Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

The reality of Britain’s War in Afghanistan

As the conflict in Afghanistan enters its tenth year, a report by War on Want exposes the truth behind the conflict.

As the US-led occupation of Afghanistan enters its tenth year, casualties have risen among Afghan civilians and Nato forces alike, making the past 12 months the bloodiest of the conflict to date. US and British forces are engaged in a dirty war in Afghanistan, using aerial bombing, drone attacks, torture prisons and corporate mercenaries against the Afghan people, all of which are fuelling further insecurity and fostering human rights abuse.

Afghanistan has become one of the most militarised countries on earth, with the security sector far and away the largest single element of national expenditure. Recent years have seen UK suppliers export arms worth £32.5m to Afghanistan. Alongside the US and British military in Afghanistan is a "shadow army" of private military and security companies (PMSCs). Between 2007 and 2009, the UK government spent £62.8m on these PMSCs in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has borne the brunt of decades of foreign intervention and conflict, and as a result is one of the poorest countries in the world. Life expectancy is 44.6 years, among the lowest in the world. Yet development policy is being used to pursue military goals and to privatise the country's economy, while multinational companies profit at the expense of one of the least developed countries. Of the $38.6bn given in US aid to Afghanistan between 2002 and 2009, 56 per cent was spent on "security", primarily building up the army and police.

The future of Afghanistan is being determined by the self-interest of the USA, UK and other occupying powers. In July 2009 the then defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, stated that "the entire region in which Afghanistan sits is of vital strategic importance to the United Kingdom". British interests in the region are closely aligned with those of the United States. The US considers Afghanistan of critical geopolitical importance for its long-term interests in central and south Asia, as well as for the country's significance as a neighbour of Iran.

In addition to its other strategic interests, the US has long promoted a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan. in December 2010. The US assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher confirmed in 2007 that "one of our goals is to stabilise Afghanistan . . . so that energy can flow to the south".

As it becomes increasingly clear that the US and UK military presence is a central part of the problem in Afghanistan, not the solution, we need a new debate on the occupation of Afghanistan. Over 70 per cent of British people favour a withdrawal of British troops either soon or immediately. Yet all three major UK political parties are committed to continuing the military offensive and keeping British forces in Afghanistan until 2015 as well as maintaining a strategic presence for an undetermined period thereafter.

It is time for the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, and a negotiated settlement that guarantees self-determination, security and human rights for the Afghan people. We owe it to the people of Afghanistan to stand up for their rights and to end the occupation of their country, so that the process of reconstruction can at last begin.

Yasmin Khan is senior campaigns officer for War on Want.

Tags: War on Want  Afghanistan

12 comments

kenny jenkins's picture

Oh dear me, what a pair! Remind me, when was it that we first sent troops into Afghanistan? 1839, wasn't it?
We're not very good at learning from experience, are we?
When we learn to mind our own business?

apes xD's picture

I think we should all mind our business. Of course we must offer aid but must let the Afghanistan army and police bear a little of the brunt so they can stabilise.

P.S PhilDuval you spelt 'Taliban wrong'

Mr Woogy's picture

We need to kill the 7 million Pashtuns who would even think about picking up an AK47.

ConcernedCitizen's picture

Strangely enough I agree with the author on this one, what makes the West believe that if even after ten years of foreign aid, development and intervention the Afghans can't even get there own house in order, it will be able to do so ten years later?

Kudos to Obama though for recognizing the obvious, hence his troop pullout in 2014.

Des Demona's picture

'US and British forces are engaged in a dirty war in Afghanistan, using aerial bombing, drone attacks, torture prisons and corporate mercenaries against the Afghan people'

Errmmm .... a little balance perhaps. The battle isn't against the 'Afghan people' it is against a section of brutal religious fanatics known as the Taliban. A gang of nut jobs who terrorised much of the country with their Islamofacism and gave Al Queda free rain to train more terrorists to attack the West - all is the name of Islamofacism.
No doubt you are of the opinion that the 'Afghan people' are fully supportive of the suicide bombers, opium dealers and extremist Muslims who carry out the atrocities such as stoning to death those accused of adultry, denying women the right to education etc?

PhilDuval's picture

Afghanistan was once known as the 'Switzerland of Asia' and up and til the Soviet invasion enjoyed high standards of healthcare, education and women's rights. Since the Soviet invasion it has become a battleground for the major powers. As such the comment 'you would realize the only thing keeping them from falling into another 100 years of genocide and corruption are the democratic powers' is a complete red-herring.

As is well-known the US funded, armed and trained the movement now known as the Taleban. As late as 2001 the US government was rewarding the Taleban for their Opium ban. My evidence?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

(The Cato Institute by the way is the home of US free market ideology)

But wait, didn't an Al Jazeera journalist report that the Taleban were expecting a US attack in 2001? And hasn't Ahmed Rashid pubslished us dilpomatic documents which show that the decision to invade Afghanistan was taken BEFORE 9/11?

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...

and check the extensive links on this website:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/AAafghanwar.html

In the light of this evidence (that our motives in Afghanistan are anything other than honourable) will you continue to believe the government and mainstream media rhetoric?

The recent events in Egypt have shed yet more light on the support the US (and UK) give to odious dictators around the world. What makes you think they wouldn't make deals with the 'Taleban'? They were in negociations until the month before 9/11 and since they are losing in Afghanistan they have said they would be willing to talk again.

War on Want knows this and is working for the people of Afghanistan - something the State actors have no significant interest in doing.

CriticalEye21's picture

Here's one such story of a German national being illegally killed by an American drone attack (read: state murder program), which more often than not kill ordinary, innocent citizens. And even if they were guilty of a crime, they still have the right to a fair trial (at least in civilized countries like the UK, Germany, and other European countries). The US seems to have completely abandoned democratic values: http://bit.ly/eMIkgJ

Yere's picture

@Des Demona
surely the US and their puppets went into Afghanistan for military (strategic) reasons.
It would have been nice that after liberating Kabul and various other areas, instead of pouring money into the military and mercenaries the Western Alliance had invested it in a programme of social recovery(remember the Marshall Plan?)consinsting of
1- integration and economic development
2 -road building,
3 -factories, manufacturing facilities;
4 -peasants incentivated by cash subsidies - yes like the Eu does for our farmers- could switch from opium to alternative crops
3 -electrification,
4 -modernisation, cultural and social
5 -women welfare and schools
6 -development of a western styled democracy (NOT american!!)
etc..

Who should have done that? The USA military and UK, Nato alliance??
Not a chance.
Perhaps the answer to civil war is to work on the social divisions that caused it in the first place not killing people.

Mr.GetItRight.'s picture

"Afghanistan has borne the brunt of decades of foreign intervention and conflict, and as a result is one of the poorest countries in the world. Life expectancy is 44.6 years, the lowest in the world."

44.6 years isn't the lowest, 32.3 is the lowest by Botswana. Also Afghanistan was under-developed and poor due to corrupt militant regimes way before the US or UK stepped in so don't act like they are the reason Afghanistan is lagging behind. If this year has been the bloodiest in the middle east, then why do I ask should we pull out? Isn't that proof that turmoil is still raging in Iraq, Afghanistan? You hypocritically advocate for the afghan people, should you really want their well-being then you would realize the only thing keeping them from falling into another 100 years of genocide and corruption are the democratic powers.

John Smith's picture

So, Afhanistan wasn't desperately poor before the arrival of Coalition Forces? How did the development sector and NGOs fair under the Taliban?

Ihadawheelbarrow's picture

This sounds like our traditional policy - invade, mess up, then leave. When will we learn?

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets