Posts Tagged → Taliban
Go for it Gordon
Gordon Brown will next week address a joint session of both houses of the US Congress. This is a tremendous honour for him and for Britain. When Tony Blair made a similar speech in 2003 it was a brilliant performance the impact of which was muted because of the death of Dr David Kelly the following day.
The Prime Minister should use his speech to make the case for continued intervention in Afghanistan; not just the social programmes and electoral registration but the tough, targetted military intervention that continues to benefit us all at home through tackling the Taliban who happliy hosted terrorist cells, the terrorists themselves who continue to plot ’spectaculars’ in our country and the narcotics industry that also deals in death.
He should argue for larger military commitments by NATO members – and a larger number of NATO members too.
Go for it Gordon. Don’t just make the easy speech about shared values but the tough one about shared military service, shared sacrifice and shared security.
Obama’s Presidency means the excuses have all gone
Well done John Hutton. Today, he has called for Europe to commit more troops to the struggle against terrorism and lawlessness in Afghanistan (and increasingly in parts of Pakistan too). He has complained about other NATO member states leaving the ‘heavy lifting’ to the USA and UK whilst benefiting from the additional domestic security which tying down the Taliban and Al Qaeda brings.
There really has never been an excuse for NATO members’ reluctance to commit the necessary troops and equipment to Afghanistan. The arrival of President Obama takes even the lame excuse of ‘being seen to support ‘ George W Bush out of the equation.
NATO members have now simply got to accept their responsibilities. The NATO meeting in Krakow is the place for NATO to begin again to act as an organisation based on collective security rather than a forum for collective indecision.
All those Leaders who were so quick to send their congratulations to Obama now need to put their military where their mouths are.
Obama is a progressive President. He is no neo-con. There really is no excuse now.
Afghanistan: NATO members must step up to the plate
There was an interesting comment by Britain’s First Sea Lord, Admiral Band, on the BBC’s Marr programme on Sunday. When challenged about the role and performance of the British armed forces in Afghanistan the first example that the Admiral gave for success was that ‘electoral registration’ has increased in Helmand province. Of course, that’s a good thing and, despite some elements of the media’s determination to paint it otherwise, Britain’s armed forces continue to do a vital and valuable job in difficult circumstances in Afghanistan: fighting the Taliban, building a functioning state, tackling the narcotics trade and reducing the threat that Afghanistan (and in light of the comments by their President today also Pakistan) becomes a haven for active terrorist organisations.
The reason the Admiral’s comments struck me though, is that often the terms of the debate about how countries engage in the struggle against terrorism is couched in terms of a choice between the use of ’hard’ power and ’soft’ power; between direct military engagement or nation-building. The remarks by the First Sea Lord, alongside the tragic death of another British marine, show that Britain is engaged in both. And both it must be.
Sadly, the campaign in Afghanistan has shown up one of the real strategic weaknesses amongst other NATO members at the moment. Too often too many NATO member states want to divide the response to arguably NATO’s most important operation in its 60 years of existence along these ’hard’ and ’soft’ options. The USA, alongside Britain and one or two other honourable European exceptions are expected to take on the ‘hard’ duties of military engagement. Europe is then left to lead on the ’soft’ diplomatic and humanitarian tasks of building schools and hospitals.
If NATO is to survive another 60 years large parts of Europe must stop freeloading; collective security is just that ‘collective’ and it is vital that every NATO member who wants to enjoy the benefits of it also contributes to the costs of delivering it; often, sadly, that cost is borne in the lives of our servicemen and women but it is made all the greater because so many NATO members are not pulling their weight within the Alliance.
The struggle in Afghanistan is not about a choice between ‘winning hearts and minds’ and winning the war. As the Admiral made clear on the BBC it is about both. You simply can’t expand electoral rolls, educate girls, build health centres without first establishing and then maintaining peace and security.
There is also too little done by NATO members to make the case for our military engagement in Afghanistan. When was the last time Gordon Brown, for example, made a speech setting out the case to the public for the security struggle which almost weekly claims the lives of brave British soldiers, sailors and airmen? Yet this struggle is about the collective security of every NATO member state because to be beaten by would-be terrorists in Afghanistan (or Pakistan) creates a real and present danger on our own streets.
President Obama is right to argue that significant increases in NATO force levels are necessary. They are. It is high time that every member of NATO stepped up to the plate.
Recent Comments