• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

Length piece in Spiegel Online:

Afghanistan and the West
The Difficult Relationship between Democracy and War

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,704884,00.html

Many Germans would like to see Chancellor Angela Merkel withdraw the country's troops from Afghanistan. But should she listen? There are many good reasons for the West to be involved in the war against the Taliban, but public opinion may not be listening.
...
Nowadays, democracy is the form of government that struggles the most with war. This is even true of the United States, where governments are often quick to deploy troops, whereas the public quickly becomes skeptical. This is not a flaw; war always involves the killing and mutilation of human beings and scruples are absolutely necessary. Of all democracies, it is perhaps Germany that struggles the most with war -- and that too is understandable. Germany started two world wars, the second of which was total war, an orgy of destruction and self-destruction. The phrase "No more wars," one of the guiding principles of modern-day Germany, is an obvious consequence of the country's history.

But this phrase has been overtaken by reality, now that Germany has been embroiled in a war for the last eight years. Hardly anyone noticed at first, but since the bad news from Afghanistan has begun piling up, the war has triggered a new debate. Two thirds of Germans want to see the German military, the Bundeswehr, pull out of Afghanistan.

But there are good arguments for the troops to stay. These arguments are the subject of this essay, as is the question of what it means for a democracy to wage a war, and why waging this war in particular can be the right thing for the German democracy. The arguments coincide with the chronology of a war. First, we discuss the act of and reasons for going to war, then the actual conduct of a war, which involves killing and dying and, third, the question of when one should end a war. Finally, we discuss who should decide when to begin and end a war, and what the basis for those decisions should be...

#  Part 2: The Beginning:Terror and Solidarity
# Part 3: The Course of Battle: The Beast and its Victims
# Part 4: The End: Aftermath and Innocence
# Part 5: The Legitimization: Public Sentiment and Responsibility...

Mark
Ottawa
 
BruceR. at Flit:

Today's essential Afghan reading: Ethan Kapstein
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_08.html#006753

Canadian and other soldiers who see precious little progress in Kandahar should keep in mind (as I always tried to do) that in Afghanistan, the "flypaper theory" really does work. We fought the bad guys in the south and east so that the north and west (Kabul, Mazar, Herat) could prosper, could make gains in human freedom, could watch their kids grow up... because ultimately what will finally delegitimate the Taliban in Afghan eyes will be when people in non-Taliban areas are visibly more prosperous. Ethan Kapstein documents the peaceful half of the country:
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/08/letter_from_afghanistan_some_bright_spots_and_how_to_encourage_them

Nor is all this growth dependent on foreign aid. In fact, the regions of the country that are enjoying the most economic activity-like Herat and Balkh (where Mazar is located)-are probably those where the least aid has gone on a per capita basis. In both these provinces, for example, strong governors have made security a priority, giving entrepreneurs the breathing space to exploit existing business opportunities.

Kapstein's recommendations, all of which make a lot of sense to me...

Meanwhile, Brian Platt gets pretty impassioned at The Canada – Afghanistan Blog:

Idiocy From The Right
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2010/07/idiocy-from-right.html


See the theme here, shared with Steyn? What a smashing victory we scored–both in Iraq and Afghanistan–in the first few months. If only we had left then and there, we could have left with our heads held high.

The part they don’t add is: screw the people who live in these countries, and screw what happens afterward. Just so long as the terr’ists don’t take over again, we’re happy.

The most galling thing about this line of argument in regard to Afghanistan is the fact that nation-building was never tried there for years after 2001. This was at the insistence of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom held the philosophy of “no nation-building”…

…thus we see the audacity of Steyn and Jonas in writing such columns: the strategy they prefer, which is defeating the enemy quickly and then not sticking around to follow up on the victory, is precisely what has landed us in this horribly difficult situation in Afghanistan–and they argue that if only we had listened to them in the first place, we wouldn’t be here!

Unbelievable…

Mark
Ottawa
 
USMC General James Mattis (to be new head of US Central Command)...

