The decision by Nick Clegg to break the political concensus by questioning British military strategy in Afghanistan, combined with further tragic casualties in the past week, has seen the conflict propelled to the forefront of national debate. Today the Prime Minister came to the Commons to deliver a Parliamentary statement on the war in Afghanistan and last week’s G8 Summit. Here’s what Nick Clegg said in response:
I believe the British people are resilient and understand the sacrifices that are inevitable in conflict – so long as the purpose of that conflict is clearly explained and understood. But how can people understand the true nature of this war when the Government has refused to explain what the achievable aims of this mission really are?
“For the last eight years, the Government has been sending mixed messages about the nature and purpose of this deployment. In the last week, we have had the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary giving different justifications for this war. We on these benches support the Afghan mission in order to stabilise Afghanistan and reduce the threat of terrorism to British citizens. But we need to be very clear about the limits of what we can achieve: military action may be able to contain problems, but not resolve them.
“We have learnt some difficult lessons in the last eight years. We have learnt that our forces were not in a position to secure Helmand alone, given the chronic shortages of equipment and manpower. And we have learnt that, because of the nature of Afghan tribal society, we must not overreach ourselves by trying to import overnight a western-style liberal democracy in a country that’s never had a functioning central government.
“Does the Prime Minister now accept that, at best, what we can do is stabilise Afghanistan, to provide a space for the state to grow? And so does he see that, since our troops first stepped into Afghanistan, the Government strategy has been over-ambitious in aim and under-resourced in practice?
“Isn’t it time to commit the necessary resources, and set a reasonable goal? When exactly will the Prime Minister find a way to send the desperately-needed helicopters to our troops on the ground? And when will he seek full co-ordination of the international political strategy in Afghanistan? Does he recognise that, as military commanders themselves argue, military intervention can only ever be part of the solution? It must, to be effective, take place in the context of a much more forcefully coordinated political strategy.
“We know that President Karzai vetoed the appointment of a single, strong political figure to coordinate the international strategy in Afghanistan. So will the Prime Minister now prevail upon President Karzai or his successor to reverse this decision and accept the appointment of a single senior figure to bring together the piecemeal strategies of the international community?
“Finally, Mr Speaker, I’d like to turn to the G8 Summit conclusions on nuclear non-proliferation. It is clear that conflicts like Afghanistan are likely to dominate in the coming years, rather than the old state-to-state conflicts of the Cold War era. So I welcome the position taken at the G8 on nuclear non-proliferation and the strong line taken regarding the 2010 talks. But does the Prime Minister not agree that rushing to commit Britain to like-for-like replacement of the Cold War-era Trident system hardly puts Britain at the forefront of such efforts?
“Isn’t it time to admit we do not need, nor can we afford, Trident, and start to look properly at the alternatives, so we can commit the resources needed for modern, asymmetric warfare like in Afghanistan?”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Joe Jackson: It's Different for Girls
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
The toxic legacy of Brexit
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Leekliberal
Steve J Smith
theakes
David Allen
Chris Moore
6 Comments
Thw issue on Afghnistan is that there are two inter-connected agendas- the military and the political. We may di better in the military but we an never win the political. When the US first invaded they reputedly gave a lot of money to the various regional warlords-one of whom has a long history of changing sides- and that this has prevented any form of national government being set up and has allowed corruption to flourish. The result is that the President is called the Mayor of Kabul becase that is the only place where he has any influence. If there is no possibility of political progress then there is no point in or soliders being there.
“The decision by Nick Clegg to break the political concensus by questioning British military strategy in Afghanistan, combined with further tragic casualties in the past week, has seen the conflict propelled to the forefront of national debate.”
I think we can be reasonably sure that it is the casualties, not anything that has been said by Nick Clegg, that have propelled the conflict to the “forefront of national debate”.
And I think Clegg needs to be extremely careful to avoid being perceived to be playing political games with a very difficult and tragic situation. If the party’s line on Afghanistan is going to be changed, the party needs to be very clear about what has caused that change.
After seven years of consistent support for the government’s line, isn’t “recent events have led me to question, for the first time, whether we’re going about things in the right way” just a little bit inadequate?
In the States, Petraeus came to Congress and answered questions. British journalism hasn’t stepped up to investigate what are strategy is, whether it is the right one, and how we are performing against it. I hope that parliament might be able to do a better job.
Also, where are the British academics? Or are they just not being given air time? I’ve seen Toby Dodge’s analysis- but in American media. Where are the thinktanks? the British equivalents of the Small Wars Journal etc?
eurgh- ‘are’ equals ‘our’
I dunno what it is about having a baby due any day now, but seeing the most recent young victims out in Afghanistan had me close to tears in the work café.
What hit me was just how overstretched our military is, and that most of the people dying are innocent. We’re making it far too easy to convince otherwise peaceful people to become ‘rebels’ willing to die or to set bombs to kill ‘infidels’.
It’s about time we stopped supporting the government line, as it’s a fair reflection on what’s happening across the country. We’ve had enough and want to know “why”!
There is no shortage of people who will give you good reasons as to why we should fight in Afghanistan. But all that means nothing if we do not not have the ability to bring stability and peace to that country.
There is no sign at all that we have that ability.
Many times we have had propaganda telling us how well we are doing in Afghanistan, but 7 years on and there is no end in sight. The kind of choices we face today if we carry on are; do we go for air strikes that will kill many civillians and turn people against us, or do we send in our troops and experience high casualties ourselves?
Dammed either way.
In fact we are dammed whatever we do. This occupation is every bit as disasterous as our invasion of Iraq.
It is worth considering that whilst militant Islamists can inspire militias dispite of our efforts to erradicate them, there are no significant counter militias who are prepared to fight for what we believe in; human rights and democracy.
Which all goes to show that as a foreign force in a foreign land we are wasting our time, and we should leave with haste.
In my opinion the Liberal Democrats leadership are not really showing any on this vital issue.