Afghanistan, Britain, Iraq, Society, United States

20 years after the ‘War on Terror’, abandonment leaves a bitter legacy

ESSAY

THE scene is a familiar one. On the dusty and sandy plains of Afghanistan, a trail of refugees’ head for the beleaguered capital. On the streets of Kabul itself, frequent car bombs are killing members of the government along with innocent bystanders.

In the western city of Herat, people huddle in their homes as enemy rockets pound down. And in the southern province of Helmand – where hundreds of British servicemen lost their lives in recent years – dozens of civilian bodies lie rotting on the country roads.

Such is the lawless state in Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban have made extraordinary territorial gains in recent days. Across much of the country, their white flag now flies unchecked.

The situation in Afghanistan now is as serious as it has ever been. It’s a quarter of a century since the Taliban swept to power claiming vast swathes of land, imposing a hideously oppressive Islamist regime that treated women as slaves and banned films, TV, music and dancing.

Perhaps more significantly, in just a few weeks it will be exactly 20 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington.

It was in reaction to these atrocities that Tony Blair and George W. Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom, promising to dismantle the al-Qaeda training camps, overthrow the Taliban and usher the Afghan people into a brave new world of democracy.

‘Operation Enduring Freedom’. How darkly ironic that mission sounds today.

For the Afghan people, the cause of freedom now hangs by a thread. Ever since the spring, when President Joe Biden announced that the last U.S. personnel would leave at the end of this month, the Taliban have swept across much of the country again.

Only a few weeks ago, U.S. intelligence analysts reportedly warned that without Western intervention, the government in Kabul might have just six months left. And now, with an estimated 85,000 Taliban fighters pressing towards the capital, that bleak prognosis looks decidedly optimistic.

Yet this is merely part of a bigger picture.

Twenty years after the War on Terror began, it’s time that we took a long, unsparing look at what it really achieved.

To revisit reports from 2001 feels like entering a different world. At the Labour Party conference, Tony Blair tells his delegates and party members that he intends to fight for freedom “from the deserts of Northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan.”

“Let us re-order this world around us,” he says grandly, as if there are no limits to his ambitions. A few weeks later, his close friend Bush appears before the U.S. Congress, pledging to dismantle an “Axis of Evil” that threatens the peace of the world. He names three regimes in particular: Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

How arrogant, how criminally naïve this sounds today. The regime in Iran is more hard-line, its position apparently as secure as ever. North Korea, too, remains stubbornly defiant, having built an estimated stockpile of some 40 nuclear weapons.

As for Iraq, that desperately sad story has become only too familiar. However you measure it, the carnage since the Anglo-American invasion of 2003 has cost at least 150,000 lives, and perhaps more than a million according to some estimates.

I say ‘has cost’, rather than ‘cost’, because Iraq is still not at peace. It has never been at peace. Even now, the Baghdad government and its Western sponsors are fighting a low-level Islamist insurgency, with bombings and killings almost every single day. What, then, is the verdict on the so-called War on Terror?

There’s no doubt that some of its progenitors, at least, had noble motives. When Blair says he genuinely wanted to export Western freedoms to Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s not hard to disbelieve.

But the verdict must be utterly damning.

How can this naïve, undefined, unachievable crusade go down in history as anything other than a catastrophic failure?

Take the cost in lives first. Some 456 British servicemen and MoD civilians were killed in Afghanistan, and a further 179 in Iraq. And for what?

As the Taliban surge towards Kabul, many of the bereaved must be asking themselves: was it all in vain?

Then there’s the financial cost. In June this year, the Ministry of Defence admitted that the war in Afghanistan cost British taxpayers a staggering £22 billion, with the campaign in Iraq estimated to have cost a further £10 billion.

The grim irony, of course, is that our politicians blew all that money just before the financial crisis of 2007-08, from which the Western economy has never fully recovered. And given that Britain was about to be plunged into a long period of economic austerity, many will argue that we should have saved it for other things.

