Hi all, we had a great show this week, thank you to my co-presenter Rachel McNally.

Reporter Jen Hudson looked at the divisions in the Obama administration over sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama must make a decision over the request for the deployment of 40,000 extra US troops, in addition to the 68,000 already committed. Controversially however, a number of diplomatic cables were leaked last week,sent from the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, to President Barack Obama, urging him to send no more troops until President Hamid Karzai cleans up the corruption rife in Afghanistan's government. There is increasinging pressure on Obama to make a decision soon, however now may be an unfortunate time to announce the deployment of new troops as he is due to collect his Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th.

Reporter Rachel Maltas spoke to the Prison Officer's Association about their claims that recent investigations were unfair and pre-determined. They refer to the recent scandal that involved Prison Officers transferring difficult prisoners between prisons before inspections in order to avoid unfavourable reports. An investigation was held which resulted in two officers being given warnings, and two governors being acquitted. The POA have since written to the Head of the Prison Service claiming members were 'irate' as they believe 'it is one rule for governors and and another for our members in uniform'.

Reporter Alex Bishop wrote about the increasing lack of press freedom in Iraq. Recently the Guardian were ordered to pay a fine for libel after an article accusing the Iraqi PrimeMinister of running an increasingly authoritarian governement. There has been a steady rise in court cases against press in Iraq, often against Independent companies that cannot afford to fight them. Bill Keller, of the New York Times commented that "what the [Iraqi] court calls libel is, in most countries, called journalism". The Guardian has said it will appeal the verdict, saying that by bringing the case to court the Iraqi Government has only supported the claims of the article in question.

Below is this week's editorial from myself, commenting on the future role British troops face in Afghanistan and the feasibility of withdrawing them...

"The position of Britain in Afghanistan has received a great deal of comment and debate once again this week, with Prime Minister Gordon Brown announcing that he would like to set a deadline for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, ideally in 2010. As reported in this week’s news program, Barack Obama is under increasing pressure to make a decision on the request for 40,000 more American troops to be deployed in the region. This choice has been made more difficult by the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, advising the President against such a decision due to the current levels of corruption in the country. If Obama does however choose to send the additional troops, his decision will make it considerably more difficult for Britain to defend its retreat.

Yesterday, Foreign Secretary David Milliband announced a potential new foreign policy in Afghanistan, one of integration for the Taliban – for them to be accepted back into the fold. Milliband claimed that the majority of the Taliban were not Islamic extremists pursuing Jihad, rather that they were involved due to tribal and community ties. As such it is thought they should be positively encouraged back into their communities, and that this choice must be presented as one that is feasible, convincing members that to work alongside Allied Forces was a more productive way to defend their communities than to fight alongside the Taliban against the Allies.

Milliband said Britain supported plans for a "National Reintegration Organisation" that would help former combatants return to their homes.

He pointed to the encouraging statistic that, "Less than 5% of Afghans want the Taliban back. This is our greatest strength. But they fear that the international community will tire of the war and the Taliban will return, inflicting brutal retribution on those who 'collaborated' with the government".

As the current situations that Obama and Brown find themselves in attests, the International Community is indeed beginning to tire of the war. This Sunday saw the death of the 96th UK Serviceman this year, and a poll released on the same day suggested that 73% of the British public wanted to see British troops withdrawn within a year, factors that has almost certainly influenced Brown’s recent announcement.

However whilst the West may desire an exit from Afghanistan this may not be feasible in the near future. It is agreed by everyone that the only way Allied Forces could withdraw would be if Afghanistan’s government and security forces were strong enough and well enough trained and equipped to defend itself against the Taliban.

Unfortunately the MoD’s Chief of the General Staff, Sir David Richards, predicted last month that UK forces might be fighting on the frontline until 2014, with a further "five years of declining violence" before UK forces went into a supporting role. Despite positive political; speeches, Afghanistan is increasingly appearing to be a war without an end, despite Milliband’s insistence that, ‘Our goal is not a fight to the death’.

Can the Afghan government ever be strong enough to fight this fight alone? This Thursday will see the inauguration of President Karzai, who has been reselected to rule the country. World Leaders will be attending the ceremony in support of Karzai. However Karzai has not been legally elected. His victory in the first round of elections was proven to be highly fraudulent and therefore illegitimate. The second round of elections wasn’t able to go ahead because Karzai’s only real rival pulled out of the race just days beforehand because he was so convinced that the re-run would be just as unfair and corrupt as the first. The International Community solved this problem by simply automatically electing Karzai as President, he was after all the only feasible candidate. Karzai’s last government was rife with corruption, nepotism and ineptitude and the recent attempts at elections prove this has not changed. How can world leaders realistically expect that Karzai’s next government will be not only better in every possible sense, but sufficiently so for it to be able to hold the fort when the West withdraws. This outlook may be cynical, but it appears to me that such hopes are illusory.

There is a case to be made that British troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan purely because they are fighting and dying to support and aid a corrupt government and there is certainly a moral case to be made for this argument. However Britain is deeply enmeshed in the Afghanistan situation, rightly or wrongly we have made the decisions we have and we are involved now. It would be irresponsible and unfair to the Afghan people to simply pull out before ensuring that a certain degree of security is established first. The difficulty is that it is difficult to see just how or when such a situation could actually be achieved.

Public opinion may be against greater involvement and perhaps it can no longer be honestly claimed that our troops put their lives at risk for a worthwhile cause.

However Obama is realistically contemplating sending 40,000 more of his own, that doesn’t sound like he sees the US leaving any time soon, and they’re certainly not there for the fun of it. Britain along with the US has sadly made a rod for it’s own back, and as difficult it is, we must now face up to the consequence of our involvement – we pledged to help and must remain until Afghanistan can do the job on it’s own, however long that may take."

Tune in at 12pm next Wednesday to listen to our next News program, or check this blog for a summary.


Beatrice Pickup

Head of News