All the greatest missions have crept spectacularly. This is no exception

FOR THE PAST decade or so, whenever there has been any substantial British military deployment, a moment comes when pundits and former generals are invited to worry about the danger of something called “mission creep”. To me the words suggest a well-intentioned incompetence combined with mild indecency — a bit like a man who has left his flies undone on the same day that he has neglected to put on underwear. And there is always the suggestion that the result is not entirely accidental.

So it is following the latest British Army deaths in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. There is speculation that British forces, sent there to protect the process of reconstruction (or more properly — given what was there before — construction) are confronting an enemy far stronger than expected and that thus their role is in some way altered drastically. There is a shaking of heads.

Well, if this is mission creep then the phrase is meaningless. The American military historian Charles E. White pointed out recently that some of the greatest missions in modern history have crept spectacularly. His own favourite example was the Lewis and Clark Expedition, sent out overland by President Thomas Jefferson from his cramped seaboard United States in 1804, and charged with taking ten chaps to discover the Northwest Passage. Ten became fifty and the expedition opened up the whole of Trans-Rockie North America. Dr White’s conclusion from this, and other examples, was that “mission creep is a phenomenon that should be fully recognised within the planning process for any operation”. History creeps. Supporting Poland becomes defending Crete. Attacking secession becomes emancipating the slaves. We don’t have complete wisdom, we are always guessing. Maybe there are thousands of highly effective Taleban fighters in Helmand province who will fight to the bloody end. And maybe they won’t.

The stuff about mission creep, then, probably means something else. For example, the BBC’s correspondent in Kabul, Alastair Leithead, commenting on the latest casualties, described them as a “severe blow to the deployment and to (the British Army’s) mission in Afghanistan”. By this he could have meant either one, or both, of two things. The first was that commanders would have to rethink their entire plan for engagement in southern Afghanistan. The second was that political and public support for their efforts might be compromised by a continuing loss of British life.

To write that the mission is a good one and is worth the risk to others’ lives that it entails, always means being accused of armchair soldiering. That’s both right and a challenge that should be accepted. And to try to be concrete about it, lets just examine one way in which our presence (and thus the risk) is worthwhile. We all know that the Taleban, in their weird mixture of fundamentalist Islam and tribalism, conceived that education for half the population — the female half — was a sin, to be prevented by physical force and punishment.

Nearly five years after they were ousted by the coalition in late 2001 half of all eligible children attend school, and a third of girls (even in the Taleban-ridden south 15 per cent of girls go to school). This means something like 1.8 million Afghan girls are receiving an education that was previously denied to them.

Now those schools have become a primary target of Taleban “militants” (as school-burners and women-beaters are known here in the West). In the past few months hundreds of schools have been burnt down. Just before Christmas in Helmand a teacher of girls was taken to the school gate and shot. Two days later, in the same province, a teenage student and a watchman were murdered. Earlier this year it was estimated that 66 of Helmand’s 224 schools had been closed down as a result of intimidation or arson.

One result of this campaign has been to undermine the Karzai Government in the eyes of Afghans. Ahmad Nader Nadery, of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said the Taleban wanted “to show the people that the Government and the international community cannot keep their promises”. Sardar Muhammad, who works for the relief agency the Mercy Corps in Helmand added that the Taleban were “against all education. Ignorant people are easier to control”.

Since arriving in May the protection of schools in Helmand has been one of the tasks of British paratroopers. It is their job, among others things, to reverse the local perception that by day the Government’s writ may run — albeit tenuously — but by night the Taleban are the bosses. Other tasks have included the construction of bridges, water plants and other facilities that could help farmers to make money from crops other than opium poppies.

Despite this work there is a powerful series of arguments, both from Left and Right, that it would be best if our soldiers were to get out of Afghanistan pretty much immediately. And, though it isn’t stated, it is hard to imagine that such advocates would want American and other Nato troops to remain whence we had departed.

Who are we, after all, to try to force upon a reluctant culture our own superficial norms, such as the right to an education if you are born female. I well remember one — albeit unrepresentative — columnist arguing in The Guardian in the autumn of 2001 that “while the Taleban were imposing their beliefs and reducing freedom on one side, the same can be said of the male-dominated and often misogynistic fashion industry on the other. The question of which is the more ruthless form of persuasion, the lashes of the Taleban or the multimillion-pound advertising flashes of the fashion industry remains a moot point.” It takes real commitment to the anti-imperialist cause to equate being flogged to with being flogged.

Don’t these exotic peoples, in any case, prefer to be flogged by their own kind? And isn’t it only us international do-gooders and meddlers who cause trouble by imagining that we can re-order the world with a Chinook flightful of Pomeranian Grenadiers? Short-term self-interest, these critics argue, is what should motivate foreign policy. Leave it alone. Give it up.

As I read Christina Lamb’s extraordinary account in The Sunday Times of being ambushed in Helmand my thought was not “too much”, but “not enough”. More helicopters, if they’re needed. More of everything, if that’s required. We should be doing it for Nooria, the 12-year-old girl interviewed by Newsweek in February. A dozen or so gunmen had entered her school, beaten the watchman and then burnt the place down. Then the written threats started.

So classes took place under the trees in the courtyard and other schools lent some of their own books. Nooria, whose ambition is to teach, told the magazine’s reporter that she wasn’t afraid of being beaten or mutilated. “I want to keep studying,” she said.

That’s mission creep, I suppose. You go in to get rid of the Taleban and you end up risking lives just to educate women. And — both for itself, and in terms of what it means about the world we want, I think it’s worth it.

Comments

[Rowan Berkeley]

Honestly, David, have you no shame? Sailing the war against Islam under the 'rights for women' flag is a bad joke.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear David,

You sound positively American. Watch it.

When fighting Moslem terror, soldiers will die. Any country not prepared for that should not try it.

If I remember my Empire history, weren't you guys good at finding mercenaries around the world and letting them do their thing? Ghurkas, Mongols, and Zulus seem the perfect Afghan school monitors.

[jonathan thake]

am i being thick to some very deep irony? when did rights for women get shameful? surely they're one of those quite decent things - like freedom of speach, universal emancipation and not burying homosexuals alive - or have we just slipped into backwards land?

[Jack Ramsey]

Well said David and nice to see emanuel and I are in agreement (but I won't get compalcent!).

"Mr. Churchill we're a bit worried that there has been a bit of - er- mission creep I think it is called. When you took your belligerent tone against Herr Hitler you didn't tell us that London was going to be bombed. In fact had you not been so pig headed we could have come to some agreement. After all the way they treat Jews is not really very different to the way that you middle class people treat working class people...."

Whilst aims might remain the same it is unlikely that objectives will in an uncertain environment.

From those who complain of mission creep we don't hear of any alternative plans except ideas along the line of "getting the UN" to do something. Because it is "international" it is seen as intrinsically good and the font of all wisdom. If you ask the average Guardianista what should be done instead they usually start with "well not that" but usually fail to say what should be done. No chance of mission creep there! On the other hand the ideology tacitly closest to the heart of the Guardianistas, that of state socialism, has shown spectacular mission creep in the 20th century. Of course with mission creep like that one is forced into greater contortions to show (a) that's what we meant all along and (b) it's not that bad. Or how about the mission creep on comprehensive education? A noble aim, to allow more working class students who would benefit to stay on, was implemented with an ideology "close every f***ing grammar school" and still the educational establishment won't admit it has failed.

The point is that non-utopians can see when unintended or unexpected consequences occur and refocus to deal with the new problem. Ideologists keep trying to repackage the chaging world in the old mental straitjacket.

[Matt O'Halloran]

Well, if we're going to fight an undeclared war against an invisible enemy that will last for the next half century and end as vaguely as it began, why shouldn't its armchair apologists change the reason for fighting it every couple of days?

I'm sure the British Army will happily die in any number of ditches for the right of veiled schoolgirls to be brainwashed collectively instead of at home.

[nigel Gilbert]

David, do you have any idea how overstretched the UK Armed Forces are at the moment? Can you imagine how terrifying it must be to be involved in a firefight with incoming from 3 sides only to be told no air cover available? No aircover because there is nothing else in the cupboard. Do you know anyone who has been killed in our recent wars of choice? I am all for sorting out the Taliba but where on earth are the reinforcement troops coming from? I don't know if you are married but can you imagine being away from your wife and kids for 6 months at a time? Home for a short time then back out again. Out troops are braver than you could ever imagine. I don't suppose you will be encouraging your kids to join the Armed Forces any time soon. Please think through what you are saying with more compassion for those sent out to do your dirty work.

[Andrew Snelling]

While I would be the first to suggest that most of these world problems would benefit from an extra dose of wisdom, it is also clear that the problems places like Afghanistan throw up will not go away if ignored. The trick is to use the right level of coercion to get the required long term results. My fear is that in the "risk averse" society that we now live in we want to believe that either these problems will never reach us or that they can be cured without any short term sacrifice.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Re this Afghan thing

Gentlemen, let us reason together.

I am conflicted.
It is noble to free slaves. The question is, can you do it? Can you persuade enough Afghans to become defenders of liberty or are we wasting money and lives? Our Women Libber's were shocked to find that some Afghan women persisted in wearing the Burqa.

America went into Afghanistan in a fury over being attacked on 9/11. We saw it as a modern Pearl Harbor. The object was the overthrow of the Taliban and the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

The question is should the UK stay for any extended period? I can see it as a training opportunity for special forces or Ghurkas. I appreciate the loyalty of the Blair Government. But, is it a fool's errand to commit any sizeable number of troops? Shouldn't more European troops get in there ? You have more experience with the Afghans than we do.

Osama Bin Laden has been reported to be in the NWFP. The only way to get him would be to do a massive invasion or bribe an informant for a Zarqawi-style hit. I think the latter's more efficient.

[Nick (South Africa)]

A trully excellent piece; hopefully it will serve to degausse just a few compromised moral compasses.

[Jack Ramsey]

I would hate it if my son or daughter were in the armed forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I would not stop them making the armed forces their career choice and would feel a sort of terrified pride if they did so.

Actually I would hate it if I were in the armed forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan. I am a natural born coward.

I don't see that any of the above has anything to do with whether or not the UK army should be in Afghanistan. If it did then those thousands of terrified seasick Allied soldiers should not have taken part in D Day. Britain could have come to an agreement with the Third Reich, as many suggested in the early years of the war.

Now you may not believe that there is a terrorist threat which is larger than a few nuts with rucksacks. OK that is a feasible position - I believe it is wrong. But that is what you should argue it on. To argue on the basis of feelings is to surrender to sentimentality.

The BBC is very good at sentimentalism. After a ghastly accident or terrorist incident they often ask the relatives how they feel. Well the answer is obvious. The reporter signs off with a bon mot or so and apparently some point has been made. There is some unsaid rule that if someone (A) feels bad about something it is because someone else (B) didn't do something that could have made A happier and not adversely affect the happiness of the rest of the world.

emanuel

If a woman (or man for that matter) chooses to wear a burqa then that is their choice. I choose to wear a hat that gives my children acute embarassment (not for that reason do I choose it or not solely). Freedom is not about you do or don't do. It's about what you can choose to do or not do. If some of the Afghanistan Women's Institute want to carry on looking like mobile postboxes that is their privilege. Actually I see of lot of people around, of various genders and none, who I wish would exercise their right to do the same.

[Nick (South Africa)]

>I choose to wear a hat that gives my children acute embarassment<

Jack, I have a flat hat that embarrasses my 9 yr old son. I only wear it in winter weather, Im currently visiting the UK with him and alas havnt had much chance to wear it with the balmy spell.

It is part of the role, indeed parents have a 'duty of care' to embarrass their kids; you would be a negligent father if you did not.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Jack

Agreed.

America and the West are in a strange postion re Afghanistan in that we're doing exactly what the Russians did i.e. an attempt to impose "civilization" on a backward people. The above is a side effect of the attack on America on 9/11.

The Afghan Moslem fanatics know that schooling is the best way to get the future generations to scorn them and to become "infidels". Girls might start reading salacious authors like John Stuart Mill and boys, Tom Paine.

Aren't there enough Afghan layabouts to hire as spies and soldiers?

[Robin Bather]

I am aghast to find myself congratulating Emanuel Appel on his wise posting. Maybe there is hope for him yet.

But more to the point, just what is the mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and if it comes to it, Iran, and then maybe North Korea for extras?
Can we clearly state in one paragraph the objectives, methods of achieving those aims, and how it will be deemed achieved?
A broad generalization about "Fighting terror" just doesn't cut the ice, nor does "Taking the war their doorstep".
It seems to be a no win situation where you cannot identify the enemy, and if you could, then what are you going to do? Kill them all? Try to convince them of the error of their ways? Or simply to smash their infrastructure and culture until they are an impoverished, beaten and humiliated people with no means to fight back?
The last alternative would seem to be by far the easiest to achieve, but then do you just leave them to their fate and retire? Would that not play into their hands by creating nations of potential Osama bin Ladens'
The easy part is conquering another country as we have seen on countless occasions, but then the impossible begins.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear David,

I came across an interesting article regarding our relationship with the Third World in general that I should like to entitle - The Ugly American.
see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=070506A

This applies to Afghanistan in that it deals with the theme of bribery in the Third World. It describes the "problem" and it suggests a few remedies.

I maintain that there is no problem, only a combination of naivete and cynicism on America's part. Only a naif would complain about American foreign aid bribery since that has been the classic method of exerting influence and much cheaper than maintaining an occupation army overseas.

A valid British complaint, beginning with WWII, is how American recklessness was inflating the cost of bribing foreigners. For example, I was amused to read that you could hire a Portuguese official in Mozambique for a few pounds per week but, when America reached the scene, the cost climbed to a few hundred.

Pakistan has been both whore and pimp for the West since the early 1950's. After all, you couldn't expect "The Land of the Pure" to go to work and make things, can you? So, they have been sucking money out of Uncle Sugar as anti Communists for John Foster Dulles in the 1950's and now as anti- Islamists for Condi Rice. This is the American people's money going to buy estates along the Thames for Musharaf
and snow white English trollops for his younger associates. A Gordon Ramsey type would have demanded and gotten Bin Laden a long time ago in exchange for the money. Instead, we have the American version of "old boys" in the State Department handicapping the military in that area of the world.

Those who want to "change" the Third World through "transparency" are nothing but the spiritual offspring of New England Puritans.

I don't mind paying for results but I find it insulting to throw money away

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To the Stinky Bather,

You write
"just what is the mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and if it comes to it, Iran, and then maybe North Korea for extras?"

Reading the previous posts with your eyes rather than the other end would answer the question.

You may think that Iranians, Talibanists, and Stalinist Koreans are "agrarian reformers". Their reforms include planting explosives as you go to work.

Oops, excuse me, I forgot. You're slumming in Mexico like your spiritual father , Graham Greene. He also loved a motley collection of Caribbean tyrants. They were so much more fun than the dullards back home.

[bugiewugie]

>>'This is the American people's money going to buy estates along the Thames for Musharaf'

Thanks very much to the American people for their money then, I'd say.
EmmanuelA, I'm sorry, but I really am wondering about your Gordon Ramsay fixation, you seem to be mentioning him a lot.
I agree though that GR would easily peasily have cornered the dastardly OBL ages ago, had him for breakfast.

menu chez GR
brekkie
tooth and nail of OBL on a bed of mashed blah blah
lunch
urban pasta a la OBL
dinner
an army of OBL soldiers defending a lightly poached egg with a drizzle of uncle bens oh whatever.

[Deirdre]

Rowan Berkely would no doubt applaud the Taleban's other engagement with womens' rights, that of denying women access to medical treatment. (The exceptions being women from the families of senior Taleban figures, who are sent to get treatment in Pakistan).
Yes! let's keep up the great tradition of oppressing women! Rowan, you know it makes sense.

[Robin Bather]

That's my boy, Emanuel.
You are back to your usual form, which I am sure will convince many people of the rightness of your cause.
I will treat your remarks with the respect they deserve.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

dear bugiewugie,

Re Gordon Ramsey

My ability to use examples of British types is severely limited by not being there. BBC America and the dramas shown on American "Public Broadcasting System" ( subscription tv of a BBC'ish type) are my only windows to the country.

I think it's shameful that the most virile ambassador to the outside is a cook. That's what the culture czars of the last 30-40 years have made of you.

[BarryB]

Emmanuel

I would suggest you need to get out a bit more rather than spend your time on this blog commenting upon matters that you know little about i.e. the UK and Europe.

For instance, why not visit, the latest cultural success on Broadway, Allan Bennett's (modern British author) "History Boys" to broaden your knowledge.

I assure you that UK and European culture is alive and strong and trying hard to avoid the "dumbing down" of its culture instigated by the US.

The fact that US television does not show aspects of European culture, says more about the US than about Europe.

I, for instance, would not watch GR even if you paid me.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear BarryB,

Thank you for being so solicitous re my intellectual growth. I'm flattered that you're actually timing to the minute how much time I spend here. To my shame, I've failed to keep track of your leisure activities so as to guide you in a similar fashion.

Did your teachers ever put the idea of public men as metaphors in your head? No, they were teaching you nonsense about America instead.

Since geography is so neglected nowadays, it may surprise you that New York is more than a 2 hour drive from most of America and, even if I attended this latest English import, there may be a chance that it would fail to impress.

[emanuel appel]

a postscipt from America

Dear BarryB

Pushing "The History Boys" as a means to civilize me just makes my point.

