Posted by Richard Stockley in Business on August 11, 2009
A recent article in The Independent on Sunday, 2nd August, highlighted the current problems with UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan. With regard to this deployment, the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, commented that UK forces could be there for ‘decades’. By decades it is reasonable to assume that Sir Nigel means timescale of twenty to thirty years as British troops were on the streets of Ulster for a similar timescale. So, with regards to Sir Nigel’s suggestion, is it plausible to expect UK troops to be patrolling Helmand Province for the next twenty to thirty years? The answer is resolutely no; public opinion, rising casualties and the cost of such an operation to support what is undeniably a failed nation, will put paid to the Afghanistan conflict long before that, whatever the political or moral desires may be.
Even if the UK decided to maintain such a lengthy commitment there is one singular reason why it would be unfeasible, and that reason is oil. This is not due to the fact that Afghanistan has oil, it doesn’t, or whether the oil/gas companies want to drive a pipeline through it, that will make no difference whatsoever. It is down to the simple fact that global oil production has peaked, as such the current supply will slowly deplete and with it the petroleum and lubricants that keeps our armed forces mobile. It would be easy at this point to predict some kind of Malthusian catastrophe or apocalyptic outcome; however, I shall avoid that subject as there are plenty of sites on the web proposing those without this one joining the fray.
Read more…
