AFGHANISTAN 2001-2021
Historian and curator Dr Peter Johnston discusses the legacy of the long Afghan campaign
September 2021 nominally marks the final withdrawal of American and NATO military personnel from Afghanistan. First deployed as part of a Us-led coalition in 2001, the mission to find al-qaeda leaders after 9/11 ended up toppling the Taliban regime. What followed was a 20-year conflict that saw determined attempts to rebuild the country but also bloody resistance from the Taliban and other opposition groups.
Britain’s armed forces provided extensive security in Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand Province from 2006. Its personnel paid a heavy price, with 454 being killed during 2001-14.
The main British combat mission ended in
2014 but the war continued until the Taliban defeated the Nato-trained Afghan National
Army and recaptured Kabul on 15 August 2021. During these two decades the Afghan people have suffered terrible casualties, with tens of thousands of civilians killed and hundreds of thousands more wounded or displaced.
Dr Peter Johnston, Head of Collections and Research at the Royal Air Force Museum, explains Britain’s long involvement in this complex and often misunderstood conflict that has caused enormous suffering and shaped the early history of the 21st century*.
“IT WAS ABOUT REMOVING THE TALIBAN FROM POWER AND PURSUING A ‘QUEST FOR JUSTICE’ AFTER 9/11, WHICH HAD SHOCKED THE WORLD”
AN IMPERIAL PAST
HOW EXTENSIVE IS BRITAIN’S MILITARY ASSOCIATION WITH AFGHANISTAN?
I’m always keen to stress that this is Britain’s ‘latest’ war in Afghanistan. There were actually three previous ones and I do wonder how long it will be – from a British perspective – until we start referring to it as the ‘Fourth British-afghan War’.
The first war was between 1839-42. Like the most recent conflict it was initially very successful but ended with Britain withdrawing in one of the worst military disasters of the 19th century. The second was fought between 1878-80, with British-indian forces ensuring that Afghanistan remained free from Russian interference. While this second war was eventually successful the British suffered several setbacks. The third war was in 1919 when the British were again called in to fight escalating violence after a peace settlement had been established.
When you look at the history of British involvement in Afghanistan there are so many parallels, although the British successes in 2001 during the invasion tend to be almost forgotten. When people talk about the recent war, it’s Helmand during 2006-14 that they tend to focus on.
WHAT WAS THE STATE OF THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES IN 2001?
They were bigger in 2001 than in 2014, by the time they withdrew. In 2001 they were built around some key components; this included a 1998 defence review that looked at what happened since the end of the Cold War.
During the 1990s, Britain had fought in the Gulf War and had had extensive operations in the Balkans and Northern Ireland. The review looked at what that meant for the strategic realities in a British context. The government recognised that after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact there was no longer a direct military threat to the UK. However, the world was an increasingly unpredictable place and there were indirect threats that could come from anywhere around the globe.
The review posited a major shift towards expeditionary armed forces. It identified that the British armed forces should be able to respond to an international crisis that required a military effort on the scale of the Gulf War. This effectively meant a deployed division. It also saw that the British should be able to undertake an extended overseas deployment of a smaller intensity. This could perhaps mean a combat brigade with supporting air and naval forces. The armed forces had to be big enough to do both of those things and interestingly that is what happened in Afghanistan.
Significantly, the 1998 review claimed that it did not expect both of those deployments to be maintained simultaneously for more than six months. When we look at combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan you already see that overstretch. The armed forces were experiencing something that had been specifically argued against by the review.
CONSIDERING BRITAIN’S MILITARY HISTORY IN AFGHANISTAN, WAS THERE ANY SENSE IN 2001 THAT RE-ENTERING THE COUNTRY WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA?
It’s important to understand what the original 2001 deployment to Afghanistan was. It was
“HELMAND HAD BEEN RELATIVELY STABLE BUT THE BRITISH ARRIVED AND PROVOKED A VIOLENT RESPONSE FROM A RESURGENT TALIBAN”
about removing the Taliban from power and pursuing a ‘quest for justice’ after 9/11, which had shocked the world. It was considered a different operation – it was not about pacifying a region on imperial borders, because the British Empire no longer existed. It was essentially a surgical military operation to remove the Taliban, although the far more complicated human level certainly wasn’t appreciated.
The first stage of the war was actually very successful. The Taliban were driven from power and fled Kabul in November 2001. Subsequent operations cleared them out of their various strongholds and there was even the creation of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF). This continued to operate in Afghanistan, particularly from 2006 onwards. That actually grew out of the British component – the 3rd Mechanised Division – and it was the British that deployed as the first ISAF peacekeepers because it wasn’t then a combat operation. For a period it looked as though success had actually been achieved.
INVASION, IRAQ & HELMAND
WHAT OPERATIONS DID THE BRITISH PARTICIPATE IN DURING THE INVASION?
