Little to celebrate as UK troops withdraw from Afghanistan

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/29/little-to-celebrate-uk-troops-withdraw-afghanistan

Version 0 of 1.

As an anti-war activist, I see no reason to celebrate the British troops’ withdrawal from Helmand province, although this has happily brought to “an end a costly chapter in the 13-year campaign, with the vast majority of the 453 troops who died in the conflict losing their lives fighting the Taliban insurgency in Helmand” (Report, 27 October). Private security firms, arms dealers, people smugglers, cheque-book journalists and other merchants of war must be bitterly regretting the end of what has been a very lucrative business enterprise.

Of course they would have long anticipated this change and made concrete arrangements to relocate their bloody operations to Libya, Syria, Iraq, northern Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen, where they are hoping that the longer the conflicts last, and the more civilians, especially women, children and other vulnerable people lose their lives, the higher the profit margin will be. It is this business aspect of war which is making it very difficult to achieve lasting world peace and security – which is vital for ending poverty.Sam AkakiLondon

• It was not the lack of a strategy by the US and the UK in Afghanistan that was wrong; it was the whole benighted exercise (No victory parade for the fourth Afghan war, Journal, 28 October). The illegal “intervention” in Iraq was not a “strategic blunder”, but quite simply a war crime, in line with the Nuremberg ruling that waging aggressive war is the primary crime within which are subsumed all others. The attack on 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war, as was conceded by Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, in her Reith lecture. It could and should have been responded to using the mechanisms of international law, imperfect though they are.

Had diplomacy and international law been used in 2001, instead of the mightiest military power in history attacking one of the world’s poorest countries in the name of the “war on terror”, many thousands of lives would have been saved. And the world would be much safer today.

Of course, saying this does not help those thousands of casualties – they are still just as dead – but a general recognition of this fundamental point is essential to the quest for a long-term solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.Frank JacksonHarlow, Essex

• Your editorial (28 October) is right to say that the British army needs to examine serious questions like what it is for, how and when it can be useful. These questions are unlikely to be answered by the present government, though, when the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, foolishly makes claims such as that “we have the best armed forces in the world and I am going to keep them that way”. Indeed, the problem is much wider, since major parts of the main political parties have still not managed to come to terms with the fact that Britain is no longer a world power. Vainglorious boasting like Fallon’s not only does nothing to help, but actually impedes the process of recognising where we really do stand in the world.Dr Richard CarterLondon

• Now our forces are returning from Afghanistan, is it not time for a full assessment of what roles are likely to be appropriate for our armed forces in the future? While you draw attention to the need for assessing the future role and requirements of the army, surely there is need for a more far-reaching consideration. In particular, what purpose, if any, will be served by the very expensive replacement of Trident and the commissioning of the new aircraft carriers. Here is surely an opportunity for the Labour party to show initiative and relevant concern for Britain’s future.John ChubbCheltenham, Gloucestershire

• In all the reports about Afghanistan, the total number of British war dead in this conflict (453) has been repeatedly stressed. But nowhere have I seen any mention of the number of Afghans, both combatant and non-combatant, who have been killed, either accidentally or deliberately, by the British troops there. Surely, we should also be given this figure to help us make a more balanced assessment of the role the British have played there over the past 13 years?Mike GarnierBristol

• Hugh Hetherington (Letters, 25 October) cites Syria as an example of unsuccessful “non-intervention”. He is mistaken. A long list of countries has provided military aid to the rebels, including Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, the US, Turkey and Qatar – and have resolutely held the rebel forces to a position of non-negotiation with the Assad regime. Possibly a majority of Syrian rebels are not Syrian; and the fact that the rebels are dominated by hardline Islamists is a direct consequence of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Syria is another disastrous casualty of “intervention”.Peter McKennaLiverpool