St Paul's, Afghanistan and Blair

[ardcarp]

On WATO (The World at One, R4) today, the service at St Paul's "to mark the withdrawal of British troops after 13 years in Afghanistan" was featured.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054tssb#auto

Shortly after 7 mins 15 sec into the programme, the strains of Durufle's Requiem could be distinctly heard. For those who had lost loved ones a service such as this may have brought solace. I could not help pondering on the strange juxtaposition of all this (robed priests and choir, ceremony, solemnity, Royalty in attendance, fanfare trumpets) with the grim reality of war in a far-off foreign land. Whilst Thanksgivings at St Paul's (e.g. after The Wars of Spanish Succession) may have been the thing in times past, it all seemed nowadays...to me anyway...very odd.

Following on was a magnificently clear interview (about 12 mins 15sec into the programme) with Dr Mike Martin, a former army officer and fluent Pashtu speaker, who spelt out the utter hopelessness of our involvement in Afghanistan, and especially the inappropriateness of stationing British troops in Helmand Province. Presumably experts in the Foreign Office must have been aware of the pifalls and the absolute folly of such a venture.

It really is baffling that it all cost so many lives, not to mention 40 billion pounds....and for what?

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm with your bafflement, ardcarp, except that wheeling out clergy and royalty is a conveniently cosmetic way to redeem what has turned out to have been pretty much a political and military disaster.

From the much-vaunted taxpayer's pov it would have been more apposite to have kept schtum about the exit from Afghanistan, and left the unanswered questions for the politicians to squirm around in the election lead-up.

[MrGongGong]

Why on earth the supposedly "Christian" church allows such nonsense escapes me?
(actually it doesn't as its all part of the guff that goes with the farce of an 'established' church.... you know, the one that says it's ok to kill people for dubious reasons)

Sad and totally preventable

The Archbishop of Canterbury said it was "a moment for us to say thank you".

I'm assuming he wasn't being sarcastic?

In an interview with Forces TV, former PM Tony Blair said: "I always felt that it was right and justified that we were there in Afghanistan, that we were fighting both to remove the Taliban and then to try and stabilise the country.

We can tell he is lying because his lips moved when he spoke.

[teamsaint]

They really do think we are clowns , don't they?

all running around with red noses on, lapping up the " give thanks" nonsense, while the arms flow, the contracts roll out, and the misery shifts into some other sadly shafted corner of the middle east or Africa.

Check out Wiki on " Equatorial Guinea" ( no I didn't know where it is either) for a glimpse of the new colonialism.

but hey, good news is we can vote them out in May......

Cue Green fields of France, ( ultra soft rock "challenging part of the lyrics omitted version....").....

[DracoM]

R4 3rd March - iPlayer the Afternoon Drama
That's Afghanistan at home.

Terrific play.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm with your bafflement, ardcarp, except that wheeling out clergy and royalty is a conveniently cosmetic way to redeem what has turned out to have been pretty much a political and military disaster.

From the much-vaunted taxpayer's pov it would have been more apposite to have kept schtum about the exit from Afghanistan, and left the unanswered questions for the politicians to squirm around in the election lead-up.

Now that we have the emerging picture, I am wondering if this is an appropriate moment to re-start ardcarp's timely thread of five and a half years ago, or indeed if there is an appropriate time, with this as its place.

My reason for doing so is that the situation calls for intelligent discussion around military involvements and indeed occupations in countries other than our own, and could well be extended to consider the wisdom or otherwise of following America in ventures of this kind, now given America's ambivalence in this regard of what it has always called its security problems. Should we ever or always eschew involvement - given that the situation is more often than not an existing involvement?

There have been times when opposition to "foreign military adventures" was once the province of the Left: today the rhetoric often posed, that "other people" should sort their own problems out, they're not our business and we always sacrifice too much - in the forms of lives lost in combat, foreign aid, refugees - comes largely from a populist Right position. It is for this reason that I believe it possible, for once, to air what is unquestionably a highly emotive subject, without resorting to pre-empting and stereotyping each other's viewpoints, and so I am re-launching in the hope of continuing in that spirit.

It is up to our hosts to determine if this is a suitable subject for debate on the forum: the thread may well wither on the branch - I leave it up to them.

[DracoM]

<< wheeling out clergy and royalty is a conveniently cosmetic way to redeem what has turned out to have been pretty much a political and military disaster. >>

Totally agree.
BUT
Wonder if the Russians - also pretty ignominiously ejected from Afghanistan - ALSO feel it was a waste of time, personnel, treasure and influence?

[teamsaint]

Now that we have the emerging picture, I am wondering if this is an appropriate moment to re-start ardcarp's timely thread of five and a half years ago, or indeed if there is an appropriate time, with this as its place.

My reason for doing so is that the situation calls for intelligent discussion around military involvements and indeed occupations in countries other than our own, and could well be extended to consider the wisdom or otherwise of following America in ventures of this kind, now given America's ambivalence in this regard of what it has always called its security problems. Should we ever or always eschew involvement - given that the situation is more often than not an existing involvement?

There have been times when opposition to "foreign military adventures" was once the province of the Left: today the rhetoric often posed, that "other people" should sort their own problems out, they're not our business and we always sacrifice too much - in the forms of lives lost in combat, foreign aid, refugees - comes largely from a populist Right position. It is for this reason that I believe it possible, for once, to air what is unquestionably a highly emotive subject, without resorting to pre-empting and stereotyping each other's viewpoints, and so I am re-launching in the hope of continuing in that spirit.

It is up to our hosts to determine if this is a suitable subject for debate on the forum: the thread may well wither on the branch - I leave it up to them.

Like so many difficult issues ( where we choose to make them an issue that involves us) Afghanistan surely needs to be considered in a generational or even longer term way. The problems of that country, as seen from here and in regards to how they impact us, seem to be beyond solving, and, without throwing up the hands in despair, one has to wonder what multi generations of outside “ influence “ have achieved for that country.
But our politicians don’t act outside of history, and must work with the hand they are dealt, which is far from easy .

[Serial_Apologist]

Like so many difficult issues ( where we choose to make them an issue that involves us) Afghanistan surely needs to be considered in a generational or even longer term way. The problems of that country, as seen from here and in regards to how they impact us, seem to be beyond solving, and, without throwing up the hands in despair, one has to wonder what multi generations of outside “ influence “ have achieved for that country.
But our politicians don’t act outside of history, and must work with the hand they are dealt, which is far from easy .

I am far from having worked out a coherent viewpoint on Afghanistan - which is why I've chosen to throw it open for discussion on here!

For what it's worth, the West has always, I think, been ambivalent about the country, doubting if its geographical locus and resulting political and cultural isolation could ever be more than a strategic conundrum, rather than an opportunity for development and exploitation in the manner of the rest of the world, back to colonial times and forward from thence. There had, arguably, been a chance to "bring Afghanistan into the 20th century" during the closing years of the "Soviet empire", but before Russia et al had transitioned back to capitalism.. Russia's future in that direction was still in question from the West's point of view: America had re-started the nuclear arms build up in order to break the back of the Soviet economy, and in that it would succeed. The terrorist groups destined to re-configure into the Taleban were courted and armed by the West as friends: had Russia achieved the upper hand (a) we might not now be in the situation we now find ourselves, and (b) Russia (and the West) might not have had Putin to deal with.

[Historian]

I am far from having worked out a coherent viewpoint on Afghanistan - which is why I've chosen to throw it open for discussion on here!

...[I]f had Russia achieved the upper hand (a) we might not now be in the situation we now find ourselves, and (b) Russia (and the West) might not have had Putin to deal with.

Hopefully this will be an interesting and non-partisan discussion. Your b. I think falls outside this subject (for me at any rate). With regard to a., the Russian occupation of Afghanistan resulted in far higher civilian casualties even than the 20 years of war from 2001. So, yes, if Russia had somehow gained the upper hand then I have no doubt that Afghanistan might well have been in a very different i.e. an even worse situation than it is now.

I don't think the problems of that unfortunate country are necessarily insoluble, but the last 180 years or so have shown numerous examples where foreign intervention (mostly British) has come to grief. Perhaps a better solution might have been possible if there had been more willingness: a. to negotiate with the Taleban; b. greater willingness to deal with the problems of corruption within the recent government; and c. to be prepared to stick around for much longer than the twenty years that the USA managed.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Matthew Syed writing in the Sunday Times today refers to the all pervasive and deeply rooted (over millenia) tribal organisation of Afghanistan, such that it was hopeless for Bush and Blair (or anyone, Soviets, etc) to expect to change that essential nature of the country.

I found it a very illuminating (if dispiriting) article, but makes the point that post withdrawal the main task will be for "The West" to get its act together to successfully counter China and its expansionism and strategy to gain dominance - for whom the departure from Afghanistan leaves a potential opportunity. (He doesn't suggest China will go in - although it has the forces to repress citizens if it is willing to pay the price of the opposition it will meet).

He suggests that it was the outlawing of marriage to cousins (as far as 6th removed at its apogee) by the Christian Church which gave the conditions for the breakdown of tribal society, which Iraq and Afghanistan didn't undergo and left the continuance of tribalism, and the West (wilfully or not) fails to recognise the extent and depth of its hold and effect on those societies.

Biden opposed increasing the US presence under Obama and any support for "Nation Building" which would follow. He has been consistent in that view. Perhaps the criticism to be levelled is the short timescale, the closure of Bagram airbase, faulty intelligence that the Taliban would take weeks to take over or failure to allow for a rapid dissolution of the expensively equipped Afghan military.

Its a pity that his article is behind a paywall...............

“In a land with 14 tribes named in its anthem, we were played like a violin"
"Liberal democracy was never going to work in Afghanistan, where ethnic affiliation is paramount”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i...olin-z9zqz3n0s

[Frances_iom]

I suspect it was the steady but unacknowledged flow of body bags back to Russia from their Afghan venture that helped bring about the demise of the Soviet Union.
The UK was deeply interested in Afghanistan as it lay on a major route to India especially convenient to the then expansionist Russian empire - after all the UK effectively created Israel by giving preference in all things to the Jewish minority in expectation that they, unlike the Palestinians, would not oppose the creation of a rail route to the crown jewel of Empire - India.

We see the problems of cousin marriages in certain immigrant populations in the UK - possibly the only good thing Patel has done is to make these 'forced' marriages much more difficult.

[LHC]

Its worth remembering that between 1933 and 1978 Afghanistan was a relatively peaceful and benign country with a modernizing constitutional monarchy. In the 1960s and 70s women were being educated, and could wear western dress freely, and the burqa was not the ubiquitous sight that it is now.

The turning point was probably the bloodless coup by the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978. The internal strife and civil war that followed this led to the failed Soviet invasion of 1979, and the rest is history.

A repeated mistake of foreign invaders has been the failure to recognise and deal with the tribal nature of Afghanistan. All have thought that once they had installed a friendly regime in Kabul, the job was done, but Kabul is not Afghanistan.

The Taleban are not popular in Afghanistan, and there are still sizeable pockets of resistance, not least in the tribal areas previously controlled by the Northern Alliance. I suspect that Afghanistan might be best served by a period without foreign interference (and that definitely includes Pakistan and it’s long term supporters of thr Taleban in the ISI).

[Cockney Sparrow]

Points made by Syed are consistent with what you say, LHC. He asserts the West wasn’t aware Pakistan, through which funds were directed, was giving it to Pashtuns. That helped Pakistan (with its millions of ethnic Pashtuns and a long, leaky border) – but not Afghanistan. And Lo, Mohammed Omar, supreme leader of the Taliban and recipient of western money, was soon topping America’s list of wanted terrorists….

Syed also points out that the Taliban, apart from their religious stance, are an ethnic entity, Pashtuns being predominant and in terror of the Uzbek and Tajik alliance in Kabul who “would exact terrible reprisals — a belief that was amply vindicated”.

I’m no follower of the history, politics and civic life of Afghanistan but I’ve never seen reference to any of this before – no doubt “my bad”.

Given the apparent wide range of the different regions and their affiliations – was it really the case that, for example women could wear western dress freely, and access education? Or, would that be certain districts and/or certain regional capitals?

Its worth remembering that between 1933 and 1978 Afghanistan was a relatively peaceful and benign country with a modernizing constitutional monarchy. In the 1960s and 70s women were being educated, and could wear western dress freely, and the burqa was not the ubiquitous sight that it is now.

The turning point was probably the bloodless coup by the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan in 1978. The internal strife and civil war that followed this led to the failed Soviet invasion of 1979, and the rest is history.

A repeated mistake of foreign invaders has been the failure to recognise and deal with the tribal nature of Afghanistan. All have thought that once they had installed a friendly regime in Kabul, the job was done, but Kabul is not Afghanistan.

The Taleban are not popular in Afghanistan, and there are still sizeable pockets of resistance, not least in the tribal areas previously controlled by the Northern Alliance. I suspect that Afghanistan might be best served by a period without foreign interference (and that definitely includes Pakistan and it’s long term supporters of thr Taleban in the ISI).

[LHC]

Points made by Syed are consistent with what you say, LHC. He asserts the West wasn’t aware Pakistan, through which funds were directed, was giving it to Pashtuns. That helped Pakistan (with its millions of ethnic Pashtuns and a long, leaky border) – but not Afghanistan. And Lo, Mohammed Omar, supreme leader of the Taliban and recipient of western money, was soon topping America’s list of wanted terrorists….

Syed also points out that the Taliban, apart from their religious stance, are an ethnic entity, Pashtuns being predominant and in terror of the Uzbek and Tajik alliance in Kabul who “would exact terrible reprisals — a belief that was amply vindicated”.

I’m no follower of the history, politics and civic life of Afghanistan but I’ve never seen reference to any of this before – no doubt “my bad”.

Given the apparent wide range of the different regions and their affiliations – was it really the case that, for example women could wear western dress freely, and access education? Or, would that be certain districts and/or certain regional capitals?

You are right that the modernization experienced in the 1960s and 70s was mainly centered on Kabul, where the burqa was optional and women could wear skirts and were able for the first time to attend Kabul University. These photos gives an idea what life was like for some in Kabul in the early 70s.





In the more rural tribal areas though, there would have been considerably less freedom for the average woman.