No subject

e Wiltshire village of Wootton Bassett to the black ties worn by Sky TV pre=
senters as they address generals as "sir", the message is clear: this war i=
s a "patriotic duty", in the prime minister's words. The only argument in p=
arliament yesterday was whether the government had provided enough helicopt=
ers and boots on the ground to do the job.=20



Meanwhile, the BBC seems to have largely abandoned any attempt at neutral r=
eporting, as its newsreaders warn "Britain's resolve is being put to the te=
st" and presenters speculate anxiously about what might happen if public "s=
upport" for the war "were to weaken". We can't pull out now, the war's chee=
rleaders warn, or our boys will have died in vain.=20



But the campaign isn't working. As in other Nato states, most people in Bri=
tain haven't supported the Afghan war for several years. A Guardian/BBC New=
snight poll this week found that 56% want troops to pull out by the end of =
the year; an ITN poll showed 59% backing withdrawal. Significantly, both su=
rveys found opposition to the war highest in the working class communities =
from which most of those doing the fighting are drawn.=20



Heightened awareness of British casualties may rally support for an army an=
xious to overcome its humiliation in Iraq. But after eight years of fightin=
g, during which a kaleidoscope of justifications has been offered for the c=
ontinuing Nato occupation, public scepticism has clearly bitten deep.=20



This was a war, after all, launched by George Bush and Tony Blair with the =
stated aim of killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban leader M=
ullah Omar =E2=80=93 and destroying al-Qaida. Eight years later, not one of=
 those objectives has been accomplished. Bin Laden and Omar are still at la=
rge, while al-Qaida has spread into Pakistan, Iraq and dozens of other coun=
tries around the world.=20



Nor have any of the other fast-changing war aims =E2=80=93 from bringing de=
mocracy, development and good governance, to ending the oppression of women=
 and cracking down on opium production =E2=80=93 fared much better. British=
 and other Nato troops are now defending one of the world's most corrupt go=
vernments, a cabal of narco-trafficking warlords rubber-stamped by a fraudu=
lent election in which political parties weren't even allowed to stand; Afg=
hanistan has become the heroin capital of the world; and the position of ma=
ny women, as women's leaders such as the suspended Afghan MP Malalai Joya a=
rgue, is now worse than it was under Taliban rule.=20



Most absurd of all is the government's claim that the Afghan war is prevent=
ing terrorism on the streets of Britain. The exact opposite is the case. Th=
ere were no al-Qaida-style terror attacks in the UK before 2001. And Britai=
n's role in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, along with=
 its support for Israel's occupation of Palestinian land =E2=80=93 cited bo=
th by the bombers themselves and a string of intelligence reports =E2=80=93=
 has been a central factor in motivating would-be jihadists, who have in an=
y case been mostly home-grown and can train in Leeds as well as Lashkar Gah=
 if they want to carry out atrocities.=20



On the ground in Helmand, the British occupation has been a disaster. In 20=
06, there were around 150 US troops in the whole province and violence was =
minimal. Now there are 9,000 British and 10,000 American troops, who have p=
roved a magnet for the Taliban and local resistance. Helmand is now the mos=
t violent part of the country and one in 10 schools and clinics have been c=
losed because, as Oxfam's Ashley Jackson in Kabul puts it: "Anything with a=
 link to the government is a target."=20



The thousands of civilians killed in the fighting, doubling every two years=
, far outnumber Nato casualties, but barely register in the western media. =
Set against the 140 villagers, mostly children, slaughtered in one US aeria=
l attack in Farah province in May, last Friday's eight British dead pale by=
 comparison. No wonder that polling of Afghans =E2=80=93 even under militar=
y occupation, which would be expected to skew the results towards the occup=
ier =E2=80=93 show that a majority oppose Barack Obama's current surge, wan=
t negotiations with the Taliban, and all foreign troops out within two year=
s. In the south and east, most want them out now.=20



The US escalation, already engulfing north-west Pakistan, cannot conceivabl=
y pacify the country with what will still be less than 100,000 Nato troops.=
 As Graham Fuller , the CIA's former station chief in Kabul, argues, the pr=
esence of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan is "now more the problem than t=
he solution" =E2=80=93 just as the reason British soldiers are dying in Afg=
hanistan isn't because they haven't got enough helicopters, but because the=
y're an occupying force in another Muslim country where they're not wanted.=
=20



The pressing alternative is presented by the war's supporters as "abandonin=
g" Afghanistan to a "bloodbath". That is to stand reality on its head. The =
only way to end the war is the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of a wi=
der political settlement negotiated with all significant Afghan forces on t=
he ground, including the Taliban =E2=80=93 and guaranteed by regional power=
s and neighbouring states: Pakistan, Iran, China and India.=20



Such a process is bound to take place eventually =E2=80=93 whether or not t=
he British government has the guts to follow the example of Canada and The =
Netherlands and announce plans to pull out earlier or not. But the assumpti=
on must be that a strategic US decision to accept the inevitable, turn its =
back on the wreckage of the war on terror and withdraw from Afghanistan is =
going to be a slow and painful process. In the meantime, many more people =
=E2=80=93 mostly Afghans =E2=80=93 will shamefully die in vain.