« | Home | »

Why are we still in Afghanistan?


Britain has been at war in Afghanistan for more than 12 years, which must be some kind of record. The media have largely forgotten about it, except when British soldiers are killed.

Barack Obama said last month that the foremost US foreign policy concern was managing the withdrawal of its 62,000 troops. A Taliban political office in Doha was formally opened following long negotiations but promptly closed, apparently because of a row over its use of the name and flag of the ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’. Coming back from a visit to Afghanistan, David Cameron welcomed the prospect of dialogue between Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul and the Taliban, but Karzai has called off the negotiations because of the row.

On Monday, the New York Times reported that a videoconference between Obama and Karzai designed to defuse tension ended badly, with Karzai accusing the US of trying to negotiate a separate peace with the Taliban, leaving Afghanistan exposed to its enemies. Obama was said to be giving serious consideration to speeding up the withdrawal of US forces and to a ‘zero option’ that would leave no American troops there after next year. Yesterday, the State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told journalists:

I did read the story this morning, of course. We are committed – let me just – bear with me here, just to give you a broad overview of our approach – to continuing to support a fully sovereign, democratic, and united Afghanistan. We have been clear in public and in private, as have many of our allies and partners in ISAF and in the broader international community, that we do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the 80s and 90s, and that as the Afghans stand up they won’t stand alone.

As you know, this is a decision that the President will make. He is still reviewing options from his national security team and has not made a decision about the size of a possible US presence. He’s considering a range of options, as you know, and we made clear as far back – made that clear as far back as January. So any report stating a decision is being made, or has been made, I should say, is inaccurate.

QUESTION: But there is a zero option; that’s one of the options still on the table?

MS. PSAKI: That has been an option that has been on the table for quite some time.

QUESTION: So has it moved up the pecking order from number one, two, three, four? Has it become one of the more serious options?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the White House for that. This is a decision the President will make.

Connoisseurs of bureaucratic fencing matches may like to read more, as Psaki avoids answering further questions, for example which particular mistakes of the past are not going to be repeated.

The NYT report goes on to comment:

The ripple effects of a complete American withdrawal would be significant. Western officials said the Germans and Italians — the two main European allies who have committed to staying on with substantial forces — would leave as well. Any smaller nations that envisioned keeping token forces would most likely have no way of doing so.

The UK has the largest contingent in the Nato/ISAF mission after the US. Last year, in response to a suggestion that we are in Afghanistan to preserve our relationship with Washington, I wrote that ‘the US will decide when to leave Afghanistan for its own reasons, and will not be influenced by concern about Britain,’ but I failed to forecast that the NYT would forget that the British are there. I also questioned whether loyal support for America would somehow be rewarded, and lack of it penalised. Since then, François Hollande campaigned on the promise that he would withdraw French forces from Afghanistan, and as president has in fact withdrawn them, without incurring any criticism let alone penalty so far as I am aware.

According to Downing Street, ‘we are in Afghanistan for one overriding reason – to protect our national security by helping the Afghans take control of their own.’ If that is to be taken at face value, a US decision to go for the zero option would be unwelcome to the UK, and London would be urging Washington to stay. How likely is that?

The Foreign Office and MI5 have long argued that participating in the war does not protect but damages our security by inspiring extremism. The director general of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism told a National Security Conference in London last week about the danger that people from Britain fighting in Syria and inspired by al-Qaida may return to organise atrocities here, but he appears to have mentioned Afghanistan only in passing and in the past tense.

Comments on “Why are we still in Afghanistan?”

  1. bilejones says:

    “We are committed – let me just – bear with me here, just to give you a broad overview of our approach – to continuing to support a fully sovereign, democratic, and united Afghanistan”

    While the barking mad psychopaths who are capable of uttering such nonsense remain in power the West will continue its slide into murderous barbarity.

    • John Cowan says:

      Murderous barbarity is not, and never has been, a monopoly of any side in any war. “If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always reply that war has been declared [nowadays this part is considered superfluous], and there are no innocent people in an enemy country in wartime. The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history.” —Northrop Frye

  2. Timothy Rogers says:

    Oh dear me, Mr. or Ms. bilejones is up on his or her rhetorical high horse without worrying about either accuracy or tarring with a broad brush. “Barking mad psychopaths” seems perfectly suitable to describe the Taliban’s (and their Islamist allies’) attitude about things like mutilating, raping, or killing young women (girls, really) who express an interest in receiving an education. I would guess that these wonderful folks are not “sliding into murderous barbarity” but have resided in said neighborhood for quite some time, and comfortably (self-righteously) so. While the “bile” in bilejones is obvious, it’s but a faint shadow of his or her irrationality. The rhetoric is cheap, the reasoning is shoddy, the final product is disgusting.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement