A couple of weeks ago, in Parliament’s debate following the overthrow of the elected government of Afghanistan, I put the question of what we might do were it to happen here: would we join the Resistance or would we flee?
To say that the question was not well received would be an understatement. Nevertheless, I believe it is an important question: do we believe that our liberty, democracy and values are worth fighting and dying for?
We enjoy these freedoms because so many of our forebears fought and died for them. It is a difficult question for us to face with a measure of humility as we watch events unfold from our comfort and security. Yet in our own generation and in Afghanistan 457 of our men and women fought and died for those very values and many more suffered horrific injuries.
Also, as we consider the reasons behind complete collapse of the trained and well-armed Afghan forces in the face of a numerically much inferior enemy, we must also remember that over the last few years no less than 70,000 members of the Afghan security forces bravely fought and died for these values too.
The resistance continues in the Panjshir Valley where elements of the Afghan Army, together with the Vice President have pledged to fight on under the leadership of the Sandhurst-trained Ahmad Masoud, the son of the mujahedeen leader ‘The Lion of Panjshir’ who was assassinated on the orders on Bin-Laden in 2001.
Are we going to leave them to it, or will we assist in the way that we supported Ahmad’s father in his resistance to the Taliban?
Realpolitik demands answers to certain questions. First, what are their realistic prospects?
The Taliban are already claiming victory in the Panjshir but this is fiercely denied by the resistance. I hope we have much better military intelligence as to what exactly is happening than we had earlier this summer.
Second, what would the consequences of western support for resistance in the Panjshir be?
Currently the Taliban have ‘hostages’ in the form of all those that we failed to evacuate in the last weeks. We want them granted safe passage out of Afghanistan. Notwithstanding announcements of amnesty, there are many reports of summary reprisals against Afghans who assisted NATO and the Government of Afghanistan. I do not doubt that western assistance to the resistance in the Panjshir will make the predicament of those Afghans now in fear and hiding very much worse.
On the other hand, I doubt that the Taliban have much appetite for our good opinion so the only leverage we really have is financial. To put it bluntly we will need to ‘incentivise’ the provision of safe passage out of Afghanistan. So, in the end it comes down to danegeld, but as the English discovered with the Vikings, payment doesn’t always lead to compliance with the obligations for which the payment was made.
If the prospects of resistance are realistic then an assessment needs to be made on the basis of risk to those Afghans who are -in effect- now hostages, as against the potential benefits to Afghanistan as a whole of an effective and successful resistance.
I do not know the answers to these questions, but I believe it is important to ask them. Just as it is important for us to examine ourselves and ask, what would we have done had it happened to us.
Sir Desmond Swayne TD
