Afghanistan: The Lion’s Last Roar: There is a tried and tested model followed by documentarians who want to excuse the criminality of failed aggressive wars. Ten Alps plc’s production companies (in this case, Blakeway) churn them out prodigiously for the BBC. First, it is important to skate over the fundamental legal and moral precepts violated in the initial act of aggression. Then, for the rest of the programme, unleash a series of high-ranking officials from the aggressors’ military and government to tell the story.
What you get is a story of strategic muddle. None of them are really to blame. True, the politicians and high officials didn’t understand Afghanistan. They put the British military into impossible situations, underresourced and poorly directed. But intelligence is imperfect, they acted in good faith to support a demanding ally, in the US, and defend our nations on two fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan).
“The Lion’s Last Roar” is primarily from the British military perspective in Afghanistan. If the programme deviates at all from the archetype, it is in subordinating political voices in favour of military ones. As a result, there is an overt criticism of the Iraq war being based on “fallacious” claims and an open recognition that the West allied in Afghanistan with warlords who were as bad, if not worse, than the Taliban.
However, there is no consideration of the legality and morality of attacking Afghanistan. It is presumed that we all agree it was the ‘Good War’. The programme sets the scene by telling us that Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaida attacked the US on 9/11 and that they were based in Afghanistan and being harboured by the Taliban.
It is important that these documentaries avoid certain information that may cast doubt on the Western states’ right to attack. For example, that the Taliban tried to enter into negotiations with the US for the handing over of bin Laden to a third-party if evidence of his culpability was provided. The US refused to provide any evidence or enter into negotiations, instead, predictably, assumed that its military might entitled it to by-pass law. The US and its allies chose not to get explicit UN security council approval for any attack.
Moreover, in 2002, FBI director, Robert Mueller, told the press that, after investigations, he only “believed” that the 9/11 attacks had been hatched in Afghanistan and implemented in Germany and the UAE. This suggests that the US and its allies attacked Afghanistan in 2001 without clear evidence of a link with 9/11.
The initial war aim of the US and Britain was to attack and destroy Al Qaida in Afghanistan. It was only once bombing had commenced that the overthrow of the Taliban regime was introduced as a justification for aggression. This is a clear indicator that the concerns about bringing democracy and human rights to Afghanistan were not priorities – backed up by the Western alliances with warlords.
Naturally, with such documentaries (and unlike those presented by the BBC’s Yalda Hakim, for instance) the experiences and views of ordinary Afghanis – the group who have suffered the most – are of no value whatsoever. Except for some words by an alleged Taliban fighter, some Western-backed Afghani officials and a village elder, Afghanis don’t have much of a voice. Certainly, the suffering of the ordinary people, those displaced by the millions, killed by the thousands, have no real platform.
Even the families of the 453 British servicemen and women killed have no direct voice in these documentaries. Such programmes are designed to defend important reputations, obfuscate the facts of criminality and enable the next excursion.