Blogs and Stories
How Obama Is Losing Britain
Marco di Lauro / Getty Images
While Bush got the U.K. into the Afghan war, Obama’s asking them to fight on—and the British are ready to leave. Richard Heller on how the war is testing Britons’ love for America’s new president.
The British are losing faith in the Afghan war. If Barack Obama wants a continued British effort in Afghanistan, he must offer them clear signs of success within six months—and a realistic hope of a pullout.
In Britain’s latest opinion poll, nearly 60 percent of respondents wanted an early British exit from Afghanistan, against 36 percent who wanted the troops to stay. There are some special British factors behind those numbers—especially the low esteem of Gordon Brown’s government—but also some lessons for Obama, on the risks of fighting a war without a clear purpose or measurable success.
The British people are losing faith not just in the Afghan war but in the underlying assumptions that led them into it—particularly the idea that Britain is a great power because of its “special relationship” with the United States.
Afghanistan was almost forgotten in Britain, until the recent upsurge in British casualties: 16 dead in a fortnight. The number may not seem dramatic to Americans, but Britain has a small professional army, with a strong sense of family and community. Losses on that scale cause deep and shared grief.
One victim was a senior British officer, Lt. Col. Rupert Thorneloe, a friend of Prince Charles—killed by the same roadside bomb as 18-year-old Trooper Joshua Hammond. Their deaths brought home the randomness of the Afghan war, one without a clear frontline, set piece battles, and visible victories.
Together with the public ceremonies for eight other dead soldiers, their deaths forced the British people to question whether they can ask so many young, motivated, and talented people to sacrifice themselves indefinitely in Afghanistan.
Fading British belief in the Afghan war is partly due to the collapse of faith in the government that is prosecuting it. In 50 years, I cannot remember any government so little respected by Britain’s armed forces and their families and friends, and by voters who care about national defense.
Senior officers brief openly against Gordon Brown and contradict his statements. Unofficial service Web sites and chat rooms complain constantly of shortages and express contempt for the ministers who deny them. Brown’s new defense secretary (the sixth in 12 years), a plodding Labour politician called Bob Ainsworth, has become a national joke in a few weeks.
Unwisely, Brown made a cult of Britain’s armed forces and tried to associate himself with the pride and respect they continue to elicit from the British people. A few weeks ago, Britain witnessed a new Brown-created festival called Armed Forces Day, with bands and parades. The prime minister has been harmed politically by the all-too-evident contrast between the official celebrations and young soldiers being maimed and killed in the worst country in the world for lack of the right equipment.
But even a popular leader with a respected defense team would find it very hard to sell the Afghan war to the British people. They have already heard too many explanations for British involvement in the country and none of them stack up.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Why This Murdoch Scandal Won't Disappear
Richard Heller is a British author and journalist and former chief of staff to Denis Healey, Deputy Leader of the British Labour Party.
With Dennis Healey as Defence Secretary, Harold Wilson kept us out of Vietnam, brought the boys back from Aden and ended the East of Suez commitment. All without alienating Kennedy and Johnson.
Healey had been the beachmaster at Anzio and Wilson had many ex-servicemen in his cabinet. There is not a single one in the current cabinet.
at least the author had the decency to mention Bush...
The Brits see Obama clearer than we do here peering through the MSM's adoring lens. President Nancypants is one of the terms they use.
I don't think that anyone could disagree with the overall feeling of the British people towards the Afghanistan conflict. After all, the attack which sparked the current war did not occur on U.K. soil, and one could even argue that it was not their policies from which the attackers drew their hatred from: it was the Americans'.
However, the individual needs to ask a very important question: Is it my concern when my neighbor gets attacked? Is that my problem, my worry? And I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer to that particular question. But given the two nations' history, their common culture, and fondness for their shared way of life, I think that 9/11 was a case of "an attack on one, was an attack on all."
Does that mean that, Afghanistan was always the right response to 9/11? No, it does not.
Does engaging in this war bring about any real benefit? It would be a safe assumption to belief that there will be no near term resolution. However, a resolute commitment to finish the job, on the other hand, might.
And in that light, my personal opinion is that now is not the best time to question our commitment (or the U.K.'s), but a prudent course of action would be to unify and set out very realistic goals to accomplish: Security in certain regional areas, development & education of the populace in said areas, and help to provide alternate sources of income to the farmers and those in the rural communities.
The object is not to eradicate the Taliban, but to build up a state that can stand on it's own two feet, even if conflict rages on for the next few decades -- at the very least by then, the U.K. would be safely be able to pull out the bulk of its forces with confidence that their sacrifices were not for naught.
You talk about an attack on one being an attack all, but where was the US during the worst of the Irish torubles? In fact much of the IRA's funding for thier murderous attacks on the UK came from Irish Americans.
Terrrorism has been a constant reality in Europe since WWII: the RAF in Germany, the PLA, ETA, IRA, Combat 18. etc... The US never felt the need to get involved. In fact in WWII itself it took 3 years and Pearl Harbour for the US to declare war. So much for 'an attack on all'...
The UK did not join the Bush hunt for glory cause of 9/11, we joined in because it was accepted wisdom that mainataining the special relationship with the US was a foregin policy priority. My guess is that is rapidly changing.
I saw a bumper sticker in Texas the other day that said, "War never solved anything, except slavery, fascism, and communism." I hope the British will help us solve the Taliban, too.
Maybe we need another war so we could solve the problem of Texas once and for all. It is a much worse problem than Afghanistan, and no prisoners should be taken.
This article grossly misrepresents the findings of the referenced opinion survey. The raw results are available here (http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/ST-toplines_JULY0 9.pdf) and show that rather than nearly 60% of respondents wanting an early exit from Afghanistan, 59% believe either that troop levels should remain the same or that further British or NATO forces should be sent. So, the exact opposite of that stated in the article.
Furthermore, rather than 'fading British belief' the survey includes the results of a previous survey in March of this year; comparison suggests that recent losses have actually reduced outright opposition to the UK deployment with the number of respondents who think that UK should withdraw all troops whatever other countries do, declining from 26% to 21%.
This is not to say that the survey is entirely positive regarding public support for the war. One question shows that the proportion of respondents who think that the Afghanistan strategy is not a 'worthwhile objective' has increased from 15 to 22%. But this is the one exception.To conclude that 'Obama is losing Britain' based on these figures is just not tenable.
I'm confused, the BBC Newshour reported that there has actually been an INCREASE in support for the war in Afghanistan. I was shocked so I listened to the entire report.
Additionally, the article that Richard Heller referenced showed that 72% thought the war was worthwhile, 60% were mad that Britain was fighting the war "on the cheap" and was under supplying their troops. The amount of people wanting us to WITHDRAW has DECREASED by 5% (21% now vs. 26% in March).
Am I wrong or is Richard Heller reporting the OPPOSITE stats?
"According to the survey, 60 percent of those questioned believed Brown was fighting the war "on the cheap", following criticism that the government was not doing enough to supply frontline troops with helicopters and armoured vehicles.
Twenty-four percent of those polled described the campaign as a worthwhile objective for which it was worth risking British lives, while 48 percent said it was a worthwhile objective but not worth risking British lives for.
Twenty-one percent said Britain should withdraw its forces right away, no matter what other countries might do, down from 26 percent who felt that way in the last poll in March."
Its simply amazing that despite all his rhetoric Obama has reached out his hand to every nutcake and dictator in the world, but in 6 months managed to diminish, if not even destroy, the special relationship that has existed between the U.S. and G.B. since at least WWII. Simply incredibly amazing!!!
Hey, if you leave right now, you can be in Britain in 24 hours to continue your "special relationship". They would be happy to take you, we will be happy to see you go :)
So, I guess reading anything but a headline puts too much of a strain on you.
The final paragraph of this article:
"The British people hated fighting George W. Bush's wars. They still love Barack Obama, but they do not like fighting his wars, either. American voters may make the same discovery, if they too see indefinite sacrifice without reward"
This is an that inaccurately quotes a poll stating that in the wake of 14 military deaths in Afghanistan, British support for their nations part in it dipped. Unless you're suggesting that President Obama personally killed those 14 soldiers (and you might be, you seem like the type to believe the Commander and Chief of the United States is a secret Muslim spy born in Indonesia/Kenya/Atlantis) I really don't see how you can assign any blame whatsoever to President Obama here.
This user is no longer registered.
Circa 2012:
Just about three years ago I set out on Obama's Afghanistan road,
Seekin' my fame and glory, lookin' to turn the mullah's hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
Flew in on a big plane, I hope I'll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was just passin' through, must now be yet another 2 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience, looks like they took more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, a one year stand, looks like the plans fell through again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
Mmmm...
If I only had a woman, for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while chickenhawk Obama sat back home power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan again.
- CCR Soldier Boy
Hey TomFeral,
when did Obama EVER say he was planning on leaving Afghanistan any time soon? What part of "I'm going to take the war to Afghanistan, where it belongs" did you not understand when he was running for President? I think all the anti-war people had wax in their ears during the election. Or you guys simply decided to ignore his pro-Afgan war comments!
...And could it be that you volunteered to go into the "military" and fight in Curious George's wars because you couldn't find a "real" job as a result of the shifting of resources from the American treasury to the bank accounts of George Bush's administration.and their benefactors.
I nominate this for the stupidest post of the month.
We're in for a long fight against al-Qa'ida and its allies, and I'd rather that fight took place in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, if necessary) than on my doorstep in London. They may be based in many countries, but only as a criminal organisation: a very different situation to being allowed to operate openly as they did under the Taliban.
Richard Heller's former association with Denis Healey hardly inspires confidence in his political judgement. A quick google reveals that "He contributed dialogue to the motion picture Cycle Sluts Versus The Zombie Ghouls." Enough said.
Yes, it is true that terrorists meet in safe houses all over the world to plan attacks, and that is very hard to control. It is mainly a police and intelligence problem.
But allowing them to control whole COUNTRIES or regions of countries is far more dangerous, and should be avoided whenever possible, including in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. Control of a country magnifies their power greatly, and gives them a virtually endless number of places to plan, train and arm for attacks on the West--and is even more difficult to control and contain.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.