Fred Hughes: We need to be told the truth about Afghanistan nightmare

THE civilianisation of warfare, as opposed to civilians being involved in war, took effect in 1914 with the conscription of a generation.

Since then civilians, including children, have been trained in global conflict, seduced and forced by political and religious fundamentalism in equal measure.

The only thing that hasn't changed is access to information – why we are really at war and what the consequences are in ending it.

The First World War was informally known as the Great War, a global conflict that was fought across a narrow strip of land.

The rise of the superpowers, the evolution of technology and inadequate restrictions in cross-boundary access has made sure that 21st century warfare can happen anywhere. The front line is Afghanistan, but it could just as easily be Somalia or Chechnya.

And it's not so far-fetched to contemplate it being in Britain.

For, let there be no mistake, Afghanistan is just the current conflict zone in the Global War.

And whether it is fought among New York's skyscrapers, or on trains in Madrid, in Tokyo, or in London, it is as much a civilians' war as it is a soldiers' war.

We trust our nation's leaders and military commanders to carry us through to the end, as we did nearly a century ago.

Now, as then, we want the war to end. I hear people saying: "We can't win in Afghanistan. Britain's Victorian Army couldn't, nor could the modern Russian army."

But I hold to the argument that there are no winners in war, just losers. It was only political armistice and economic bankruptcy that ended the First World War in 1918.

It was shocking casualties that brought an end to war in 1945 when there was almost no-one left to kill.

In the past I have argued we should bring the troops home. Back then I was referring to the war in Iraq.

It is one thing helping a country to fight against an oppressive administration, or to quell criminal insurgency. But is it the same when NATO troops are fighting on another nation's territory in order to make a case for world security?

You see, unlike Iraq, the consequences in Afghanistan really are global.

People are saying if we were told the truth about the situation, we may find it easier to understand why our children are dying there.

Of course politicians and military commanders have nightmares about the consequences of withdrawal. Most probably this is why they can't share their fearful thoughts with us – the truth perhaps would be too much for us to take in.

But the truth is that this region is one we all have to engage with, so surely we have a right to be told.

Say we pulled out of Afghanistan. Would we be any safer at home?

Some say spending more money on homeland security would be better.

But wouldn't the recall of troops free-up the Taliban and allow Al-Qaeda bring the front line closer?

The cross-border territory that links Afghanistan and Pakistan is a lawless region and provides the breeding ground for world-dominating fundamentalists.

So is it right, as in 1914-1918, to pour in more troops to end an unwinnable war of attrition?

If there are alternatives the public must be told, even if it does mean sharing the nightmares of commanders and politicians.