In this morning’s ‘Daily Betrayal’ column I mentioned that Sir Mark Sedwill had reappeared, with an opinion piece in The Times. I announced that his piece would receive our ‘From Behind the Paywall’ treatment, not least because his voice is the voice of the Whitehall establishment as we know to our deep regret, remembering the Brexit negotiations under his supervision.
When one looks at his official CV, published on the government website (link) one finds some gems which show that he’s not the innocent and ever so slightly ignorant bystander, judging nevertheless from his great height as former government security adviser and Cabinet secretary, i.e. the Mandarin of Mandarins. Prior to these posts he was
“FCO Political Director (2012-13), NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan (2010-11), HM Ambassador to Afghanistan (2009-10) and Director of UKvisas (2006-8). He joined the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in 1989, serving in Egypt, Iraq, Cyprus and Pakistan.” (link)
He was involved with affairs in Afghanistan during the height of the fighting. Before that, he had experienced conditions in various islamic countries. Clearly, he must have known how those states functioned, he must have had some inkling about the situation of women in those places. Moreover, he must have had knowledge of the undertakings of the NATO allies, creating, equipping and training that Afghan Army which now downed their weapons in the face of the Taliban advance. He surely must have been aware of the utter corruption which went on in that Army and in the Afghan government. Did he by any chance inform and advise Ms May’s successor, the current PM, about following Biden’s withdrawal policy?
Should we regard his article in The Times as the ‘advice’ he is proffering to BJ – or is it a clever attempt to divert attention from what he and his colleagues said to the PMs over ten years ago? Is it an attempt to place blame on us, disguised by crocodile tears?
He begins with the now common cry about ‘humiliation’. Why he describes the Afghan people as ‘fearful’ when they’re in fact acknowledged throughout history as the most fearsome fighters – well, that’s due to his policial agenda:
“The 20th anniversary of 9/11 will see a Taliban government back in power. Even if their assurances are real and Afghans can work out a settlement which avoids the atrocities of the 1990s civil war and the Taliban’s first regime, it is a humiliating moment for the United States and Nato. The consequences will be severe.
The Afghan people are fearful, especially those, including women, who have benefited from the economic and social progress of the past 20 years. Extremists everywhere, quieter since the ending of Islamic State, will be emboldened and the threat of terrorism, whether inspired by the Taliban victory or directed from ungoverned space in Afghanistan, will rise. Western credibility is badly damaged as our authoritarian opponents assert they have the strategic patience we lack. That’s the situation to which we must now respond.” (link, paywalled)
Is it too harsh to say that Mr Sedwill believes that “we” must respond because “we” were humiliated? A ‘humiliation’ which none of the NATO leaders and politicians he knows so well actually foresaw? Never mind asking about the apparent failure of the CIA or MI6 to warn of this Taliban triumph – as security adviser Mr Sedwill is going to do his best to deflect questions we might rightfully ask about those! Next, the ‘moral response’ according to Sedwill:
“First, we should put together a major humanitarian effort to support the Afghan people and mitigate a refugee crisis. As well as honouring our commitments to the Afghans who worked and fought alongside us, we should provide those many more who trusted our commitment to a brighter future for their country with an alternative to living under the Taliban or in a refugee camp. That will take concerted effort, considerable aid resources and commitments to Afghanistan’s neighbours from the 50-plus Nato and allied countries who responded after 9/11. This is a moment when the moral case for humanitarian aid and our security interests align. If the US won’t lead, the UK, as holder of the G7 presidency, should.” (link, paywalled)
Ah – it’s now about providing ‘humanitarian aid’, and “we” must do it if Biden’s administration doesn’t. Note also that Sedwill expands this aid programme to all neighbouring states – such as Pakistan, owner of nuclear weapons. More:
“Second, through the UN security council, we should agree with China, Russia and Afghanistan’s neighbours the behaviour we can tolerate from a Taliban regime. Sadly, that will not much affect the way they run Afghanistan, but there is a common interest in preventing terrorist and narcotics threats re-emerging. Swallow hard: incentives — political recognition and economic development — as well as the sanction of targeted military action will be part of the package.” (link, paywalled)
Now wait a minute: aren’t Russia and China our enemies? And Sedwill, the former security adviser, expects us to cooperate with them to keep the Taliban terrorist threat down? Moreover – “we” must be willing to pay for this, on top of the covid debts and the green cr*ppery BJ is proposing to inflict on us? Seriously? More:
“Third, we must draw the right strategic conclusions. The world is a more dangerous place today. While many will be tempted, we cannot protect our national security, global interests or democratic values by pulling up the drawbridge, hunkering down and hoping the storm will pass.