One of the greatest costs of all, though, is much harder to measure. It’s the price in moral capital and political credibility, which Britain and the U.S. are still paying to this day.

Remarkably, the invasion of Afghanistan was much closer in time to the end of the Cold War than it is to us today. The U.S. was the world’s unchallenged “hyper-power”, the march of democracy seemed unstoppable, and some American thinkers were even proclaiming the “end of history”.

The events of the last two decades, however, turned that story on its head. For the Iraqi people, the Allied invasion brought a living nightmare. For the people of Afghanistan, meanwhile, it brought a gruelling, apparently interminable campaign, which now seems likely to end as it began – with the Taliban as masters of their native land.

No wonder, then, that America’s image abroad has plummeted over the last 20 years. According to the respected Pew Research Centre, people in almost ever major Western country now have an unfavourable impression of the U.S.

In Japan, its popularity has dropped by 30 per cent since 2001. In France, too, it has fallen by 30 per cent, in Germany by almost 50 per cent. And what of faith in democracy – the one thing for which Blair and Bush claimed they were fighting?

According to an extensive international study by Cambridge University, satisfaction with democracy has never been lower. In almost every country on earth, faith in the Western capitalist model has plummeted in the last 20 years – especially among the young, to whom the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are simply incomprehensible.

And here’s another brutal irony. At the very point when Britain and the U.S. were wasting huge sums of money and with so many lives expended on their Middle Eastern misadventures, the real threats to Western democracy were hauling themselves off the canvas and preparing to rebuild.

The winners of the War on Terror were not the British and American people, and still less the natives of Afghanistan and Iraq. They were Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, the authoritarian strongmen of Russia and China, who watched with undisguised satisfaction as the Western powers discredited their own values.

That is the real legacy of the past 20 years: a shattering reversal of Western progress, for which we will be paying – quite literally – for the rest of our lives.

But perhaps it would be wrong to end by talking about ourselves. After all, the greatest casualties of the last two decades came among the people of Afghanistan and Iraq themselves, who have never known a single day of peace since the War on Terror began.

Nobody can say how their lives would have turned out if we had left well alone. No doubt they would have endured more than their fair share of tragedies anyway. Afghanistan has always been a turbulent and war-torn country.

What can be said, however, is that they have paid a terrible price for our politicians’ hubris and folly. And if we fail to learn that lesson, it would be the greatest betrayal of all.

. Appendage

Map highlighting who controls Afghanistan. Map Source: BBC

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Society, United States

The ‘war on terror’ doctrine has failed, but why?

‘WAR ON TERROR’

Intro: The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily

It is now more than twelve and a half years since the Al-Qaeda attack on America’s Twin Towers of 9/11. Yet, despite all the efforts by the West in dealing with additional terrorist threats under its catch all phrase ‘war on terror’, al-Qaeda and its affiliate type organisations (of which there are many) now control an area the size of Britain in western Iraq and eastern Syria. This size increases still further if we factor in Afghanistan, Libya and vast swathes of Somalia.

The rapid expansion and spread of jihadi groups comes amid the west’s ongoing fight and struggle of George W Bush’s infamous war on terror doctrine. In the name of such a struggle, great sums have been expended; wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; civil rights have been curtailed; and the practices of torture, rendition, detention without trial and domestic espionage have been justified. What is so extraordinary is that the attempts made by the West to eliminate the supposed enemy have wholly failed.

It was never an inevitable outcome that organisations and splinter groups aligned to the ideology and methods of Osama bin-Laden should have survived and flourished like they have. Al-Qaeda inspired jihad is now stronger than ever.

Undoubtedly, Saudi Arabia was crucial to the rise of the original al-Qaeda based group. On the 9/11 attacks, 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi and the Commission Report in the aftermath revealed that Saudi donors were the main financial supporters and backers for al-Qaeda. More than 28 pages of the report relating to Saudi involvement have never been published, and the Bush administration never sought for a moment to pin blame or any measure of responsibility on Saudi Arabia. This failure has enabled the Saudis to go on playing a central role in the funding and recruitment for jihadi groups across much of the Muslim world. Instead, Bush sought to wholly attribute blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, without a shred of acceptable evidence.

