Afghanistan Conflict
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7358, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on nine years of conflict in Afghanistan. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 7 October 2010 marked the ninth anniversary of the start of Operation Enduring Freedom by the United States’ military in Afghanistan and that 20 December 2010 will mark the ninth anniversary of the establishment of the International Security Assistance Force by the United Nations; further notes that this is longer than the duration of World War I and of World War II, and nearly as long as both these wars combined; regrets the loss of life caused by the conflict, including 341 military personnel from the United Kingdom, 2,174 from coalition forces in total and thousands of civilian casualties; considers that there is widespread concern among residents in Central Scotland and across the country at the ongoing loss of life, both military and civilian, in Afghanistan, and believes that greater progress is required to be made on a timely exit strategy.
18:05
I thank those members who supported the motion, not just those of my party but Elaine Smith, Marlyn Glen and Bill Butler, whose signatures allowed it to qualify for debate.
It is right and appropriate that the Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and express our perspective on the conflict in Afghanistan. Afghanistan might be thousands of miles away, but the effect of the conflict is felt here in Scotland every day. It is felt by the families and communities of our soldiers who serve there, and especially by the families and communities of those service personnel who have given their lives in Afghanistan and of those aid workers who have been killed, such as Linda Norgrove, whose compassion and example in the work that she did should be an inspiration to us all.
We were told that the United States of America and United Kingdom presence in Afghanistan began as an attempt to capture Osama bin Laden. Of course, there are those who argue that there were other strategic geopolitical interests driving the decision to go to war. Indeed, I have to agree with the view that the desire to capture bin Laden was merely a convenient pretence. However, such is the limit of time for a members’ business debate that I do not intend to focus on that area.
Instead, I will look at what we know to be fact. First, we know that military operations began in Afghanistan in October 2001, meaning that this war has lasted for nine long years. As my motion notes, that is longer than either the first or second world wars—conflicts which left such an indelible mark on those who fought them that they were known as “the war” to the respective generations who saw battle in the corners of the globe that were affected by them. The conflict in Afghanistan has gone on almost as long as both world wars combined.
Secondly, we know that 345 UK combatants have been killed in Afghanistan, 55 of whom were based in Scotland. Also, 1,411 US military personnel and thousands of civilians—no one knows exactly how many—have been killed as a result of the conflict in Afghanistan.
Thirdly, the accumulated cost of operations in Afghanistan to the UK Exchequer has hit £11 billion, which is an amount of fantastical proportions. Despite that level of expenditure, we still hear reports of malfunctioning, outdated or inappropriate equipment, and soldiers feeling that they have no choice but to buy their own kit to supplement or make up for deficiencies in what has been provided to them.
Fourthly, despite it being the stated purpose of the incursion into Afghanistan to capture him, and despite the many casualties that have been endured, Osama bin Laden has evaded capture. I use the word “endured” advisedly. As the motion notes, the US operation in Afghanistan is called operation enduring freedom, but to endure ultimately means to suffer. In the name of freedom, the conflict has brought untold suffering to uncounted thousands of Afghan civilians, and immeasurable grief to the families of the military personnel who have been killed or injured as a result.
To what end have the military operations in Afghanistan been? Despite the cost and suffering, the purpose of the presence of US and UK troops is unclear. If the purpose of the conflict is to find and eliminate bin Laden, it has failed. If the purpose is to defeat the Taliban, we should heed the words of Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of UK troops on the ground at the time, who told The Times two full years ago that, in his opinion, a military victory over the Taliban was “neither feasible nor supportable”. If the purpose is to protect our country from terrorism, we must ask why it did not prevent the 7 July bombings or the Glasgow airport attack, and why the threat of international terrorism in the UK remains severe according to the UK Government’s standards. The military operation in Afghanistan has become a directionless quagmire.
Two weeks ago, a NATO conference attempted to find some coherence and, above all, an exit strategy. David Cameron has of course committed to withdrawing UK troops from combat operations in Afghanistan by 2015. We will see how many troops remain in non-combat operations after 2015, and we will see whether such a non-combat role results in fewer casualties, but the fact remains that, by 2015, combat operations in Afghanistan will have lasted for 14 years and will be the longest military engagement that Britain has been continuously involved in on foreign soil since the Taiping rebellion of the mid-19th century.
