NATO cannot win in Afghanistan. It could have, should have, some years ago. But now it cannot, certainly not before its scheduled troop withdrawal in 2014. So why does Stephen Harper want to “examine all options,” including extending the Canadian involvement?
Perhaps his militaristic ideology is at work. Or he just wants Canada to be a loyal foot soldier for NATO, principally the United States, on whom we also depend for our prosperity. That was Paul Martin’s rationale in 2005 in committing Canada to the dangerous combat role in Kandahar. That was more or less Harper’s as well in extending our mission in 2006, 2008 and 2010 — with Liberal support.
Having used that logic for so long, it’s not easy to abandon it, even if Afghanistan is lurching from crisis to crisis — increasing attacks even in Kabul, on parliament, government offices, embassies, etc.; increasing anger at Americans for incidents like urinating on dead Afghans or burning Qur’ans — and the NATO mission has become incoherent.
The declared aim of “defeating” the Taliban was abandoned long ago. After several downgrades, the current goal is only to ensure they don’t take over Kabul and the north. NATO concedes the south to them — or at least concedes its failure to stop them from keeping the nation’s most populated region unstable.
The only way out is for Hamid Karzai and his successors to share power with the Taliban, while NATO maintains bases to keep an eye on both and to live up to the pledge of not abandoning Afghanistan, yet again.
Thus the peace overtures — sputtering and inconclusive so far — to the Taliban by both Karzai and Barack Obama via Qatar, which is willing to host the talks, a Taliban office and also some freed detainees from Guantanamo.
(Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are making their own peace efforts, so as not to be left out of the final outcome, in which Iran and India would also want a say.)
No surprise, then, that amid all this realpolitik, you don’t hear much about liberating Afghan women (original patron: Laura Bush, fronting her husband’s war).
Whatever horrible prospects await women under a returning Taliban, they are already suffering medieval practices right under NATO’s watch. Acid is still thrown in their faces. Daughters are being given away to settle family — and drug — disputes. Women are still ending up in jail for “moral crimes.” And the Ulema Council is asserting, with Karzai’s consent, that women are inferior to men, should not travel without a male consort and should not go to school or work where they might run into men.
Development work remains in limbo. Only 10 per cent of Canada’s $20 billion expenditure has been on civilian projects, 90 per cent on matters military — the same proportion as America’s $450 billion expenditure.
Sure, some projects are complete. Girls’ schools and women’s shelters are built. Women’s and other NGOs are working well. Kabul is reasonably safe and bustling.
But 97 per cent of the $15 billion a year economy is dependant on foreign military and other expenditures. Foreigners, including NGOs, live well. So does the corrupt Afghan officialdom. But ordinary Afghans remain desperately poor.
There’s a $13 billion a year unofficial economy, the cornerstone of which is opium, much of it controlled by the Taliban.
NATO’s exit strategy pivots on developing a 350,000-strong Afghan army and police force (whom Canada’s 900-strong contingent is helping to train).
Yet the Pentagon wants to reduce the force to 230,000 for several reasons. Too many recruits defect. Those who remain are being infiltrated by the Taliban — thus the increase in internal army attacks: 16 since Jan.1 alone. Costs are high— $11 billion a year, which the U.S., the biggest financier, wants to reduce to $4 billion, to which it wants Canada and others to contribute.
If tens of thousands of trained troops are going to be let go, are we in for another Iraq — where the disbanded Saddam Hussein army joined the murderous insurgency?
Whatever its ultimate strength, the Afghan force will remain overly dependent on the U.S. and its allies (hence Harper’s musings). And it is far from certain that it would be capable of avoiding a civil war after NATO’s departure.
Cracks in the NATO coalition continue. Over the years, several European allies refused to do the heavy lifting. Now France wants out by the end of next year — or by the end of this year should the socialist candidate Francois Hollande become president.
Obama is scheduled to withdraw 22,000 troops this September — he needs that for his election in November — leaving 68,000 there. He wants to expedite their departure as well, starting next year. How many will remain beyond 2014 is up for debate.
The ramping up and down of troops is dictated by domestic political concerns of Obama and other NATO leaders, less by what’s required in Afghanistan.
Almost 70 per cent of Americans favour pulling out. In Britain, 73 per cent think the war cannot be won. Canadians have long opposed the war.
Why not pull out now?
Not so much because NATO’s “credibility is on the line” but because Obama cannot be seen to cut and run and he cannot risk his hard-won security credentials (after killing Osama bin Laden and others).
Yet there’s no escaping the absurdity of waging an unwinnable war in a land presided over by an ally that attacks NATO, which he needs to survive. Equally absurd is the idea of blaming our failure entirely on Pakistan — as duplicitous as it has been — even while knowing that we have no choice but to deal with Pakistan.
