Britain’s battered military mission in Afghanistan badly needed a shot in the arm. Morgan Roach heard Liam Fox making a clearcut case to a conservative thinktank in Washington on the rationale for continued intervention and on the trajectory for future developments

Roach, Morgan

English

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.ukImage Credit: ISAFhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/07/13/why-fox-stands-%e2%80%98shoulder-to-shoulder%e2%80%99-with-the-usa-in-afghanistan/Why Fox stands ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the USA inAfghanistanJul 13 2010Britain’s battered military mission in Afghanistan badly needed a shot in the arm. MorganRoach heard Liam Fox making a clearcut case to a conservative thinktank in Washingtonon the rationale for continued intervention and on the trajectory for future developments.In the first six and half months of 2010, 266 British and American soldiers have lost theirlives in Afghanistan. It is certain also that more soldiers’ lives will continue to be lost as thewar progresses.  And public support in the United Kingdom and the United States for thewar in Afghanistan remains low.Yet in a speech at The Heritage Foundation in Washington on 30 June, Britain’s Secretaryof State for Defence Liam Fox reminded his audience why Britain is resolutely committed to fulfilling itsmission as a NATO ally. He re-outlined Britain’s three-step approach to success in Afghanistan:-         stifle the threat from the Taliban-led insurgency,-         reduce this to a level where the Afghan government can effectively lead, and-        establish a system of national security and governance that the Afghan government will control for thelong-term.Fox argued that the last point especially is a process: “There is no group of commanders waiting patiently ina tent awaiting a delegation under a white flag offering a formal surrender.  Insurgencies usually end withpolitical settlements not military victories.”The situation is not cut and dry. Ofcourse, setting deadlines for successis often politically motivated, but in afluid situation it may be unrealistic. President Barack Obama still appearscommitted to an assumption that hewill give the order for U.S. troops tostart returning home in July 2011. Critics in the USA argue that suchactions could potentially spell the endof any progress gained. Problems ofmaintaining commitment are madeworse as by inequitable burden-sharing among NATO allies. Europeancommitment to the mission is alsolimited:  France and Germany’scombined forces within ISAF fall wellshort of Britain’s contribution.And yet, despite all this, Britain standsfirm in its commitment.  In a recentBBC interview Fox suggested that as British troops are stationed in the most dangerous parts ofAfghanistan, they will likely to be the last to leave. He argued that although “we want to transition to Afghanauthority as soon as we can… we cannot leave a security vacuum.”Supporters of the current action argue that although NATO allies have lost considerable blood and treasureand these losses are deeply tragic, yet still the NATO mission must prevail.  If troops were to leaveprematurely, Afghanistan would be vulnerable to a resurgence in terrorism and regress to a safe haven foral Qaeda – and this falling back would be quickly followed by large areas of Pakistan, a nuclear-armedcountry of more than 150 million people.Although the mission has seen numerous setbacks Fox emphasized in his speech that “we are makingprogress.” The strengthening of the Afghan Army is just one example.  In just the past few months, its forcecapacity has grown by 20 percent and it is now 125,000 strong. Additionally, US estimates are that thenumber of insurgents active in Afghanistan is decreasing.  Since 2006, Helmand province has been one ofthe most dangerous areas for American and British forces, along with those from Denmark, Estonia andGeorgia. Yet coalition troops  have returned over three quarters of the region to Afghan governmentcontrol.  Such gains bring real results, ones that allow reconstruction and development to take hold andeventually create some semblance of stability and normalcy.National governments with troops in Afghanistan, and suffering from criticism and low opinion polls at home,face challenges to constantly remind their citizens that action at a distance can often be the most successfulform of defence –  one of the primary rationales for intervening over such a long period in Afghanistan. LiamFox argued that the UK must stay the course and “stand shoulder to shoulder…alongside our many partnersand alongside the Afghans themselves.”  Should NATO’s ISAF troops leave Afghanistan prematurely, thereis little doubt that Afghanistan will return to its previous state of internal anarchy, creating a risk that the USAand European nations will once again be subject to terrorist attacks emanating from the same sources as in2001.You may also be interested in the following posts (automatically generated):1. The Conflict in Afghanistan2. Should British soldiers be walking kids to school in Afghanistan?3. The riddle of negotiations in Afghanistan4. Book Review: The Transformation of Europe’s Armed Forces: From the Rhine to Afghanistan

Why Fox stands ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the USA in Afghanistan

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online