The sunken cost fallacy on Afghanistan
I have to agree with, and have already agreed with, Matthew Parris who thinks the public mood is turning against the war in Afghanistan.
The worse part of all this is seeing the description of the dead as Heros ( many no doubt where - but those words are used by our politicians to trump any debate ) whose sacrifice has not been in vain.
Well the disturbing truth is it may very well have been.
Like a share holder who can sell his stocks because they were worth so much yesterday and doing so would recognise the loss, so our current weak and deceitful government can't admit we may have to call it a day, because the cries of the relatives, widows and Father less children would condemn them.
So they carry on.
They carried on for the last year as they had other things to worry about.
They will carry on now till the election as like all the other big decisions that require reversals they put their own selfish personal interests before those of the country they have the cheek to claim they serve.
The closest they are coming to this is the attempt at using the Basra hidden surrender policy in Helmand, which will be a slow national humiliation.
By the way what are the Dutch, Canadians and others doing right now ?
I have been sceptical about the Helmand phase of this war since its beginning, and I think that will soon be the majority view ( See also Robert Fox's article on "Britain stumbles into Afghan trap" from 11 July 2006). To our collective shame more good men and women will die as our government can't face the bad headlines that doing something about their failures will generate.
Update: See John Redwood on this also as a sign that Matthew is right about the winds of change.
Labour can't complain. All those senior officers warning about 10, 20 and even 40 year commitments were really telling our politicians something. In the future people will wonder openly how those statements weren't challenged more openly ( as I'm sure those making them hoped they would be ).
To see my posts on Afghanistan click here
The worse part of all this is seeing the description of the dead as Heros ( many no doubt where - but those words are used by our politicians to trump any debate ) whose sacrifice has not been in vain.
Well the disturbing truth is it may very well have been.
Like a share holder who can sell his stocks because they were worth so much yesterday and doing so would recognise the loss, so our current weak and deceitful government can't admit we may have to call it a day, because the cries of the relatives, widows and Father less children would condemn them.
So they carry on.
They carried on for the last year as they had other things to worry about.
They will carry on now till the election as like all the other big decisions that require reversals they put their own selfish personal interests before those of the country they have the cheek to claim they serve.
The closest they are coming to this is the attempt at using the Basra hidden surrender policy in Helmand, which will be a slow national humiliation.
By the way what are the Dutch, Canadians and others doing right now ?
I have been sceptical about the Helmand phase of this war since its beginning, and I think that will soon be the majority view ( See also Robert Fox's article on "Britain stumbles into Afghan trap" from 11 July 2006). To our collective shame more good men and women will die as our government can't face the bad headlines that doing something about their failures will generate.
Update: See John Redwood on this also as a sign that Matthew is right about the winds of change.
Labour can't complain. All those senior officers warning about 10, 20 and even 40 year commitments were really telling our politicians something. In the future people will wonder openly how those statements weren't challenged more openly ( as I'm sure those making them hoped they would be ).
To see my posts on Afghanistan click here
5 comments:
They will carry on now till the election as like all the other big decisions that require reversals they put their own selfish personal interests before those of the country they have the cheek to claim they serve.
The closest they are coming to this is the attempt at using the Basra hidden surrender policy in Helmand, which will be a slow national humiliation.
In military terms, it could never have worked, it was never going to have worked. It is arrogance to look at the Russian experience as a one off. No one has ever succeeded there.
If, on the other hand, there were other goals, then who knows if they've been achieved?
The Economist hinted a week ago at the real goals being in relation to Iran and Pakistan.
Of course they have destabilised Pakistan greatly - which is what makes the stopping terrorism line such a laugh.
But the harder you push in Afghanistan the harder it pushes back.
The thing that gets me is that all this was predicted 3 years ago, yet they blundered on.
So I guess you have to ask about other agendas.
One for Labour may be to destroy the British Military as a pillar of our society to make it easier to establish the totalitarianism socialism they seem to crave.
Really nice to see the MSM catching up.
Even as we type Brown is busy planning to back out with announcements about an international conference about Afghanistan with Angela Merkel.
Just as he's betrayed those murdered by Libyan explosives in the hands of the IRA (don't think the offer of dedicated helpers at the FO and lifts for relatives to negotiate with the Libyans will mean much ) and the victims of Lockerbie, so the families of the dead in Afghanistan will be betrayed.
As someone from a military family I'm dismayed.
Like the relatives of RUC officers murdered on duty, British families can expect the deaths of their loved ones to be treated just as the deaths of those over and at Lockerbie were by Labour.
I have a feeling this is Somalia, but for Britain - where the failure will be political, but paid for in blood due to a lack of confidence and an international advertisement of weakness. The US was rewarded with 9/11 as a result of its mistakes in the face of an enemy once engaged.
But the US has its Suez moment to look forward to - when it learns it can't afford the courage of its fighting forces.
None of this is very happy.
If you are going to be involved in a campaign like this, which is expensive in blood and money, you have to be able to describe in a paragraph or two, a clear idea of what victory would look like,and that has to include a political solution.
You then have to describe a strategy for achieving the goal. It has to explain how factors such as the opium business are to be dealt with and how the strategy is going to succeed, whereas other military involvements in Afghanistan have turned sour.
In the absence of a realistic goal and a strategy to achieve it, we're just there "fighting the Taleban" or "fighting the war on terrorism". I've not heard Brown or anyone else spell a credible goal out and articulate a strategy.
As for other goals concerning Iran or Pakistan, I doubt the thinking went that far. This was launched after 9/11 and I suspect was to show that something was being done.
Post a Comment