Registered user login:

We have no imperial right to remake nations

Published 09 October 2008

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith and Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles sound like the kind of chaps who might have led skirmishes along the North-West Frontier in the days of the Great Game. Their names may be redolent of the era when an officer bound for the east set off from his St James's club with a volume or two of Kipling in his trunk; but this should not make us overlook the wisdom of their judgement about the resilience of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The brigadier, Britain's most senior military commander in Afghanistan, and Sir Sherard, Our Man in Kabul, both warn that the current strategy will not work. "We're not going to win this war," said Carleton-Smith. Sir Sherard reportedly thinks the approach is "doomed to failure". Given that Britain has suffered 120 military fatalities since 2001, there is urgency in their advice.

Some have already dismissed such talk as defeatism. But 170 years to the month that Lord Auckland, governor general of India, issued the Simla Manifesto justifying British intervention in Afghanistan, it is high time we learned lessons from our long and dismal history in central Asia.

The first Anglo-Afghan War ended with the massacre of the retreating British forces in 1842. Only one man, Dr William Brydon, survived out of 16,000 who attempted to reach Jalalabad from Kabul. ("Where is the army?" he was asked on arrival. "I am the army," he replied.) Subsequent attempts to impose our will on a population with the misfortune to be caught between two empires, those of Britain and Russia, were scarcely less happy.

That the Taliban are reactionary and barbaric is not in doubt, even if they no longer object to kite-flying or frown on a clean-shaven chin. But after Iraq and the continuing conflict in Afghanistan, there should be no less doubt that Britain should exercise greater caution before committing militarily to the remaking of nations. "The Great Game", Kipling's coinage, reflected the ambitions of an imperial age. It has no place in our discourse today.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

sweety
10 October 2008 at 03:38

These sort of articles always amuse one. This lone Brit, on a donkey has been banded about recently especially by Muslims, resident in our welfare state. This defeated, weatherbeaten, army was in fact as much Asian as British. The facts speak for themselves. Many armies have conquered Afghanistan, throughout the ages. Disinterest should be the key here and it will not happen until the UN. is comprised of democratic states only. We could solve the problem with the terror merchants and drug dealers in the Afghan frontiers within a week. It is about us not about muslims or terrorists. It is about us! The other great game of the region, the Turkomen Raiders who for hundreds of years brought slavery and the most cruel sorts of existence to poor enslaved people from all the peoples from Eastern Turrkey to Afghanistan, is a case point. The Russians finally surrounded them, in their fortified town and exterminated the lot of them! There was no UN. intervention and like buffaloes or elephants in the modern world no alternative!

explodingbadger
10 October 2008 at 05:25

Although the title of this article rightly says we have NO RIGHT to remake nations most of the article is about how difficult it is. The fact remains that invading another country unprovoked is immoral and wrong!

Anarch
14 October 2008 at 23:56

You describe nineteenth century Afghanistan as 'caught between two empires'. That isn't exactly right. Afghanistan was itself an imperial power and its current ethnic and tribal complexities are a consequence of Dosht Mohammed and his sucessors having conqured the Daris (Persians) of Herat, Hazara (sort of Turks), Baluchis and various others. I do wish 'anti-imperialists' were not, so often, so ignorant. I am anti-imperialist, but I am afraid I see this kind of argument, in which only 'the west' had the will and technical skill to conquer other contries as a kind of sly, self-deluding racism. To deny other people the capacity for evil is, in a perverse way, to treat them with contempt. Please don't do it.

sweety
15 October 2008 at 03:15

Anarch

14 October 2008 at 23:56

Anarch, brilliantly expressed.

sweety
15 October 2008 at 03:26

Hazara (sort of Turks).

Close to the Mongols. One of Genghis Khans, Generals, I cannot remember which one told this outpost of Hazara, to stay put until further orders, and they are still there today! Personally, I agree with Genghis one of the best things a man can do in life is to conquer your enemy, enjoy their women and take over their land.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?