John Hutton, www.johnhuttonmp.co.uk/ epolitix.com apinfo.co.uk who, in June 2009, resigned as Minister of Defence, was interviewed as a Defence spokeman on Channel Four News www.channel4.com/news/last night (October 14th). He uttered the standard government pronouncement on the need to send more British troops to Afghanistan, ‘to finish the job there.’ In answer to one of Jon Snow’s interjections, www.channel4.com/news/authors.jsp, Hutton asseverated this was ‘not a political matter” because it was “a matter of UK national security.”
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
Showing posts with label soldiers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soldiers. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
War wrong? War stupid.
I guess the majority of British people now think it was wrong for Mr Blair to follow Mr Bush and order the invasion of Iraq. Wrong. Wrong. An illegal war. Invading Iraq meant disregarding the principles of the United Nations. Blair’s decision now seems not only wrong morally, but also very stupid.
The real motive for invading Iraq must have been to get hold of as much Iraqi oil as possible. Has this been successful? We are kept in the dark.
What is the morality of sending British soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Well, we could argue that for a long time. But, in a way, we don’t need to argue the morality, because we can simply say that the Afghan war is a very stupid mistake.
Read history. No foreign power has ever conquered Afghanistan. However we judge the morality of invading Afghanistan, there is only one sensible course of action left now: admit defeat, withdraw as soon as possible, and save the lives of British soldiers.
The real motive for invading Iraq must have been to get hold of as much Iraqi oil as possible. Has this been successful? We are kept in the dark.
What is the morality of sending British soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Well, we could argue that for a long time. But, in a way, we don’t need to argue the morality, because we can simply say that the Afghan war is a very stupid mistake.
Read history. No foreign power has ever conquered Afghanistan. However we judge the morality of invading Afghanistan, there is only one sensible course of action left now: admit defeat, withdraw as soon as possible, and save the lives of British soldiers.
The Afghanistan Mistake
In ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ the Afghanistan war always comes up. How does Tony Benn react to the war there? He is highly intelligent and well-read; he knows history. His principle argument is incontrovertible.
NO ONE HAS EVER CONQUERED AFGHANISTAN.
The British tried three times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: there were three Anglo-Afghan wars: in 1839 – 1842; in 1878 – 1881; and in 1919. The Soviet Union tried: their Afghan war lasted from 1979 – 1989, and ended in defeat and undignified withdrawl. In 2001 NATO forces invaded Afghanistan, and are fighting there still. NO FOREIGN POWER HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUBDUING THE AFGHANS FOR LONG. Has there ever been any point in invading this wild mountainous country?
What arguments are there for continuing the Afghan war? Government spokesmen say Afghanistan is a training-ground for terrorists. But north-west Pakistan is an equally important training-ground. British ministers are obviously embarrassed by this fact, since Pakistan is officially an ally of the West. The Afghanistan war is justified as an attempt to control the production of opium, since most of the heroin sold on the streets of Europe and America is derived from Afghan opium. But nothing will stop the production of opium, as long as Afghan farmers earn vastly more for opium than for any other crop. So what use is the war?
I have the greatest respect for the soldiers fighting there. Of course it is dangerous, and uncomfortable. Nothing alters my respect for their bravery, fitness, and determination. But however brave they are, it does not alter the fact that they are fighting an unwinnable war in a country which is best left alone.
Every day ordinary lads in uniform perform acts of great bravery. The British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are highly trained professionals. Their wives and girl-friends, their parents and grandparents, accept their wounds and their deaths. But suppose the British Government had ordered conscription. When the United States fought and lost the war in Vietnam, their army of conscripts had no reason to behave with the restraint and discipline of professional soldiers. The Vietnam war damaged America hugely. Just imagine British conscripts fighting in Afghanistan, as the National Service boys fought in all those miserable so-called little wars of the 1940’s and 50’s. 21st century British conscripts in Afghanistan? They’d mutiny. But just because they are professionals it is still wrong to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in an unwinnable war. It is still wrong even though they remain silent and do not complain as conscripts surely would.
Admit defeat, and bring the troops home. How could any sane person not agree with Tony Benn?
NO ONE HAS EVER CONQUERED AFGHANISTAN.
The British tried three times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: there were three Anglo-Afghan wars: in 1839 – 1842; in 1878 – 1881; and in 1919. The Soviet Union tried: their Afghan war lasted from 1979 – 1989, and ended in defeat and undignified withdrawl. In 2001 NATO forces invaded Afghanistan, and are fighting there still. NO FOREIGN POWER HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUBDUING THE AFGHANS FOR LONG. Has there ever been any point in invading this wild mountainous country?
What arguments are there for continuing the Afghan war? Government spokesmen say Afghanistan is a training-ground for terrorists. But north-west Pakistan is an equally important training-ground. British ministers are obviously embarrassed by this fact, since Pakistan is officially an ally of the West. The Afghanistan war is justified as an attempt to control the production of opium, since most of the heroin sold on the streets of Europe and America is derived from Afghan opium. But nothing will stop the production of opium, as long as Afghan farmers earn vastly more for opium than for any other crop. So what use is the war?
I have the greatest respect for the soldiers fighting there. Of course it is dangerous, and uncomfortable. Nothing alters my respect for their bravery, fitness, and determination. But however brave they are, it does not alter the fact that they are fighting an unwinnable war in a country which is best left alone.
Every day ordinary lads in uniform perform acts of great bravery. The British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are highly trained professionals. Their wives and girl-friends, their parents and grandparents, accept their wounds and their deaths. But suppose the British Government had ordered conscription. When the United States fought and lost the war in Vietnam, their army of conscripts had no reason to behave with the restraint and discipline of professional soldiers. The Vietnam war damaged America hugely. Just imagine British conscripts fighting in Afghanistan, as the National Service boys fought in all those miserable so-called little wars of the 1940’s and 50’s. 21st century British conscripts in Afghanistan? They’d mutiny. But just because they are professionals it is still wrong to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in an unwinnable war. It is still wrong even though they remain silent and do not complain as conscripts surely would.
Admit defeat, and bring the troops home. How could any sane person not agree with Tony Benn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