I believe that we should seek to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan sooner than 2015. In doing so, let me set out that I do not believe that we should cut and run from Afghanistan. The mess that has been created by the war means that we owe it to the people in Afghanistan to find a way to undo some of the damage that has been done. First, there is the moral obligation to do so but, secondly, if we genuinely want to build a safer and more secure Afghanistan and a safer and more secure world—which is surely in our own enlightened self-interest, if nothing else—military action must play an ever diminishing role in the efforts.
History teaches us that conventional forces rarely beat an enemy fighting an unconventional guerrilla war where the enemy cannot readily be discerned. Western powers say that they wish to see western-style democracy in Afghanistan. Chairman Mao may have had it that power emanates from the barrel of a gun, but I do not believe that democracy can be imposed at the barrel of a gun.
Of the £11.1 billion that has been spent by the UK in Afghanistan since 2001, only around 10 per cent has been in the form of aid and development funding. I wonder what Afghanistan would look like if those proportions had been switched around. What might it be like if, instead of roads, hospitals and schools being taken out in the crossfire of war, the finances had been spent on building new roads, hospitals and schools?
I believe that we should redirect our focus to help ordinary Afghanis to help themselves through humanitarian aid and real efforts at nation building. That is the way to build a safer, stable and more secure Afghanistan. Demonstrating genuine interest in the social welfare of ordinary Afghani citizens and civilians will build a more powerful case against extremism than any military surge or strategy ever could. It is through that peaceful endeavour that stability in the region and wider world—and here at home, too—will be promoted.
There has been too much war in Afghanistan. Now is the time to give peace in that country, which has seen almost constant conflict for my entire lifetime, a lasting chance. We must have peace, and we must have a withdrawal of operational combat forces as soon as possible. The pursuit of peace is invariably less dramatic than the theatre of war, but it is no less important.
18:12
The aim of the war is clear. I will quote several newspapers. It is
“to prevent the establishment of ... a terrorist regime ... to protect the Afghan people from genocide”
and to provide
“aid in stabilising the situation and the repulsion of possible external aggression.”
After victory, we are told, Afghanistan will be left to become “a stable, friendly country”.
There can be no doubt but that this invasion is a peacekeeping operation, one intended to prevent enemy atrocities. We are there, apparently, as an act of self-defence and to prevent Afghanistan from turning
“into a bridgehead for ... aggression against the state.”
We are responding to unprovoked violence by Islamic fundamentalists who plan to export their fundamentalist struggle
“under the green banner of Jihad”.
Members may not know the specific quotations, but I am sure that they will recognise them, or something similar, and will acknowledge that they are a fair reflection of our media’s reporting of the present conflict. For the sake of accuracy, then, I will provide members with the sources: Pravda, 27 April 1980; Red Star, a major Soviet military newspaper, May 1985; Red Star, January 1988; Izvestia, 1 January 1980; and “Secrets of the Afghan War”, published in 1991. I should note that any similarities between Soviet reporting in the 1980s and 1990s and reporting today in the UK are, of course, entirely coincidental.
Moving past the UK, US or Soviet propaganda, why did we invade Afghanistan? Did we invade Afghanistan because we believed that extremist political Islamism—as against those who are fundamentalist in the religion—is wrong? Does that claim stand up to investigation? Let us not forget that we created the Taliban. We built them with our support for the mujahideen, which started before the Soviet invasion. However, we did not stop at merely supporting terrorism. The CIA provided millions of dollars to produce school textbooks that encouraged a warped ideology of jihad, encouraging murder and fanaticism. The claim that we are opposed to extremism does not stand up to inspection.
