Twenty years ago, in the aftermath of 911, I wrote in Magill magazine that the USA was about to blunder into an “Islamic Vietnam.”
You can read it here.
Now, after an ocean of blood and a mountain of treasure, the most powerful military in human history is leaving without having secured any of its war aims.
It is also a tale of British military defeat.
The Brits tagged along in Afghanistan, and, as in Basra, they had to be rescued by the Americans.
In wanting to be with a superpower, it merely highlighted how Britain is no longer in that league.
The Queen’s boys often found themselves in FOBs (Forward Operating Bases), sometimes with shortages of basic supplies.
Don’t take my word for it.
Here is one of their own laying it all out from beyond the grave.
“As it stands I have a lack of radios, water, food and medical equipment,” wrote Lt. Mark Evison in his diary.
The British officer was killed in a friendly fire incident. His written account of his time on Operation Herrick emerged after his death and it was a powerful indictment of his political masters.
In the lexicon of war, there was a new term to be feared by the Brits:
Snatch Land Rover.
When they realised that they were up against an enemy that was an expert in making IEDs, the US military responded rapidly with the MRAP family of vehicles.
There was no similar response from the UK side.
Consequently, the Brits continued to take casualties caused by expertly placed explosive devices that ripped through the poorly protected vehicles.
The international security and assistance force (ISAF) was not immune from the grim humour of frontline troops.
For the US forces, they said that ISAF really stood for “I Saw Americans Fight”.
Like in Iraq, the Yanks had a rather low opinion of their British allies.
General Jack Keane was probably echoing the private opinion of many within the Pentagon.
It is worth noting that when the British Army first fought the locals in the valleys of the Hindu Kush, it was the preeminent power in the world.
Now they have to beg Brussels to let sausages into Larne.
We are now in the second century of Britain’s decline.
Lest we forget…
Now, with all of the ISAF forces gone, it does not look good for the people of Afghanistan.
Especially those who are deemed to have been associated with the foreign military set-up.
Getting out is probably the smart move.
Like all military misadventures, it started with a complete lack of knowledge on the ground.
John Reid (yes, the ex-Celtic chairman) played his part in this madness:
“In April 2006 the then Defence Secretary, John Reid, now Lord Reid, was quoted by Reuters as saying that British troops were in Afghanistan to help the people reconstruct their country, and would be perfectly happy to leave in three years’ time without firing a single shot.”
That’s from a John Simpson piece on the 10th anniversary of British involvement in 2011.
You can read it here.
The official death toll of British involvement in this shitshow is 454.
Did they die in vain?
Yes.
Totally.
What now follows in the aftermath of this ignominious evacuation will not be pretty.
The victory of the Taliban (itself an imprecise and problematic term) after the Soviet occupation forces left robbed women in that country of the benefits of modernity.
The re-imposition of the Taliban’s version of Gilead is highly likely.
However, the idea that foreign troops could invade (it was an invasion) and somehow terraform a Scandinavian democracy in the Hindu Kush was a new iteration of imperialist folly.
Discover more from Phil Mac Giolla Bháin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny how Phil lauds Biden who was fully on board with the illegal war in Iraq whilst criticising Trump, the anti-war President
As US Marine Corp General Smedley D Butler, aka ‘Old Gimlet Eye’ said: ‘War is a racket.’ Which is why it’s probably wrong to see any ‘war’ since the breakup of the USSR in terms of winners and losers. The US claimed to be in Afghanistan in search of Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban were prepared to hand Osama over if the US could show evidence that he was the mastermind behind 9/11, but of course they couldn’t, because he wasn’t. Osama is on record as saying that while he welcomed that tragic event, he had nothing to do with it. And when you think about it, if he had, he would have crowed about it. No, the US went into Afghanistan in order to boost the profits of the military-industrial complex, that entity that quite simply needs a war, any war, and preferably one that’s unwinnable as they tend to last longer, and keep the profits flowing longer. For an exposition of how much of a racket war is I recommend , Naomi Klein’s ” The Shock Doctrine”, especially the section on Iraq, and the money made from that conflict by Halliburton , Lockheed Martin , Boeing etc.
In fact, Klein exposes just how much of a racket war is in her analysis of how war is becoming increasingly ‘privatised’, with companies such as Blackwater deploying mercenaries to replace regular troops. In the end up, regular British soldiers were outnumbered three to one by British mercenaries in Iraq. And how about this for racketeering, many of the companies who provide the bombs, tanks, and airplanes, or what we might term the ‘destructive’ components of war, are actually branching out into the ‘constructive’ field. So, as well as bombing a country, they then come in and help in reconstructing that same country. You could not make it up. The worry is that war is such a profitable racket, that the military industrial complex simply must have one-even if it’s with Russia or China, or both at the same time. Check out the US bases and missile sites surrounding Russia, or the ever increasing Naval presence in the South China Sea—-good God we’re even in that act, having deployed a carrier fleet to the region. One has to hope that ‘Big Lizzie’ doesn’t spring another leak
On You Tube, there his a fascinating interview with ex US General Wesley Clark (and former NATO Supreme Commander) who, on visiting the pentagon just after 9/!! was told by a bemused former colleague that the US was going to war with Iraq. When asked for the reason, the former colleague said nobody knew. The decision had been taken and that was that. On returning to the Pentagon some weeks later, the bemused former colleague again cornered Clark and blurted out that the decision had been taken to go to war with seven countries in five years. Again, no reason could be given—-except that maybe they were embarking on humanitarian bombing sprees, as per Yugoslavia.
The only reason to be mildly optimistic is that if military men like Butler, Clark, and his bemused former colleague ‘worry’ about going to war, the day may come when they hand their political bosses a rifle and tell them if they want a war, they can get on with it.
Being based in Kabul, I still wouldn’t feel able to make an informed comment on what will happen post-September here.
All I can say is that the average Afghans in Kabul are simply uncertain about the future – but have a generally grim outlook.
Those living in the Provinces have it extremely tough already.
As for the UK having delusions of power and influence: the Suez Crisis was a critical point when the USA put the UK firmly in its place. Now, post-Brexit what does an isolated UK have to offer?
The next reality check?
How about the USA agitating to have the UK removed as a permanent member of The UN Security Council – and replaced with another nuclear power which will soon be the most populous on the planet: India?
It could be in the best national interest of the USA.
Nothing personal and the UK’s perceived “special relationship” with the USA could, erm, continue.
…and how can anyone take the UK seriously when we elect someone like BoJo as our ‘esteemed’ leader?! 🙁
Skedaddle is what Us forces do and are quite good at.and winning conflicts snce Korea is a rare thing indeed \despite awesome power of their weaponry..
We joined with them in the Afgah folly largely to avoid involvement the even larger Iraqui folly.
We had no discernible quarrel with Afghanistan and werent on the radar of Islamic terrorists until we went there.Now we are.
We never had an explanation from our govt by either of our major parties except ” to make a difference in the lives of the Afghans”
Theres many a bad reason to be at war- to help your alleged enemy is the daftest one surely.
We lost 200 plus Canadians killed and we know not how many wounded (the wounded numbers were never revealed so lots likely) as well as spending multiple billions we cd ill afford seeing as we had at th time massive deficits and govts were retrenching to become what they termed running a balanced budget.
Balancing the budget here means we can pay the interest on our deficit loans not pay them down
Several austerity budgets were passed prior to going there and all the sacrifice that was made was swallowed up in that war and then some.
Anyone who partners with US forces in any military adventure is doomed to have the same experience.
At the end of the day we are minus the killed,minus the money and have the good lord knows how many wounded vets to care for and thats not counting the many others not physically wouned but traumatized by their experience .nor the anciillary burdens of the families these people returned to.
Think maybe you,re forgetting that the Taliban were hosting Bin Laden he of twin towers atrocity amongst others. Best policy would have been to turn the place into a giant sheet of glass !
Don’t understand the sheet of glass thingy
Extreeme heat ie nuclear turns sand into glass ?
Extreme heat turns sand into glass ? Ie nuek the godforsaken place
Oh dear
You sound like one of those “Bomb ra lotta rum” fellows.
@Phil You did well keeping it down to an oh dear level response.
There are indeed those who wd resort to nukes as a problem solver though not I think in the high command.
Among many things a nuke is very expensive so dropping one on a village is a huge waste,
I grew up watching the Vietnam war on tv and what struck me is how difficult to come out ahead in what is now termed asymmetrical warfare,
I particularly remember one case wherein the N Vietnamese were running supplies down the trail and havng to cross a river . Their bridge was just supports and planks and likely one of many
Bombers wd blowit it up and by night the VC had put more planks down and continued, at most the flow was interrupted for half a day and they were of course sending things south 24-7.
Point being airpower is an adjunct not a war r winner on its own you need boots on the ground to win as well.
There is no way to win any war without hart fighting on the ground,
There is also another point if one considers bombing assaults on civilians whether by the Germans or our side whatever materilal damage was inflicted the net result in all cases was to stiffen civilian resolve to resist ie morale was boosted not weakened.
True also in Nam and the Mid East.
I don’t think there’s a lot of sand in Afghanistan: mountains mainly. Would that still work?
Forgetting nothing -it was a US quarrel not ours. Aside from the points mentioned already nobody ever has addressed what exactly wd be a win.
If you are invaded getting rid of yr attacker is a win.If you want to destroy Daesh then the fight isnt in Afghanistan,
If you wish to crush the taliban insurgency youve bitten off a difficult if not impossible task requiring resources not available.
Add to that the point that fighting multiple foes widely separate in the globe stretches your transport resources to the breaking point.
Local bases huge advantage thats most of the point of staying in Korea and the middle east-consider how long it took for US to gather enough forces to prosecute Desert storm .Consider further the small number of forces assembled by that effort -airlift was that strained.
This is by no means a US only issue in the 80s the English had huge difficulty transporting forces by sea to end the Falklands war.
It matters little if you have 20 million trained soldiers superior in any way to their opponents if you cant get them to the combat zone.
Think your forgetting that the taliban said to the US ” show us the proof it was bin laden and we will happily hand him over” the Americans never did.
The day before 9/11 bin laden was in a US hospital in Saudi Arabia getting dialysis.
Bin Laden always said he never had anything to do with 9/11 and on the FBI’s 10 most wanted listed , he was number 1. It didn’t list 9/11 as one of his crimes he was wanted for.
Oh and of the 22 bombers listed for 9/11 more than half are still alive and been proven to have nothing to do with it.
Get yourself informed, read about the first attack on 9/11 where the FBI made and provided the bomb. They tried to blame there informant and charge him for the bombing. The informant didn’t trust the FBI so always wore a wire when meeting them. This proved he was innocent and the FBI were behind it
Always thought that the prominence of the poppy started around the early 2000s to divert public scrutiny from the UK’s shit foreign policy.
Phil as in every war the rich stay rich and the poor die