NATO’s withdrawal plans seem utterly chaotic compared to the orderly withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989.
Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Haroon Siddiqui
Perhaps his militaristic ideology is at work. Or he just wants Canada to be a loyal foot soldier for NATO, principally the United States, on whom we also depend for our prosperity. That was Paul Martin’s rationale in 2005 in committing Canada to the dangerous combat role in Kandahar. That was more or less Harper’s as well in extending our mission in 2006, 2008 and 2010 — with Liberal support.
Having used that logic for so long, it’s not easy to abandon it, even if Afghanistan is lurching from crisis to crisis — increasing attacks even in Kabul, on parliament, government offices, embassies, etc.; increasing anger at Americans for incidents like urinating on dead Afghans or burning Qur’ans — and the NATO mission has become incoherent.
The declared aim of “defeating” the Taliban was abandoned long ago. After several downgrades, the current goal is only to ensure they don’t take over Kabul and the north. NATO concedes the south to them — or at least concedes its failure to stop them from keeping the nation’s most populated region unstable.
The only way out is for Hamid Karzai and his successors to share power with the Taliban, while NATO maintains bases to keep an eye on both and to live up to the pledge of not abandoning Afghanistan, yet again.
Thus the peace overtures — sputtering and inconclusive so far — to the Taliban by both Karzai and Barack Obama via Qatar, which is willing to host the talks, a Taliban office and also some freed detainees from Guantanamo.
(Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are making their own peace efforts, so as not to be left out of the final outcome, in which Iran and India would also want a say.)
No surprise, then, that amid all this realpolitik, you don’t hear much about liberating Afghan women (original patron: Laura Bush, fronting her husband’s war).
Whatever horrible prospects await women under a returning Taliban, they are already suffering medieval practices right under NATO’s watch. Acid is still thrown in their faces. Daughters are being given away to settle family — and drug — disputes. Women are still ending up in jail for “moral crimes.” And the Ulema Council is asserting, with Karzai’s consent, that women are inferior to men, should not travel without a male consort and should not go to school or work where they might run into men.
Development work remains in limbo. Only 10 per cent of Canada’s $20 billion expenditure has been on civilian projects, 90 per cent on matters military — the same proportion as America’s $450 billion expenditure.
Sure, some projects are complete. Girls’ schools and women’s shelters are built. Women’s and other NGOs are working well. Kabul is reasonably safe and bustling.
But 97 per cent of the $15 billion a year economy is dependant on foreign military and other expenditures. Foreigners, including NGOs, live well. So does the corrupt Afghan officialdom. But ordinary Afghans remain desperately poor.
There’s a $13 billion a year unofficial economy, the cornerstone of which is opium, much of it controlled by the Taliban.
NATO’s exit strategy pivots on developing a 350,000-strong Afghan army and police force (whom Canada’s 900-strong contingent is helping to train).
Yet the Pentagon wants to reduce the force to 230,000 for several reasons. Too many recruits defect. Those who remain are being infiltrated by the Taliban — thus the increase in internal army attacks: 16 since Jan.1 alone. Costs are high— $11 billion a year, which the U.S., the biggest financier, wants to reduce to $4 billion, to which it wants Canada and others to contribute.
If tens of thousands of trained troops are going to be let go, are we in for another Iraq — where the disbanded Saddam Hussein army joined the murderous insurgency?
Whatever its ultimate strength, the Afghan force will remain overly dependent on the U.S. and its allies (hence Harper’s musings). And it is far from certain that it would be capable of avoiding a civil war after NATO’s departure.
Cracks in the NATO coalition continue. Over the years, several European allies refused to do the heavy lifting. Now France wants out by the end of next year — or by the end of this year should the socialist candidate Francois Hollande become president.
Obama is scheduled to withdraw 22,000 troops this September — he needs that for his election in November — leaving 68,000 there. He wants to expedite their departure as well, starting next year. How many will remain beyond 2014 is up for debate.
The ramping up and down of troops is dictated by domestic political concerns of Obama and other NATO leaders, less by what’s required in Afghanistan.
Almost 70 per cent of Americans favour pulling out. In Britain, 73 per cent think the war cannot be won. Canadians have long opposed the war.
Why not pull out now?
Not so much because NATO’s “credibility is on the line” but because Obama cannot be seen to cut and run and he cannot risk his hard-won security credentials (after killing Osama bin Laden and others).
Yet there’s no escaping the absurdity of waging an unwinnable war in a land presided over by an ally that attacks NATO, which he needs to survive. Equally absurd is the idea of blaming our failure entirely on Pakistan — as duplicitous as it has been — even while knowing that we have no choice but to deal with Pakistan.
NATO’s withdrawal plans seem utterly chaotic compared to the orderly withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989.
Original Article
Source: Star
Author: Haroon Siddiqui
No comments:
Post a Comment