Are we fighting for gender equality, to ensure that women are given fair and equal treatment? Does that claim stand up to investigation? In 2002, George W Bush welcomed the new Minister of Women’s Affairs, Dr Sima Samar. Shortly after, she was forced out of office on a charge of blasphemy. Now, she fears for her life and believes that women were safer under the Taliban. We should also remember that, under the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, females had the right to both school and university education. The UK and the US backed the terrorism that helped to destroy those rights. The claim that we are fighting for gender equality does not stand up to inspection.
Are we fighting to protect lives? Does that claim stand up to inspection? Conservative estimates suggest that, post-September 11, US bombing in Afghanistan killed between 1,300 and 8,000 Afghan civilians. The UN assistance mission to Afghanistan claims that, in 2008, 828 civilians were killed by US-led forces and that, in 2009, 596 civilians were killed by US-led forces. I will add one more word: uranium. It is time for the UK and the US to come clean on their use of uranium in weapons. The evidence of uranium poisoning is clear. The UK must end its opposition to the UN resolution calling on countries deploying shells tipped with that radioactive substance to declare how much of it they have used and where. Failure to do so shows a callous disregard for the health of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a callous disregard for UK personnel. The claim that we are fighting to protect civilian lives does not stand up to inspection.
Are we fighting for civil liberties and democracy? Does that claim stand up to inspection? The allegations of torture and human rights abuses that have been levelled against the Afghan Government and its supporters are numerous. I will give just one example. CBC news has claimed to have a Canadian Government report confirming that Asadullah Khalid, the head of Kandahar province, has a widespread reputation for brutality and the abuse of human rights. Allegations include his ordering the murder of UN workers and holding individuals in a private prison for his personal entertainment. The claim that we are fighting for civil liberties and democracy does not stand up to inspection.
It is time to clean up the mess and leave.
18:17
I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing this important debate. It is another sign that the Parliament can and should talk about the major issues in the world and not dodge them.
Why do young men and women join the armed forces? There might be a number of reasons. It might be a natural progression from being a member of the cadets at school, a sense of adventure, a sense of duty to family or nation, or a need for a feeling of belonging. Whatever the reason, I do not believe that it will be to fight in a war for which, after nine long and bloody years, there is no sense of the direction in which the conflict should be heading. Nor will it be to fight in a war in which a myriad of aims supersede each other almost monthly as politicians try to carry a sceptical population along, either on a tide of overt, tub-thumping patriotism or a wave of apparently altruistic humanitarianism. They most assuredly do not join the armed forces to lose their young lives or end up physically or mentally mutilated when there was no direct threat to their homeland or even the end result of an improved situation for those in the country of conflict.
Although the military situation in Afghanistan is, undoubtedly, important, when will we address the war on drugs? It is the principal area of the world in which heroin is produced, which is sent to this country to cause death and destruction on a regular basis.
I will come to that. It is extremely important to places such as Aberdeen and Glasgow—as well as right across Scotland and the western world—that the drugs issue is addressed, and that the war is not the way to do it.
Let us remember clearly that Afghanistan has been a land of constant conflict over the centuries, where the armies of Alexander the Great, the Mogul emperors, the British imperial army of the 19th century, the might of the Soviet Union and now the combined strength of NATO’s forces have all become hopelessly embroiled in the tribal warfare of a medieval state. To what end? The capture of Osama Bin Laden? Failed. The imposition of a democratic Government? How so? By replacing one group of gun-toting despots with another, who wear nice clothes? The emancipation of women? Yes, in some areas, but for how long, and how supported is that? The ending of the poppy crop and the flood of heroin on to our streets? Failed again.
What has it all been about in Afghanistan? Why could long-term negotiations with tribal leaders not have taken place? That way, the Taliban could have been isolated from the mainstream. An agricultural programme could have been developed, and small industrial units in the cities and town established. Long-term education systems could have been introduced with the co-operation of the local people.
Remember—as Bill Wilson said earlier—that the west introduced a Mad Max lawlessness through the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation. Inevitably, the mujahideen mutated into the Taliban. When we then invaded on the pretext of hunting down the mastermind of 9/11, we made it much, much worse. It has to stop now. The troops must be brought home from this quagmire, this 21st century Vietnam.
The long process of changing a medieval society into one approaching the levels of human rights and freedom from oppression that Afghanistan’s neighbours are working towards developing cannot be imposed by armed force; it can happen only through negotiation and good faith on both sides.
18:21
I congratulate Jamie Hepburn on securing the debate and I agree with him and others who have expressed the view that it is right that this Parliament should be able to express an opinion on an international area of concern.
The Afghan war began on 7 October 2001 in response to the 11 September attacks on the US. The public were set to believe that the war could be won without a single shot being fired, but now we mark the ninth anniversary of our forces being in Afghanistan.
The war has killed tens of thousands of civilians. The majority of people killed are civilians, but of course 335 British soldiers have been killed to date and hundreds have been seriously injured or maimed. The average age of British casualties is 22. In August, the number of deaths among our forces passed the 200 mark. Countless thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed and many millions of refugees have been created by the war.
Like Jamie Hepburn, I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces who have given their lives to achieve peace and security by doing their jobs on the front line. The cost in human terms is almost too awful to contemplate.
The war in Afghanistan has fully tested our principles when it comes to international law and public opinion. The legitimate aim to eradicate terrorism by seeking out those who terrorise our world is up against the occupation of a very poor country, with a population innocent of any crimes, and there is a desire to establish democracy. All those factors really test us all on what we believe in.
What we all want for the innocent people of the world and, of course, of Afghanistan, is for them to live in peace and with a prosperous future. The Scottish Afghan Society has made us quite aware of the Afghans living in Scotland and has highlighted their views about what they want for their country.
The war is causing us all a great deal of concern. It is spreading to Pakistan and is becoming very dangerous. The costs are substantial—the human costs are too high.
The Afghan people need a government that is stable, transparent and free from corruption. They deserve nothing less. They deserve an inclusive political settlement that is about their needs and their wishes, not one that is dictated to them by the occupying forces. Too many questions remain about our presence and the ever-increasing violence.
I apologise for interrupting Pauline McNeill. I was going to intervene at the start of her speech, when she said something that I agree with, but I did not want to interrupt her right at the start. She said that this Parliament should take a view on the matter. I really respect the fact that Labour is contributing to tonight’s debate. I notice that Bill Butler and a few other Labour members were in for Jamie Hepburn’s opening speech.
I gently ask Pauline McNeill whether she agrees that it is a real shame and disappointment that no Liberal Democrat or Conservative members have contributed or stayed to hear the opening speeches.
It obviously adds to the depth of a members’ debate if all the political parties are represented, but it would not be fair for me to comment. I found it quite difficult to find time to write a speech, but I thought it was important to take part in the debate, and it is a shame that we will not hear the views of the other parties tonight.
On the deadline for leaving Afghanistan, I find it difficult to disagree with what Jamie Hepburn said. The deadline lacks a bit of clarity: we had a date of 2014, and then 2015, and now it is an aspirational date. That makes me very concerned, and I would like us to leave sooner rather than later. However, to quote Jamie Hepburn again, we should not “cut and run”. We have done that in the past, but we are responsible for what has happened in Afghanistan and we should not walk away. We should do everything that we can to leave behind something better for the people of Afghanistan.
I believe that the deadline is too far away, and I will certainly press for withdrawal to be achieved sooner if possible. Nation building should be our aim, and we should take a rational approach that is not burdened by political deadlines. Too many people are questioning the 2014 and 2015 dates by saying that they are around political deadlines. I am not certain that that is the case, but the approach should be free from such concerns.
We must operate in the best interests of the people and of our own forces. That does not mean to say that we should depart from our determination to eradicate terrorism and deal with al-Qa’ida, but it is now time to think about how we can withdraw peacefully and give the people of Afghanistan the life that they deserve.
18:26
I thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing the debate to the Scottish Parliament. I also thank those members who have made contributions, which have been thoughtful, informed and at times passionate.
The current conflict in Afghanistan has lasted for almost a decade and has had a major impact on families and communities throughout Scotland. As we have heard, 345 troops from the UK have lost their lives since the war started in October 2001. The war has also had a life-changing impact on hundreds of others, including the families and communities of our troops.
