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

[jon1959]

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.

[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 ?

[RonnieBird]

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.

Yeah true enough, but can you suggest an alternative fruit loop who’d be better ?
I mean one in politics so who COULD get the job ? I should imagine that the average newsagent or bus conductor could do the job better.

Similarly, there’s no way forward on this. If there was ever any point other than giving politicians something to talk bollocks about and to embezzle money where no one can check, it’s over now .

The people there get to run their own affairs whether we like their ideas or not ( which is in fact right and proper ) and they’ll probably be left alone for a while,

File it.

[Elwood Blues]

Just watching a bit of the Lords debates which they are repeating now (I am a glutton for punishment and just seem an excellent speech from Lord Haine who I don't normally agree with. He was pointing out tha he was a junior defence minster in the Blair government and he did not attempt to castigate this government or Biden but instead said that all governments who have had any power in the last 20 years bear a responsibility for this mess (including Lib Dems who of course were in government from 2010 to 2015 and seem to have spent a lot of time since saying that all the good things of that government were down to them and all the bad things were the nasty tories!). Think he is quite right there.

Lord West the former Labour Defence Minister spoke in similar terms

[A Quiet Monkfish]

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.

What the above doesn't mention is the US had more personnel in their Consulate in Kabul than soldiers 'on the ground'. Their presence was sufficient to keep the Taliban on the margins, and the Afghan government to maintain order.