The Tribune

THE age-old maxim about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing should be uppermost in the minds of newspaper columnists who cover a wide range of topics on a regular basis. They should also be aware of the warning by George Bernard Shaw – the famous Irish playwright, critic and polemicist – to “beware of false knowledge since it is more dangerous than ignorance”.

So, they need to be sure of their facts. With such an admonition in mind, I am cautious about commenting on the complex issue of Afghanistan without even visiting the country. But I should like to write about it today since it is inherently important and because, as a diplomat, one has been following the issue for many years.

The world’s media is giving the subject wall-to-wall coverage because of the Taliban’s success – the speed and scale of which has stunned observers – in taking control of the country again, including the capital Kabul, in advance of the final withdrawal of US and UK forces. This had been timed to be completed by September 11, the symbolic 20th anniversary of the devastating attack on the World Trade Centre in New York. But these forces had already been reduced and there is now the inevitability of a return to the Taliban’s repressive rule when it brutalised the population from 1996 to 2001.

As Western countries evacuate their staff and other citizens, fears of a bloodbath and humanitarian disaster remain amid mounting chaos. It is also clear the US withdrawal announcement several months ago precipitated the current crisis. A UN emergency session yesterday and the recall of the UK Parliament this week underlines the gravity of the situation.

Given the huge publicity, most people are aware of the history. Supported by close allies like Britain, the US invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 following the 9/11 attacks perpetrated by the terrorist group al-Qaeda. The US aimed to remove the Taliban from power. The latter have been condemned by General H R McMaster, the former National Security Advisor, as militants who were “the enemies of all civilisation and of all humanity” and they had been supporting al-Qaeda as well as ruling the country. Therefore, by removing the Taliban, the US would deny al-Qaeda the continued use of Afghanistan as a safe haven to plot terrorist attacks against targets in the West; and this purpose was fulfilled insofar as the group’s leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed and there have been no attacks by the group for a considerable time.

However, US, UK and NATO forces remained in the country to develop, equip and support a new Afghan government and local security forces. But many of these turned out to be corrupt and ineffective.

Since 2016, the allied military forces have been maintaining a fragile peace rather than fighting a bloody war. But there was no exit plan and the precipitate withdrawal by the Americans has encouraged the Taliban to regroup while at the same time demoralising the new government and destroying the morale and will of Afghans to resist them, so that the people have melted away or simply changed sides.

In such circumstances, critics in the US have been saying it was living in “fantasy-land” to rely on government forces to fight alone for their own country against a resurgent Taliban. Thus, the hasty withdrawal has been considered to be ill-conceived and nothing less than an embarrassing retreat.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is also under fire for what has been termed Britain’s “monstrous betrayal” that has plunged Afghanistan back into darkness.

He is quoted as saying “we have got to be realistic about the power of the UK or any other power to impose a military solution – a combat solution – in Afghanistan”.

Britain probably had no choice but to pull out its own troops after the US decision to depart. However, there is now the danger of a resurgence of al-Qaeda plotting attacks on British soil. What is more, the families of the more than 450 British military personnel who lost their lives in Afghanistan are angry that the Taliban have captured territory which UK forces had fought and died to protect.

Mr Johnson is being criticised for what is being called a strategic miscalculation and a humiliation for the West, with the Chairman of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee going so far as to call it the “biggest single foreign policy disaster since Suez”. Moreover, what has been particularly telling was the comment by a former British ambassador to Afghanistan that he was hanging his head in shame over the betrayal and abandonment of Afghans after the West had undertaken to provide long-term financial and material support in working for peace in their country – and that those employed by the US and UK locally should be offered a safe haven rather than be left to their fate at the hands of a brutal and victorious Taliban.

There is insufficient space today to examine whether the US and UK forces should have invaded the country at all, let alone stayed on for 20 years to try to transform it and to determine its future. But one immediately hopeful sign is that, while the Taliban will more than likely refuse to share power, their spokesman claimed over the weekend that they were seeking a peaceful transition and not revenge or retribution. Nonetheless, the realists say the Taliban should be judged by their actions rather than their words.

Few people suggest US and UK forces should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, but it is the implementation of the sudden withdrawal that is being criticised.

At the time of writing, the situation remains fraught with uncertainty and danger – and the looming question is whether this will become Biden’s “Saigon” moment when, in 1975, people had to be plucked off the US embassy roof by helicopter, with North Vietnamese forces approaching the front gate of the building. This was described as one of the most humiliating events for America abroad in the nation’s history. But perhaps this moment for the President has already happened, as yesterday’s dramatic pictures of frightened and desperate people trying to cling on to departing US aircraft already rolling on the tarmac at Kabul airport are flashed across television screens around the world.

