"Mission accomplished" in Afghanistan? For the Tory Party, yes.
On Monday, the Prime Minister declared that Britain had accomplished its mission in Afghanistan. A âbasic level of securityâ had been achieved there meaning our troops could come home with their âheads held highâ. Mr. Cameron has a weakness for hyperbolae (e.g. GCHQ searching for online paedophiles is comparable to the Enigma code-breakers...) and he was criticised for making such a sanguine statement. The conflict is far from âmission accomplishedâ â though as far as the Tories are concerned, it has served its purpose.
Afghanistan is more important to David Cameron than most people, he included, probably realise. It is the source of his contradictory foreign policy and it was crucial to the rehabilitation of our Party as a responsible alternative government to Labour.
In his handling of foreign policy, Mr. Cameron is torn between idealism and realism â and Afghanistan is the source of these conflicting impulses. He believes that al-Qaâida used the country as a base because it was a failed state and it was a failed state because the West abandoned it after the Soviets withdrew in 1989. For him, it âis a great example of a country that if we walk away from and if we ignore and if we forget about, the problems will come visited back on our doorstep.â Had the West somehow ended the civil war and helped it with development assistance, then âjust think what might have been avoided.â This conviction lay behind the interventions in Libya and Mali. When justifying Mali, the Prime Minister argued that if Britain did not âmake the world safe all over the placeâ, then the threat from militant Islamists would only grow and âwe will face itâ eventually. Yet this limitless interventionism jars with his efforts to portray himself as a prudent realist.
We are running a global race for power and influence, according to Mr. Cameron, necessitating a strategic foreign policy which focuses on our national interests. âIf our influence is under challenge,â as William Hague believes it is, then we must âmake the most, systematically and strategically, of our great national assets.â This is especially true when it comes to the military. Whereas Labour âmade too many commitments without the resources to back them upâ, the Conservatives would be more discriminating. Afghanistan is the perfect example. In 2006, Tony Blair authorised troops to go into Helmand in insufficient numbers for the goals he had set them. Just a few years later when Gordon Brown wanted to send in more, Tory support was conditional on a âtightly definedâ strategy âbacked up by extra equipmentâ. In Mr. Cameronâs view, we simply canât afford anymore these wars to build perfect societies in inhospitable places. âEvery battle we fightâ must help Britain âriseâ amidst the decline and fall of other Great Powers.
Underpinning this contradictory foreign policy is the way he thinks about globalisation; it justifies both his idealism and realism. For almost two decades now, many in the West have been in thrall to an idea which I call âthe internationalisation of the national interestâ. It is the belief that the world has become so interconnected that crises in developing countries threaten our own security and therefore we must resolve them pre-emptively. Mr. Blair once argued that if governments are ultimately concerned about protecting their own people, as realists argue, then âthe new frontiers for our security are globalâ. The Tory leadership buys into this idealistic worldview, but it also believes that globalisation has created the global race, which demands a realist response. Mr. Hague once tried to square the circle: âWe should never be ashamed of saying we will promote our own national interest,â for it âis no narrow agendaâ.
Even though the Prime Minister thinks about international crises like Libya and Mali in Blairite terms, as Leader of the Opposition he often attacked Labour for its allegedly idealistic and astrategic foreign policy. These criticisms, especially those about Afghanistan, helped rehabilitate the Conservatives as a party of government.
By supporting the war in principle but attacking Labourâs handling of it, David Cameron could portray himself as a responsible and âhard-headedâ statesman, dispelling fears that he was not up to the job of running the country. Since the mid-1990s, the Tories had been dogged by a widespread belief that they were too irresponsible to hold office. Britain is in an era of âvalenceâ politics, it is argued: voters value âcompetence and credibility over commitment to a cause or classâ according to Tim Bale. It was essential, therefore, for Mr. Cameron to portray the Party as âa proficient alternative administrationâ. When it came to Labour and Afghanistan, he used a tactic that has always worked well for us in the past: claiming our opponents were too weak or incompetent to be trusted with the serious business of war. This tactic was an important part of the long campaign to force out Gordon Brown.
It is strange to think now just how tough an adversary Mr. Brown was, especially when you examine the popular image of him as âsubstantialâ in the context of the Toriesâ perception problem. Labour capitalised on this with the âNot flash, just Gordonâ advertisement campaign. His popularity proved short-lived, as we all know, but the financial crash could have been for him âwhat 9/11 was to Blair.â These crises engaged their respective skills, âfitted into [their] worldview, and saw [them] acting in a bold and confident fashionâ, writes the politics scholar Stephen Dyson. And just as the War on Terror strengthened the image of Mr. Blair as a responsible guardian of Britainâs safety, Mr. Brownâs handling of the crash had the same potential. If he was to be forced out of office, the Tory leadership would have to play on an alternative perception of him â an incompetent leader whose actions were motivated by concerns that had nothing to do with the national interest.