Nato must rebuild the political and practical capability to intervene when necessary, with humility and stoicism, avoiding the overreach and impatience which proved fatal to the Afghan campaign. And we must find a way to reaffirm to our allies and partners worldwide that we have the grit to defend their security, our interests and common values.” (link, paywalled)
Ah – here’s his old anti-Brexit mantra: we’re weak and must work with everybody, we cannot afford to stand alone – but at the same time we must be humble even while showing ‘grit’. at the same time. Why he now describes the twenty years in Afghanistan as being ‘impatient’ is his secret. Did he advise the UK government to be patient and not overreach when he was in his posts in Afghanistan? Note how cleverly he deflects from his own work during all those years by using cloudy, heart-throbbing language!
Behind more nebulous language his concluding paragraph gives us a glimpse of ‘thinking in high places’, the places the Sedwills of this world inhabit, the places from which ‘guidance’ will flow to the government:
“This is a sad moment. But whether it is a turning point in the era of strategic competition is yet to be determined. We must recommit to the Afghan people, set credible boundaries to Taliban behaviour and police them, and reassure our unsettled allies and partners. Perhaps then this need not become a strategic and permanent reversal.” (link, paywalled)
‘Police boundaries’ which “we” will set for the Taliban? Isn’t that akin to ‘let’s prepare to go back in with boots on the ground’? Using the word ‘strategic’ twice is poppycock because he must surely know of the influence China is now going to exert – for fluff’s sake even I who never was a NATO adviser nor a security adviser can see that!
If this is the ‘advice’ this Mandarin of Mandarins used to give to his superiors and the previous PM then no wonder that both we ourselves and Afghanistan are in the horrible situation we find ourselves in!
Dear Pauline : dont ship Sedwolly out alone. There are loads of idiotic handwringers needed out there, not needed here..
EG the lady who on Sunday test match Special was passing round the begging bowl for Afghan womens cricket.
Yes the day the Tallyband strolled into Kabul
Thanks eugene. I didn’t know about her. Perhaps they’d get on well together!
I’m probably being a bit thick here:- Shouldn’t we simply send Sedwill himself to Afghanistan. Him alone I mean, no back up of any sort.
Prevent any Afghanistanis of any age or sex coming into our country.
Disconnect with any ‘allies’ or agreements we may have made in the past.
And leave Afghanistan alone to sort itself out.
Absolutely agree with you Pauline. As I said in a post yesterday, all the lying hypocritical politicians on both sides of the pond should be dumped there permanently.
Sidwell exudes the worry and illogic of someone under blackmailed obedience to instructions from the CCP having been ‘honey trapped’ – Vince Cable in his interview with Farage on GB News having waxed lyrical about ‘no genocide here’ blurted out of context about loving his wife – Seems likely so many ‘influencers’ have been trapped into this incredibly difficult position by the declared millions of CCP operatives World wide let alone the undeclared ones – Wish I was worth ‘turning’ and having to resist a ‘honey trap’ the initial part must be great! – Also separately perhaps all Mandarins should save a consonant in the interests of climate change for the more illustrative Madarines?
Sedwill knows nothing about moral duty he and the rest of the remoaner clique in Westminster only believe in following edicts from Washington DC or Brussels, We need genuine people who believe in Britain’s national interests not the Sedwills, May’s Blair or bumbling Boris Johnson’s of this world
So how do we propose to get these genuine people? The political parties stand between “we the people” and government. What we have is government of the people by the political parties for their paymasters. Until this changes, nothing changes.
Our women and children first culture (or history, at least, as it is less and less our culture these days) is being invaded by men bringing a women and children last culture. I saw a transport plane full of mainly fighting age men presumably leaving behind female family members. I have no idea why we should reward such cowardice. Utterly immoral.
It’s perfectly obvious what happened in Afghanistan.
The Taliban were hiding in full view in the Afghan army, getting trained up and weapons provided.
No wonder the Afghan Army collapsed when the enemy was among them ready to spring into action
Or, to precis the advice he gives and has given:
‘Take up the white man’s burden…’
I wonder if he’s noticed that the Empire is no more?
JF
The Taliban cannot be allowed to gain any air capability. So first any missile sites must be destroyed then the aircraft and airfields they have gained. Once that is done any further threats should be dealt with from the air; no “boots on the ground”.
Jack, with respect, shouldn’t you be directing your missiles at the Tory Party PLC.
Whilst the Taliban may now have a lot of military standard aircraft, I don’t think that they have any trained pilots.
there may be trained Afghan pilots – but what there isn’t are maintenance crew. These were Us personnel and they left a few weeks ago thus leaving the official Afghan Army with no air cover.
Better not to take any chances and deal with them now.