Afghanistan is going down, down, down

Deaths up. McChrystal out. No end in sight.

Afghanistan continues to morph into "Chaosistan". The Ministry of Defence confirms that another four soldiers were killed in Helmand in a road accident on Wednesday evening, taking the British military death toll since 2001 to 307.

Meanwhile, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Britain's special envoy to Afghanistan, "known for his scepticism about the western war effort and his support for peace talks with the Taliban", has stepped down from his post and gone on "extended leave", only a month before a critical international conference in Kabul.

And the Americans, even before their commander-in-chief sacked their top commander on the ground, ain't doing so well, either. As Sahil Kapur writes over at Comment Is Free:

This month, Afghanistan became America's longest-ever war, and the US death toll crossed 1,000. June is also set to be the deadliest month for Nato forces since the war began in 2001. Last year was its deadliest, and this year is on pace to set a new record. President Hamid Karzai's top advisers say he's lost faith in the coalition and even his own government to turn things around. His perceived illegitimacy after last autumn's disputed election diminishes his clout.

Far from quelling the bleeding, the situation has further deteriorated since the Obama administration's troop surge this year. The recent offensive to oust the Taliban from the stronghold of Marjah was a disaster -- McChrystal himself called it a "bleeding ulcer". Critical operations in Kandahar have been postponed. And in case all this isn't bad enough, Afghan private contractors are using US taxpayer money to bribe Taliban militants to fuel the violence, the New York Times reports.

So forgive me if I don't get all teary and misty-eyed over the enforced departure of General Stanley "Badass" McChrystal. As the US media critic and anti-war activist Norman Solomon notes: "When the wheels are coming off, it doesn't do much good to change the driver." He adds: "The latest events reflect unwritten rules for top military commanders: Escalating a terrible war is fine. Just don't say anything mean about your boss."

The furore over Team McChrystal's rather ill-advised, if not plain stupid, remarks to Rolling Stone magazine about Vice-President Joe Biden ("Who's that?"), the national security adviser, James Jones (a "clown"), and President Obama himself ("uncomfortable and intimidated") has distracted the press and public from an important revelation in the piece itself.

Team McChrystal -- or "Team America", as they call themselves -- don't think the war is going too well.

A senior adviser is quoted as saying the war is going worse than the politicians and the public realise:

If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.

And Major General Bill Mayville, McChrystal's chief of operations, tells Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings:

It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win . . . This is going to end in an argument.

Great news. Tell that to the parents and partners of the four British soldiers who died yesterday evening. Or to the thousands of Afghan civilians killed in Nato-led air strikes, bombings and shootings at checkpoints. ("We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force," admitted McChrystal in March.) They all died for "an argument".

The Runaway General may indeed be gone. But this pointless, runaway war is still going.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

Five things Hillary Clinton’s released emails reveal about UK politics

The latest batch of the presidential hopeful’s emails provide insight into the 2010 Labour leadership contest, and the dying days of the Labour government.

The US State Department has released thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails. This is part of an ongoing controversy regarding the presidential hopeful’s use of a private, non-governmental server and personal email account when conducting official business as Secretary of State.

More than a quarter of Clinton’s work emails have now been released, in monthly instalments under a Freedom of Information ruling, after she handed over 30,000 pages of documents last year. So what does this most recent batch – which consists of 4,368 emails (totalling 7,121 pages) – reveal?
 

David Miliband’s pain

There’s a lot of insight into the last Labour leadership election in Clinton’s correspondence. One email from September 2010 reveals David Miliband’s pain at being defeated by his brother. He writes: “Losing is tough. When you win the party members and MPs doubly so. (When it's your brother...).”


Reaction to Ed Miliband becoming Labour leader

Clinton’s reply to the above email isn’t available in the cache, but a message from an aide about Ed Miliband’s victory in the leadership election suggests they were taken aback – or at least intrigued – by the result. Forwarding the news of Ed’s win to Clinton, it simply reads: “Wow”.


Clinton’s take on it, written in an email to her long-time adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, is: “Clearly more about Tony that [sic] David or Ed”.

Blumenthal expresses regret about the “regression” Ed’s win suggests about the Labour party. He writes to Clinton: “David Miliband lost by less than 2 percent to his brother Ed. Ed is the new leader. David was marginally hurt by Tony's book but more by Mandelson's endorsement coupled with his harsh statements about the left. This is something of a regression.”
 

Peter Mandelson is “mad”

In fact, team Clinton is less than enthusiastic about the influence Mandelson has over British politics. One item in a long email from Blumenthal to Clinton, labelled “Mandelson Watch”, gives her the low-down on the former Business Secretary’s machinations, in scathing language. It refers to him as being “in a snit” for missing out on the EU Commissioner position, and claims those in Europe think of him as “mad”. In another email from Blumenthal – about Labour’s “halted” coup against Gordon Brown – he says of Mandelson: “No one trusts him, yet he's indispensable.”

That whole passage about the coup is worth reading – for the clear disappointment in David Miliband, and description of his brother as a “sterling fellow”:


Obsession with “Tudor” Labour plotting

Clinton appears to have been kept in the loop on every detail of Labour party infighting. While Mandelson is a constant source of suspicion among her aides, Clinton herself clearly has a lot of time for David Miliband, replying “very sorry to read this confirmation” to an email about his rumoured demotion.

A May 2009 email from Blumenthal to Clinton, which describes Labour politicians’ plots as “like the Tudors”, details Ed Balls’ role in continuing Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s “bitter rivalry”:


“Disingenuous” Tories “offending” Europe

The Tories don’t get off lightly either. There is intense suspicion of David Cameron’s activities in Europe, even before he is Prime Minister. Blumenthal – whose email about a prospective Cameron government being “aristocratic” and “narrowly Etonian” was released in a previous batch of Clinton’s correspondence – writes:

Without passing "Go," David Cameron has seriously damaged his relations. with the European leaders. Sending a letter to Czech leader Vaclay Klaus encouraging him not to sign the Lisbon Treaty, as though Cameron were already Prime Minister, he has offended Sarkozy., Merkel and Zapatero.

He also accuses him of a “tilt to the Tory right on Europe”.

In the same email, Blumenthal tells Clinton that William Hague (then shadow foreign secretary), “has arduously pressured for an anti-EU stance, despite his assurances to you that Tory policy toward Europe would be marked by continuity”.

In the aftermath of the 2010 UK election, Blumenthal is apprehensive about Hague’s future as Foreign Secretary, emailing Clinton: “I would doubt you’ll see David again as foreign secretary. Prepare for hauge [sic, William Hague], who is deeply anti-European and will be disingenuous with you.”

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.