Afghanistan: the hard lessons of history
Apocryphal or not, it’s the noted British historian AJP Taylor who is credited with saying: ”The key lesson of history is that we don’t learn the lesson of history.”
The British withdrawal from yet another Afghan invasion and war which many perceive we have (as part of NATO this time around) lost, is underway.
Those running the NATO war in Washington have had enough. They want out. Managed exit or surrender, depending how you see it, the 2014 shut-down has been long and loudly announced.
We can all argue about degrees of success or failure. But the key, indisputable facts raised by Afghans themselves can’t be dodged – must not be dodged – any longer.
Afghans – like us – want security above all else. And critics of the war say that security is what we have destroyed for them, above all else. The Taliban imposed security as did their Northern Alliance enemies and sundry other warlords and Afghans do not forget that.
NATO will leave a host of resistance forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan intact, fighting and killing daily.
Al Qaeda – the reason for the war, remember, now spreads from the Af/Pak tribal zones across The Gulf via Yemen into East Africa, west to Mali and north into (of all places) Syria.
It’s also taken root in the UK from the 7/7 bombers of yesteryear (who bombed London they said, because of our invasion of Afghanistan) to the British jihadis in Syria.
Of course inside Afghanistan steps have been taken to try and implant a parliament, elections, educating girls, improved healthcare and all the rest of it. But as people there will tell you reasonably enough – it’s a ‘rest of it’ which means very little if there isn’t the security to make any of it function and last when we’ve gone.
Yet…yet..week in, week out, scarcely a murmur of debate – let alone dissent from the UK about continuing injuries and loss of life of British soldiers.
Critics of the war claim that, given we’ve announced our departure to ‘the enemy’, it’s hard to construct a more futile reason for British soldiers to die or get hurt than in the current Afghan war.
NATO insists it must press on though, to get the Afghan army in the best shape possible before it leaves.
Right or wrong on both sides, what we can surely all agree on is that something very weird is happening in the UK now, just as it is in the US and to other NATO players. The deaths and horrifying injuries of young British soldiers go on and on and on and yet cause scarcely a murmur here at home.
Prime Minister’s Questions routinely kicks off with the spectacle of party leaders offering condolences for the latest lives lost. This passes with the usual noises of approval in the Commons. Business as usual.
However, viewers contact me from time to time to express indignation at what they see as the hypocrisy of our leaders expressing concern for the very lives they are expending.
And here we see what some complain about as the only narrative allowable in the UK, the only way permitted to see a war which many view as: the narrative of ‘heroism’.
Move away from Westminster and we have ‘Help for Heroes’ now. Of course they’re doing exceptional work for people in terrible circumstances. But what some see as the easy use of that word again ‘heroism’ does not sit comfortably with everyone.
Serving soldiers complain to me – and more ex-soldiers – about just this.
Their concerns deserve to be heard and seldom are, in modern Britain. Their argument at once simple, yet subtle.
Yes, they say, it’s clearly important and valuable to do all we can for our young people horribly injured in Afghanistan.
They also make the valid point that for many it is obviously simply ‘heroic’ to be fighting for your country because that is what an army does, without question. Equally, the grieving families of lost British soldiers our due not simply the respect of the nation but it’s support. Nobody should have to bury their sons or daughters and to do so towards the very end of a long war where the end is already marked out and in sight takes a particular type of ‘heroic sacrifice’.
Surely most would accept this without question?
But – it is still argued - isn’t there a danger that the more we simplify and glorify this war solely as ‘heroism’ the less we confront its reality? Does ‘heroism’, it’s argued, blind us to what’s really happening? Therefore, is it ultimately in the soldiers’ best interests?
Because, their argument runs, blinded by ‘heroism’, two very dangerous things can happen. First, it makes it easier to send off future kids to future wars however ill-conceived. Second, it’s ever easier for Whitehall to neglect the casualties of war because charity will do the government’s duty.
It seems to me we should pause for thought at this. It’s sensitive stuff. And no serving soldier can say anything like this on the record, of course. They tell me they see it everywhere. The narrative of ‘heroism’ stalks the land. Nothing terribly wrong in that, so long us other narratives are heard in our media – but this intriguing one almost never is.
