A solid majority of Canadians want our troops out of Afghanistan and, unless something remarkable happens in the next six or eight months, Canadian forces will probably be leaving troubled Kandahar province in February, 2009.
This begs the question of which NATO nation will take its turn to battle the Taliban in Kandahar? Right now there are no prospects, none.
A story in today's Vancouver Province reveals the people of several other NATO nations share the same view as Canadians. 78% of Poles oppose the Afghanistan mission. 54% of the Dutch support the mission but more than half want their soldiers out when their committment expires. Germans favour getting their troops out by a 54/44 margin.
Maybe everyone is coming to the same conclusion: Afghanistan just isn't worth it.
5 comments:
If you look at the mission objectively it's really not going that badly. 60 fatalities in 2 years is tragic, but we might be a little hasty to call the whole thing off. Casualties shouldn't determine when we bring our troops home anyways.
Also, Canada's regained some of it's influence over the past two years. There was a time when ours was among the most respected fighting forces in the world.
I'm no warmonger, nor am I a soldier. Truth is I think war is pretty sick, but when I look at Afghanistan I still see an opportunity for Canadians to make a big difference in the world.
Besides, if Canadians aren't comfortable with their forces participating in a conflict as isolated as this one, why do we have a military at all?
Actually, Charles, looking at "the mission" objectively, it's not going at all well. Don't forget we're part of a mission that's been going on for six years now, not two, and has seen the Afghan government and security services succumb to corruption, the opium traffic reach all time record production and the Taliban resurgent with local citizenry now joining in. Tell me, objectively, how that's not going badly?
Just what influence has Canada actually regained over the past two years? I guess we're a little more welcome in George w. Bush's Washington.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the degree to which our soldiers have been respected. They've always been held to be first rate and "the mission" didn't change that one bit. You've been listening to Harper much too long.
There are a lot of places on this planet in need of our help where we could actually do some real good, saving civilian lives instead of taking them. If you're looking for an opportunity for Canadians to make a big difference in the world, Afghanistan is a lousy pick.
Why have a military at all? I could spend an hour explaining why we need an effective military - land, sea and air - and all those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan.
People are always concerned with "which NATO nation" will replace us. However, they seem to be operating with an erroneous assumption that the mission is for NATO to remain there forever, with countries taking turns fighting off an enemy that can never be defeated.
The real plan, and this much is going rather well (but you have to search very hard to find any reports on it), is to build the Afghan National Army to be the force that replaces us and other NATO countries in battle.
The transition is already underway, where Canada was taking a lead role in the fighting and the Afghan army backing us up. The Afghan army is now taking on a larger role, and eventually NATO can play the backup role to them, who will be the primary responders to threats.
It's is a farce to say we're doomed because we can't stay there until the Taliban is defeated. That is not and never has been the mission. We need to train the Afghan National Army to be able to defend their own country. You don't hear much about this aspect of the mission in the news, but the building of their army, while not an easy process, is going well, and is the only viable long term solution for Afghanistan.
It's unfortunate that you don't hear much about this, good or bad, reported. Perhaps the media just likes to focus on the glories and horrors of war for their stories, and many people at home are obsessed with the building schools and roads? Nobody in the media seems to care about the building of the local force that will take over the NATO role, which is the long term exit strategy. Teach them to defend themselves, and we don't need to be there forever.
If you pull out early based on some arbitrary end date, you create the problem of which NATO nation must take over from us, if the Afghan National Army is not yet ready to assume the job.
So when assessing whether the mission should be extended, don't focus on how many casulties we have taken, or how many schools we have or have not built, or even how much the Taliban has or has not been defeated. Instead, focus on the role of making Afghanistan capable of defending themselves.
If there's guilt to be felt over Afhanistan, it certainly insn't at the feet of Canada. As for success in Afghanistan, forget it. A few minutes read of anything but a N. American news chain will fill a heart with despair at incompetence, blind stupidity and actions tantamount to war crimes. If we need a fall guy let it be at the feet of Bush for his marked incompetence and Harper for his childish hero worship and lack of leadership ability.
Sorry, Dave, but I don't have much faith in our prospects for building a really viable Afghan National Army. Look at the history of the place and you'll see why such armies are a rarity for Afghanistan. When disputes arise they eventually revert to warlord militias. What makes you think this venture will be any different? Do you see something in the Karzai government that will cement it together?
Karzai's government is already mortally wounded by corruption with key ministries taken over as fiefdoms by warlords and, let's face it, common criminals. So, that's a non-starter. What then?
The irony of it is, I think the army is Afghanistan's best bet but only if it ousts the Karzai government. Are we willing to commit ourselves to a military dictatorship for the Afghan people. Before you dismiss the idea out of hand take a clear-headed look at how that scenario has actually worked fairly well elsewhere.
Military rule, heavy-handed as it is, may be the only viable bridge between the state of cultural and theocratic feudalism plus warlordism that now infects Afghanistan and the country's hope for a functioning democracy even if it would be many years off.
This problem IS our fault. When Bush got into his Iraq fantasy-mode we should have put him on notice, then and there, to get on with the job in Afghanistan first. Instead we followed the fool's lead. The upshot of that was that Hamid Karzai was not given the strong support he needed from us to keep the warlords and thugs out of power. The reason they're so embedded in the national power structure today is because Karzai had no choice but to deal. It's because of his inherent weakness that he and his legislators want a deal with the Taliban.
If you're looking for farces, Dave, take the long heralded illusion of democracy for the Afghan people. Then decide if you would truly favour military rule, bearing in mind that, even then, it would be a very iffy proposition.
Post a Comment