Donald Trump is right to go back into Afghanistan and it’s Britain’s duty to follow with more troops, says ex-MP
DONALD TRUMP is right to send troops back into Afghanistan.
While critics and intolerant “liberals” mock his U-turn, he has been statesmanlike and brave to change course.
The threat from Afghanistan is severe and getting worse by the day.
The West and Nato have got to face up to this.
The question is: Does Britain have the political guts and military resources to do her duty?
Of course, while the headlines read “Afghanistan”, everything really hinges on Pakistan.
That country is riven by the Pakistani Taliban, whose insurgency is bloody and effective.
The Taliban boasts, for instance, that it now governs strategically crucial areas such as the Shawal Valley in Northern Waziristan.
Now these very insurgents have penetrated the forces, the intelligence services and the administration and wield considerable, covert power.
It is difficult to grapple with this contradiction, but remember where the US’s deadliest enemy — Osama bin Laden — was holed up for years: Abbottabad in “friendly” Pakistan.
To complicate things further, comes ISIS.
These most extreme of extremists are fighting the Taliban on both sides of the border, as well as the Afghan government’s forces.
A Nato airstrike killed their leader and they have been driven back to the area of Nangarhar but there they remain a threat as they continue to export terrorism to the streets of our cities.
But why should the US and the West put our young soldiers in harm’s way in Afghanistan once more? Haven’t we learnt our lesson?
There are plenty of reasons — most important of which is the estimated 120 Pakistani nuclear weapons kept at a dozen or more sites close to the Afghan border, in the middle of Taliban country.
A Harvard University study found that Pakistan’s weapons “face a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on Earth”.
The US, of course, cannot openly point out these things about her “ally” Pakistan.
Nor can she seize the nukes.
She can, however, put troops close by on the lawless Afghan border while providing crutches for the governments in Kabul and Islamabad in the shape of money, advice and political top cover.
That is what British, US and other Nato countries’ troops have died for.
It was never really about control of the poppy crop, more schools, equal rights for Afghan women or other placebos — it was simply nuclear-tipped realpolitik.
If ISIS or the Taliban got their hands on such weapons, our enemies would blast themselves into a different league of horror.
It was in 2011 that President Obama made a criminal blunder.
He broadcast the US-led Alliance’s plans to reduce force levels and all but abandon Afghanistan within three years.
He told the Taliban exactly what he was doing, when and in what numbers. They bided their time, waited for the withdrawal then swarmed back.
A small force of trainers was certainly left behind, but they are only a token.
Mr Trump must now clean up this mess.
It is refreshing to hear he will not pretend that this is nation-building.
It is about killing terrorists.
It is about killing the very people who would kill children while they listen to rock stars.
If we provide the fly paper, these lethal bugs will stick to it.
Britain’s response has been hopeless.
There have been approving squeals from Whitehall about Mr Trump’s decision but no tangible signs of physical support. True, Britain has a tiny force of 500 or so troops there already.
They are meant to be in a training and advisory role, but more than 300 are there to administer and guard fewer than 200 trainers.
Do we not have a duty to step up to the mark — and not just talk but actually support our ally?
Do we not have a duty to the thousands in the British/Pakistani community?
Supposing, though, that we recognised that duty and overcame our national political timidity, what meaningful military capacity do we have?
Certainly, we could send some aircraft and drones, but the US dominates Afghanistan’s skies without our help.
What is needed are plentiful, tough, well-trained foot soldiers, led by officers well versed from previous campaigns in this country.
But where are these troops?
The UK Government’s promise to keep the Army at an already scandalously low 82,000 troops has been quietly jettisoned.
There are now fewer than 78,000 under arms — and many of them cannot deploy due to fitness problems.
Most veterans who cut their teeth in Helmand a decade ago have gone, too, driven out by poor pay, elderly kit and overwork.
This could be turned around by determined and energetic recruiting.
With 96 places available at Catterick for one basic infantry course earlier this year, only 14 men took them up.
Not one course for new recruits across all training bases has been filled to capacity in the past two years.
Terrorism is a bitter fact of life.
But if we want to exercise some control over it, and if we do not want nuclear material in the hands of those who stalk our streets, we must act.
It is no good shrugging and spinelessly saying we did our best last time but now we have neither the kit nor the men to send.
Most of all, it’s no good hoping that our ally, the US, will do the job for us.
Alliances are a two-way street.
Patrick Mercer was a regular soldier. Most of his service was in Ulster and Bosnia.
As MP for Newark he was Shadow Security Minister and chaired the Counter-Terrorism Sub-Committee.