More on Afghanistan, as James Kirkup in the Spectator wonders: where's Britain's anger?

Afghanistan, where two decades of Western intervention is ending in bloody failure. Afghanistan, where hundreds of our compatriots died trying to make the world safer and fairer. Afghanistan, where Britain’s claims to be a serious power are dying alongside people we promised to support….

My point here is simply that Britain seems to be largely indifferent to all this. In the late 2000s, the life and death of British personnel in Afghanistan was serious news. It made front pages, tormented Prime Minister Gordon Brown and angered the public. Not too long ago, we got angry about the sort of land rovers allocated to the Afghan mission. Now we couldn’t give a toss that that mission has dwindled into bloodshed, strategic failure and humiliation.

And yes, I know that most of the decision-making here was done in Washington. That raises some more questions about anger. Where’s the British rage at Joe Biden over this? If Donald Trump had overseen this horror show, our keyboard warriors would be frothing.

More importantly, where’s the debate about what America’s Afghan failure says about British influence and clout. Once, a British prime minister would have faced real questions about his or her involvement in a major US foreign policy decision that so directly concerned British interests and operations.

Now, Boris Johnson has no apparent standing with the US administration — UK government sources are effectively arguing that Biden simply imposed the withdrawal decision on his allies — but no one seems to mind or even notice.

Twenty years ago, Tony Blair began an era of intervention alongside the US not just for moral reasons but to maintain British ties to the US. It’s often forgotten now but part of Blair’s case for war in Iraq alongside the US was to avert a situation where an isolated and isolationist US made foreign policy unilaterally.

Blair thought Britain, if not Europe, should always try to have a seat at the table in Washington. Biden’s choice in Afghanistan suggests that ambition is now stone dead. Was it ever the right goal for Britain? I won’t offer a view here. I’ll just say that it’s remarkable that these things are scarcely discussed at Westminster. A Suez moment is passing almost unremarked.

Yes, I know there’s a lot else going on. It’s August and a Covid-tired country just wants a nice quiet summer. But we have enough politicians and journalists who are otherwise ready, willing and able to start angry public debates about all sorts of marginal and third-tier issues even in busy times.

So back to my question: where’s the rage about Afghanistan? Or have we just become a country that only gets angry about the things that don’t really matter?

Posted in

3 responses to “Ending in bloody failure”

  1. Nick Tiratsoo Avatar
    Nick Tiratsoo

    Hold on, none of that is wrong, but isn’t there a bigger issue?
    Have not wide sections of the commentariat plus many on the Left been telling the rest of us for many years that we shouldn’t be involved in other countries, and specifically in Afghanistan; that intervention was part of an imperial mindset; etc. etc.?
    And now that 12 year old girls are being taken for sex slaves, isn’t it they who have some explaining to do?

    Like

  2. Mick H Avatar
    Mick H

    Many on the left have always denied that the allied intervention had anything to do with helping women: that was just a cynical cover for naked imperialism. Not sure what they’ll say now. Probably not very much.

    Like

  3. Hugh Mann Avatar
    Hugh Mann

    The Americans (or at least the Dem half)
    destroy priceless historical statues and artefacts
    force both women and men to wear face coverings
    approve of mutilating children’s genitalia (as to be fair does a senior childless Scottish politico.
    The Afghans probably think “they hate us for our freedom”.

    Like

Leave a comment