A war of choice or necessity?

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Gordon Brown says the UK's objectives in Afghanistan are clear

The British prime minister has a difficult circle to square.

It is this: if the war in Afghanistan is so essential to British domestic security, why the rush to leave?

On the one hand, in his speech on Monday evening, he stressed that al-Qaeda must be defeated.

"We must deny terrorists the room to operate which the Taliban regime allowed the 9/11 attackers. So that is why I say the Afghan campaign is being prosecuted not from choice, but out of necessity," he stated.

On the other hand he wanted to suggest that this was not an open-ended commitment. The steady stream of coffins is having an effect.

Framework for withdrawal

The answer he proposed was to set a framework for British withdrawal. This will depend largely on handing over local security to Afghan forces.

The handover, he suggested, should start with a conference in London in January and lead to "a process for transferring district by district to full Afghan control and if at all possible set a timetable for transferring districts starting in 2010".

This is easier said than done. A new British military document on counter-insurgency lays great stress on developing indigenous capability but also highlights its risks.

"Sectarian or poorly disciplined forces may fuel the conflict. The host nation government may require firm advice, as well as financial support, to sustain the capabilities required. Previous capacity building efforts have foundered due to a lack of sustainability." (From Security and Stabilisation: The Military Contribution)

What if...?

Mr Brown did not deal with the "what if...?" question.

What happens if the Afghans cannot take over?

The implication of the prime minister's emphasis on defeating al-Qaeda and his condition that the Afghans must provide security first, indicate that he would not favour withdrawal if things went wrong.

But this is not clear. And of course, much depends on what the Americans will do. It is always hard to see Britain pulling out unilaterally.

It could be that another argument would then be put forward. It has already been raised by some who question the British presence.

Motivation

The argument is this: if domestic security is the main aim, would this not be better served by withdrawing anyway?

It would deny to al-Qaeda, and especially to the al-Qaeda-inspired followers in the UK (and most UK terrorist plots have been carried out or planned by British citizens) one of the main sources of motivation.

Later, Foreign Secretary David Miliband sought to fill in some of the detail on how a military strategy could work within a political strategy in Afghanistan designed to win support for the government.

"We will succeed in Afghanistan only when our military resources and development assistance are aligned behind a clear political strategy. Unless we get this right our military will be able to suppress the cancers of insurgency and instability, but not tackle their causes."

He laid out three principles - mobilising the people to resist the Taliban (partly by reducing corruption), encouraging senior Taliban leaders to defect and getting Afghanistan's neighbours to help.

Like Mr Brown, he was trying to lay out a strategy for success and to claim: "This is not a war without end." But it will be a long one.

[e-mail]