Introduction to International Relations

According to BBC News, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that he plans to send 500 additional UK troops to the Helmand Province in Afghanistan.  In this region, NATO troops and the Taliban have been “fighting fierce battles.” This addition of troops, however, is contingent upon three conditions being met: adequate training and supplies for the troops, NATO allies also increasing their troop numbers in Afghanistan and the training of additional Afghan soldiers. Brown believes that these conditions allow him to “justify” sending more troops to Britain.  He also stressed “a safer Afghanistan was a safer Britain,” and that  “when the safety of our country is at stake, we cannot and will not walk away.”

So, what do I think?

I believe that Brown’s conditions for additional troops illustrate that he is attempting to create some sustainability in Afghanistan, while also addressing domestic and international concerns. But there are issues of national (and political) self-interest intertwined in the conditions. In the first condition, Brown is assuaging UK citizens who have heard reports that troops have not been adequately equipped for war. Brown also feels the need to justify the war—citing national security as the reasoning behind the war and his continued support of it. This is to increase public support and troop morale in a war where citizens are dying (with a British soldier killed last Saturday- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8305922.stm).

Internationally, Brown is trying to persuade other countries to increase their NATO presence in Afghanistan.  He is using Britain as both an example and a ploy—a strategic means of implying, “we’ll increase our troops if you increase yours.” This has both international and domestic concerns—he does not want to be the only country to risk more lives of British soldiers in a costly war. He also knows that without increased troop presence, the war in Afghanistan cannot be won.

Lastly, Brown is illustrating a long-term strategy goal of sustainability by focusing on training of the Afghan soldiers. Brown realizes that increasing NATO troops is pointless if there are no sustainable ends. Only by training Afghan soldiers can one create a structure within Afghan society to hold it together once international troops are removed.

Does national security create adequate justification for the war in Afghanistan? With this conditional strategy of increased troop presence, is Britain acting partially in its own self-interest, trying to create the means to eventually end the war in Afghanistan and remove its troops? Do Brown’s conditions justify sending in more troops, or was the justification for sending troops ever there at all?  Looking at features of jus ad bellum, was the war in Afghanistan (for the UK) justified?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8305922.stm