We need to be certain sacrifice of lives in Afghanistan is justified - Times Online

Image by tanakawho via Flickr

There could be few bleaker visions posing the question “Is it worth it?” than those of the shattered, maimed and broken young soldiers rushed on stretchers into the operating theatre of the British-run hospital in Camp Bastion, Helmand.

What imagined nirvana of good Afghan governance would justify the loss of his legs to the double amputee? However may “development and stability” explain to the young soldier his missing lower face?

And what of the wives, mothers or children of the three dead British soldiers carried into “Rose Cottage”, the hospital mortuary, on Thursday? What possible outcome in such a faraway land could mollify their loss and leave them less grief stricken?

None, of course, for all are casualties of war in their own different ways and casualties of war, like victims of crime, seldom get to sit on the jury in deciding a war’s worth.

Yet the question “Is it worth it?” should haunt the rest of us over the coming week more so than usual because of two events. First, it is a near-inevitability that within this time the 200th death of a British soldier in Afghanistan will occur.

There is a certain rounded resonance to the figure of 200 dead soldiers: a suggestion of milestone or even meaning. You can almost imagine the graves in the mind’s eye — ten rows of twenty.

Predictably, the 200th death will provoke a transient flare of interest, followed by various assertions by soldiers, true enough, that their morale in Helmand is strong, that 200 is just a number, and that they are motivated by abstract concepts such as a sense of craic, professionalism and espirit de corps that will keep them fighting on in the face of increasing casualties and the absence of any notable improvement in Afghanistan for some time to come.

Their voices should be heard. It should also be noted, though, that British soldiers are getting killed and wounded in greater numbers in Helmand than ever before.

Forty-seven have been killed during the past four months of 19 Brigade’s tour — a higher count than that of any previous brigade during the standard six-month deployments. Forty-one of these soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs, which suggests that the Taleban, utilising cheap explosive and circuit materials to deadly effect, are fighting their war in a more cost-effective fashion than the coalition with its mass expenditure.

We should not necessarily be prepared to have our soldiers lose their lives in such numbers indefinitely, even should they be prepared to do so, without asking two more questions. Is the fight necessary? Has it a reasonable chance of advantageous conclusion?

Critics of the war suggest any number of countries that pose terrorist threats to Western interests, some greater than that posed by Afghanistan. Alternatively, the war’s supporters offer a doomsday scenario in which a failure of the coalition mission results in a new round of civil war and the re-establishment of large-scale terrorist training facilities in the Pashtun south, which will disseminate an al-Qaeda-based ideology and skills at a rate far beyond the capabilities of localised radical cells already in Europe.

Assuming that you accept this latter argument and can stomach the level of British soldiers’ deaths, then you will likely see any chance of an advantageous conclusion stand or fall in the second key event of the week: the presidential election of August 20.

There is little of the brave hope that accompanied Afghanistan’s last presidential election. Already the run-up to this one has been dogged by widespread allegations of fraud. Outside the main urban areas in the south there is a chance that Taleban intimidation will deter huge numbers of Pashtun voters from visiting polling stations at all.

There are fears that a second-round run-off could provoke a new cycle of nationwide ethnic violence. And even should President Karzai win a second term of office alongside his warlord running-mates the future will look far from secure.

Personally, I could just about stomach seeing those wounded soldiers on Thursday by holding on to the fraught hope that even a modest form of stability and peace may yet unfold as a result of their efforts in Afghanistan.

But if, eight years on from the first deployment of British troops here, the presidential election tangles the country into an even greater level of insecurity then I am almost sure that I could no longer believe that the price is worth it or success achievable.