Our mission in Afghanistan is destined to fail. NATO should withdraw

Our mission in Afghanistan is destined to fail. NATO should withdraw

22 Feb 2007

The Panel debate the motion that our misson in Afghanistan is destined to fail, and that NATO should withdraw. Chaired by Matthew Leeming.

Arguing in favour of the motion are General Charles Vyvyan, Michael Griffin, and Clare Short.

Charles Vyvyan proposes the motion by outlining the reasons why foreign involvement will fail in Afghanistan. After bemoaning a lack of real commitment by coalition governments, he stresses that the aim should not be that of victory, but measured success. He ends by warning that NATO risks losing its credibility if it does not withdraw the coalition forces. Michael Griffin asserts that 34 out of 36 NATO members have already effectively withdrawn from the effort in Afghanistan. He describes NATO's presence in Afghanistan as an exercise in fraudulent advertising and concludes by suggsting that NATO finds more creative things to do, perhaps in Darfur. Clare Short states from the outset that she is not arguing for an immediate and humiliating withdrawal. She does however put forward two reasons why the mission is destined to fail: first, that the post-conflict period since 2001 has been mishandled; second, that the international presence in Afghanistan is acting as a recruiting mechanism, directing more and more fundamentalist militants towards terrorism.

Arguing against the motion are Christina Lamb, Dr Whitney Azoy, and Lawrence Freedman.

Christina Lamb counters the motion by reminding the audience why foreign troops are there in the first place – Afganistan was the frontline on terror – and says the Iraq experience should motivate us to get it right. While she concedes that the campaign represents too little, too late in terms of troop numbers, she points out the goodwill shown by the majority of Afghans and the fact that only five or six provinces are experiencing serious security issues. Whitney Azoy discusses Afghanistan's geopolitical situation, asking how this country could stand on its own feet in the shadow of Russia and India. He states that Afghanistan has always relied on these buffer states and has long been a target of Pakistan's expansionist ambitions. Azoy points out that 'Afganistan' is a relatively recent creation – by no means a nation-state – and that NATO must therefore remain there until extreme Islamic fundamentalism has ceased to be a global menace. Lawrence Freedman concludes the opposition, beginning with the idea that NATO forces are not blindly following US foreign policy. He outlines the important reasons why we are, and should be, in Afghanistan, pointing to the absence of demands for withdrawal from the Afghan government.

First Vote: 240 For, 230 Against, 257 Don't Know

Final Vote: 183 For, 524 Against, 35 Don't Know

The motion is defeated by 341 votes

BUY THE DVD