Kind of reminds me of Rick Hillier
http://unambig.com/kind-of-reminds-me-of-rick-hillier/

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
For the addition of a handful of soldiers and the discarding of two self-defeating restrictions, Australia would get enormously more bang for its buck. Taking command in Oruzgan, allowing trainers to fight with the Afghan brigade they're training and unchaining the special forces would show allies and the world that under Julia Gillard Australia had rediscovered its, er, backbone.
MarkOttawa said:
Last week John Key, New Zealand's National Party Prime Minister, revealed he had rejected a request from Kevin Rudd - made in about mid-May - to assist the Australian Defence Force contingent in Afghanistan. Australia has some 1500 personnel within Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. Rudd asked Key for between 20 and 50 troops to assist Australian operations in the Oruzgan province in southern Afghanistan.
Well, this raises an interesting option to respect the motion to end the combat mission in Kandahar -> move to Oruzgan.
We could revive the 1950's Commonwealth Brigade of the Korean War.  Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand (we will pressure them into the 50 guys) could run with Oruzgan ... we wouldn't even have to invite the Brits to the team this time (they are probably doing enough lifting of thier own now anyway).
 
Egregious Eric and...

The mythical nine-year Afghan war--and the mythical US invasion
http://unambig.com/the-mythical-nine-year-afghan-war/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Ricks:

All security is local -- esp. in Afghanistan
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/15/all_security_is_local_esp_in_afghanistan

The MFKAM (media formerly known as mainstream) is aflutter over Petraeus moving toward local self-defense councils. And rightly so. This is big stuff.

I see two things going on here.

First is David Kilcullen's observation that the best security is provided locally by locals. If they can do that, all your worries about gathering good intelligence and such go out the window. They know where the bad actors are. They know how things work. They know the trails and hidey holes. If you feel able to arm the villagers, they often will be able to take care of business themselves. As Tip O'Neill famously said, all politics is local. And so is security.

Second is that one of the lessons of Iraq (and a bunch of other places) is that you can't impose security from above. It has to grow locally. The job of the counterinsurgent commander is to try to nurture and then knit together those local areas -- from neighborhoods and towns to districts, then into provinces, and finally, after a long time, nationally. From this also will emerge a new national politics, or so the theory goes. The upside is that if this works, it will provide sustainable security. The downside is that it takes years to develop.

An ancillary lesson is that you don't hold national elections first. You hold local elections as each area becomes secure. Then district, provincial and regional elections as they are peaceful. Eventually the abusive, corrupt old regime gets voted out and a new generation of political leaders take over. Karzai is a clever guy so he probably knows what Petraeus is doing, but he probably also thinks that the Americans, beginning with President Obama, don't have the patience to see it through.

I remember Kilcullen explaining a version of all this to me a few years ago in Baghdad, in an Iraqi context, so I was impressed to see NPR get him to discuss the current initiative in Afghanistan. "It's pretty rare to find a counterinsurgency campaign where you didn't end up with some kind of local village self-defense force," he told the radio. "The reason for that is very simple. It's much easier to convince somebody who's under threat to pick up a weapon and protect their own community than it is to convince them to go and serve in the national army in some district somewhere else or put their weapon down and expect the government to protect them. It's kind of an intermediate step."

I've always liked Kilcullen's clarity of expression

BruceR.:

Today's essential Afghan reading: Condra, et al.
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_13.html#006756

An already much-commented on paper on the effect of civilian casualties on the Afghan insurgency...

Today's essential Afghan counterpoint: Inkspots vs Tim Lynch
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_13.html#006757

Two respected Afghan bloggers, talking past each other. MK at the Inkspots, arguing for focussing on improving local justice systems instead of services...

Today's essential Afghan reading: Forsberg and Kagan
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_15.html#006758

Carl Forsberg and the Kagans sort out the tangle of armed Afghans working in and around Kandahar, and how the Karzai clan continues to tighten their grip independent of official government forces in the area...

Mark
Ottawa

Update: Plus from Brian Platt at The Canada – Afghanistan Blog:

Afghanistan’s Wars
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2010/07/afghanistans-wars.html
 
Will the prime minister listen to an Afghan lady?/”Panjwaii Tim”/Kinetic Update
http://unambig.com/will-the-prime-minister-listen-to-an-afghan-ladypanjwaii-tim/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Could this be how the Canadians do it? 

"Dutch hand over security of Chora  Valley" (AUS DoD):
Having worked closely with Australian forces during the past four years, the Netherlands officially passed command of a patrol base in the Chora Valley, Uruzgan Province, to the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Combined Team-Uruzgan (CT-U) last week.

The Dutch Government decided in December 2007 that its forces would be drawn down progressively from Uruzgan in 2010, and this handover of command in Chora signals the beginning of transition to a new phase of coalition operations in the region.

Under the new multinational construct ‘Combined Team-Uruzgan’ Australia will work closely with our US ally, Afghan forces and other International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners, including Singapore and Slovakia, to continue to build security and development in Uruzgan Province.

Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Mark Evans, says the Australian soldiers will proudly build on the achievements of the Dutch in the district.

“The people of Chora have seen considerable progress in the past four years,” Lieutenant General Evans said.

“The Dutch soldiers should rightfully take pride in their achievements.

“Their approach has complemented our own which has delivered very positive outcomes for the local Afghans.”

“Australia has been their partner from the beginning and we will now, along with the Afghan Army and our new US partners, continue this vital mission in Chora.”

Dutch Commander Brigadier Kees van den Heuvel spoke of the significance of Chora Valley.

“Three years ago this company was here and because of the strategic importance of Chora, the Netherlands decided to stay and military history was written,” Brigadier van den Heuvel said.

Captain Peter Allan of the 1st Mentoring Task Force paid tribute to the Dutch soldiers who had fallen in the Chora Valley.

“Chora is a place where the Dutch have suffered casualties but their sacrifice was not in vain – their battlefield is now our battlefield and be assured their memory will be honoured.”

Continuing Australian and Afghan security force operations are focused on improving the lives of the local people by setting the security conditions for enhanced development in the areas of health, education, and public works.

ADF mentoring of the ANA, particularly the focus on tactical battlefield skills, leadership and effective command and control, reinforces ISAF’s commitment to assisting the ANSF to take responsibility for the security of Afghanistan ....
 
The case against the current approach, by Richard Haass (it seems to me that in the end the whole Afstan matter will boil down to things Pak/India, usual copyright disclaimer):

We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It.
Here’s how to draw down in Afghanistan.

http://www.newswek.net/2010/07/18/we-re-not-winning-it-s-not-worth-it.html?from=rss

...The Afghan government shows little sign of being prepared to deliver either clean administration or effective security at the local level. While a small number of Taliban might choose to “reintegrate”—i.e., opt out of the fight—the vast majority will not. And why should they? The Taliban are resilient and enjoy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, whose government tends to view the militants as an instrument for influencing Afghanistan’s future (something Pakistan cares a great deal about, given its fear of Indian designs there [emphasis added])...
There are, however, other options. One is reconciliation, a fancy word for negotiating a ceasefire with those Taliban leaders willing to stop fighting in exchange for the chance to join Afghanistan’s government. It is impossible, though, to be confident that many Taliban leaders would be prepared to reconcile; they might decide that time is on their side if they only wait and fight. Nor is it likely that the terms they would accept would in turn be acceptable to many Afghans, who remember all too well what it was like to live under the Taliban. A national-unity government is farfetched.

One new idea put forward by Robert Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India, is for a de facto partition of Afghanistan. Under this approach, the United States would accept Taliban control of the Pashtun-dominated south so long as the Taliban did not welcome back Al Qaeda and did not seek to undermine stability in non-Pashtun areas of the country. If the Taliban violated these rules, the United States would attack them with bombers, drones, and Special Forces. U.S. economic and military support would continue to flow to non-Pashtun Afghans in the north and west of the country.

This idea has its drawbacks as well as appeal. A self-governing “Pashtunistan” inside Afghanistan could become a threat to the integrity of Pakistan, whose own 25 million Pashtuns might seek to break free to form a larger Pashtunistan. Any partition would also be resisted by many Afghans, including those Tajik, Baluchi, and Hazara minorities living in demographic “islands” within the mostly Pashtun south, as well as the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and others elsewhere in the country who want to keep Afghanistan free of Taliban influence. And even many Pashtuns would resist for fear of the harsh, intolerant rule the Taliban would impose if given the chance.

Another approach, best termed “decentralization,” bears resemblance to partition but also is different in important ways. Under this approach, the United States would provide arms and training to those local Afghan leaders throughout the country who reject Al Qaeda and who do not seek to undermine Pakistan. Economic aid could be provided to increase respect for human rights and to decrease poppy cultivation. There would be less emphasis on building up a national Army and police force.

The advantage of this option is that it works with and not against the Afghan tradition of a weak ruling center and a strong periphery. It would require revision of the Afghan Constitution, which as it stands places too much power in the hands of the president. The United States could leave it to local forces to prevent Taliban inroads, allowing most U.S. troops to return home. Leaders of non-Pashtun minorities (as well as anti-Taliban Pashtuns) would receive military aid and training. The result would be less a partition than a patchwork quilt. Petraeus took a step in this direction last week by gaining Karzai’s approval for the creation of new uniformed local security forces who will be paid to fight the insurgents in their communities.

