You are here:   Afghanistan > We Must Not Leave Afghanistan Yet
 

Any abandonment of Afghanistan, at this stage, will create exactly the kind of chaos in which these movements flourish. It will bring about the conditions where the Taliban and its even worse allies will, once again, not only return the country to the darkest night, but also remove any incentive for Pakistan to engage with its own extremist groups, at least in the border areas. Al-Qaeda and its allies will recover their safe haven where they can regroup and plan whatever further atrocities they have in mind. Even in other parts of Pakistan, those extremist groups which were created by elements in the Pakistani military's intelligence services to infiltrate Indian-held Kashmir will see this as an opportunity to consolidate themselves and to engage in activities not only against India but more widely, and, indeed, against the still-fragile democratic Pakistani government. Not only will al-Qaeda seek to attack Western and other targets but fresh oxygen will be given to those groups training people for terrorist activity in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is well known that their training and activity is not limited to South and Central Asia but that they are very capable of exporting extremism and terrorism by radicalising vulnerable young Western Muslims and using them in their own countries. It has been shown beyond doubt that Britain is particularly exposed in this matter.


Women in Kandahar province on International Women's Day 

It is vital that Western people begin to appreciate that in a globalised and highly mobile world, their interests are not confined to their territorial borders and that "minding their doorsteps" is not enough. In today's world, it would be foolish to be "a little Englander" or a "Monroe American". Western interests have to be defended globally. Usually, this happens diplomatically and through negotiation, whether political or commercial. From time to time, however, the protection of Western interests acquires a "defence" or "military" dimension. It is true that through alliances, agreements and treaties enemies can sometimes be deterred and interests protected. Only occasionally will the defence of such interests require armed intervention. When it is required, however, there should be no flinching from the focused effort, expenditure and, indeed, sacrifice which may be needed.

In the past, the Christian just war tradition provided the moral criteria as to whether a conventional inter-state conflict was justified or not. Now that most such conflicts are likely to be non-conventional and will be undertaken to prevent genocide, to frustrate the attempts of terrorists to perpetrate atrocities or to provide regional security, can this tradition still provide the necessary criteria? I believe it can. It can certainly ask whether the intention is right and whether armed action is being considered as a last resort. For example, is the intention to remove palpable evil or merely to promote the extension of one's advantage over others? Is there proper authority? This could be international authority, such as that of the UN, or a widely-based regional alliance or, indeed, it could be the authority of a nation-state, acting in self-defence, to repel or to pre-empt an attack on it. What about proper proportionality? This is much more difficult to judge: will the evil caused by the intervention exceed the evil it is seeking to remove? Here judgments need to be made not only about the immediate evil being caused but also the scale of possible harm, if the evil is left unchecked.

Similarly, in the conduct of hostilities questions about the protection of non-combatants, about proportionality and the treatment of prisoners have to be asked, even if it is acknowledged that terrorists sometimes deliberately use civilians as a shield for their atrocities and do not recognise mutual obligation. "Winning the peace" is now widely recognised as a necessary accompaniment to a conflict that may be justified. The rebuilding of a country, the restoration of power and water supplies, the maintenance of law and order are all responsibilities that can be expected in the event of success in such non-conventional types of conflict, as they previously were in the aftermaths of more conventional wars. Failure to deliver will certainly result in obscuring the moral case for the action. It may also have adverse political and social consequences. It would be terrible, for example, if Afghanistan were to be left in the ruins in which the West found it. The efforts, therefore, in physical and social reconstruction, in the provision of education, opportunity and employment are as vital as efforts to provide effective security. Such efforts are praiseworthy if carried out by the armed forces and delivered a bilateral basis. In an environment, however, where the armed services are under tremendous pressure to deliver basic security and where there is rampant corruption in the apparatus of state, surely it is vital to involve NGOs, including faith-based ones, in ways that respect their autonomy and do not compromise their integrity and credibility. There must certainly be joined-up thinking about objectives, but this does not mean that agencies should not have a certain amount of independence of action within a common framework.

