International Relations and the Middle East

Report by Nellie (L6)

On Friday the 10th of October we received a talk from Lt Col Sam Hughes, a commander in the royal marines and he told his story of the events he encountered in Afghanistan. Firstly, Hughes showed us how political will is turned into action through the use of the military, clearly highlighting the constant need for military power. This was backed up by the quote, ‘war is the extension of political power’ which led us onto the collaboration of power, shown in the sing off a strategy every five years by the PM. This strategy is used to predict and show the use of militant power alongside the aid of allies. However, in cases that are not identified in the strategy for example, in a natural disaster, the home or foreign office must request and seek approval of military help to act where needed. In pre-planed and desperate times, the military gives options to parliament and relevant groups as the UK is not a military dictatorship and therefore, other policies must be taken into account.

We then looked at the example of Israel and Hamas and the reasoning behind support for both sides. Despite most people in the room agreeing that the UK would rather support a western ally over a terrorist state, we analysed why it is not always a simple decision as to whom to support. Looking at the Middle East on a larger scale we saw the complications with regards to both political and geographical power. Therefore, we saw how the UK’s stance on Israel and Hamas would have impacted relations with many other vital countries in the gulf state. One major factor which the conflict plays a significant part in our daily lives would be the effect on oil. With both Russian sanctions and heated relations with oil heavy countries such as, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Iran, the UK has to play a tactical game in order to maintain good relations whilst at the same time not giving either side too much power.

After examining how the decisions on the drawing boards were made, Hughes introduced us to the ‘tactical application of hard power’ and through this, shared on his time in Afghanistan. NATO’s response to the imposition of the Taliban in Afghanistan was to send US and UK troops to expel and rid the Taliban, consequently, Hughes was stationed behind the Helmand River. A climate which was predominantly dessert with small farming settlements either side of this treasured water source. Their mission in a town called Girishk was to protect the citizens from the Taliban and stimulate the rise of a new local government. However, when they arrived, their car conveniently broke down - leaving them stranded and more importantly exposed to a stand off fight. The firing lasted five hours. After the offensive was cleared, they had seized a combination of homemade bombs and firearms from the Taliban. Instead of protecting people, they were more focused on defending people – this included long range dessert patrols. One of which involved a stake out on the top of a mountain looking down at the Helmand River and watching the Taliban scheme behind on of the settlements. Up on the rocks, they came across a Shepard who they assessed before releasing and ensured that he would not confess to the Taliban where the British were hiding. However, as they watched the Shepard return to the village, they saw him confiding to the Taliban members hiding in the bush behind the village, soon enough Hughes and his troops saw the Taliban gazing up at their target. However, all soldiers returned to the bottom of the hill, but not all missions were this lucky as many trucks were overturned from minefield, keeping the men on their toes.

Their missions were constantly evolving and rarely had a clear beginning and end. The army is used to carry out specific duties, not re-build nation states. Throughout the talk, Hughes gave us a clear indication as to how complicated domestic and foreign deployments can be, but we all came away with greater appreciation of how the military functions and operates.