Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem so different. One is an oil-rich, predominantly Arab state, relatively Westernized and with a fairly high level of literacy, etc. The other is a backward, feudal amalgam of tribes (Pashtun, Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen, Baluchs), poor and largely illiterate, with few resources.
They seem worlds apart in so many ways but there are links that tie one to the other, especially where foreign troops are concerned. Western troops are alien to Iraqis and Afghans alike. We are different ethnically, religiously, linguistically, culturally. They're the locals. We're people who arrived by force, remain by force and will eventually leave, possibly by force.
Weak governments and instability wrack both countries. Both nations support homegrown insurgencies and both also have an al-Qaeda terrorist presence. Of the two, Iraq is the more unstable, at least right now, being in the grip not only of an insurgency and a terrorist guerilla movement but also a civil war between Shia and Sunni that may possibly be complicated by an Arab-Kurd conflict in the north. Both nations are affected, both positively and negatively, by their Islamic neighbour states. Iran clearly has the greatest impact on Iraq while Pakistan is the dominant influence on Afghanistan, often as a threat.
Iraq's instability operates on so many levels that it utterly confounds any efforts by the Baghdad government or Washington to quell the violence. Bringing order and coherence to a unified Iraq has turned into a pipe dream. In Iraq, Bush's 'coalition of the willing' is falling apart. After next year, America may stand alone. Washington has been unable to maintain popular support for the Iraq war and each successive failure corrodes what remains. The United States has lost the 'hearts and minds' campaign in Iraq and at home.
NATO commanders in Afghanistan must look at today's Iraq with real trepidation. They understand that a collapse of Iraq will have a direct impact in Afghanistan, on its central government, on its people and on its insurgency.
If Iraq falls into a civil war uncontrollable by either Baghdad or Washington, NATO forces will have to brace for a "blowback" effect. Islamic fundamentalists, radicals and terrorists won't waste much time in turning on the next gang of infidels in their world, the pitifully small garrison in Afghanistan. If America is forced to withdraw from Iraq, will it be able to shift that force to Afghanistan where it will be critically required? Will the psyche and morale of the American voter embrace one war after having been humiliated in another?
Canadians aren't lacking for reasons to look on Iraq with worry.
This weekend Liberals will be choosing a new leader for the party. It is disappointing that Michael Ignatieff appears to have a lock on that job. Like Stephen Harper, MI was an early and eager supporter of the patently illegal conquest of Iraq. Like Stephen Harper, MI fervently supports 'the mission' in Afghanistan. Like Stephen Harper, MI chooses not to notice the fundamental flaws in 'the mission', issues that need to be addressed sooner rather than later. Michael Ignatieff, alone among the front runners, believes we should simply leave our soldiers in Afghanistan until 2009. Why?
At least Stephan Dion realizes that the US and NATO absolutely must have a comprehensive economic recovery strategy for Afghanistan. At least Bob Rae claims he's not committed to the 2009 date. At least Gerard Kennedy says 'the mission' must be reformed if we're to stay until 2009.
The US military has at least learned from its debacles in Vietnam and Iraq and has embraced the "Nine Paradoxes of Counterinsurgency," classic stuff straight out of the T.E. Lawrence handbook, tried and true. America has finally grasped the nuanced approach essential to defeating an insurgency. We seem determined to stay the course and repeat all their mistakes. The Liberal Party and Canada need a leader who can genuinely understand the trap we're setting for our soldiers. Michael Ignatieff doesn't seem to fit that bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment