Scott
09-06-2009, 08:36 PM
06/09/2009
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
[Source - The News of the World]
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
[Source - The News of the World]