Update On The Afghan War & British Politics
Tuesday 14 July 2009 at 09:40 The pressure on the Prime Minister from the Army to increase the long term British military presence in Afghanistan has been intensifying after 15 deaths in 12 days in Helmand Province. The Army wants a rise in British troop levels from 8,300 to 9,000 in November and it is backed by the Tory opposition.
The media consensus tends to back the Army and the Tories but without much enthusiasm. Opinion polling either shows the country to be evenly split on whether the British should even be there at all. Many want the British to pull out.
Politicians Play At Statesmen
Given a lack of engagement in the war by the public, the political class of all parties once again appears to be detached from reality. The criticism is still not of the war but of the conduct of the war.
However, the Tories are beginning to demand some strategic explanation of why losing lives in Helmand province is so important to national security. Privately, most intelligent politicians know that, without massive American engagement, this war is not winnable – and perhaps not even then.
So why are British soldiers being permitted to die! The rhetoric of Government has given up on Blairite high ideals (democracy and human rights) and it has shifted to the threat to British streets. But this is scarcely credible.
British actions in West Asia are likely, eventually, to re-target terror to the UK, whether to extend the war to bring it home to us or perhaps to exploit popular doubts or as an act of desperation in defeat.
The real reason for British engagement is solidarity as junior partner to the US and as an attempt to make NATO relevant but these are truths that dare not be spoken too loudly after Iraq.
The Prime Minister is also personally asserting that the Army has the right equipment and manpower to do the job this summer – he is claiming military support for his contention.
It is as if he is waiting for some short term success, based on US determination not to let the British fail, to enable him to shift funds back from butter to guns later in the year - perhaps relying on some patriotic tabloid surge of popular support based on a victory in the field and on signs of economic recovery.
Bluff & A Possible U-Turn
But what is not credible is the assertion of military backing for the Government. The military probably accept that they will get little now but their fear is that their men are dying to give cover to a dodgy election. The ground won to put Karzai and his cronies back in power will be ceded.
Yes, military chiefs will try to stay out of politics and will get the strong hint from New Labour that further direct comments are unwise – but this will not silence the informal dialogue between angry military figures and both media and opposition.
There is no credible source that does not know that the military are furious that political dithering has turned a serious military operation into a bargain basement effort, threatening to repeat past blunders (through poor resourcing and management) in Iraq.
Beneath this is the sense of being used as a blunt instrument for ill thought out political ends. We can sense an eventual political u-turn in the making, with some face-saving formula to limit the political damage, but, as a political ‘fix’, when it comes, it may be too little, too late.
What the Army wants is a permanent rise in numbers on the ground after the Afghan election in order to hold ground. This is an open Treasury cheque for a period when the Government knows that it will be preparing the public for post-election spending cuts on services.
The British Army may get the political traction for a permanent presence in Afghanistan but not before proof of the military pudding on the ground - that is, unless the Government really cannot hold the line against dissenters. And that is now quite possible.
If you want to follow TPPR events and commentary, try http://twitter.com/TPPRNews
If you want to follow Pendry White events and commentary, try http://twitter.com/PendryWhite