British Foreign Policy

Having been personally grounded for some time - an experience I highly recommend to jet setters and other high fliers - I'm conscious that the downside of this may be a point of view which is insufficiently internationalist, so today I want to reflect on Britain's foreign policy.

The death of British Armed Service Men and Women in Afghanistan is a tragedy. Leaving aside the rationale for their presence in the country, Britain must recompense and resource them adequately whilst they are there. This is not presently the case.

However, the experience of other military campaigns in that country - and notably of the former Soviet Union in the 1980s - suggests that the situation in Afghanistan will continue to be extremely difficult for NATO forces.

A basic issue, which seems to un/under-recognised by Western Governments is the sheer numbers of young men willing to fight for the Taliban and similar tribal/religious causes. In short, this is a war involving "the many" on "the other side".

Therefore, it is only when the citizens of conflict zones themselves take up arms against the perpetrators of tribal and religious violence - as happened recently in Pakistan - that there is any real prospect of "winning the war".

For most Western leaders and technocrats - military and civilian - old-fashioned and prolonged conflict "on foreign ground" - and very difficult ground in the case of Afghanistan - is, I suspect, still alien territory.

The challenge for British Foreign Policy on this, and other issues, is, I would suggest, to find its feet again. Understanding the demographics of conflict zones, including the role of very large, and increasing, numbers of un/under-employed young men is an area worthy of greater policy research.

However, please do not pretend that the so-called "Beautiful Game (ie football) can solve the problems of those countries where former Western foreign policy (notably of Britain and Russia during earlier colonial regimes) was known as the "Great Game".