On 25 February, a panel of experts convened at the Frontline Club for a discussion on the war in Afghanistan and its ongoing legacy. Chaired by BBC Afghanistan correspondent, David Loyn, the debate spanned the period from 11 September 2001 to the present day.

L-R: Mike Martin, Jawed Nader, David Loyn, Major General Jonathan Shaw and Jack Fairweather

Jawed Nader, director of the British and Irish Agencies Afghanistan Group (BAAG) who has worked with both the Afghan Government and Afghan civil society, began by commenting on his experience of foreign military intervention post 9/11. He said, “At the beginning we didn’t know what to make of it. We were upset that all these people were being killed, but then we also thought maybe Afghanistan is becoming important for the international community.”

Loyn asked Nader whether he thought war in Afghanistan was unavoidable. He responded, “I think it was inevitable, and in some ways we really wanted that war to take place. Afghanistan was in war for many years before that and we thought there would be no end to it, and then now a superpower was coming and we thought it would be a decisive war.”

On the subject of public support of the intervention, Loyn provided the audience with an American poll figure which conveyed the staggering shift in opinion. “At the time, 93% [of Americans] were in favour of the action, and last month for the first time Gallup recorded negative support for the war in Afghanistan.”  

Jack Fairweather, former Baghdad and Gulf correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and currently fellow of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, commented on US strategy in the region. “They [the US] took a very stripped down view of what should be done. ‘Light footprint’ was the sort of catchphrase that was doing the rounds.”

The issue of aid was also discussed in depth, as multiple aid agencies flooded Afghanistan following the outbreak of war. Nader commented that “the aid agencies wanted to do good,” but also recognised that “there was an issue that the Taliban or the ordinary people will not be able to identify who were military personnel aids and who were aid agencies… The other issue was a lot of wastage of aid.”

Major General Jonathan Shaw, recently retired from the British Army after 32 years commanding operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, questioned “did we understand Afghanistan? The real problem is that we didn’t…the ahistorical nature of our approach was just remarkable.”

“I think we went into Afghanistan and Iraq in denial of the lessons of history, launching ourselves on an American crusade.”

Helmand was discussed in great detail, and was described as a “historical accident” by Lyon. “What the British decided to do was put in huge amounts of soldiers and very little aid and wondered why it upset the locals,” added Shaw.

“Prediction about Afghanistan is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”. Jawed Nader at @frontlineclub

— Chris King (@DocChrisKing) February 25, 2015

Former British Army Office and pushtu-speaker Mike Martin, who served and undertook extensive research in Helmand during the war, commented on the damage inflicted in the province by UK and US military forces.

“Helmand seems to be a microcosm or a slightly extreme version of what happened elsewhere in Afghanistan…. We completely misunderstood what was going on… In Helmand what you saw was a civil war, it had nothing to do with the Taliban or the government. All of the Helmandis understood that we understood the conflict as a dichotomous good/bad government/Taliban…

“We made it worse: rather than clamping down on the violence we actually made it more violent.”

Shaw spoke on the relationship between the armed forces and Whitehall. “The problem is connecting the military instrument to the political objectives. The military were the wrong tool for the job… The military should have been support of the political plan.”

Nader then moved the discussion onto the West’s tendency to misinterpret the needs of Afghanistan.

“We compare Afghanistan with high standards, of European standards I believe, whereas Afghanistan should be compared with its regional countries,” he said.

Nader closed the debate with a hopeful view of the future of Afghanistan.”Today Afghanistan has changed in three main ways. One, Afghanistan is a better place to live, Second, Afghanistan is more diverse…And third, Afghanistan is more self aware, more critical.

“All of these positive changes would not have happened had you not gone to Afghanistan to topple a very draconian regime, the Taliban.”

Listen and watch back below:

url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/193024169&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ frameborder=”no” scrolling=”no”>

Jo Metson Scott spent the past five years photographing American and British soldiers who spoke out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Using their letters and portraits, her book The Grey Line explores the soldiers’ reasons for doing so, and the fates that have awaited them.

Metson Scott introduced The Grey Line to a Frontline Club audience on Tuesday night, with journalist Victoria Brittain and former SAS soldier Ben Griffin joining her on stage.

Metson Scott described the proces of collating her book:

“The Project is about individuals, or soldiers, who have moral doubts about their involvement in the Iraq War, and over a period of five years I went back and forth to America and I interviewed about 40 soldiers. . . . I essentially was looking at what an individual does when they’re contractually obliged to do something that they’re morally opposed to.”

 

“The thread that runs through them all,” Griffin said of Metson Scott’s subjects, “is a moral objection to what’s going on – seeing a moral bankruptcy in what is being done in these countries.”