Policies of wrong-footedness have continued. Since the start of the Arab Spring the US, Britain and their allies have supported jihadis who manoeuvred and appeared to be on their side – much in the same way as they backed them in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Rebel groups in Syria and Libya, much like al-Qaeda, have been viewed tolerantly thanks to their opposition and denouncements of Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. The US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens, paid with his life after Washington underestimated the danger posed by the jihadis with whom America had been cooperating.

The willingness of the US, Britain, and their allies to cooperate with theocratic absolute regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf does have aspects to it which are hypocritical. The absurd pretence that they want to establish secular democracies in Syria, Libya and Iraq is the clearest example. There is a sustained unwillingness, too, to admit that the Sunni monarchs are viscerally anti-Shia. We need to look no further than the sectarian hate propaganda proliferating on well-funded Arabic satellite television stations, across social media sites, and through the internet in general.

But ‘why’ you may ask has the West been so gentle with the Saudis (and their allies) responsible though they are for sustaining the jihadi movement. The reason is the kingdom’s financial might. Washington and London’s hunger for lucrative arms deals and the lure of consultancy contracts and other personal benefits for powerful individuals is a prime driver.

The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily. Greater accountability should have been delivered by now for those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Standard
Government, Intelligence, Military, National Security, United States

Bradley Manning and the US court-martial verdict…

BRADLEY MANNING

The US military court ruling on finding the WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning guilty of espionage (but not of aiding the enemy) shows a proportionate sense of perspective after one of the most turbulent episodes in recent US judicial history.

In a highly emotive summing up by the prosecutor, Major Ashden Fein, claimed that Manning was ‘a determined soldier with the ability, knowledge and desire to harm the United States.’ He was not a whistleblower, but a traitor… and Manning had, said Major Fein, ‘general evil intent.’

Nobody ever suggested that this young and disillusioned soldier had deliberately sent military secrets to Al-Qaeda, but the court-martial ruling has proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that his voluntary actions to disclose more than 700,000 documents would ‘lead to them being in the hands of the enemy.’

Manning was responsible for the largest leaking of classified information in US history. His actions sent shockwaves through America’s military and political establishments, but undoubtedly their response to his actions was part of the US mindset that materialised after 9/11 in policies such as extraordinary rendition, waterboarding and events that have transpired since at Guantanamo Bay.

The presiding judge over Bradley Manning’s court-martial, Judge Colonel Denise Lind, struck a very different note saying that the policies of the George W Bush presidency which were responsible have been reversed. Whilst that does hold some credence, the malign consequences linger on, including the compulsion in the United States to silence those, like Manning, who discovered that the exercise of American power on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan was significantly different from the way it was advertised back home.

In many ways a dichotomy has been exposed. American claims of fostering a culture of free information have often been inflated, and its media have certainly failed to take full advantage of those freedoms they did possess. But the high collision of President Bush’s ‘war on terror’ with the explosion of information released by the internet – which WikiLeaks came to symbolise – created in America a national mood of paranoia reminiscent of Stalinism. President Obama’s attempts to cool that feverish atmosphere is slowly being achieved with the winding down of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Washington’s refusal so far to countenance any large-scale involvement in Syria or Iran.

While both Bradley Manning and the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange were guilty of recklessly flooding media outlets with secret and classified information with little concern for what has subsequently happened to the people who had been named, their underhand dealings enabled many to learn about atrocities committed by the US military which otherwise would have been covered up for ever.

Governments and their military establishments are known in wanting to keep their dirty secrets to themselves, but we should also know they must not be allowed to. Freedom of information is one of the cornerstones of democracy, and whistleblowers just happen to be a vital component to the functioning of societies that aspire to be free. Reconciling that to the authority of their rulers will always throw up issues perfectly witnessed in the court-martial of Bradley Manning.

Standard