Religious leaders are neither politicians nor military officers. Their task is not to decide when to undertake a particular mission of this kind and how it should be conducted. Their role is the much more modest one of praying and working for peace, of always asking whether any armed action being contemplated is a last resort and, in the end, reminding ministers and generals of the moral criteria to be used in their decision-making and in their operations. Naturally, there will be conflicts where the actions of one side or another or both will be characterised by injustice, cruelty or oppression. Such actions will need to be denounced by all who affirm basic human values and religious leaders will be among them but they should not seek to usurp what properly belongs to others. Rather, they should seek to pray, to guide, to warn and to encourage.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Ronaldo
June 2nd, 2010
5:06 AM
Christains should stop trying to convert muslims and mislims should quit trying to convert Christains. All religious people are there by choice. Religions are religions that keep us all seperated even though we are all people of this planet. Leave each other alone and quit trying to make your religion "the only true religion". No matter what you believe one thing you will never change is the truth. The truth is not negotiable. We have massive interpitations of the "word" and the urge to save everbody from themselves. Quit it!!! Let Muslims live their lives in peace and let christians live in peace and quit trying to change each other like a bad marraige! We can easily bring this world to full peace if we quit trying to change each other. Let dictatorships be, let demovracy be, let communism be and let everyone else be. Our mission on this planet is to make it a better place and until we quit thinking we are better than each other and trying to convert each other to our own ways of life we will have conflict. Respect and appreciate the different cultures and religions. This is what makes the world so diverse and intersting.

Sajid Ali Khan
January 12th, 2010
2:01 PM
What Michael Nazir-Ali seems to advocate is a generation or two of occupation & repression of Afghans by the good old Christist Americans along with any satraps willing to gradually see their soldiers decimated. No strategy in sight. Ab initio the blitzkrieg on Afghans on 7th October 2001 was one of the most grotesque acts of modern history so to continue killing Afghans attending weddings or funerals or simply going about their daily life may appeal to Christians such as Nazir-Ali but he must be aware of how provocative these eight years (and counting) of conflict are. Provocation caused the backlash which affected London, Madrid and so on, and recently apparently allegedly caused a UCL graduate to feel strongly enough to want, again allegedly, to blow a U.S. airliner out of the sky. Really Michael Nazir-Ali should follow his own advice "that a religious can only pray"!

Sergio
January 10th, 2010
6:01 AM
If they REALLY wanted to win the war on terror, all while saving European and American youth from the scourge of heavy drugs, they'd NAPALM all the poppy fields in Afghanistan and Lebanon. Thus doing, they'd close the money tap to all terror organizations, from Hizbollah to Al Qaida, which allow them to buy weapons at will...

Raymond Barry
January 3rd, 2010
3:01 PM
I am among the small minority of Canadians who thought that we should have gone into Iraq with the Americans, but I have never been enthusiastic about Afghanistan. In fact, I don't give even one hoot about Afghanistan, and I don't think that sad excuse for a country is worth even one Canadian life. If we can ever get it through our heads that the fight is not against any particular regime or country but against Islam itself we can take care of this problem in jig time. Stop playing defense, go for the knockout. They've asked for it, let's give it to them.

Anonymous
December 27th, 2009
11:12 AM
If Nazir-Ali were to venture among his kin, the Pakistanis resident in Britain, and tell them all that the West has a moral duty to stay in Afghanistan and keep on killing Afghanis, he might well earn a martyr's crown.

Bill Corr
December 25th, 2009
1:12 PM
If the USA and the UK and the whole EU and Japan - and so on - cut off all aid to Pakistan until ISI is disbanded and the safe havens of the Taliban within Pakistan utterly destroyed and the Taliban leaders in Pakistan seized or slain, we might get somewhere. Until the screws are tightened on the duplicitous Pakistanis, the war in Afghanistan will drag on until the civilized work gets bored and sick of the very mention of the place - and all the Allies subsequently leave in despair and disgust and Karzai flees to his cute little palace on the Dubai Palm Island - and the Taliban take over once more. Remind yourselves every day that each US soldier in Afghanistan is costing the US taxpayer a million bucks a year, which is slightly over $2,700 a day.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.