Griffin himself fought in Iraq in 2004:

“We would go out in the nighttime and use explosives to smash our way into people’s homes. . . . These were normal civilians . . . I suppose it could all be summed up when my commanding officer . . . said that he was worried that we were becoming the secret police of Baghdad. . . . I contemplated this every day. What was I doing? What was I doing taking part in this?”

In 2005, he refused to return and was discharged. He began criticising the Iraq War in public, and in 2008, a High Court injunction banned him from ever speaking again on what he knew from his time in the service.

Griffin adhered to the injunction for two and a half years.

“I actually became quite ill,” he remembered, “in a sort of PTSD kind of way. Got very depressed, and I was drinking a lot, and I was thinking about Iraq, and the rest of it. And I decided that maybe what was causing the illness to be worse was that I had this duty to speak.”

In 2011, he founded the UK Chapter of Veterans for Peace.

Griffin praised Metson Scott for capturing the courage in her subjects:

“The most important point to make about this resistance is that of all the guys I’ve met . . . this is not about being scared [of getting hurt].

 

“This is about being morally opposed to doing it to other people . . . to shooting people . . . to killing people, to torturing people, to dragging them out of their houses in the middle of the night.

 

“[Yet] the media likes to portray these [soldiers] as cowards.”

At its core, Griffin tied the problem to Empire – “Britain and America are basically an Empire,” he said – and that the projection of power – “the war in Iraq I think is pretty straightforward: it’s about controlling the oil supply” – has lacked a real moral footing.

Audience member Anwar Sarwar, also a British veteran of the Iraq War, agreed:

“I’ve been to Auschwitz and Birkenau . . . it was absolutely horrific. . . . This is a wider case about whether you should fight for Queen and Country, etc. When something like that happens, you’ll feel it in your stomach. And I’m sure that loads of people here are willing to get up and fight that kind of tyranny.

 

“That’s not the kind of thing that was going on in Iraq, where I served twice, and I was also one of the first troops to invade. . . . I was the guy kicking the doors in.”

In 1970, English documentarian Michael Grigsby released I Was a Soldier, which explored life after war for three young men returning from Vietnam to their homes in the heartland of Texas.

Grigsby went back to Texas last year, rekindling his friendships with these men and their families, and telling their updated story in We Went To War.

After a screening at the Frontline Club on September 17, Grigsby and co-director Rebekah Tolley answered questions from the audience. They elaborated a philosophy of film that seemed, at its very core, to be about feeling, healing, and connecting – processes that veterans, weighed down by trauma and loneliness, can find as rare as they are vital.

Tolley and Grigsby were asked how they had captured such authenticity in their subjects.

"It’s a word called trust," Grigsby answered.  "Very simple."  

When making We Went to War, he and Tolley spent the first few days with their subjects discussing directions the film might take, but the next three weeks without a camera, simply spending time together.  In the end, Grigsby reflected:

"We gave the [subjects] the space to be themselves … That’s a crucial thing in the way I like to make pictures: let people be what they are, and don’t let’s try to have an agenda in which we try to force the pace."

 Yet once filming began, they shot We Went to War in only 11 days.  

"I like to shoot fast, actually," Grigsby said.  "The main reason is … if you’re invading some people’s life, you want to give them the minimum hassle."

Meditative in style, We Went to War’s scenes often contain little more than shots of Texas’ beautiful rustic landscape, set to a mournful guitar.  Grigsby explained:

"When you hear some very powerful dialogue, I want time to absorb it, actually. I don’t want to be pushed on to the next scene, and the next scene.  And one of the ways we’ve done that, I think, is just cutting to a landscape … and you can just resonate, and think, about things … just to give us, the audience, time to think, to feel, to listen.  And I feel very deeply this is something sadly missing now … that time, the space, to think, to feel."  

Another reason to highlight space, Grigsby said:

"Was to emphasize all that loneliness.  I feel, in the world, we’re like figures in a landscape.  We rarely communicate and rarely touch one another."

"In a sense, I don’t think we [as documentary makers] have a mission to explain.  We have a mission to feel."

Both I Was a Soldier and We Went to War have drawn rave reviews, particularly from veterans. Grigsby shared:

"We heard of one veteran who saw the film … and we’re told that he went home and apologized to his lady of 40 years, that he hadn’t been able to understand what she was going through.  And for the first time in 40 years, it seems that they are now having a dialogue.  And that’s incredible.  It’s just incredible to ask that one film can actually just open the eyes and the heart a little bit and enable this thing to happen.  That’s, that’s beautiful."

We Went to War has not been officially released yet, but the trailer and future screening dates can be found on this website