UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said it is "arrogant" to think the UK could unilaterally prevent Afghanistan falling back into the grip of the Taliban.
With the militants closing in on the capital, Kabul, it was reported that arrangements were being made to airlift out the British ambassador Sir Laurie Bristow by tomorrow evening.
The Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) had intended Sir Laurie and a small team of officials to remain at the airport with other international diplomats.
However, The Sunday Telegraph reported that their departure had been brought forward amid fears the airport could be overrun as the Taliban continue their lightning advance through the country. The FCDO declined to comment.
It comes amid criticism of the UK Government for its handling of the evacuation of Afghans who had supported its efforts in the country through services such as interpreting.
READ MORE: Afghan former British Army interpreter facing death after UK refuses him entry
Six hundred British troops are being deployed to the city to assist with the evacuation of the remaining nationals, as well as Afghans who worked with UK forces and who face reprisals if they fall into the hands of the Taliban.
With signs time is rapidly running out, a RAF Hercules was reported to have flown out of the airport yesterday carrying diplomats and civilians.
The growing chaos – with the signs the government of President Ashraf Ghani is close to collapse – has met with anger and frustration among MPs and military veterans who served in the country.
The situation was prompted by the decision of the Biden administration to withdraw all the remaining US troops from the country by the 20th anniversary next month of the 9/11 terror attacks.
The UK Government has faced accusations that it was abandoning the country to its fate after it – along with other international allies – announced that it was following suit.
But writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Wallace rejected accusations that it represented "a failure of leadership and a betrayal of Afghanistan".
READ MORE: David Pratt: 20 years on the roles have reversed in Afghanistan
He said that when the US announced its plan he had tried, without success, to find other allies who would take their place, and without them, the UK could not "go it alone".
"A unilateral force would very quickly be viewed as an occupying force and, no matter how powerful the country that sends it, history shows us what happens to them in Afghanistan," he said.
"It would be arrogant to think we could solve Afghanistan unilaterally. The solution can only come if the force is multinational and the nations involved bring to bear all the tools of nation building – hard power, soft power, foreign aid, and political alliances.
"And from the outset we need to be realistic that you have to manage these types of problems for decades, not fix them overnight."
He said the position had been made more difficult by a deal which "wrongly suggested to the Taliban that they had won".
His comments came as Mazar-e-Sharif in the north of the country became the latest city to fall to the the seemingly unstoppable advance of the militants.
Two powerful former warlords who had pledged to defend it were reported to have fled as the pro-government forces collapsed.
Meanwhile President Joe Biden announced that he was increasing the number of US troops being deployed to the country to help with the withdrawal of American nationals to 5000.
At the same he strongly defended his decision to withdraw US forces despite the collapse of the Afghan army in the face of the Taliban advance.
He said that he when he entered office he had had a choice to go ahead with a deal struck by his predecessor Donald Trump to withdraw or to "ramp up" the US presence and deploy more combat troops.
"One more year, or five more years, of US military presence would not have made a difference if the Afghan military cannot or will not hold its own country," he said in a statement.
"I was the fourth president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan – two Republicans, two Democrats. I would not, and will not, pass this war onto a fifth."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel