Uncertain future for a free Afghanistan

WHEN British troops pulled out of Afghanistan last week, ending a 13 year conflict which has claimed the lives of 453 British service personnel, it was hailed as a moment of change in the country.

In a display of marked solemnity the flag was lowered over Camp Bastion and once again the future of Afghanistan was left in the hands of the Afghanis. 

Despite the reassuring rhetoric of Western leaders it is an uncertain future at best. British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted at the time: "I made a commitment that I would get our Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by 2015 and today sees the end of combat operations in the country.

"We will always remember the courage of those who served in Afghanistan on our behalf and never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice." 

There are few who seem the rate the likelihood of the Taliban rising to power again as a likelihood. Too much has changed in the intervening years. For people given a taste of freedom, with girls now being educated in allied built schools and the ability to live their own lives without threat of brutal reprisal, returning to a life under Taliban rule holds little. 

The Taliban are not defeated, however, they still hold power in large parts of Afghanistan and its neighbours and for many they offer a form of stability and security preferable to the now uncertain future without them.

Warning of the threat still posed by the Taliban Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, was reported as saying that it was still "a very capable organisation".

"What we have to do to prevent the country slipping back is support the Afghan state - the civilian side, making sure that teachers and doctors and nurses are paid, but also critically the armed forces," he said.

"The Afghan army has come a long way in the last few years but they're still dependent on foreign money to pay their wages and right now there's a question mark over how long that will continue."

Even without the threat of the Taliban Afghanistan is far from being the bastion of peace and freedom which politicians led people to believe that it would be 13 year ago. Afghanistan is ranked as the third most corrupt country in the world. Not a position which was hoped for when Western forces stepped in to install democracy in the country. It has a weak government which many believe unable to provide coherent governance from a centralised location for the whole country. This just adds to the likelihood of disparate groups springing up around the country. If a group similar to the so called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria does not make itself known then the opportunity for powerful militia leaders to set up their own fiefdoms may prove too compelling for some.

When Russian forces were forced out of the country in the 1980's America declared that it was a new period of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. A century earlier the same had been claimed of the disastrous British route from the country. If diplomatic efforts are not increased and support still provided then for Afghanistan it may all just be a little bit of history repeating.

West prepared to sacrifice Turkey for security

ONCE thought of as a key ally of the West Turkey is becoming the scapegoat for all America and Britain's own fears.

While politicians in London and Washington wring their hands and promise increasingly sceptical and war weary electorates that they will not send in ground troops they have little compunction about demanding that Ankara does just that.

In a stunning display of arrogance and lack of foresight American lawmakers in particular have condemned Turkish government reluctance to provide support for Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State of Iraq and Syria terrorists.

The lynchpin moment has become Kobani, a town on the border of Syria and Turkey which has been pushed to a position of prominence in global politics its inhabitants would once have considered impossible. 

The French author Bernard Henri Levy wrote a widely published piece questioning whether Turkey should be allowed to remain in NATO if it does not deploy ground forces to protect the embattled holdout. 

At the same time the United Nations Security council held back from issuing a place on the Security Council, something which may have demonstrated that it was prepared to acknowledge that there were long term strategies for combating ISIS, in favour of that well known bastion of stability Angola.

While liberal thinkers may be happy to condemn Turkey for not throwing its full military might behind the West and its institutions they seem oblivious to the the implications for long term Turkish security, or the hypocrisy of claiming that American airstrikes can only do so much without Turkish ground troops. Not British, American, French et al but Turkish soldiers on the ground risking their lives in a battle they are being bullied to take part in.

From a realist position Turkey must focus on maintaining its own security. While international institutions such as NATO and the UN may be seen as necessary it is the authority of the state which is the highest authority in the international system. 

At present ISIS is unlikely to launch an attack directly against Turkey, although it undoubtedly has the ability. Alternatively Kurdish terrorists from the PKK have long made it clear that they are prepared to do just that. 

From a security position Turkey would at most risk individual acts from ISIS, which it could easily control with its experience of handling terrorists incidents, if it allowed its allies to use its airbases to launch airstrikes. If, however, it was to expand military forces and equipment in a ground war in Syria and Iraq it would spread itself across the region to protect the interests of its allies while weakening its ability to fight a longer term battle for its own internal security. By supporting Kurdish fighters against one threat officials in Ankara run a significant risk of giving them legitimacy which could lead to internal splits within Turkey further down the road.

Despite allowing Kurdish fighters to cross its borders to engage with ISIS this is no enough for Western powers who, in a stunning display of hubris, have yet again only seen the need to combat an immediate threat without any thought of the long term implications.  

Rise of right down to the fear it creates

WITHOUT realising the world seems to be sleep walking into an era of increasingly right wing and xenophobic principles.

All you have to do is look at the number of people reposting the supposedly harmless links from groups such as Britain First, many doing so without realising what and insidious and dangerous organisation this truly is.

The recent win by the United Kingdom Independence Party of a parliamentary seat in England is yet another sign of the inexorable rise of the right wing and the closing of minds across the world.

It is not just in Britain that this steady rise of the politics of fear and hatred has been seen. It is increasing across the globe, as with it brings a diminishing opportunities for solving the very problems which are pushing people towards the extremes of the spectrum.

Fears over terrorism, economic woes and increasing calls for isolationism are driving the focus of voters while hiding from them the long term impact removal from the international system would have.

Using Nigel Farage's UKIP as an example again, his calls for an exit from the European Union play well with voters but what would it actually mean for the country? Has anyone actually considered why so many countries want to join the bloc? Turkey has been in negotiations to join for years, is this merely because it enjoys the process? Of course not. It is because it knows that the benefits of joining far outweighs the negatives.

"I'm not prepared to wait for three years. I want us to have a referendum on this great question next year and if UKIP can maintain its momentum and get enough seats in Westminster we might just be able to achieve that," Farage told the BBC.

Essentially what he is saying therefore is that he is not prepared to wait until all the facts are in and people have had time to rationally analyse the arguments rather than being pushed into a decision which could, and will, diminish Britain's power in the international system for generations to come.

Parties on the far right play on fear. They attract the dispossessed not because they are any more motivated to move towards them than anyone else but because they make people believe that they are dispossessed. 

It is all too easy to think of xenophobic bigots as tattooed shaven thugs, and some still are. They have learned from the lessons of the past though. They are using social media to get people to share their insidious views, often without realising it, they preach there messages of hate coached in the language of sense by using half truths and distorted facts. They play on ignorance and fear. 

At their very worst, and here we go far beyond the hyperbole of Mr Farage's party of malcontents, and the recruitment by the global far right has much in common with that used by terrorist groups such as that calling itself Islamic State. The truth is that fear one is driving people to support the other. It is only through teaching tolerance and inclusivity that both can be defeated because it surely must happen that go one to go so must the other.