I read in my local paper this month of a plaque going up to commemorate two local lads killed in Helmand and again it’s all ‘heroes’ and ‘heroism’. It’s the stuff of local papers the length and breadth of the land. Like so much of the media they can only, possibly, ever, tell one ‘heroic’ story of the Afghan War. Is this not a little bit odd, given so many of their readers will be sceptical of the war, to put it politely?
TV coverage very often deals with the war from the same perspective – to an audience equally sceptical as the opinion polls have shown down the years.
Whatever the facts, such as those laid out above, it’s often as if no real debate about the war and its actual achievements and effects, is allowed.
For some critics of the war inside and outside the military, there are dangers in this.
Because they say drenching the nation in ‘heroism’ instead of facing harsh reality, however painful, has real future implications.
Time then, it is argued, to open up proper debate about The Afghan War – now longer than Vietnam. And to make this happen for those who need it most, deserve it most and are being starved of it most: our soldiers.
Follow Alex Thomson on Twitter
Related posts:


There are 11 comments on this post
That’s a very interesting article Alex. It strikes on such issues that, you may well become the next victim personally smeared, just because of addressing them.
We are still at a loss to the know the real reason why the Afghan invasion took place. We have seen much info. pumped out via the lame stream media that ‘our boys out there’ are there to protect us.
We’re just not sure from what. The media mentality is, as you say, ‘heroism’ centred. Military bravery and the stiff British upper lip, serving Queen ‘n Country and, all the old fashioned winning/conquering bravado. Selective filtered news portraying this situation like it’s a fight with Aliens from another planet. Aliens we never see yet, ‘our heroic boys’ act out something that seems like the film ‘Armageddon’, conquering some Aliens.
‘Our Boys’ and, women, are people who matter. They are not fodder to use and control in a game of propaganda. These people need to know that their lives matter. Their families matter. Their care matters. Their voice and opinions matter. Their pay matters. Their PTSD care matters. Their futures matters.
Spin and selective politically manipulated news results in resentment and distrust and, ultimately leads to demoralised people and hate.
We want honesty, altruism and humanity to play a key role. Not misleading Army recruitment adverts appealing to high testosterone young men looking for ‘adventure’ and, a job.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I hate the narrative if heroism – it obfuscates the horrible business of war. I don’t know what Britain expects to get out of the process and in fact I don’t even think politicians bother to think about it any more – as you suggest.
I’m almost afraid to raise the issue with friends as I fear I will be called unpatriotic. I certainly have not contributed to Help for Heroes and think the ‘glorification’ of Headley Court is hideous. Something I think Jon Snow has actually got wrong(!) To see those young men whose lives are blighted by amputations/mental health issues etc is absolutely hideous.
I have watched the competitors in the Paralympics in excitement and admiration. I absolutely understand that when something bad has happened in life that you must make the best of what you have. I’m thinking of the young men and women who have been to war, suffered horrible injuries and who have the determination to overcome their injuries and succeed. But this is surely the glorious tip of a horrible iceberg. To think that their injuries seem to be for nothing – or at least for something that nobody discusses or validates or questions is surely insulting to them. Perhaps we dare not discuss it because the cause is so flimsy.
Medical advances meaning that injured soldiers survive where they would previously died raises new questions about the morality of war.
I have nothing but admiration and sympathy (if that is what is wanted) for those who are injured and feel that the government of this country, having sent soldiers into war should remain responsible for them in the event that that are injured. I wish we were not involved in Afghanistan.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sir,
I agree that ‘heroism’ is overused and a misplaced focus for Afghanistan. However, I would disagree that the media’s portrayal of the conflict is a positive one. On the contrary, for many years it has been commonplace for the conflict to be reported on with a pessimistic bias (that is not to ignore all the genuine mistakes, failings and criticisms that exist). Take, for example, this post in which there are several references to those who criticise the war and expressions of their views, but how many references to those with opposing opinions? Similarly, the brevity with which ‘all the rest of it’ is covered and dismissed is remarkable. Is it any wonder that if the public receive a routinely pessimistic perspective of the war that it affects popular perceptions?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dear Alex,
Paul has a very valid point which most people will not have really considered. Having been involved in Afghanistan for the last ten years including two military tours and more recently living with my family amongst the Afghan people I can vouch it is almost impossible to get newsdesks to move away from their pre-conceived opinion about the reality of the situation.
Helmand province is not representative of the whole of Afghanistan and the Taliban are not representative of the Afghan people but the British public and politicians can only see the nation through the media lens which makes us believe they are.
The media needs to get over the fiction that they are objective observers and recognise and shoulder the responsibility that they are strategic actors and can set and change the course of global events. You could talk to Gen. Stan McChrystal about that.
Journalists and particularly newsdesks focus on a very narrow set of problems in Afghanistan and seems to take almost no responsibility for expending a similar amount of energy on finding and communicating possible viable solutions. Hence the public and hence the politicians and hence the government agencies focus on the ‘problems’ and not the solutions. And guess what the more we focus energy and strategic resources on the problems, the more they grow.
The ‘Taliban’ is not the biggest problem in Afghanistan but by getting everyone to focus on them they have become more strategically relevant than they actually are.
Success in Afghanistan, as some exceptional soldiers have been telling us publicly since at least 2008, will not come from the military defeat of the Taliban.
Success will only come from building the viable positive alternative which, in my opinion, is only possible by containing the Taliban and focusing our strategic resources on building the economy in the north of the country. But as far as the media is concerned and hence the public and hence the politicians and hence the government agencies are concerned the north (where success could come from) just doesn’t exist. Or at least not until the problems in the south are pushed into the north and make an occasional headline.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You are, my friend, in denial of the real point of the article. It effectively queries the UK state and its’ motives in this war. We’re looking at media manipulation of the public big time. Too many of us are content to be compliant in this exercise. What is it that you can’t face ?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The article is really an insight of the real situation of war in Afganishtan and how media glorifies heroism and hides the real happening of war.. But one thing I always failed to understand that why media does this? Does media compelled to do this because of government pressure? NO !! Because the same media attacks the government if it try to highlights the truth of war. Then what force is behind the media to hide the truth from the people which they must know… Sometimes it really saddened me.. Once again nice article to highlight some of the key points here.. Thanks Alex
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There has been an emotional blackmail attempt to suppress criticism of the war in Afghanistan from the start – once the troops rolled in we were told to stop the dissent for a phoney war and ‘get behind’ our troops who needed our support. The assertion was that whilst they were fighting on our behalf it would be demoralising and unfair not to support ‘them’. Of course this had the desired effect of the media tacitly supporting the war under the veil of supporting our troops, and to criticise the war was seen as an attack on the troops.
The ridiculous waste of lives, money and international good will was starkly exposed by the relative simplicity in which the real target and excuse for the invasion of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, was dealt with. An intelligence operation, followed by a handful of guys in a couple of helicopters sorted the problem out with no casualties other than the targets themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Alex,
The ´heroism’ narrative has been very skillfully constructed and maintained by successive governments (and their PR machines) to negate the widespread dissent and opposition to both the Iraq and Afghan wars which peaked circa 2003.
Since 2003, the government realised that it could not win the public debate as it was then framed: i.e. Are you for or against the war?
Instead, it merely reframed the debate to become: Our brave soldiers are heroes fighting for your freedom – are you for or against them?
This was a despicable act which has quelled any meaningful debate on the rights and wrongs of the war and has simply ´’manufactured consent” for two utterly futile wars for which there was very little support across the political spectrum.
Where are the UK equivalents of the fearless John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, or even celebrity activists like Sean Penn who will stand up and say something about any of this?
Instead, we are suffocated by ministerial platitudes, military parades and appearances at football grounds and other inappropriate events…and lest we forget the nauseating military wives choir.
This has got to stop. Our only hope is guys like you speaking out.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Alex,
This is the wrong emphasis.
I challenge you to investigate proposed energy pipe lines through Afghanistan, and the companies and nations which propose them. That is the real reason for yet another imperial war.
Meantime, I support our young military men and women in that benighted country. I support them so much I want them all home. Now. I never wanted them there in the first place, anymore than I ever wanted them in Iraq or Libya or Syria or, threatened, in Iran.
Not in my name. Not ever.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Giving generously to Help for Heroes does not make anyone complicit in the war in Afghanistan.
Nor does giving moral support to our soldiers.
I hope no-one is inhibited in providing those helps by their worries about the political strategies.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
People who want to know the reason for the war need look no further……
“Vast deposits of rare earth and critical minerals found in Afghanistan by U.S. geologists under military cover could solve world shortages”
Rare earth is more important than oil to the west as it is used in electronics (IE everything), and the worlds only source is from China!
Like or Dislike:
0
0