More than 100 British lives have been lost in the seven years we have been involved in Afghanistan and it is becomingly increasingly difficult to see what is being achieved by the loss of even one. Were I the parent of a young soldier killed in action there, I would be bitterly angry. The world has changed from the unquestioning servility of years ago when nobody queried the rationale behind military actions. Now Governments are having to face their critics and answer tough questions about the purpose behind political decisions and whether such decisions are worth the cost in lives.
Afghanistan ought to be at the front of that agenda. Originally we went into Afghanistan, on the coat-tails of the Americans after 911, to support the fight against Al-Queda. That was the aim of the American led invasion - to find and bring to justice Osama Bin Laden and his men for the atrocity against the United States. But that failed. Despite the Americans blowing half of Afghanistan to bits, Al Queda survived to fight another day. It was considered that the Taliban - extremist Islamic rulers of Afghanistan - were the protectors of Al Queda and so the first step was to dispose of them.
So the Taliban was forcibly removed from power by the invading forces and they fled to the hills. The US installed Hamed Karzai as a puppet but his government has never had any influence outside Kabul and has never looked secure or free from corruption. Now the Taliban has regrouped and is fighting back strongly with considerable support in the countryside.
Without doubt, by western standards, the Taliban is a harsh and unrelenting force which practises Islam in its most basic form. Summary justice according to Sharia law, executions, amputations, women forced to be veiled, girls kicked out of school. It is savage and unacceptable to western sensitivities.
But I ask the question - and not for the first time - why are we interfering militarily in the administration of a nation which poses no military threat to us? The British and American governments claim that if the Taliban is allowed to return, Afghanistan either directly or through alliances will become a military threat. I have some grave doubts about this, though I concede that such an outcome is possible.
However we seem to have lost sight of the original plot which was to get rid of Al Queda, not to run Afghanistan on western lines. How long can it be justified to keep a weak 'puppet' government in power - which clearly commands little support from the populace- only through military occupation....an occupation which is costing the lives of British troops dearly.
What is the end game? What is the purpose? What are the timescales? Does the government seriously believe that Afghanistan can be 'won'? It seems to me that we are simply playing the role of Canute trying to push back the waves - and British soldiers are dying in this vain exercise. The government needs to be forced into answering some tough questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment