Afghanistan, British Diplomacy, British Military - Start the Week

[johnb]

I found last Monday's "Start the Week" on Radio 4 exceptionally interesting and informative. It covered Afghanistan, British Diplomacy and the British Military. One of the guests was the ever-sensible and very perceptive Rory Stewart.

If anyone is remotely interested in these subjects I do urge people to listen on iPlayer over the weekend, before it disappears on Monday.

[DracoM]

Riveting, scathing, well-informed, as coruscating an indictment of Bush and Blair as we will ever need. Just think where those two luminaries have got us?

[vinteuil]

Yes, just to add my support here - a riveting listen from insiders with real authority letting us know in no uncertain terms the wretchedness of western intelligence / politics / military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last ten years. Depressing: it will take ten - twenty years for Britain to begin to recover any semblance of seriousness in those parts. A splendid programme: it shows that while radio 3 has chosen to think the only way to get listeners is to be mindlessly namby-pamby, at least some parts of radio 4 are still prepared to be intelligent and demanding. Well done them.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

programme

Ledwidge book review 1 review 2


Stewart on intervention


many thanks johnb for this pointer to an excellent discussion

[aeolium]

A very interesting review of the disastrous foreign policy and intelligence failures of recent decades. Three especially pertinent points raised by the contributors were: Rory Stewart's comment about the conspiracy of optimism amongst generals and journalists so that policy failings were persistently obscured; Rosemary Hollis' judgement that the UK government had not adjusted to a post-imperialist 'small power' role in the world; and Frank Ledwidge's view that the armed forces were structured for intervention rather than defence. Stewart's comments about the extraordinary number of generals in the British army compared with other armies, and the desperate shortage of people able to speak the relevant languages, were also telling. I still found it surprising that even in this discussion the justifiability of foreign intervention as a principle was rarely seriously challenged (though of course particular interventions such as Iraq were criticised).

[DracoM]

And you have to ask yourself why R3 has abdicated from the agora in which major re-appraisals of our history and culture can take place?

[amateur51]

Very interesting stuff, all of it.

When will UK learn and 'get real' about its change of role in the world? I imagine that there is a general lack of appetite amongst its citizens for these 'adventures' - when will the politicians & the civil servants & the advisers catch up? Marr's programme makes very uncomfortable listening :shudder:

[Lateralthinking1]

I found out about Rory Stewart fairly late. 2009. Subsequently he was chosen as a Parliamentary candidate. I would wager that he is still not a household name.

Just before the 2010 election, I nearly did something very uncharacteristic. I was thinking seriously about putting much of the money I had then - not a lot! - on him becoming a future Tory leader. Two things stopped me. One, basic common sense. Two, the realisation that it isn't actually merit that leads to success, particularly when it is combined with honesty. He is probably insufficiently "political".

The guy is far from perfect. The twine comments were silly and naive. Furthermore, there is much about him that is far removed from what I would personally choose in politics. A toff, for want of a better word. Very much establishment. Probably mega-rich. Not really one of the rest of us in any sense.

And yet his intellect, his breadth of experience and what appears to be an unusual integrity are so obviously the likely stuff of great leadership, they command a certain respect. It seems to me that in an earlier era he would have virtually walked in to a senior position - that is, past all the Nixon types with foxy grins who actually run this shop.

It could be that I am wrong. I guess that he might be another scoundrel full of shadowy dealings. Most of them turn out to be in that mould. Until though I hear otherwise, his relatively lowly Parliamentary position pretty much symbolises everything that is currently wrong with the conservative elites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Stewart.

[amateur51]

An experienced soldier (General Nick Carter, deputy commander of the Nato-led coalition in Afghanistan) believess that the politicians missed a big opportunity to talk to the defeated fleeing Taliban in 2002 when there was still a chance of a realistic settlement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/talks-taliban-british-officer-afghanistan

"The US and Afghan governments are pushing hard for negotiations to end a conflict that has dragged on for more than 12 years. But critics have long argued that the west could have struck a deal with moderate Taliban leaders after ousting the group from power in 2001, perhaps saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

One academic who studies the Taliban said the group tried to reach out to their own and the US governments until 2004, and would have made major compromises. "There would not have been too much negotiating to be done, even, in 2001 or 2002, because the Taliban's senior leadership made their approaches in a conciliatory manner, acknowledging the new order in the country," said Alex Strick von Linschoten, author of An Enemy We Created."

Once again, it appears that Western powers have intervened in Muslim lands with no clear plan of what to do once the battle is won, what signs to look for, what alliances to make, just 'everything forward and trust in the Lord'

If there is to be a next time (and I sincerely hope that there is not a next time) Parliament needs to put the screws on the Foreign Secretary and PM and the military before a vote to go to war, so that these issues and concerns can be identified and a strategy developed.And the public needs to put the pressure on through marches and social media to ensure that it happens.

[aeolium]

Tangentially relevant to this discussion about Afghanistan is this article by Malise Ruthven about sectarianism particularly but not solely in the Middle East. It shows how complex the dynamics of sectarianism can be and yet how essential an understanding of its operation is for any foreign policy to be properly informed. Rory Stewart made just that point in his speech in the parliamentary debate on the Iraq war recently.

To relate this to the R4 programme about Afghanistan, I wish that the BBC would see it as part of their charter obligation to educate people about those regional complexities and commission historical series (at least for the history of the last 100 years) on different countries in the Middle East, with experts providing lucid explanations of the politics, religion and society of those countries. I don't see really how it is possible to have any kind of debate on the optimal foreign policy unless that basic level of understanding is present, and unless it is widely available. I can see few more valuable activities that the BBC, in its educational role, can engage in than this.

[amateur51]

Tangentially relevant to this discussion about Afghanistan is this article by Malise Ruthven about sectarianism particularly but not solely in the Middle East. It shows how complex the dynamics of sectarianism can be and yet how essential an understanding of its operation is for any foreign policy to be properly informed. Rory Stewart made just that point in his speech in the parliamentary debate on the Iraq war recently.

To relate this to the R4 programme about Afghanistan, I wish that the BBC would see it as part of their charter obligation to educate people about those regional complexities and commission historical series (at least for the history of the last 100 years) on different countries in the Middle East, with experts providing lucid explanations of the politics, religion and society of those countries. I don't see really how it is possible to have any kind of debate on the optimal foreign policy unless that basic level of understanding is present, and unless it is widely available. I can see few more valuable activities that the BBC, in its educational role, can engage in than this.

An excellent observation, aeolium.

I heard Malise Ruthven talking about matters sectarian on BBC World Service a few nights back, I think, and he is certainly illuminating although I find that it doesn't all 'stick' - more to do with my brain than with his exposition I'm sure.

Heirs Of The Prophet Episode 1 of 2

Duration:
29 minutes

The division between Sunnis and Shias is almost as old as Islam itself – and although the two share many beliefs and practices, political and theological divisions have become much more prominent in recent years.

Sectarian violence in Pakistan and the Middle East, and the rise of a brand of Islam that will tolerate only its own interpretation of the faith, have contributed to a polarization between the two communities.

In the first of two programmes, Shaimaa Khalil – herself a Sunni Muslim from Egypt – ventures into the world of Shia Islam and finds out how recent political events have shaped relations between the two communities in Britain.

She joins a Shia mourning ritual, and meets a Sunni-Shia couple who – after marrying for love against their parents’ wishes - are negotiating a difficult path between mutual understanding and the need to live out their own faith.

Shaimaa also consults Sunni and Shia experts - Tim Winter from Cambridge University, and Sheikh Mohammad al-Hilli - to get to the bottom of what has remained the most divisive issue in early Islamic history: the succession of the Prophet Muhammad.

And, she meets a Shia bridge builder from Pakistan, Rubab Mehdi Rizvi, who at the age of 13, deflected a bomb threat from Sunni extremists by persuading the wife of the Saudi ambassador to act as a human shield.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p019k472

Heirs Of The Prophet Episode 2 of 2

Duration:
29 minutes

First broadcast:
Saturday 22 June 2013

Hardly a week goes by without reports of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, Bahrain, or other Middle Eastern countries, whilst in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad, an Alawite, is pitted against the majority-Sunni Free Syrian Army. But are these really sectarian conflicts between Sunnis and Shia? Or is this a convenient label masking political and economic interests?

Shaimaa Khalil continues her exploration of these questions with Sunni and Shia Muslims in Britain. In London she learns about the rise of Ahlulbayt Societies at British universities - societies which cater for the interests and spiritual needs of Shia students. Many universities report a rise of Salafist influences in the more traditional Islamic Societies, giving room to a strict interpretation of Islam, which does not recognise Shia practices as Islamic; as a result, young people who 10 or 15 years ago might have identified as Muslim now embrace sectarian identities.

The sectarian dimension of the Syrian conflict is poorly understood, partly because the Alawite sect (a branch of Shiism seen as heretical by many Muslims) allows outsiders little insight into its beliefs and practices. Shaimaa explores why, despite the Alawites’ position on the margins of the Shia family, they have inspired loyalty from the big international Shia players - Iran and Hezbollah – and why this has so polarised Sunnis and Shias in Britain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p019v1c0

[zoomy]

But critics have long argued that the west could have struck a deal with moderate Taliban leaders after ousting the group from power in 2001, perhaps saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars.



The Taliban did a deal with the US to leave Kabul during the invasion. Taliban resurgence has only happened since about 2006 when the corruption of the Karzai regime and inept American and British military actions like bombing whole villages - in attempts to kill one or two militants who might be hiding in the village - have turned the population against the west and towards the only group with the ability to organise a fight back - the Taliban.

The Afghans and the Iraqis were led to believe that the United States would rebuild their shattered states after invading them but soon found out that the United States does not do nation building.

[amateur51]

But critics have long argued that the west could have struck a deal with moderate Taliban leaders after ousting the group from power in 2001, perhaps saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

This has been covered already, zoomy

[zoomy]

The outcome of the current talks in Qatar will largely depend upon fighting strengths during the negotiations since both sides have adopted a 'fight and talk' policy so there is not incentive for either side to to lessen their fighting during the talks because to do so would affect the shape of the negotiating table.

The United States constant repositioning of their position during the talks so far and their insistence on holding onto Bagram Airbase are audacious demands given their fighting position on the ground and the Taliban are right to reject them out of hand but the Americans trump card is to hand back either a unified or a partitioned state (a la Punjab, northern Ireland) if they chose to continue to support the Northern Alliance which they most certainly will, in some form or another after they have left.