Afghanistan - The Future - Intelligence Squared

Afghanistan - The Future

10 Mar 2009

In this discussion on the future of Afghanistan, seven politicians and journalists offer their thoughts on the current situation in Afghanistan and suggest the strategy that Coalition countries should pursue in the future.

Matthew Parris begins by arguing that Afghanistan has nothing to do with Britain – that it is beyond our sphere. He believes that the money spent on waging war in Afghanistan would have been more effectively spent, and Britain would be safer as a nation, if we had invested in anti-terrorism projects and policing. Lord Inge believes that we must have clearer aims for what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan. He believes that the aim should not be to create a democracy, merely a more stable nation. Therefore, we must increase western military levels, and improve the Afghan army. Clare Lockhart argues that the ‘war’ was supposed to be a global partnership. She states that western governments funded the aid effort rather than the Afghan government. She believes the West must invest money in developing the skill of the local population, improving and developing their universities, and equipping Afghans to establish their government and civil society.

Rory Stewart states that the West lacks power, knowledge and legitimacy in Afghanistan. He believes the approach we should take involves a light footprint, fewer troops and less money – as this is more sustainable. Christina Lamb now believes that we must not increase troop levels, but argues strongly that Afghanistan is the West’s problem. She states that Afghans are stuck between a vicious Taliban, who they fear and respect for their swift justice, and a slow, corrupt and useless government. She believes that if we cannot send enough troops then we need to think about other ways out of the situation.

Anatol Lieven argues that Pakistan is more important than Afghanistan, due to their population, army and nuclear weapons. He believes that the main driving force of radicalisation is our presence. We should study the Russian experience in Afghanistan, train their army and then get out. He believes that if we do withdraw troops from the country, the Afghans will start thinking about what they need to do to secure their own future. Paddy Ashdown strongly disagrees that it is nothing to do with Britain - he believes it is about our security. If you turn your back on a lawless state, where the destroyers of peace can operate, then retribution is possible. Our aims must be consistent with the desires of the people of Afghanistan, even if we feel that the society that they create is somewhat offensive to our values. Furthermore, we must speak to the Taliban.

At the end of the debate, chair Richard Lindley asks the audience to vote, with a show of hands, for each of the following propositions: 1. All foreign military forces should leave Afghanistan now; 2. Foreign forces in Afghanistan should negotiate a deal with the Taliban; 3. Foreign troops should remain in Afghanistan until the Taliban have been defeated. Interestingly, all three propositions are defeated, with the third garnering only a few votes.

BUY THE DVD