocal opposition who have always objected to the war comprised of the extreme left, a minority element within the Muslim community which, if not pro-jihadist, are certainly opposed to any western country’s involvement in the Muslim world, and the isolationist ‘little Englanders’ who think that British troops should only be used to defend direct British interests.

To counter these strands of thought there remains, for most people, only the moral arguments. British business does not appear to have much to gain as, like in Iraq, the big contracts go to US companies, consequently influential business organisations do little lobbying in favour of a continued British presence.

Speaking for myself, a British Muslim, whilst I identify with many of these frustrations, I remain in favour of a continued British element in the NATO force there and of prosecuting the war until a settlement can be found that both, protects the world by denying a safe harbour for al-Qaeda and provides a decent government and living standards for the people of Afghanistan.

Shariah and Security

In response to the reports headlined 'Afghan Marital Rape Law' or something similar I felt it was a good time to right about two apparently separate but in reality, connected areas that of the role of Islam in reconstructing Afghanistan and international security.

My feeling is that rather than spend a small fortune on headline infrastructure projects, a large one on propping up a failing corrupt government and an absolutely enormous one on prosecuting a war which, no matter how successful it may be, is not going to solve the underlying problem, It would be worth diverting a small fraction of that money into providing properly qualified, orthodox scholars from both communities (Sunni and Shi'a) to help train Afghans and rebuild the legal system; some money could also be spent on scholarships to send locals to Universities abroad, both Islamic and secular, hopefully Afghanistan might then become a model for rebuilding failed states in the Islamic world, Somalia springs to mind.

Of course there is going to be resistance to that on more than one front. It would not occur to many western governments to use an Islamic solution, others such as the USA would object to supporting religion let alone spending money on it. Vested interests in Afghanistan would complain about outside interference in their affairs. However I think the biggest objections would come from the Governments of Islamic countries.

It is the states of the Islamic world that ought to be funding and promoting such a programme yet they remain remarkably silent when it comes to coming up with any solution. Perhaps this is because the vast majority of them are run by a mixture of corrupt governments, dictators and small élites whose own interpretations of Islam do not stand up to scrutiny.

And here lies the problem; no one is willing to stand up and make the big decisions, the current situation is the collective responsibility of of the former Soviet Union , the western allies, the Islamic world and the Afghan people, and because this particular boil of international relations has been alloweed to fester for so long it is threatening to destabilise one of the world's most dangerous regions, that of the Iran-Pakistan-India corridor.

India is becoming increasingly nervous, it blames Pakistan for everything, even more than usual. Iran is being flooded with cheap heroin from over the border.

The biggest problem though is Pakistan. From where I sit it appears to be a country tearing itself apart; its political parties are, bar some minor exceptions, run by, and promote the interests of, a small number of ruling families with a history of stuffing their own pockets and those of their friends with as much foreign currency as they can before the next coup or election. The traditional bedrock of the country, the army, is utterly demoralised, the judiciary is, as always, dependent on the whim of those in power and the intelligence services are engaged in their own internecine warfare; with those in the ISI that built the Afghan Taliban, and now support their own domestic version and other extreme groups, trying to purge their own service and emasculate other agencies especially the FIA. If this faction gains control I would expect Pakistan to, if not withdraw all support, at the very least frustrate our efforts in Afghanistan by preventing resupply overland and to increase the support they give to the Taliban.

Without support from Pakistan, the ability to recruit and train there and access to its lawless arms market the threat from the Afghan Taliban would be a fraction of the current level; it would be reduced to little more than another crime funded pseudo-political rebel group like FARC, highly dangerous still, yet mostly limited to certain areas and able to be dealt with at a domestic level.

Pakistan is, IMHO, a country that is on the verge of collapse, whether it disintegrates or falls intact in one direction or another is of vital importance to all of us, as of two years ago it had a median estimate of 65 nuclear warheads and enough enriched material to double that with relative ease. Whilst one might expect foreign intelligence services to have been taking a strong interest in the location and control of this material none of the agencies of the interested parties (China, India, Iran, Israel and the USA) have exactly covered themselves in glory in recent years and even if they had enough quantity and quality of intelligence trying to secure everything would be fraught with difficulty. Maintaining some kind of stability, principally in its military apparatus, might seem cynical but may be necessary for all our sakes.