I join other members in the chamber in paying tribute to all those soldiers, including those who have lost their lives. Each and every death is incredibly painful and underlines the remarkable dedication and sacrifice of our forces. All parts of Scotland, including Jamie Hepburn’s constituency of Central Scotland, as his motion notes, are touched.
There is enormous public support for the troops on the ground and I put on record once again the Scottish Government’s admiration for the remarkable and courageous work that they are doing. They have our full support. However, as members have said in the debate, it is time for the UK Government to give greater clarity on the future of our forces in Afghanistan. President Obama has already stated that he intends to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan by July next year. The UK Government has indicated that troops will be removed by 2015, but the Scottish Government’s view is that we should work towards withdrawal by the end of 2011.
It is clear that a great deal of effort will need to go into reconstruction—Pauline McNeill mentioned nation building. Too many Afghans are seeing little in the way of reconstruction, and military spending—as Jamie Hepburn outlined—still far outstrips spending on development.
There must be a focus on the long-term and sustainable development of Afghanistan. Scottish aid agencies are making a remarkable contribution to that effort and I put on record the Government’s support for the aid agencies in Afghanistan. Many of the key players from the non-governmental organisation sector in Scotland are active in Afghanistan. The Halo Trust, for example, has been operating there for more than 20 years and is the largest implementing agency for the United Nations mine action programme for Afghanistan. The trust is dedicated to building local capacity and nowhere is that better exemplified than in Afghanistan, where its 3,500 Afghan staff are managed by Afghans, with support from 10 expatriate staff.
Mercy Corps has been in Afghanistan since 1986 and is currently assisting more than 2.5 million Afghans to rebuild their lives by running programmes throughout the country that focus on agricultural and economic development to help build stronger communities. Since 1998, Concern Worldwide has focused on strengthening governance at grass-roots level and helping communities to manage their own development. Several members touched on the issue of governance and how to empower people to help themselves.
Islamic Relief, which began working in 2001, has successfully combined long-term development with food assistance, helping villagers to have a practical incentive to remain at home and easing the problems of internally displaced persons. Oxfam has established education and government programmes, making better use of agricultural training, developing Afghan capacity and improving the rights of women. Tearfund has provided humanitarian support across the country. Christian Aid is also there, empowering poor and marginalised people to improve the conditions of their own lives, be it through employment or asserting their human rights, again with an interest in promoting Afghan women’s rights.
It is right that we discuss and debate international issues, but we should also recognise the number of organisations that have bases in Scotland that are supporting the national development of Afghanistan by supporting people and helping them to build their own futures.
As we mark the work of international agencies, let us not forget those who have given their lives. Just a few weeks ago, we received the shocking and sad news of Linda Norgrove’s tragic death during a rescue operation. Our thoughts are with the parents, family and friends of Linda Norgrove, who made such an incredible contribution during her life. Her contribution to improving the lives of the people of Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world has a legacy that we, as a nation, can be proud of.
We should also not forget that we have a duty to look after our veterans from conflicts such as Afghanistan, and the Scottish Government continues to develop a policy to meet the needs of veterans and improve and deliver services to them. We have taken forward a range of work in the health, housing, education, employment and transport sectors, and that will continue. Much work is going on, details of which will be provided in our next report, to improve support to armed forces and veterans communities, and that is expected before Christmas.
A serious point in the debate is how we build democracy, how we intervene to build capacity and how we face up to the responsibilities of the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan. A lot of wise words have been said. We are not the only people in the world who are discussing and debating the issues, but we have a right and an opportunity to voice our concerns and it is right that the Parliament is used to voice the concerns of many people about what is happening in Afghanistan, why we were there in the first place and, indeed, activities since.
We must support our troops and our Government has put that position on the record, but that does not prevent us as parliamentarians from expressing our view on what should happen. The Scottish Government supports withdrawal by the end of 2011 but, importantly, we are also committed to doing what we can to support the efforts of those who are building long-term peace, stability and economic success.
Meeting closed at 18:32.