David Miliband

Foreign Secretary

FCO Logo
« Iraq: it's now the... | Main | Blog 24 June: Zimbab... »
Monday 23 June, 2008

Afghanistan: still worth it

The losses suffered by the British army in the last two weeks in Afghanistan have prompted a lot of debate about why we are there, how it is going, what is the end game.  Anyone reading about the lives of the young people recently killed by the Taliban will be mourning the loss of such brave people, and will believe it right that we have open and honest debate about the situation in Afghanistan.  I certainly do.  I set out my views in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday  as did General Sir Mike Jackson  .

Posted at 15:12 23 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[6]

  • Share this with:
Comments:

In Mr Milliband’s 18 June post, he tells us that the Afghans want us in their country. I presume this excludes those Afghans who are shooting at our troops? He tells us we are there “to help the people of Afghanistan build the stable institutions that can help them prevent their country once again becoming a base for al qaeda. “ But the most recent terrorist atrocity in the UK was “masterminded” in Yorkshire. How did the supposedly stable institutions of the UK prevent against that? It is ridiculous and tragic that nineteen men and four hijacked passenger planes could provoke a military deployment that has now lasted longer than World War 2. If our political elite wanted to protect the British people from the possibility of future terrorist attacks, they might start by examining their own immigration policies, instead of continuing on their present “invade the world, invite the world” path.

Posted by Russ Peterson on June 23, 2008 at 07:53 PM BST #

What about the deaths, injuries and distress of civilians including women and children caused by bombing by the British Army?

Posted by colin davies on June 23, 2008 at 10:40 PM BST #

Are British and Nato troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism? Or is terrorism the convenient excuse for occupying Afghanistan? There are four reasons why Britain and Nato are in Afghanistan and none of them are to do with terrorism. Two of these reasons are neighbouring Pakistan and Iran, the other two reasons are Russia and China. Nato and American forces are in central Asia to counter the influence of both China and Russia. It's all geopolitical and strategic.

Posted by Stuart on June 24, 2008 at 01:16 PM BST #

By the way, what is this “national interest” that Mr Milliband talks of? Mr Milliband, like all of our political elite, be they Labour, Conservative or Liberal, serve only the interests of the international elite. If this were not the case, he would not be where he is today. To any readers also in thrall to internationalism, to any readers who still believe in the benevolence and wisdom of our political elite as they lead us ignorant serfs towards their brave new world, I urge you to examine the absurdity of our Afghanistan policy, and reflect. It is internationalism that has given us this situation. Think about where else it is taking us, and understand that all the Conservatives and the Liberals and for that matter the Guardian, the Telegraph and the BBC can offer are different shades of the same opinion.

Posted by Russ Peterson on June 24, 2008 at 11:14 PM BST #

Did the UK government actually have any research done before they joined the US on the decision to go into Afghanistan? Did they know that the Soviets could not defeat the insurgency in 9 years despite 13,000 deaths and rotating half a million troops through the country? They could not defeat the insurgents because of three things, the Afghan antipathy to invasion, the terrain on the border and the meddling of outside forces. Doh!! Just whats happening now. Did they know that Afghanistan hadn't had a police force for two decades and this is the most important thing to reconstruct when you want to stop an insurgency! If you don't do this you will fail. Did they know that the average length of an insurgency is 14 years? I could go on but the UK will be involved here for at least another 10 years and if they don;t do something about Pakistan then they will also lose and lose quickly.

Posted by nicky on June 27, 2008 at 09:59 AM BST #

In your Telegraph article you say that the Afghan poppy crop this year was significantly reduced. If this is to imply the anti-narcotics policy in Afghanistan is working, it is truer to say it was the weather that spoiled the poppy crop. As reported by the BBC, the policy of forcibly destroying the poppy crop is failing because of corruption and the lack of any compensation or alternative livelihood for over 3 million farmers. The big suppliers of heroin to the Taliban and their drug trafficking allies are able to bribe officialdom while the small farmer is left with nothing once his crop is destroyed and so is prime recruitment material for the Taliban. To prevent the Taliban becoming more powerful in this way, will the government adopt the recommendation INI/2007/2125 of the European parliament that it accepts the advice given by the Senlis Council and supports the Afghan Government to assist farming communities to cultivate the crop for medicinal purposes? This has a better chance of enabling these communities to survive with the added benefit of providing cheap morphine to developing countries.

Posted by Percefal on July 22, 2008 at 02:56 PM BST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed