Why are British troops fighting in Afghanistan?

On Saturday the death toll of British soldiers serving in Afghanistan reached another dreaded milestone. Private Richard Hunt, 21, of 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh sadly succumbed to the injuries he sustained on 13 August when an explosion hit the vehicle patrol he had been part of in Musa Qaleh in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. Despite the best efforts of staff at the Royal Centre of Defence Medicine in Selly Oak, Private Hunt became the 200th British soldier to die as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan. Since his death the British media has seemingly doubled its efforts to cover the events taking place in the Middle East.

Now that the coverage has begun to approach a level that soldiers, and indeed the general public, can be happy with, the general public are bound to form an, or adapt their, opinion on it.

A day prior to Private Hunt’s death, Sky News conducted a survey, in association with YouGov, which showed that of 2,000 adults asked about the war in Afghanistan, 35% (the majority) indicated that it is not very clear why British troops are fighting out there, while an added 20% believed that it is not clear at all. An interesting contradiction was highlighted when the same poll gave results that show 57% of those questioned are opposed to British troops fighting in Afghanistan, more than twice the number of those who believe a British presence there is justified. The results of this poll conducted last week only go to show that a scarily high percentage of British citizens do not know why there is a British presence in Afghanistan but still oppose it. Where is the sense in that?

There must be a clearly identifiable reason. If the debacle of the Iraq war taught the Labour party anything, it was that the British people will not be duped into supporting an unjustifiable war ever again. Fool us once; shame on you, fool us twice; shame on us. Hence Shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox’s recent letter to Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth which “demands clarification on [the] British mission in Afghanistan”. This letter, as noble a gesture as it may seem, stinks of another Conservative effort to further embarrass Labour, were it to be revealed that we have another WMD scenario on our hands, thereby making the Tories look better by default, and may not actually provide the people of Britain with the information they so desperately need and deserve.

So, why are British troops fighting in Afghanistan?

There are a handful of recent historical events that proffer such questions as ‘Where were you when...?’ and the like. If that ellipsis were to be replaced by just three numbers and one small slice of punctuation though, almost all of us would be able to blurt out an answer which seemingly shows that while planes were crashing and thousands of people were dying, we were going about our daily business in blissful ignorance.

The section of the Ministry Defence website entitled ‘Operations in Afghanistan: Background Briefing 1’ begins with the following: ‘Following the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York on 11 September 2001…’ And that is why Britain became involved in Afghanistan. Our nation stood shoulder to shoulder with the US as it looked to react to the awful events that took place on 9/11.

Much of us are easily convinced that retaliating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is more than enough reason to justify British troops being in Afghanistan. However, factions of the general public will be quick to point out that we don’t need to get involved in ‘someone else’s fight’ (that quote is so common in conversations about British military endeavours in recent history that it is approaching being categorised as cliché). These people would be well reminded of another date infamous enough to be granted with a numerical moniker supposed to encapsulate all connotations of pain, destruction and death caused by evil – 7 July 2005, the day of the London terrorist attacks. Also, in talk held with the intelligence of conversation usually reserved for drunken pub chat, the US is often accused of only getting involved in the Second World War when the country felt the effects of it on a personal level, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. A fine display of hypocrisy it is then to say that the British reaction to 9/11 was not justified.

That reaction was the beginning of Operation Veritas, a campaign against international terrorism, initialised with the identification of denying Al Qaida a base in Afghanistan, denying them an alternative base elsewhere, attacking Al Qaida internationally, and supporting other states in their efforts against Al Qaida as the four main goals of the operation.

In November 2001, the Royal Marines from 40 Commando became the first British troops sent into Afghanistan and were quickly followed by a large battle group based around Royal Marines from 45 Commando. Their role as Task Force Jacana was to ‘deny and destroy terrorist infrastructure and interdict the movement of Al Qaida in eastern Afghanistan’, more broadly, they were part of a US-led coalition force designed to dislodge the Taliban which was sheltering Al Qaida. This aim was quickly fulfilled. By the end of the year the Taliban had collapsed. Those who remained were forced into retreating to the Pushtan province of southern Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal areas. However, international forces remained in Afghanistan to prevent the country from falling back into the hands of those seeking to use it as a hotbed for the grooming of potential terrorists, thereby providing much needed stability. While present in Afghanistan, British forces were given the tasks of seeking out hidden factions of the Taliban and Al Qaida and training Afghan security forces to defend their own country against such threats.

So, the original reason for the British troops being in Afghanistan was to help get rid of Al Qaida and the Taliban, but having done that, simply deciding to cut and run was not, and is still not, an option, as this would leave Afghanistan open for resurgent enemy forces to reclaim. Therefore, the aim now is to protect Afghanistan and allow the nation to become self-sustaining, stable and, most importantly to NATO, democratic.

As Afghanistan gears up to the elections this week, only the second time they have voted for a leader in their history, British forces will play a huge part in making sure they go smoothly. The establishment of a democracy in Afghanistan is the most crucial goal for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that the United Kingdom currently contributes approximately 9,000 troops towards. However, a democracy is not a desirable situation for all, especially the Taliban, who initially enjoyed popularity when coming to prominence in the country in 1994 but have, of course, since been driven out and reduced to insurgency.

When British forces moved into the Taliban stronghold of Helmand in 2006 they were met with brutal resistance, in the form of head-on attacks, straight away. Three years on, soldiers no longer have to face such bold tactics, but instead face the constant threat of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). IEDs are morally degrading for the ISAF troops because they are hard to find and extremely lethal, but still cheap and easy for the enemy to produce, giving the Taliban the option of laying ten IEDs in the hope that just one will devastate a British patrol. Soldiers also face the added problem of identifying the Taliban insurgents amongst the civilians they come across.

With these facts in mind, the question on everyone’s lips should not be about why British troops are fighting in Afghanistan, but instead how much longer they must do so. On this subject the Chief of General Staff (head of the Army) General Sir David Richards has said that “the whole process might take as long as 30 to 40 years” when speaking earlier this month. Although he went on to say that the number of troops British forces contribute during that time will not always be as high as the current amount, any kind of British presence in a land unknown to almost all British citizens for up to 40 years is a scary prospect, especially when considering the tragic fact that a further four soldiers have already lost their lives since Saturday.

The hope is that over the course of time the war on terror will be won. By giving Afghanistan back to its people, this prospect is a much more realistic one. The years ahead will be arduous for our troops out there, and they will need the undivided support of their people. The difficulty fighting a war without the support of the people has been demonstrated in conflicts throughout modern history and this task is difficult enough already.

‘We, along with the rest of the international community, are determined never to allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists again. We are working hard towards a common goal – to develop a self-sustaining, stable and democratic Afghanistan.’
The Ministry of Defence

Please check out the Help for Heroes website (http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/index.html). Perhaps you could even go as far as donating to this honourable charity (http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html) or simply buying a band from the online shop to show your support for the British troops (https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/products.php?product=Help-for-Heroes-Wrist-Band).