Article from the Eastern Daily Press, the largest circulation local daily newspaper in Norfolk, England, Monday 4rd August 2009.
I think this article expresses the feelings of the majority of the populayiom of UK and it is a straw in the wind to, at last, being exoressed in the leading press. (Paddy) Afghanistan, another Vietnam by David Prior There is a poignancy and pathos surrounding the death or wounding of a soldier that touches us all. They are so young, they have so much to live for and they are giving their lives for us. It may, of course, be true that our generation is more sentimental than past generations and that the modern media is more intrusive and more mawkish. We cannot tolerate casualties with the same steely upper lip of those that lived through the two world wars. Perhaps too we had forgotten that soldiers really do die and that their bodies really are mutilated. It is a far cry from training manoeuvres in Germany. Probably, we have to go back as far as the Korean War to experience the level of casualties taken by the Army in Afghanistan, so far from home, over the last month. It makes you wonder how the Americans lasted so long in Vietnam taking so many casualties for a cause in which so few believed. Vietnam also reminds us of the unpredictability of war. Mission creep is always the biggest danger. A few hundred intelligence officers becomes a few troops on the ground becomes a major offensive. Over 500,000 Americans eventually fought in Vietnam and just under 60,000 died. They dropped three times as many bombs as were dropped by all sides in the second world war. The Generals always want more soldiers, more bombs, more helicopters and when men and women are dying they are hard for politicians to resist. Worse still, is the inevitable metamorphosis of idealism into the grim quagmire of realpolitik. In Vietnam the Americans initially stood for democracy, freedom and the independent state of South Vietnam. They ended supporting a corrupt regime and napalming thousands of innocent civilians. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and the film that it inspired, Apocalypse Now, is a chilling metaphor for the horrors of war. And Afghanistan has Vietnam written allover it. What is our mission? Is it to kill Al Qaeda terrorists or is it to establish a western style democracy? Do we move on to Somalia next or will it be Pakistan? The Taliban treat women appallingly badly so perhaps we should also invade Saudi Arabia; and let's not forget Sudan, Syria, Iran and Lebanon who have all got terrorist training camps of one kind or another. . And we will fail in Afghanistan in the same way that the Russians failed and the British Empire failed. We cannot fight a guerrilla war against medieval tribesmen with access to unlimited IEDs who can melt away into the vastness of the Hindu Kush. Our superior air power and technology is of little use and every time we bomb mistakenly a wedding party or a village we create more, not fewer, terrorists. Time and history is on their side. The British government apparently believes that winning in Afghanistan goes" to the heart of this country's national security" and as the Secretary of State, Bob Ainsworth, put it "to the core of our national interests" . Tony Blair said more or less the same as justification for the war in Iraq. Actually, the reason we made such a large commitment to both I campaigns was because the Americans asked us to. We have become their moral fig leaf, more handmaiden than ally. I would argue that it is in our national interest to reduce our commitment to Afghanistan. It is an unwinnable war, we are backing a corrupt and unrepresentative government and it may actually make the war on terror worse not better. Certainly many more of our soldiers will die. But even if I am completely wrong on all these counts I would still make the same argument. We are no longer a super power. Our economy is weaker than at any time in my lifetime. We cannot afford to take responsibility for the world's security. We have decided for many years, certainly since the Suez fiasco in 1956, that defence will play second fiddle to our social and welfare expenditure. In 1967 defence spending accounted for 6.7pc of our GDP, more than half as much again as the money we spent on health. In 2009 the position is wholly reversed. We spent 7.7pc on health and only 2.9% on defence. And this is going to fall. The public services now face many years of cuts. Both political parties have said that the NHS, education and overseas aid will be ring fenced. This means massive cuts elsewhere, including defence. It means a smaller army, fewer helicopters, the possible cancellation of Trident's replacement and fewer aircraft carriers. We cannot fight in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kosovo and in Sierra Leone and maintain a credible nuclear deterrent without spending more, not less, on defence. It is a disgrace that politicians have not had the guts to address this fundamental dilemma. I know where I stand. I would draw in our horns and do less. I respect those who say that we should spend more (by cutting spending elsewhere) and continue with what Tony Blair described as a policy of" muscular interventionism" even as I disagree with them. But I have no respect for those who want to do this on the cheap. The cheap rhetoric and bombast of armchair politicians is now coming face to face with reality: inadequate troop numbers and equipment in first Basra and now Helmand. And as the gap between rhetoric and recourses grows wider, more· soldiers will die. Scanned by Paddy http://apling.freeservers.com ________________________________________________ YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
