Should the West be fighting in Afghanistan?

The arguments for and against military intervention in Afghanistan by Britain, America and their allies

FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 25, 2009

The US and her allies, under the auspices of Nato, have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, when their intervention aided the Northern Alliance in overthrowing the Taliban government. Since then, the Taliban has been a thorn in the side of President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government and Nato, fighting a guerilla war from its strongholds in Helmand and the Pakistan border region.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR

Remember September 11, 2001. Afghanistan under the Taliban provided the springboard for the al-Qaeda attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Today, the Taliban are resurgent and al-Qaeda and its affiliates have found room for manoeuvre in the tribal areas of Pakistan. For Nato to withdraw from Afghanistan would expose the West to further acts of mass murder.

If the Taliban seized power again, a newly liberalised society would once again have to obey their medieval values. Women would have a lower quality of life.

Barack Obama has made Afghanistan a priority and promises a more coherent approach than his predecessor, notably in treating Pakistan as an integral part of the problem.

Improvements in military technology, from communications satellites to pilot-less drones, have made the targeting of an illusive enemy easier.

The increasing size and effectiveness of the Afghan army is encouraging. Nato's presence provides a shield under which it can achieve self-sufficiency.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Nato had to find a new role. Failure in Afghanistan would damage, possibly terminally, the world's most effective military alliance.

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Remember history. The British Afghan wars and the Soviet occupation of the 1980s should be a warning against military involvement in a country whose tribal tensions make it almost ungovernable.

There is no longer the opportunity that there was in 2002 and 2003 to build a stable democracy. Overtures have already been made to moderate factions of the Taliban about a power-sharing agreement. The West should focus its energies on devising a diplomatic solution, rather than an unachievable military victory.

President Hamid Karzai has proved a weak ruler far too tolerant of corruption in his narco-state.

An even greater problem is the small number of national contingents ready to undertake offensive operations in the rebellious south - America's 'surge' of 17,000 troops is not being matched by Europe. Lacking the will to put sufficient boots on the ground, Nato should get out of Afghanistan before the alliance is irreparably damaged.

The regional situation is dire. Pakistan's northern border has become a launching-pad for terrorism. Iran and the West are at loggerheads over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. These situations make the military operation in Afghanistan more problematic.

The policy of eradicating opium poppy crops, without providing a feasible alternative, has alienated the farmers, who then look to the Taliban for financial support.

The continued military mission is costing billions at a time when Western economies are suffering. We simply can't afford to remain fighting in Afghanistan.

Western 'occupation' of Afghanistan, particularly when it involves civilian casualties, is a powerful recruiting agent for Islamic extremists in Pakistan, and thereby increases the terrorist threat to countries such as Britain.

FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 25, 2009

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

1. Statements such as "...withdraw from Afghanistan would expose the West to further acts of mass murder." are fear psychosis and nothing else, many of the west political and media establishment use this for justification of crimes against humanity. Another such example is Guantanamo prison where innocent are kept without charges for FEAR that they may attack the West! 2. Remember September 11! It is still not established with the international Judicial standards who carried out the attacks. A gang led by America says that al-Qaeda did it, they have 'credible' evidences for it which they presented to Saudi and Pakistan governments (but not Afghan or the UN) before attacking Afghanistan. Another such example is Iraq's WMD claims! 3. You must respect diversity (honestly)! Calling Islamic system a low quality of women is just an Islamophobic attitude. Wearing headscarves is not low quality of life, see nuns at churches and virgin Mary pics, they too wear headscarves. Would you attack Vatican then? 4. Islam and we muslims (followers of Islam), do not support killing of any single innocent human being. Infact there is a death penalty for any killing of innocent in Islam. Please stand out firmly for justice, that will be good for all of us. East and west equally!

Posted by Abdul Hafiz at 8:40am on February 25, 2009

Comment above is a trifle confused. Excuses for Islam such as 'see nuns at churches and virgin Mary pics, they too wear headscarves' is pathetic; Mary is a fictional character from 2000 years ago and bears no relevance to today, nuns CHOOSE a life of dedication to their fantasy 'god' which includes the wearing of a habit, women in Islamic countries don't choose to be born in an Islamic prison nor to wear a complete coverall and be refused education on the basis of their gender, they are forced to as a means of control by pathetic men whose one claim to superiority is they can grow beards. That's not Islamophobic, it's fact. There is some justification for believing that withdrawel now would expose the West to further attacks, but that's a result of what's already happened, and the West should have learned from history and kept away. Having set up and armed the Mujahideen to defeat Russia, the US is reaping its rewards. The socialist government that Russia was assisting [note they were invited, they didn't invade] had modernised Afghanistan and women experienced a modern, enlightened lifestyle along with everyone else. The US are responsible for encouraging the backward hill tribals who then became the Taliban. As you sow, so shall you reap.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 1:55pm on March 11, 2009

There is no option, we must stay and fight in Afghanistan if only for the sake of the women and girls there. As for history telling us that all the people who have tried to conquer Afghanistan in past and recent history, this is missing the point completely. We are not there as conquerors, but as liberators.

Posted by John Valentine at 3:12pm on March 23, 2009

John Valentine, you swallowed that one huh? And I bet those wedding parties who've been slaughtered and all the other civilians dead have been liberated too. What arrogance, who the hell are you to say 'we must stay and fight in Afghanistan if only for the sake of the women and girls'? The future of the country is down to the Afghans, anyone else who thinks they have the right to interfere 'for the sake of the women and girls' or for any other reason is an arrogant neocolonialist and a racist - only we know what's best for them...

Posted by Peter Simmons at 10:35am on July 30, 2009