Biden’s choices were limited

I read Sir John Redwood’s 19-August “Westminster Diary” with the usual dismay at his partisan and dangerous rhetoric.

True, it is worrying that Taliban control of Afghanistan will create a “terrorist safe haven”. But these are dangers that are managed remotely in dozens of other locations around the globe. As written, Sir John’s article is the frustrated rant of those who supported the colonisation of Afghanistan.

The fact is that Sir John and politicians on both sides of the ocean have never made the case for a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The public was promised a temporary engagement as a representative Afghan government was formed. But recent events have proven, despite 20-years’ engagement, that a Western-style Afghan government requires a permanent military presence to prop it up.

When President Biden was inaugurated, the withdrawal agreement and timeline were already in place – and the Taliban controlled/ contested half the country’s districts.

The President’s choices in February fell into two groups: continue withdrawal or reintroduce troops to fight the Taliban.

All other options, including a “pause” or “surge”, inevitably lead to one of these two choices.

The British and American public have been clear for over a decade, that they do not want to remain in Afghanistan. President Biden is fulfilling a campaign promise by withdrawing. It should be recognised that he took an extra three months trying to shore up the Afghan government, during which he also restarted the visa scheme to evacuate our allies.

We now see that the Afghan government had no control, nor the faith of its own troops, and was doomed. Post-match debates on the sequence of withdrawal do not change the correctness of the strategy.

And that strategy, to decolonise Afghanistan, is both right and popular.

But the premise of Sir John’s article is to call out the risks arising from the withdrawal strategy – a strategy that is 18 months old, dating to President Trump’s Doha deal with the Taliban in Feb 2020.

So, let’s review what Sir John done over the past year to raise these issues and press for the UK government for answers. Did he call for Britain, NATO or the UN to take up the US’s military position in Afghanistan?

Is he offering 6,000 British troops now to replace the departing Americans?

Did he demand this government accelerate the evacuation of its allies in the past year? Or, has he offered ways to contain China or Iran as allied forces left? No, of course not.

His article only criticises and stokes fears, attacking an ally during a massive and successful evacuation effort.

If Sir John felt an ongoing military/ colonial presence in Afghanistan was critical, the time to have spoken up was over a year ago. Unless he’s offering solutions to the current scenario, or seeking to hold this government’s ministers to account, I am not interested in his late concerns over decolonisation.

Tom Ross, Crowthorne