Friday, September 4, 2009

Daniel Korski produces a weak argument for staying in Afghanistan


Dear All

Daniel Korski over at Coffee House makes the case that Britain needs to stay in Afghanistan.

I think he is completely wrong.

His points and my analysis;

“To deny Al Qaeda a safe-haven from which to train and organise attacks on the West. Though terrorism can be organized in Oldham, Hamburg and Marseilles, Al Qaeda still believes it needs safe-havens in places like Afghanistan”.

Al Qaeda Terrorists don’t care where they train; they have no interest in holding territory, they are a terror network.

The fight in Afghanistan by Afghans is a jihad to expel US/UK invaders, if we go they will not becoming after us.

“To prevent a new generation of terrorists and insurgencies of getting the mother of all propaganda coups by having routed NATO. Victories in places like Helmand and Swat, even if not technically by Al Qaeda, resonate through jihadist websites and mindsets the world over, and could inspire a myriad of groups to further atrocity”.

The face saving argument, is he really suggesting that soldiers have to die to save a politician’s face in front of a camera? Is that a good enough reason for staying; I think not.

“To preserve NATO and maintain US security interests in Europe”.

That is bullshit.

“Having been belatedly dragged into the conflict in 2003, NATO’s credibility is on the line, as are US commitments to European security”.

The US has no commitments to European security except they want a missile defence system pointing at Russia, nothing to do with Terrorism.

“If Europe cannot help where the US needs it, why should the US care about European security concerns?”

That argument is incredibly weak, where was the US during the Falklands War? Did our “ally” fight by our side?

No!

“Sure, you can add auxiliary reasons such as wanting to improve the lot of ordinary Afghans, who are among the planet’s poorest. It is clearly in Britain’s interests – and a reflection of Britain’s values and compassion, to use a concept much in vogue these days – to help establish a democratic, gradually liberalising state in Afghanistan”.

Note how Daniel Korski simply blows away the lie that we are primary there to help the Afghans, this is used to justify our presence to the British public. He furthers goes on to state;
“But these additional reasons should not be confused as the main reason why British soldiers are fighting. They are fighting to keep us in Britain safe against a new breed of terrorists, who are at their deadliest when they are flush with victories, real or spun, against the West; and have operational links between placemen in the West and operatives in safe-haves elsewhere”.

This is completely rubbish, the “new” breed as he puts it are Afghans who join what they consider a holy war to expel the invaders.

Daniel Korski simply can’t get it through his head that Afghanistan will not become an ally of the west; his vision of a pre-Westphalian state that acts against existential threats like Al Qaeda is delusional.

For Afghanistan to move forward; the entire country has to be rebuilt, that means everything via a governorship imposed by the west which eventually can turn over power to educated Afghans, schooled in civil government and who are not corrupt.

Democracy isn’t working in Afghanistan because the concept is alien to the culture.

Daniel Korski works as a senior policy fellow for the European Council on Foreign Relations. He is also a Special Adviser to the U.S Project on National Security Reform.

I look at him and see vested interest and not to the benefit of the British people.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

No comments: