Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Afghanistan: Britain got almost everything wrong and should admit its failure

rabid spaniel

War hero
Rory Stewart in The Telegraph

Rory Stewart

8:46PM BST 04 Apr 2014


This weekend's elections in Afghanistan exemplify the weakness of the Western intervention. The Taliban has driven out election monitors, many polling stations are unable to operate, and there will be widespread corruption and electoral fraud.

The losing candidates will protest over the result, but there will be no point in running the elections again, because they would be no better second time round.

President Obama’s objectives for the “surge” in Afghanistan were to “defeat the Taliban” and “create a credible, effective and legitimate Afghan state”.

The elections demonstrate that we did not achieve those targets; more bluntly, we failed.

It is time that the British government, the military and Parliament draw the correct lessons from this failure, and change the way we operate. The decision to “surge” troop numbers was doomed to fail because we had the wrong people, and the wrong objectives for our Afghan strategy.

Related Articles
And we lacked the structures, oversight, and culture to put this right, over more than a decade. This was true across all parts of government.

Our mission of “state-building” while fighting was impossible. We were hypnotised by jargon about creating “governance, civil society and the rule of law” that worked in press conferences, but not on the ground. We did not recognise this, because we had not invested in understanding Afghan culture and society. (In 2008, for example, none of our diplomats in Kabul could speak Pushtu - the language of Helmand.)





We did not have the ability to eliminate the corruption and weakness in the Kabul government, or prevent the Taliban finding safe haven and support in Pakistan. We were, therefore, never going to defeat the Taliban. But we promoted people who claimed a failing strategy was working, and side-lined the critics.

We rewarded irrational optimism - investing more troops and money, year after year, in a mission, which was doomed. (And helped to hide this failure from ourselves by continually redefining the mission).

It took us 10 years to begin to acknowledge failure. and extract ourselves, rather than “digging deeper”. Much of this mind set was reminiscent of the attitudes that led to the banking crash of 2008.

We need reforms to improve the knowledge, approach, and critical thinking of senior diplomats, military officers and politicians. We need longer tours of duty, to invest more money and time in language training, and to incentivise people to develop country knowledge, and deeper relationships with local populations.

We should give country experts a much more powerful voice in policy debate. This requires more money, but it would be a good investment. Area experts, costing £100,000 a year to sustain in theatre, could have helped to prevent a surge which cost tens of billions.

Part of the answer, however, lies in Parliament. Parliamentary committees need to ask more critical questions. Here are some we could have asked but didn’t. “General, you and your predecessors have described 2004, 2005 and each year through to 2011 as 'the decisive year’ in Afghanistan. Why should we believe you this time?”

“Minister, explain to me what Rule of Law would actually look like in a village in Hazarajat?”

“General, you say your counter-insurgency strategy 'depends on the Afghan government sorting its act out’ - what are the chances of that?”

“Secretary of State, why have you promoted a man who was consistently and excessively optimistic over a two year period? How many of your staff have passed the top-level language exam?”

We owe soldiers on the ground respect, support, and trust; Parliament should never be in the job of questioning tactical decisions. But we should ask - and keep asking - ministers and generals: “What reforms have you introduced to prevent another humiliation like Afghanistan in the future?”

These elections must be a wake-up call. The ability to recognise failure, and then to reform, is a defining mark of a serious country.

Rory Stewart, Conservative MP for Penrith and the Border, ran the Turquoise Mountain Foundation, a human development charity, in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2008. He is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee

Did search didn't find this, so may be of interest
 
I am currently reading 'Dead Men Risen' by Toby Harden about 1WG tour before during and after Op Panthers Claw. A supprising number of the points raised in the article are raised in this book.
 
I love this bloke. He's my local MP and he rocks. I've been to a few of his lectures and I can honestly he say he is the most interesting person I've ever listened to.

He's also the one bloke in Parliament who actually has real knowledge of Afghanistan, having walked across it. He also speaks the lingo and is an ex Army officer.

If it wasn't for the fact that he's quite vocal about the government's failures, he'd be in the cabinet.
 
I wish I had an MP like that, Mines a dodering old sod, sat in a safe tory seat until he dies despite being caught out in the original expenses hooha!
 
I wish I had an MP like that, Mines a dodering old sod, sat in a safe tory seat until he dies despite being caught out in the original expenses hooha!

Read his books. He was the governor of a province in Iraq for a bit and gained an insightful knowledge about our involvement there as well.

'Occupational Hazards' is his memoir of his time there.
 
I have 'losing small wars' waiting for me in the local library ('cos I'm too tight to buy it) when I get back to UK. Speaking as enlisted scum, it's nice to see the stuff we were discussing and thinking about whilst there put down on paper by people more intelligent than myself!
 
I love this bloke. He's my local MP and he rocks. I've been to a few of his lectures and I can honestly he say he is the most interesting person I've ever listened to.

He's also the one bloke in Parliament who actually has real knowledge of Afghanistan, having walked across it. He also speaks the lingo and is an ex Army officer.

If it wasn't for the fact that he's quite vocal about the government's failures, he'd be in the cabinet.

You have got to be kidding,it is easy for people like this to be wise after the event,this bloke is the epitome of the classic "English officer" [i know he's a jock] ie we'll do it this way until it fails THEN we'll do it this way THEN we'll do it this way until eventually it is clearly a massive **** up at which point blokes like him turn round and blame someone else [uncle sam],they are public school educated people who still believe they know better than ANYONE else.

That doco about Lawrence of Arabia he did was interesting because Stewart seemed to suggest he based his skills on him [Lawrence] wnen he was a diplomat in Afghan, in other words they are still stuck in the past of master and ruler.

Muslim countrys call for carrot and stick,and imo if you invade one of these hell holes you need more stick,the brits are good with the carrot and the yanks are good with the stick,...the trouble is the Afghans just laugh at Ruperts like him because they know they are as weak as they look..

And the likely hood is he got round Afghanistan because he was good at kissing arse....which always helps if you wish to keep your head attached.
 
You have got to be kidding,it is easy for people like this to be wise after the event,this bloke is the epitome of the classic "English officer" [i know he's a jock] ie we'll do it this way until it fails THEN we'll do it this way THEN we'll do it this way until eventually it is clearly a massive **** up at which point blokes like him turn round and blame someone else [uncle sam],they are public school educated people who still believe they know better than ANYONE else.

That doco about Lawrence of Arabia he did was interesting because Stewart seemed to suggest he based his skills on him [Lawrence] wnen he was a diplomat in Afghan, in other words they are still stuck in the past of master and ruler.

Muslim countrys call for carrot and stick,and imo if you invade one of these hell holes you need more stick,the brits are good with the carrot and the yanks are good with the stick,...the trouble is the Afghans just laugh at Ruperts like him because they know they are as weak as they look..

And the likely hood is he got round Afghanistan because he was good at kissing arse....which always helps if you wish to keep your head attached.

He's been critical and very vocal of our involvement in Afghanistan from the outset. This isn't a new thing from him.

Read his book Occupational Hazards and you'll realise that he actually knows a shitload more than you about 'carrots and sticks.'

As for kissing arse, behave yourself. He walked by himself across Afghanistan, he was imprisoned by the Taliban and shot at twice. When it comes to our involvement in that country, he is undoubtedly the one person in parliament who we should listen to.
 
Last edited:
You have got to be kidding,it is easy for people like this to be wise after the event,this bloke is the epitome of the classic "English officer" [i know he's a jock] ie we'll do it this way until it fails THEN we'll do it this way THEN we'll do it this way until eventually it is clearly a massive **** up at which point blokes like him turn round and blame someone else [uncle sam],they are public school educated people who still believe they know better than ANYONE else.

That doco about Lawrence of Arabia he did was interesting because Stewart seemed to suggest he based his skills on him [Lawrence] wnen he was a diplomat in Afghan, in other words they are still stuck in the past of master and ruler.

Muslim countrys call for carrot and stick,and imo if you invade one of these hell holes you need more stick,the brits are good with the carrot and the yanks are good with the stick,...the trouble is the Afghans just laugh at Ruperts like him because they know they are as weak as they look..

And the likely hood is he got round Afghanistan because he was good at kissing arse....which always helps if you wish to keep your head attached.

well thats bollocks
 
At one of his lectures I attended, he discussed one of his shooting incidents which gave quite a detailed insight into the mindset of your average Afghan.

Basically he was strolling along up to this village when he saw two lads with AKs about 100 yards ahead of him. His usual drill was to just rock up somewhere each night and the Afghans would put him up somewhere and usually feed him.

Anyway he hears some cracks and sees the ground being beaten up around him. There is literally no cover so he just curls up into a little ball waiting to get shot.

Nothing happens.

Eventually he gets up and continues towards the village. The two lads ignore him and he shuffles past shitting himself, trying to appear to be as friendly and unthreatening as possible.

He meets a village elder, they put him up in someone's house and feed him. He later sees the two lads again and asks why they shot at him.

"For fun. My mate said that I wouldn't be able to hit you."
 
The great wheel of history turns once more: I think what he is suggesting is pretty much what we had in days of Empire (read Soldier Sahibs by Charles Allen) - the 'Political'. And not such a stupid idea either. It would have made writing 'Losing small wars' much more difficult!
 
At one of his lectures I attended, he discussed one of his shooting incidents which gave quite a detailed insight into the mindset of your average Afghan.

Basically he was strolling along up to this village when he saw two lads with AKs about 100 yards ahead of him. His usual drill was to just rock up somewhere each night and the Afghans would put him up somewhere and usually feed him.

Anyway he hears some cracks and sees the ground being beaten up around him. There is literally no cover so he just curls up into a little ball waiting to get shot.

Nothing happens.

Eventually he gets up and continues towards the village. The two lads ignore him and he shuffles past shitting himself, trying to appear to be as friendly and unthreatening as possible.

He meets a village elder, they put him up in someone's house and feed him. He later sees the two lads again and asks why they shot at him.

"For fun. My mate said that I wouldn't be able to hit you."


I'm not doubting his brass nuts as is often the case their balls are often bigger than their brains,[i'm also not suggesting he was some Borat type either].......me suggesting he was good at "arse licking" was the wrong choice of words but it sounded better than educated naivete.

Anyway my point is the Officer class are Norman,it is in the genes...the book i'm currently reading is in part suprisingly relevent to Afghanistan.
 

New posts

Top