Opinion: the undignified spectacle at the G8

Imagine the scene. It’s a dirty whitewashed three-storey government building in the capital city, surrounded by high walls with US helicopters parked around. Inside sit several US generals and two Europeans, in the dusty heat. The war they are there to discuss is secretly assumed to go on for 25 years. They all know they cannot win it despite superior air power and unlimited cash. They had all given it their best shot with use of terrible weapons. Neighbouring countries have been mercilessly bombed, and ushering in governments very unfriendly to the US and the West.

It was time to find a facesaving formula and begin to draw down the troops. The PR angle was agreed – to call it localization of forces; the pretense of handing power over to the local military, and of it all going according to plan. They knew that one day soon the capital would be overrun. In the middle of all this there was a looming US election, with the opposition candidate supported by parts of the US military, trying to delay ‘troops home’ until after the election. The face saving was only that of generals, not the politicians.

No it is not Afghanistan, it was Vietnam 1969. The localization was called ‘Vietnamization’ instead of the current ‘Afghanization’, and the cross-border bombing was in Cambodia and Laos, not Pakistan.

So now we have the head of the UK Coalition government at the G8 summit going along with the pretense in Afghanistan. The war is going well, we hear. It’s all ‘on track’. Some would have been briefed that it is going to be left ‘messy’. Maybe they should all be briefed on the reality of those final 6 years in Vietnam, and acquire some extra wisdom.

Funny isn’t it how, despite our ‘success’, key roads even in Kabul are off limits to ISAF forces, the parallel insurgent local governance is more popular than government structures, and oh yes rape of young girls is legal again. A key war aim was to deny terrorists the freedom to operate in territory not controlled by the state. But the majority of territory has been insurgent-controlled for quite some time.

Whilst one cannot forget that brave troops and dedicated aid workers have achieved extraordinary things in supremely dangerous circumstances, one cannot also deny that the achievements have been a drop in the ocean, and sadly billions in cash have been wasted or stolen.

We can learn the lessons of the past and exit in a more honest way. They key focus should not be saving the face of the generals. It should be achieving a negotiated settlement with those countries having an interest in the insurgency (India & Pakistan primarily) plus agreements between the West and both Afghanistan & Pakistan or border-related issues. A legacy of peace is the aim, not another 10 years of face-saving pretense whilst Kabul is overrun and more die. That is in Britain’s national interest.

I lived in San Francisco in 1970 and saw the Vietnam vets coming home. One vet friend used to drive on a child’s cycle the wrong way up the freeway, he had become so unhinged. Horrific. In Afghanistan all IASF members have more vets injured than have been reported.

I worked in a political role in Afghanistan a couple of years ago and traveled outside Kabul. The despair of UK officials has been widely reported, and I’ve seen it first hand. But we are in the Coalition now and in a better position to inject some sanity into our approach, and drive out that despair. It is not too late for the UK to come out of Afghanistan holding its head high, but we need to take a stand.

* Paul Reynolds works with multilateral organisations as an independent adviser on international relations, economics, and senior governance. He is a member of the Lib Dem Federal International Relations Committee and an Executive member of Liberal International (British Group).

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Europe / International and Op-eds.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Richard Dean 22nd May '12 - 5:57pm

    I suggest that the lessons we need to learn are not so much about our dignity, as about the dignity of the peoples we abuse. Wanting to change a society where, in your words, the “rape of young girls is legal” is a very fine aim. The problem is that it doesn’t get sorted by military means. No-one really seems to have immediate solutions, but the experiences you describe and omit do suggest that the solutions need to be found and led locally, not from outside.

  • I don’t know about the G8 summit being ” briefed on the reality of those final 6 years in Vietnam”, we went in spite of having: Afghanistan’s recent history still ringing in our ears, namely the Anglo-Afghan Wars and the more recent occupation by the USSR ), our (GB’s) direct experience of Northern Ireland and the conflicts arising during the break up of the Soviet Union specifically the Third Balkian War (1991-2001).

    The one bit of good news is that our, more respectful, approach to China seems to be delivering mutual benefits; although whether Mao would approve of the new China is open to question.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 10th Aug - 6:10am
    @ Katharine, "I wish I thought there were no neo-liberal supporters in the party." I wouldn't be too hard on them! We all, unless perhaps...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 10th Aug - 5:35am
    @ Micheal BG, You're asking me to justify something I haven't written. What I did say was: "When {progressive liberals} do venture into UBI territory...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 9th Aug - 11:03pm
    John Marriott, Can there really be too many political parties? There are just over 400 political parties registered in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_Kingdom). In the Weimar...
  • User Avatartim rogers 9th Aug - 10:56pm
    When SirEd took over we had 12% now we are on 6%. 4 minutes on BBC news in 8 months. Enough said!
  • User AvatarRoger Lake 9th Aug - 10:43pm
    Paul, you will have been disappointed by the tone of many of the responses to your admirable piece for us -- even, I fear, if...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 9th Aug - 10:20pm
    Marco, If you look at the parties' costing documents for the 2019 general election you will find that neither party were going to increase revenue...