Under this scenario, the Taliban would likely return to positions of power in a good many parts of the south. The Taliban would know, however, that they would be challenged by U.S. air power and Special Forces (and by U.S.-supported Afghans) if they attacked non-Pashtun areas, if they allowed the areas under their control to be used to supply antigovernment forces in Pakistan, or if they worked in any way with Al Qaeda. There is reason to believe that the Taliban might not repeat their historic error of inviting Al Qaeda back into areas under their control. Indeed, the United States should stop assuming that the two groups are one and the same and instead start talking to the Taliban to underscore how their interests differ from Al Qaeda’s.

Again, there are drawbacks. This approach would be resisted by some Afghans who fear giving away too much to the Taliban, and by some Taliban who don’t think it gives enough. The Karzai government would oppose any shift in U.S. support away from the central government and toward village and local leaders. Fighting would likely continue inside Afghanistan for years. And again, areas reclaimed by the Taliban would almost certainly reintroduce laws that would be antithetical to global norms for human rights...

All this argues for reorienting U.S. Afghan policy toward decentralization—providing greater support for local leaders and establishing a new approach to the Taliban. The war the United States is now fighting in Afghanistan is not succeeding and is not worth waging in this way. The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better.

Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.
http://www.amazon.ca/War-Necessity-Choice-Memoir-Iraq/dp/1416549021

Mark
Ottawa
 
Kukris rule/Taliban approach Update
http://unambig.com/kukris-rule/

article-0-0045070900000258-960_468x286.jpg


Mark
Ottawa
 
I read the post about the Ghurkas......well done to them!

I have heard the Taliban will never....head....the government.
 
This from the National Post/Postmedia chain, highlights mine:
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told more than 40 other foreign ministers Tuesday in Kabul that a "key" Canadian goal is "a self-sufficient Afghan army and police force" so that Afghanistan could take the security lead in military operations by 2014.

But Cannon, who later spoke by telephone to reporters in Kandahar from the Kandahar International Conference on Afghanistan, gave no indication about whether or how Canada might help in that crucial effort after its troops follow their orders and return home from this southern province next summer.

Repeating the Harper government's long-stated policy, Cannon said Canada would help Afghanistan through diplomacy and aid projects when the military mission ends
....
 
Tom Ricks:

LA Times misunderstands Afghan war
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/19/la_times_misunderstands_afghan_war

...The question Petraeus is actually posing to Karzai is how the central government is going to win over armed villagers. That is why this move is important -- it empowers locals and so gives Petraeus a lever to start challenging the ways of those around Karzai.

News flash for the LA Times: Our biggest problem in Afghanistan isn't the Taliban, it is the corrupt and abusive ways of the Karzai government. The Taliban is a byproduct of that behavior. (And yeah, our second biggest problem is the Pakistani government.)

Mark
Ottawa
 
A Globe & Mail editorial saying Canada should stay and help in AFG - gasp! Highlights mine....
The latest conference on Afghanistan set 2014 as the date for the assumption of military control of the country by Afghans. It is an ambitious timetable, and one that will require defeat of, or reconciliation with, the Taliban. With defeat unlikely, Canada expressed support for reconciliation at the conference. Now Canada must make sure it stays around, training troops and maintaining an energetic presence, to help give effect to reconciliation.

Lawrence Cannon, the Foreign Minister, stressed the preconditions to reconciliation: “Those who are reconciling must renounce violence, accept the Afghan constitution and cut all ties to terrorist groups.”

He is right to set the bar so high. But while the sentiments are correct, enforcing the conditions will be difficult if Canada’s presence in the country is reduced.

Our implicit hope, it appears, is that, when not fighting the Taliban, we will achieve reconciliation through our other activities in Kandahar, running aid projects and building infrastructure.

Such “soft” assistance needs to continue, and the government should be more forthcoming about the extent of its presence after 2011. But there is still a role for more hard-headed dealings, once Canada has left the battlefield.

For one, Canada’s commitment to training Afghan security forces must continue. The 2014 deadline for a military handover is simply unreachable without assistance from all Western countries, including Canada.

A Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund, designed to induce Taliban commanders (sometimes with cash payments) to lay down their weapons, has the international community’s imprimatur and will be administered through the UN. If it is shown to be effective, if the recipients fulfill the preconditions, and if the worst war criminals are still brought to justice, funding it may be a worthwhile investment for Canada, which has yet to commit to it – no matter how impalpable “buying off” the Taliban may feel.