The British were split among multiple levels. There were RAF and naval assets along with Royal Marines commandos deployed on the ground. The army was represented by 2 Para and the navy by 40 Commando initially and all of them were taking part in operations during 2001-03.
There was also a lot of Special Forces activity. There are amazing photographs of Special Forces running around on horseback with Afghan militia groups such as the Northern Alliance. They worked with them to defeat the Taliban and captured cities like Herat. They would clear Afghan strongholds and drive them back into cave systems.
After 2001, there was a sense of establishing security. In 2004, RAF Harriers were deployed for the first time as an ‘in country’ asset rather than being called in from elsewhere to provide close air support. Britain deployed quite a large number of troops into Afghanistan to initially secure it. They maintained this presence until
2006, when they were mainly pivoted south to Helmand.
WHAT WAS THE BRITISH ROLE IN HELMAND?
ISAF and NATO expanded across Afghanistan. Having pacified the region around Kabul, the idea was that the rest of the country should go through a similar stage of reconstruction for a secure future.
The British moved south to Helmand. They thought this was an area where they could do some good, including pouring in money from
international aid. The initial mission was about provincial reconstruction and a ‘hearts and minds’ project that opened schools, clinics and so on. Until 2006, Helmand had been relatively stable but the British arrived and provoked a violent response from a resurgent Taliban. In July 2006, that mission changed from peacekeeping to combat.
WHAT IMPACT DID THE IRAQ WAR HAVE ON THE BRITISH MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN?
It was incredibly significant. There is certainly a view among historians that the success in Afghanistan emboldened the Americans and British into conducting a similar operation in Iraq. However, Iraq was an entirely different environment and it required considerably more resources.
From 2003, the British deployed large numbers of personnel and resources into Iraq and it became the main focus for the next few years. Afghanistan turned into a long-term stabilisation mission but the move to Helmand and the way it blew up created a huge problem for the British. They were suddenly fighting two major operations on two fronts, which required heavy sustainment. From a sheer logistical perspective these were happening far away from Britain, so maintaining and supervising them was a huge effort in itself – let alone combat troops.
Camp Bastion in Helmand grew to the size of Reading purely as a logistical base. In Iraq, the British were centred in Basra. This required intense operations to maintain their presence before they could even think about stabilisation.
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN A ‘CONVENTIONAL’ WAR?
Afghanistan wasn’t a conventional conflict from the very beginning. The British deployed naval and RAF assets for transport and supply but it was a light infantry force on the ground. These were the Paras, Royal Marines commandos and Special Forces who were the best tools the British had on hand for these kinds of operations.
What evolved were elements of counterinsurgency and a complicated landscape of who the British were fighting. They weren’t always fighting the Taliban: there were also foreign fighters, local militia forces and narcotics warlords. The British had to spend a huge amount of time trying to understand who they were fighting and how they could effectively counter them. They had to do this while undergoing rotations and conducting intense operations in Iraq.
WHAT NOTABLE BATTLES WERE THE BRITISH INVOLVED IN?
From 2006 the overall British operation was called Operation Herrick and within that were several operations, particularly during 200910. These were all about trying to surge troops to provide security for particular events. Operation Panther’s Claw was about providing security for the 2009 presidential election by securing canal crossings and key settlements. Operation Moshtarak involved driving the Taliban out of areas in Helmand and trying to establish more regular safe zones where provincial reconstruction could take place. The British could instigate positive programmes like medical aid, education and provide the basic levels of security that you needed for those things to function.
There were other operations where the British were actively engaged. They had Forward Operating Bases operating out of patrol houses and were engaged in Helmand from Nawzad in the north to Marjah in the south.
The British were involved in big operations but they were also working multi-nationally. They increasingly worked alongside the Afghan National Army and security forces to build up to a stage where the Afghans could take on a greater (and ultimately complete) level of responsibility.
THE BRITISH ARMY’S ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN IS WELLKNOWN, BUT WHAT WAS THE RAF’S CONTRIBUTION?
The RAF contribution was significant. They provided close-combat air support with Harrier and Tornado aircraft but they were also in command of the airstrip at Camp Bastion.
This was a lifeline to the UK and at one point Bastion was Britain’s fourth busiest airport.
Some of the most enduring pictures we have of Afghanistan are soldiers crouched with a Chinook landing soldiers or evacuating casualties. These were flown by RAF pilots with medical teams on board. The medical evacuation procedures developed in Afghanistan saved thousands of lives. The way that battlefield medicine improved, even with injuries that people would have sadly succumbed to just decades before, meant that people were surviving because of the amazing medical care they received.
PERCEPTIONS OF WAR
HOW WERE THE BRITISH PERCEIVED BY THE TALIBAN AND AFGHAN CIVILIANS?
