The debate over British troop involvement in Afghanistan reminded me of nothing more than the bit in Woody Allen’s Hannah And Her Sisters where Max Von Sydow watches the TV show on the Holocaust.
“They can never answer the question ‘How could it all happen?’ because it’s the wrong question,” he says. Quite.
For several weeks we have had the chance to become experts in troop deployment and the necessity of helicopters as a way of limiting casualities on the ground. The question has been “Why are there not more helicopters in Afghanistan ?” It’s the wrong question.
The right question is “Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place?” Answers to that are not to the fore although, to be fair, people have had a go at supplying some in the past. Lord George Robertson’s is the most often trotted out. You may, or may not recall, his line about Afghanistan coming to us if we don’t go to it; in other words if we don’t nip the Taleban in the bud then they, and the disciples of Osama Bin Laden, will be on our doorstep trying to bomb us all into goodness-knows-where.
But does that line stand up ? So far, Britain has had the July 7th attacks on the London transport system and Smeato’s Big Day Out at Glasgow Airport. And that, pretty much, is that.
The Security services, who have had their budgets massively increased and have created an employment boom in the middle of a recession will say that’s because of their increased operations. Is that so ? Or is it just that carrying out widespread terrorist attacks in mainland Britain is beyond the resources of a few deluded Islamists ?
When you think of it the IRA was much more successful in creating a sustained reign of terror here than the Wahhabist lunatic fringe. Oh, and another thing, how many of them came directly from Afghanistan ? Leeds, yes, even Renfrew, but no-one’s caught a plane from Kabul to Britain to set off a bomb yet.
And is it just coincidence that this terror threat that has necessitated MI5 going on a huge recruitment drive started as soon as Britain sent its first troops into Afghanistan ?
Meanwhile, British soldiers are dying and more are ending up in field hospitals in Helmand than the army surgeons can cope with. And strangely, as we try to justify Britain’s current position, the security services are downgrading the threat of a terrorist attack here.
Of course, it can be easily argued that the combination of our troops valiant efforts in the desert and the increased work for the spooks is starting to show real benefits to the point where a response to a potential terror threat at home can be reduced.
Perhaps the Taleban are mad, bad and dangerous to know. Jaap De Hoop Schaefer alluded to that in his appearance at Chatham House. Yes they are the bad guys there and, yes, a resurgence internally will be bad news for some poor people in Afghanistan and Pakistan too.
But if we go is there a chance we will be safer, even if ordinary Afghans might not be ? It is a choice between staying and watching soldiers die and running a tiny risk of some explosions in Britain’s cities.
Terror attacks on Britain’s streets are few and far between. British military deaths in Helmand are almost an everyday happening. And to defeat the Islamists there will have to be many more soldiers killed and wounded in the months and years ahead.
General Dannatt is right; if Britain stays it’s not just about helicopters but about a massive increase in troop numbers as well. Thirty years ago the Soviet Union decided to send its troops to support its political proxies in Afghanistan. It took ten years of returning body bags to convince the leadership that it wasn’t worth it. Britain has been there eight years during which time 186 troops have been killed. How long before we start asking the right question ?
“They can never answer the question ‘How could it all happen?’ because it’s the wrong question,” he says. Quite.
For several weeks we have had the chance to become experts in troop deployment and the necessity of helicopters as a way of limiting casualities on the ground. The question has been “Why are there not more helicopters in Afghanistan ?” It’s the wrong question.
The right question is “Why are we in Afghanistan in the first place?” Answers to that are not to the fore although, to be fair, people have had a go at supplying some in the past. Lord George Robertson’s is the most often trotted out. You may, or may not recall, his line about Afghanistan coming to us if we don’t go to it; in other words if we don’t nip the Taleban in the bud then they, and the disciples of Osama Bin Laden, will be on our doorstep trying to bomb us all into goodness-knows-where.
But does that line stand up ? So far, Britain has had the July 7th attacks on the London transport system and Smeato’s Big Day Out at Glasgow Airport. And that, pretty much, is that.
The Security services, who have had their budgets massively increased and have created an employment boom in the middle of a recession will say that’s because of their increased operations. Is that so ? Or is it just that carrying out widespread terrorist attacks in mainland Britain is beyond the resources of a few deluded Islamists ?
When you think of it the IRA was much more successful in creating a sustained reign of terror here than the Wahhabist lunatic fringe. Oh, and another thing, how many of them came directly from Afghanistan ? Leeds, yes, even Renfrew, but no-one’s caught a plane from Kabul to Britain to set off a bomb yet.
And is it just coincidence that this terror threat that has necessitated MI5 going on a huge recruitment drive started as soon as Britain sent its first troops into Afghanistan ?
Meanwhile, British soldiers are dying and more are ending up in field hospitals in Helmand than the army surgeons can cope with. And strangely, as we try to justify Britain’s current position, the security services are downgrading the threat of a terrorist attack here.
Of course, it can be easily argued that the combination of our troops valiant efforts in the desert and the increased work for the spooks is starting to show real benefits to the point where a response to a potential terror threat at home can be reduced.
Perhaps the Taleban are mad, bad and dangerous to know. Jaap De Hoop Schaefer alluded to that in his appearance at Chatham House. Yes they are the bad guys there and, yes, a resurgence internally will be bad news for some poor people in Afghanistan and Pakistan too.
But if we go is there a chance we will be safer, even if ordinary Afghans might not be ? It is a choice between staying and watching soldiers die and running a tiny risk of some explosions in Britain’s cities.
Terror attacks on Britain’s streets are few and far between. British military deaths in Helmand are almost an everyday happening. And to defeat the Islamists there will have to be many more soldiers killed and wounded in the months and years ahead.
General Dannatt is right; if Britain stays it’s not just about helicopters but about a massive increase in troop numbers as well. Thirty years ago the Soviet Union decided to send its troops to support its political proxies in Afghanistan. It took ten years of returning body bags to convince the leadership that it wasn’t worth it. Britain has been there eight years during which time 186 troops have been killed. How long before we start asking the right question ?
No comments:
Post a Comment