I approve of a witty play re the meaning of history and pedagogy. However, making the two key adult characters homosexuals with erotic dreams about their students is cute only to you.

And you object to my statement that Gordon Ramsey is a virile representative?
If the elite can't do better than two sexually repressed teachers, do you wonder why I get exasperated?

You will not survive against the Mongols.

[Jack Ramsey]

May I make it clear that to his great relief and mine Gordon and I are not related?

I see that BarryB is recommending that my new chum emanuel gets to see some European culture. I fear the veil of suspicion comes over me when someone suggests I or soemone else is a nitwit because I haven't seen/read/hear/listened to the latest play/book/music/radio show. Whilst I tentatively make suggestions, as I did to emanuel last week and he, very courteously, made a suggestion in return, I cannot abide 'must see/read/hear/listen to' statements as a form of intellectual put down. We used to get a lot of those about Michael Moore films and books. How is the old mobile cheeseburger? Does anyone know? We don't hear so much of him but I'm not pining.

I hope and trust that emanuel may come to real items of English culture in his own time and way. I feel, like good food and drink, culture is something we can share but not force down throats.

I don't like doing the self hating thing but when the US is being damned for spoiling culture can anyone remind me who invented Big Brother (the TV show)?

Culture's too important to be left to the artistically sensitive.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear David,

The English press is full of stories re how there's a growing gulf between you and the US. It could be scandal mongering a la who's Mr's or Miss' latest conquest. Will Angelina Jolie adopt a Martian baby to complete her set of aliens?

There is a general dislike of George Bush. Since we have a murky view of each other's people, I'll give you a a brief portrait to help you.

George Bush, pere and fils, are two different types ( henceforth they will referrred to as George the First and George the Second). George the First is a WASP from Pilgrim Stock but not his son.

Pilgrims were English Calvinists who thought that Henry the VIII's church reforms were not radical enough - no vicar, no bishop, They actually left the country for Leiden in Holland to be close to their fellow "Jews". However, the realities of cultural change set in since Englishmen are so poor at learning languages and adapting to foreign ways. They learned of an English colony, Jamestown, in Virginia and decided to go there.

I always marvelled at this story since these people would rather face wild beasts and savages than learn Dutch. Being a son of Israel, I would have moistened my index finger, sighed, and turned to the grammar book. We've had to do that countless times.

WASP is a species first spotted in the wealthier suburbs of Philadelphia and it becomes more numerous as one travels northeast to the US- Canadian border. It's an acronym for White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant. However, not every person fitting that criteria can be a WASP.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter can never be, John Kerry is. It denotes a wealthy Yankee with aristocatric forms who was deliberately infected with "Anglophilia" by his parents and schools. This disease broke out during the Gladstonian period but we call it The Gilded Age.

George the I, a skinny fellow, is physically brave. After Yale, he became a fighter pilot and faced the Japanese. He had a bit of bad luck since he was shot down over the Pacific but rescued. After the war, he decided to try his luck in west Texas in the oil business.

Notwithstanding his WASPY ways, the folks in west Texas befriended him and the family. The reverse would not have been true. He must have desired very badly for George the II not to go "native" since he sent the boy to an Eton-copy boarding school in Connecticut and then Yale, his alma mater.

George the II smelled and felt the Yankees close up and turned his back on them. His brother Jeb, governor of Florida, speaks in a normal manner. Jeb married a Mexican of some sort. George the II married a girl from west Texas and has typical Texas twin girls who like to party and drink. This brings disapproving tongue clucking from the Baptists who form a major portion of the State.

The point is he's not a boob and he's not unsophisticated. He's a Texan who is not concerned with the Lake Poets. He's no need to. He is concerned with the latest Comanche raid which was 9/11 on his land, his country. He has the military power to avenge any outrage on his people. He's not need to understand the "root causes" of Moslem viciousness. He merely sees them.

My complaint is that he hasn't been forceful enough and that the memory of the Marshall Plan for post WWII Europe is being used for Iraq and Afghanistan. All good deeds in the Middle East will be punished.

[Laban]

I have written a longish post arguing that Aaro is wrong on this one.

"If we had a huge army, flush with success in many theatres, full of highly-motivated officers, loads of the latest technical kit, a hugely supportive public at home, total self-belief among the political and administrative class, no worries on the diplomatic front or the 'court of world opinion', should we go in so that Nooria can go to school ?

Well, in the latter half of the nineteenth century we had all these things in spades. We chose to keep out."

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/08/arithmetic-on-frontier.html