Khyber carry-ons
From Joseph Aliharn Sir: Philip Hensher has given a splendid illustration of the pitfalls of Central Asian politics ('Death in the Khyber', 22 September), but he overlooks the success of British policy in the 19th century. The real issue in Afghanistan was Anglo-Russian rivalry. Here the British empire held the line. What mattered for Britain was that Russia was prevented from annexing Afghanistan, and that Russia never used that country as a route for the invasion of India.
The Anglo-Russian antagonism was global, but the two powers were most at loggerheads over the questions that arose with the decay of the Ottoman empire. It was because Britain frustrated Russia's ambitions in the Near East that Russia turned up the heat in Central Asia, the region where a land empire was best placed to put pressure on a maritime empire.
The British empire had to counter Russian moves in Central Asia, but without turning a sideshow into the main attraction and playing into Russia's hands, The present conflict between the United States and Islamic militants is unfolding in Afghanistan, but its roots probably lie in the Middle East. The real lesson of the Victorian experience is not that the United States risks another Vietnam. Instead, the moral is that the United States should distinguish between where a war is fought and what the war is about. The enemy certainly will.
Joseph Altham
YaEigialtham@aol.com
Previous page
