Afghanistan Debate. Why aren't Tom Tughendhat and Tobias Elwood in more senior Government posts

[Elwood Blues]

The full wording of the Stop The War Coalition statement on Afghanistan that Richard Burgon has supported and publicised, just to put the headlines about 'reparations' into their right context:

https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/s...n-afghanistan/

There have been 240,000 people killed in Afghanistan since 2001 as a direct result of the war - including 457 UK service personnel. There has never been a stable government or stable civil society. There has been a space for people (especially women and various minorities) to find work and get an education. But it is precarious and that space could only be maintained by a continuing western military presence with all the human and financial cost that goes with that (including regular drone strikes on wedding parties!) It was never going to continue indefinitely (Trump and Biden agreed on that). It was never going to be another Germany or South Korea.

The only way forward now is full support for refugees and those most at risk from the Taliban, combined with multilateral diplomatic and financial engagement with the new government. The economy is broken. Helping to rebuild the country is probably the best way to protect the people and avoid the worst effects of radicalisation. It already appears that different parts of the Taliban are looking for international backing in their internal power struggle - creating an opening for a less dangerous future. That is what the STW Coalition is arguing and it sounds right to me.

We still have a fruit loop in charge, though.

The stop the war statement says "The British government should take a lead in offering a refugee programme and reparations to rebuild Afghanistan"..

Nothing wrong with the first part, yes we should take a lead in the refugee program. However the reparations part concerns me.

I do suspect that at some stage more prosperous countries will have to give financial help to Afghanistan. But are STW saying that we should immediately give cash to a regime that when it was previously in power was brutal and repressive? How would we know that they would use the money for the benefit of the Afghan people.

And if we call them reparations and give them to the Taliban what wrong are we righting there?

[Jimmy the Jock]

The stop the war statement says "The British government should take a lead in offering a refugee programme and reparations to rebuild Afghanistan"..

Nothing wrong with the first part, yes we should take a lead in the refugee program. However the reparations part concerns me.

I do suspect that at some stage more prosperous countries will have to give financial help to Afghanistan. But are STW saying that we should immediately give cash to a regime that when it was previously in power was brutal and repressive? How would we know that they would use the money for the benefit of the Afghan people.

And if we call them reparations and give them to the Taliban what wrong are we righting there?

Isn't this a solution that has gone on for eternity.

The good guys finally stop trying to kill the bad guys , they shake hands and try to get along.
The good guys will make loadsa money helping to rebuild the damge they have done (helped by the bad guys )
The bad guys will make loadsa money doing whatever suits them (helped by the good guys.)

Human rights ? that will always be trumped by money I am afraid. Lets do some token hand wringing , we have tried everything else.

My only question is .

Are there really any good guys ?