The Conservative critique of Afghanistan reinforced this perception. Labour had insufficiently ârealistâ aims (âcreat[ing] Switzerland in the Hindu Kushâ) and they lacked the commitment needed to fight, denying the military the resources it needed to win. In July 2009, Mr. Brown was thrown off guard when the then Chief of the Defence Staff claimed that more helicopters in the country would save lives. Mr. Cameron took advantage of the subsequent uproar, arguing Labour âhave got to realise we are fighting a warâ. It was not simply about money, but âabout commitment. About rolling up your sleeves and realising we need more of what weâve got actually on the frontline.â By focusing on these arguments the Tory leadership maintained their overall support for the campaign, while also playing on both popular mistrust of Blairite interventionism and a belief that the worsening military situation was entirely Mr. Brownâs fault. âWe always support our troops, but we have not shied from criticising the Governmentâs conduct of the war,â William Hague once explained, âwhen we have felt we must speak out.â
Of course, the critique was only partially true; some of it downright misleading. Mr. Brown framed the campaign in the same ârealistâ terms used by Mr. Cameron: âWe are in Afghanistan as a result of a hard-headed assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britainâ, he once stated. Success would be achieved by âenabling the Afghans to take over from international forces; and to continue the essential work of denying [their] territory as a base for terrorists.â Yet he had lost perhaps the most important asset of any politician, the right to be heard, as the Conservatives had already managed to portray themselves as the party of the national interest.
The historian Hew Strachan has argued that the Tory leadership were âreluctant to join the dotsâ between the publicâs support for the military and âthe lack of [it] for the missionsâ, but withdrawing from Afghanistan may not have led to a landslide. They had to not only win votes, but also appear to be responsible. Michael Howard revoked the Partyâs support for Iraq, one of the most unpopular wars in Britainâs history, but it was seen as opportunistic and irresponsible. However, the problem that David Cameron and William Hague created for themselves when they inherited Afghanistan was maintaining their âhard-headedâ rhetoric at the same time as pulling out the troops.
Mr. Cameronâs announcement, just a month after becoming Prime Minister, that we would be out by 2015 caused a disparity between his words and his actions. Those fighting were âdefending our freedom and our way of life as surely and as bravely as any soldiersâ in our history. Britain could not abandon the Afghans as we had to save them âfrom a return to the brutality of the Taliban, who handed the entire country to Al Qaeda [sic] as a base for logistics and trainingâ. If they came back, then âthe terrorist training camps [would] come backâ, which would mean âmore terrorists, more bombs and more slaughter on our streets.â The rhetoric suggests Afghanistan is a war of necessity, but the deadline implies it is a war of choice. As Tory backbencher John Baron once pointed out to the Foreign Secretary: If we want to âdeny al-Qaeda a base from which to operate and pose a threat to [our] streetsâ, then âsurely we should stay there until we have achieved that objectiveâ?
When he was pressed on whether or not British combat troops would be out by 2015 regardless of the conditions on the ground, Mr. Hague emphasised: âI do not want anyone to be in any doubt about this: we will be fulfilling the Prime Ministerâs commitment.â Given that âthe war will be lostâ, according to one study, if the development of the Afghan National Security Forces is rushed âbeyond what is possibleâ, the deadline contradicts Mr. Cameronâs claim that we would only leave once the job was done. The situation today is far from âmission accomplishedâ.
As far as the Tory leadership is concerned, Afghanistan has served its purpose: the Conservatives can now demonstrate their fitness for office by actually governing. Yet its continuing influence on David Cameronâs foreign policy has the potential to undermine his hard-won image as a prudent, responsible, strategically-minded statesman.
If the clamour for intervention in Syria continues, as well as for action in any other country that descends into civil war, the Prime Minister will be increasingly torn between his limitless doctrine of preventative action and his ârealistâ ambitions for British foreign policy. One of these will have to be sacrificed eventually or the Party will make the choice for him â as happened when MPs rejected his call for airstrikes against Syria. Like his old Labour adversaries, he may come to be seen as a weak leader frittering away Britain's scare military resources in idealistic wars-of-choice.Â