It’s difficult because ‘Taliban’ is given as this catch-all term. There was a real gamut of enemy fighters and there are also lots of stories about Afghan fighters (and even some civilians) not really appreciating who the British were. Stories have emerged of Afghans saying: ‘We’re going to throw you out again because we don’t want you Russians here.’ The British are obviously not Russians but this is how the Afghans saw external people and invaders. They saw them as part of this long tradition of people they fought against and wanted to get rid of.
In places like Kabul, the cultural memory of the British occupation and 19th century retreat remained quite strong. It wasn’t always an incredibly hostile environment but it wasn’t a particularly friendly one either. People were happy that the Taliban had gone but they weren’t necessarily happy with the ongoing security presence that was required. It wouldn’t have happened without foreign troops occupying their country and so it was a very complicated landscape. The British in Helmand actually brought enormous benefits: healthcare, education, building roads and improving communications. At the same time, they were not entirely welcomed.
“WHAT IS COMPLETELY ABSENT FROM POPULAR MEMORY IS THE GOOD THE BRITISH DID IN AFGHANISTAN. THEY ACHIEVED POSITIVE CHANGE WHILE THEY WERE THERE”
DESPITE BEING ONE OF BRITAIN’S LONGEST WARS, WHY WAS AFGHANISTAN OFTEN UNDER-REPORTED BY THE BRITISH MEDIA?
It’s interesting because Afghanistan was one of Britain’s most visible wars. There was a long period when it was on the news every night. Sadly, that tended to focus on British casualties, with 2009 being the bloodiest year. The focus on casualties began to dominate the coverage. The most famous pictures people have of Afghanistan are the infantry slogging through dusty fields or [fallen] soldiers being repatriated from planes at RAF Brize Norton and paraded back through Royal Wootton Bassett. That’s tended to dominate our cultural understanding of what Afghanistan was. What is completely absent from popular memory is the good the British did in Afghanistan. They achieved positive change while they were there but it wasn’t really covered.
What was also not covered much were the enormous sacrifices that Afghans were making alongside the British. The Afghan National Army and security forces suffered (and continue to suffer) thousands of casualties. The British were not fighting by themselves because they were training, mentoring and fighting alongside the Afghans. The cost to the Afghans was enormous and I don’t think that was reported enough.
Additionally, the media narrative has tended to be on the effect on veterans. There are some who have unfortunately suffered psychological injuries alongside the physically wounded but the focus on them has detracted from the overall experience of soldiers who served there. That was not the majority experience and the picture was more complex. Our understanding of the campaign has to be more nuanced and I don’t think it currently is.
‘NEVER SAY NEVER’
WHAT DOES THE DEPARTURE OF AMERICA AND NATO REVEAL ABOUT WHAT WAS (OR NOT) ACHIEVED IN AFGHANISTAN?
Everybody has a different perspective. There are people who are very proud of what they did during their tours in Afghanistan. There are people who believe it was a colossal waste of time, treasure and blood. Because the war is happening now it’s a very emotive subject and it’s very difficult to assess whether it was a success or failure.
I certainly don’t think you can currently call Afghanistan a success given that a resurgent Taliban appears to be moving across the country again. However, there are positives from what the British were able to do. There was successful training and opportunities for people to see the human cost of war, which shouldn’t be underestimated. Medical science was advanced to help people overcome severe injuries. Some of the medical techniques developed in Afghanistan have even made it into the NHS.
The question that everybody has to ask is: ‘Was it worth it?’ That includes the thousands of Afghan schoolgirls that went to school and life expectancy improvement. My own personal perspective will differ from other people and I would be arrogant to say that my opinion is more valid than theirs.
What we need to do as a British society is evaluate this and at least achieve some kind of consensus. There will be another time where we have a debate about militarily intervening somewhere around the globe. You saw it with Syria where the shadow of Afghanistan and Iraq meant that Britain did not directly intervene in the Syrian conflict – it was a direct legacy.
GIVEN BRITAIN’S LONG ASSOCIATION WITH AFGHANISTAN, DO YOU THINK ITS ARMED FORCES WILL RETURN IN THE NEAR FUTURE?
There are practical questions to ask about whether Britain can sustain a long-term deployment in Afghanistan again. A lot has changed in the armed forces even since
2014 because they’ve reduced in size and are currently going through a reorientation to strategic threats.
The most important question is whether the political will is there. The British armed forces do not decide who they fight. They are a tool of the British state and go where they are sent. Is the political will there to redeploy to Afghanistan?
No. However, one legacy of Afghanistan is that you should say: “Never say never.’ Do I think the British armed forces will return? No. Am I 100 per cent confident of ruling it out? No.
“YOU CAN’T CURRENTLY CALL AFGHANISTAN A SUCCESS … HOWEVER, THERE ARE POSITIVES FROM WHAT THE BRITISH WERE ABLE TO DO”