Sir, – Michael McDowell says that the Afghan army "did not turn up to confront the Taliban forces of about a quarter of their strength" (Opinion & Analysis, August 18th), repeating the single greatest canard spouted by President Biden in his extraordinary speech last Monday.
The facts are that 69,000 Afghan military personnel have been killed defending their country in the last eight years. An estimated 10,000 died in the last 18 months alone, almost three times the total US and UK losses combined over the last two decades.
I’d call that “turning up”.
In contrast, not a single member of US or UK armed forces have been killed since May of last year.
On July 8th last, Mr Biden justified withdrawing troops on the basis that the Afghan army was “as well equipped as any army in the word” and “clearly has the capacity to sustain the government in place” without US assistance.
In his speech last Monday, August 16th, Mr Biden said that “it is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces were not”, which he said would mean US soldiers “bearing the brunt of the fighting for them”.
So in the space of just five weeks, Mr Biden’s justification for withdrawing US troops had done a U-turn: initially, it was because the Afghan military was strong enough to survive without US help, but this week it’s because the Afghan army is so weak that it was unfair to ask US soldiers to continue to “bear the brunt”.
This shameless reversal, performed in broad daylight, shows that Mr Biden was clearly intent on pulling out of Afghanistan no matter what the cost, in order to appease domestic political pressure from the left wing in his own party.
It’s disappointing to see Mr McDowell and others trying to repackage this deeply cynical action as some kind of visionary act of foreign policy realism on Mr Biden’s part. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir,– In discussing the implosion that has followed almost two decades of US involvement in Afghanistan, The Irish Times fairly observed that “international assistance” can be seen as the cause rather than the solution, and that the response of many European capitals “has been more defensive than generous”.
The problem may be seen as an embedded flaw in the approach taken to such complex countries, akin to the hamartia of the tragic hero. It comes down to a question of what armies are for.
From the moment the US converted its war on terror into actual military conflict, with “boots on the ground”, it was inevitable that at some point they would leave. And it was entirely predictable that those they had defined as their opponents in that conflict would then claim victory. Exit can be delayed, but the final outcome surely could not be otherwise. The fact is that the only groups assembled for such endeavours are armies, whose goals, going back beyond the ancient Romans, are typically of suppression, asset stripping and the annexation of territory. Their arrival is rarely welcomed.
In the modern world, when wealthy countries engage in such endeavours, there is usually an ideological motivation. A “battle for hearts and minds” is spoken of. Human rights and education are described as the real targets. They arrive in tanks, though, and heavily armed.
Given the nature of military conflict, it is perhaps surprising that any progress is made in humanitarian areas. Reading about the last two decades in Afghanistan, it appears that literacy has actually increased by about a third. That sounds like meaningful progress – but in fact it is still only at about 45 per cent.
The idea of a European army is a contentious one. There are numerous reasons for this, but I wonder if the major issue is about the role of military forces per se, and hence the terminology. Armies are not intended for nation building, indeed their role is arguably the exact opposite of that.
A broad-based, multicultural, integrated and polyglot force for good can probably only be produced by the EU. Such a group might, in fact, be able to build a functioning state, if it included teachers, architects, healthcare workers, logistics experts and so on.
Being, by definition, from no particular country, the idea of invasion, takeover or hostility would not seem applicable. It is difficult to envisage how else extreme regimes, failed or rogue states, or ungovernable territories can be dealt with.
As the recent pandemic makes clear, the globe has never been more interconnected, and problems do not remain local for long.
While it may ideally not be an army, perhaps an EU-based coalition of the constructive might be the only credible solution to the challenges posed by locations as complex as Afghanistan. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Sir, – The $2.26 trillion cost to the United States of the war in Afghanistan would have been better spent giving each Afghan household half a million dollars. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair
Co Dhún na nGall.