Afghan exit - or is it a very long goodbye?

/li> 12 shares 7

comments

The American appetite for interference on a global scale — something we used to believe was a Russian threat — continues to unsettle the world.

President Obama remains in the hands of the security and foreign policy establishment in Washington. The end of next year is supposed to see a complete end to the American operation in Afghanistan. But it turns out that the U.S. is negotiating to retain no fewer than nine bases in the country, containing up to 10,000 troops.

The feeble excuse is that they will not be American but Afghan bases merely used by the U.S. military and well paid for. On that argument you might contend that all the U.S. bases which peppered the globe during the Cold War were nothing to worry about.

President Obama remains in the hands of the security and foreign policy establishment in Washington

At least the British position is that we genuinely plan to pull our troops out by the end of next year.

And, to judge from the remarks of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in the Commons yesterday, the Government is ready to withdraw its objection to Afghan interpreters coming to the UK.

Refusing them sanctuary always was an act of bewildering meanness, which should have been dropped months ago.

The U.S. is negotiating to retain no fewer than nine bases in Afghanistan, containing up to 10,000 troops

Given the nature of the Afghan population with its religious  and ethnic divisions and its liability to plunge into civil and regional conflicts at any time, the U.S. troops will find themselves constantly called on to help one group or another — in short, to be dragged back into the conflict.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond the Government is ready to withdraw its objection to Afghan interpreters coming to the UK

Withdrawal after a defeat is a  very complex business. That is  the reason for the juggling of  periods of service being demanded of our troops.

How much of the equipment we sent to Afghanistan can be brought home safely is hard to know.

The Taliban will see it as a glorious opportunity to launch attacks on the departing troops, rather as happened at the end of the first Afghan war when the sole survivor of a great army struggled back across the Khyber Pass.

For the Americans, full and proper withdrawal has now been ruled out — contrary to the impression given by President Obama at election time.

Leaving only a handful of troops to supervise training of the new Afghan army was the idea then.

At the same time, the ominous appearance of drones has also made intervention easy — far too easy — for the Americans. The number of civilians who have died from attacks by drones is regularly disputed, but it is enough to  make deadly enemies among the local population.

By setting up its proposed  bases, the Americans will merely  be presenting themselves as targets for Afghan revenge.

Leaders with backbone don’t disappear in the hour of need

Why wasn’t he there? David Cameron’s insistence on sticking to his U.S. schedule will not do.

Of course, there were various items in his diary which might count as reasonably important and Downing Street was busy pushing up the supposed value of his tour.

But none of his meetings could be classified as serious business,  nothing that could not be dealt with by phone — except perhaps dragging President Obama into saying what we already know and what he has always said about preferring the UK to stay in the EU.

David Cameron and Barack Obama were due to discuss the Syrian conflict and the G8 summit but the press conference was dominated by questions about Tory turmoil over Europe

To see Cameron rush off to the  U.S. as his party faced its biggest split for a century has been a sorry business, like a commander quitting the battlefield once the fighting got too hot.

      More from Andrew Alexander...   Foreign wars and a chilling legacy of hate 28/05/13   Why the Eton crew could sink Cameron 07/05/13   Vive la change between us and the French 30/04/13   Are kissing cousins best for Britain? 23/04/13   The expense! Mrs T wouldn't have approved 16/04/13   Of course she split Britain - she HAD to 09/04/13   If this is the last euro crisis, I'm a Dutchman... 26/03/13   Don't break the bonds of Britishness 05/03/13   VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

His increasingly numerous critics in the Tory Party will say that his lack of backbone proves more than ever that he is not fit to lead.

After all, today’s proposed vote is no ordinary rebellion about a particular measure. It is a very personal matter and virtually a motion of censure on him.

It has come about because he is not trusted to have an in-out referendum as promised and because he is not trusted to negotiate acceptable terms with the EU.

Then there is the draft Bill rushed out in a panic. Any fool can produce such a document. A Bill acquires significance only when it is introduced, debated and voted on in the Commons.

It is all very well trying to blame the Lib Dems, saying they would not allow a referendum. But if that means they would go into an election promising the British public that it will not be consulted, then so be it. Lib Dems favour some funny things, but suicide is not among them.

Does Labour really mean to go into the next election promising that the British public will not be allowed a referendum? If it does, what is to stop it saying so now?

One can imagine the great, defiant speech which a determined leader could make in the Commons — once again justifying his stand but also jeering at Labour’s indecision, not on this issue alone but on everything else. However, the Prime Minister is 3,000 miles away, giving orders by phone in the hope of saving his skin.

The only victor is UKIP. It has always said you cannot trust a Tory Government to do what it says. A lot of Tory MPs seem to agree.