The Taliban greeted police officer Gulbadin with warm congratulations and garlands of flowers after he had murdered five British soldiers. He had joined the Afghan police three years ago, and was being trained by the British to take responsibility for security in Helmand. He waited for the Brits, including the Grenadier Guards’ regimental sergeant-major, to take off their bullet-proof jackets and brew up a pot of tea before he opened machine-gun fire. He escaped on a motorbike. The Taliban were quick to claim credit for the attack; others say he was driven to murderous rage by a conflict with his superiors. Whatever his motivation, he was a coward and a murderer of men whose boots he was not fit to lick.
The medals proudly worn by Christina Schmid as her husband Olaf’s body was repatriated this week were evidence of a brave army career. The army bomb disposal expert had served in Northern Ireland, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan where he had disarmed over 60 improvised explosive devices and saved untold numbers of lives. As his wife said ‘he wanted to preserve life. He was not a destroyer.’
It is understandable that British public opinion is volatile in the face of the rising death toll in Afghanistan. Opposition to the war is rising. Demands for the withdrawal of our forces are getting louder. Two-thirds of people think we cannot defeat the Taliban. One third wants the troops home now. In America, too, public opinion is febrile. Only 34% of American voters say the US and its allies are winning the war on terror, a drop of nine points since October. The murders yesterday of 11 American soldiers at Fort Worth by a US army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan will cause more hard questions and soul-searching.
Former minister Kim Howells has articulated the private thoughts of many when he questioned the strategy and called for withdrawal. He suggests that resources should be diverted to counter-terrorism and surveillance in the UK. Kim Howells is a thoughtful and intelligent politician. He is a hard man to dismiss out of hand. His ideas deserve to be debated, not because I think he is right – he is not – but because war aims and strategy should always be openly discussed and subject to scrutiny in a democracy. Allied military strategy was debated in parliament and the country throughout the two World Wars. The parliamentary debates on 7th and 8th May 1940 over the Narvick expedition led to a change of prime minister two days later. In 1915 a national scandal over the quantity and quality of shells on the western front brought down the Liberal government and brought in the coalition.
But debate and scrutiny must not be seen as division and weakening resolve. The United Nations is pulling 600 staff out of Kabul, more than half its presence in the Afghan capital. Kai Eide, the UN special representative, went as far as to suggest that the UN could pull out altogether unless the Afghan government does more to protect UN staff. The UN has a responsibility to its staff, of course. They are brave people serving in a dangerous part of the world. But any sign of weakness or retreat will embolden the Taliban and al-Qaida. The fundamental principle of terrorism is that individual acts of terror are designed to erode your enemy’s determination and undermine civilian morale. The UN has made it less, not more, safe for its people, because now the terrorists will step up their attacks. They think they can get the UN to pull out altogether. The UN should have doubled its presence, and announced that it was in it for the long haul. The UN should have started building a new headquarters with a 100-year lease. It is strength that works against terrorism, not appeasement.
Gordon Brown has made a speech today which sets out the British government’s case for engagement in Afghanistan. He argues that withdrawal from that country will return its people to the dark ages of Taliban rule. There will be a refugee crisis and Pakistan, a nuclear state, will become fatally destabilised. The return of the Taliban will make Afghanistan a base for terrorist attacks on British cities. We mourn every military death in Afghanistan. But Islamist terrorists will kill many thousands of British civilians at home if they can force British soldiers from Helmand. Brown is right to explain the link between fighting the Taliban and saving British lives. He is correct to say this is a necessity, not a choice. Brown’s resolve should be met by our support.
But there are two further speeches that need to be made, and quickly. The first is by President Karzai announcing that all extremists and warlords will be removed from government, that all accommodations and deals with the Taliban are over. The second is by President Obama, announcing a new, resolute phase in the war against terror, including renewed troop deployments in Afghanistan. Every day that Obama’s deliberations descend into dithering, dark forces gather strength. They become more fiendish in their methods, more confident of their eventual victory. Obama cannot delay any longer.