Don't want migrant boats? Finish job at Afghanistan first

Boris Johnson has big decisions ahead on global security (Image: Politicshome.co.uk)

I find myself in a moral dilemma. I take pride in my anti-war stance. Until my dying day, I will always argue why sending troops abroad to defend countries that have little, or nothing, to do with the UK, is pointless, expensive and has tragic and criminal consequences. When it comes to the conflict in Afghanistan, my views are skewed. I, of course, often find myself wondering 'why on earth did we ever get involved in the first place?' I was 10 when former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President George W. Bush took the decision to send their respective armies to Afghanistan on a quest to protect its citizens against the threats and barbarity of the extremist group, Taliban.

Fast forward to the present day, 20 years later, current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden are desperate to bring their troops home and hope to end the dark chapter in both country's history. But their actions were in vain - the moment they've started this process, the Taliban pounced. The group appear stronger than ever, taking hold of key cities and provinces. The Afghan government is utterly powerless. Since 2001, the country's people have endured so much - whether it's the Taliban creating trouble, or the US and UK alliance coming along and doing very little to help improve their lives.

I'm sure there was a strategy to defeat the Taliban but we won't know what that truly was. Whatever it was, it hasn't worked - it never would have. Bush led the charge in 2001 in direct response to the 9/11 attacks. With reports of Osama bin Laden, responsible for the killing of thousands of people on that day, Bush's instinct was to get his troops to intervene. It was supported by governments across the West, the UK in particular.

If anything, the Taliban spent particularly the last 5-7 years taking a back seat - a strategy more effective than the west's. There was violent resistance at the beginning and peace deals were signed in 2020 which clearly had gaps and flaws, a legacy that former US President Donald Trump could take credit for. Western governments relaxed in recent years. With Islamic State (IS/Daesh) losing its territory and support in Syria and Iraq, they thought the coast was clear to then move away from other warzone nations, having absolutely no idea of how terrorist groups work.

I can only see terrorist groups be defeated in two ways - one, is containment; and second to dismantle membership. It starts with understanding why individuals want to join said groups in the first place, which I feel governments haven't fully grasped. No child says, "When I grow up, I want to be a terrorist." Nowadays, young people consume information online. They easily access explicit, graphic and often inaccurate information which angers them enough to take action against the organisations or countries who do harm. While I'm talking about a very small number of people, that small number is enough to create groups that do equal harm, regardless of what name they do it under. Early intervention is needed, which I argued previously.

Prevention is key, but so it finishing a job. People in Afghanistan are in need of help - their security and safety are being hindered by the present actions of UK and US. While Taliban hadn't been defeated, it was heading that way - it doesn't matter how long that challenge would take. And by troops leaving and then coming back, you won't be misguided by believing this war is 'endless'.

I can see what motivated the British government to score this own goal, in trying to wipe its hands from responsibility in Afghanistan. We're seeing the days of 'Global Britain' numbered by limiting the involvement of any international duties - military or otherwise. As a result of Brexit, and accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic, we're seeing a consistent message from Downing Street - stay and do things at home.

In terms of Covid-19, I could understand and I appreciated 'keeping things local'. And elsewhere, if we maintain our crops to feed quality and healthy food to everyone in the UK, take advantage of the wonderful natural resources we have to heat our homes, and invest in our thriving talent in whatever sector, then Britain has little to worry about. And if we don't involve ourselves in new conflicts, that would reduce terrorism closer to home. 

But right now, I don't see our local resources being taken advantage of, or at least being highlighted. Right now, I see the focus being too much on closing doors to the world before looking at what we've got on our doorstep (which isn't as much as we'd like). Linking this to the conflict in Afghanistan, the Taliban advancing in cities and provinces has resulted in thousands of families fleeing their homes and refuging to safety. More likely than not, they'll head west, and who can blame them. Despite Brexit, UK will always remain an attractive country to settle.

The key challenge for the global community is to decide how they can help the next set of refugees who are forced to flee their war-torn nations. At the moment, these families would do anything to move to safety and are often victim of human trafficking which is rife at the moment. News reports of how hundreds of people are illegally being transported from France to the UK is increasing in frequency. Some key political figures in Westminster blame France for not stopping these boats from boarding, but the situation is much more complicated than that. 

Almost 100 percent of those who take the decision to illegally cross borders are doing so because they're either in deep trouble for something that isn't a crime in Britain but is in parts of the Middle East and Africa - partaking in innocent, low-key anti-government protests, for instance - or their hometowns have been taken over by terrorist groups. They have no resources to do things in the official way, otherwise they would. If they had a choice, they'd live cosily in their homes, not risking their lives by residing elsewhere. As a civil society, it's important to give them understanding, not hostility. They've had enough of that.

To reduce the number of migrant boats entering British coasts, the government have a duty to contain the situation in Afghanistan. Our troops should never have been there in the first place, but now we've been there for 20 years, we may as well stay there until the Taliban disappear. We've already heard too much horror to see what happens when we leave for five minutes.

This is a big task for a Britain that's no longer a member of the European Union. With reduced access to intelligence as a result, the government has no choice but to return to basics. It needs to be a voice of reason when it comes to exchanges in the United Nations, NATO, G7 and elsewhere. Whether we like it or not, this is where globalism works, and where governments try to undo reckless actions made by previous administrations.