SHOULDN’T WE LEARN FROM MISTAKES?

While drafting the piece about Afghanistan that appears on this page –- and, bearing in mind President Biden’s claim that “America is back” after his predecessor’s alleged reluctance to engage in multilateralism – it struck me it might be interesting to research a cross-section of views among historians about US foreign policy disasters in recent years, though space constraints make it impossible to do justice to such a broad subject.

During the mid-20th century, America basked in its power, wealth and prestige. It had beaten the economic depression of the 1930s and triumphed in the Second World War.

The nation was trusted for its wise and restrained use of its economic and military power; and, during the Cold War, there was a sense of American greatness, not least because of President Kennedy’s adroitly effective handling of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and other confrontations with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev like the stand-off over Berlin.

More recently, however, the US has had a record of overtly aggressive behaviour involving the invasion of at least two countries, bombing attacks – including the reckless use of drones – the deployment of special forces, with apparently little control over them, and the imposition of economic sanctions on other countries as a means of bending them to the US’ will.

So, there has been a wariness around the world about American exceptionalism being an excuse for disregarding certain international norms and rules. The US has been perceived as throwing its weight around with impunity because of its political, economic and military might - and that too often its leaders see force as a foreign policy tool whereas it should be used primarily as a last resort when diplomacy fails.

To make matters worse, over the years there have been too many instances of poor and ill-judged decisions geopolitically, resulting in political and military failure. Two prominent examples were the US-led illegal (without proper UN cover) invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the disastrous war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s.

Iraq was attacked on the false prospectus of Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction – which were never found – and on the basis of the misguided attempt by the so-called neo-cons in Washington to impose democracy in the Middle East. This resulted in the destabilisation of the region, the rise of ISIS and the tens of deaths of thousands – and with no discernible gain.

As for Vietnam, President Johnson inherited a small war in the south from his predecessor, John F Kennedy, and chose to escalate it so that by 1968 there were 500,000 US troops in the country. Eventually, the US decided to withdraw from this unwinnable war, not least because of opposition amongst Americans who were appalled by the devastation and violence.

For people of that era, who can forget the general civil unrest and the demonstrations on college campuses, including the shooting of students by the Ohio National Guard at Kent State University in 1970, and the chants by young people of “Hey, Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today”? Reportedly, it was the heightened domestic criticism that finally persuaded Johnson to withdraw ignominiously from Vietnam. For many people, this was a wasteful and purposeless war that cost the lives of 58,000 service personnel and untold expenditure of resources. It was fought on the basis of the domino theory – later discredited – that, if South Vietnam fell to the Communists, neighbouring countries in the region would also be taken over by them.

Some commentators contend Vietnam and Iraq were examples of America’s failures of strategy and execution and that Afghanistan ranks alongside them as the latest instance of history repeating itself. A proper in-depth study would surely reveal more instances of flawed decision-making; for example, in relation to the Korean War in the 1950s. Looking even further back, historians continue to discuss whether Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks at an earlier stage had the US entered the Second World War at its beginning rather than being forced into it later by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

WORKING TOGETHER

Having written only last week about climate change and global warming, I am reluctant to cover the subject again today. However, I have learnt of some remarkable local collaboration on environmental issues, including the conservation of coral reefs, which I believe may be of interest to readers here in The Bahamas.

During the past year, the British High Commission has been working with BREEF, the Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation, on several projects focusing on climate change and promoting education about it. Their joint activity has contributed significantly to raising awareness about the environment related, in particular, to coral reefs and mangroves.

First, the High Commission supported the development and distribution of BREEF’S Virtual Coral Reef Sculpture Garden Field Trip among Bahamian students in both public and private schools throughout the country. This classroom project shows the role of coral reefs within the ecosystem and the protection they provide against hurricanes. It has reached over 1,000 students through remote learning.

Secondly, the High Commission partnered with BREEF and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Sustainable Development Goals Unit on a Commonwealth Day photography competition around the theme ‘Climate Action and Nature’ to inspire young Bahamians to photograph aspects of nature connected with climate change. This was intended to help raise awareness of the importance of trying to limit its effects – and, thirdly, BREEF received a grant from the High Commission to help fund a book by award-winning author and underwater photographer, Shane Gross, who gave a special presentation about it at BREEF’s ‘Carbon, Corals and Conservation’ Youth Environmental Leadership Summit. It is hoped this may inspire the next generation of underwater photographers.

All this seems to me to be admirable and a fine example of effective local collaboration – and it was good to read High Commissioner Sarah Dickson’s comment that ‘working with BREEF on marine conservation and other projects has been a great experience’.