Reconciliation also requires a creative approach. With the Taliban dependent on the proceeds of poppy farming, Canadian assistance to local farmers in switching to less lucrative, but more legitimate crops, may be necessary – again, if they renounce violence.

Sapper Brian Collier has become the 155th Canadianto die during service on the Afghanistan mission. We need to be clear about how we will achieve our objectives in Afghanistan – the cost is too great otherwise. Talking about reconciliation, but failing to back it up with sufficient resources, does not help the cause.
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
 
I guess we’re next on the Talibs best wishes list
http://unambig.com/i-guess-were-next-on-the-talibs-best-wishes-list/

Mark
Ottawa
 
“Canada can expect Taliban ‘thanks’ at end of Afghan mission”
http://unambig.com/canada-can-expect-taliban-thanks-at-end-of-afghan-mission/

One detects some real, ironic anger in this piece by Matthew Fisher of Postmedia News...

Mark
Ottawa
 
1) Frank Rich and 2) Chris Alexander:

1) Kiss This War Goodbye
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01rich.html?ref=todayspaper

...the national yawn that largely greeted the war logs is most of all an indicator of the country’s verdict on the Afghan war itself, now that it’s nine years on and has reached its highest monthly casualty rate for American troops. Many Americans at home have lost faith and checked out. The war places way down the list of pressing issues in every poll. Nearly two-thirds of those asked recently by CBS News think it’s going badly; the latest Post-ABC News survey finds support of Obama’s handling of Afghanistan at a low (45 percent), with only 43 percent deeming the war worth fighting.

Perhaps more telling than either these polls or the defection of liberal House Democrats from last week’s war appropriations bill are the signs of wobbling conservative support. The gung-ho neocon axis was predictably belligerent in denouncing WikiLeaks. But the G.O.P. chairman Michael Steele’s recent “gaffe” — his since-retracted observation that “a land war in Afghanistan” is doomed — is no anomaly in a fractured party where the antiwar Ron Paul may have as much currency as the knee-jerk hawk John McCain. On the night of the logs’ release, Fox News even refrained from its patented shtick of shouting “Treason!” at the “mainstream media.” Instead, the go-to Times-basher Bernie Goldberg could be found on “The O’Reilly Factor” telling Laura Ingraham, a guest host, that the war “has not been going well” and is a dubious exercise in “nation-building.”

Obama was right to say that the leaked documents “don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate in Afghanistan,” but that doesn’t mean the debate was resolved in favor of his policy. Americans know that our counterinsurgency partner, Hamid Karzai, is untrustworthy. They know that the terrorists out to attack us are more likely to be found in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Afghanistan. And they are starting to focus on the morbid reality, highlighted in the logs, of the de facto money-laundering scheme that siphons American taxpayers’ money through the Pakistan government to the Taliban, who then disperse it to kill Americans...

2) The huge scale of Pakistan's complicity
Thanks to WikiLeaks, the involvement of Inter-Services Intelligence in the Afghan conflict is now obvious, argues Chris Alexander, Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan
  (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/Somnia/article1657931/

...
GENERAL ASHFAQ KAYANI V. THE REST OF THE WORLD

As the War Logs make clear, the principal drivers of violence are no longer, if they ever were, inside Afghanistan.

Consider the following:

First, in February, Pakistan's security forces began arresting a dozen or so Taliban leaders – whose presence on their soil they had always noisily denied – presumably because these insurgent commanders had shown genuine, independent interest in reconciliation.

Second, the chief of Pakistan's army staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, this year once again successfully resisted U.S. pressure to launch military operations in Baluchistan and North Waziristan, where the Islamic Emirate is based.

Third, Gen. Kayani told Mr. Karzai this spring that the condition for peace in Afghanistan would be the closing of several Indian consulates, while offering to broker deals with Islamic Emirate leaders, whom he considers a “strategic asset.”

Fourth, Gen. Kayani blithely told a Washington audience that he remained wedded to “strategic depth” – that is, to making Afghanistan the kind of proprietary hinterland for Pakistan, free of Indian or other outside influence, which it was from 1992 to 2001.

This is not empty rhetoric. Gen. Kayani is saying he wants to call the shots in Kabul. To do so, he is prepared to support the principal outfit launching suicide attacks in Afghanistan's cities. He is backing the Islamic Emirate's effort to wreck an Afghan-led nation-building process.

The Pakistan army under Gen. Kayani is sponsoring a large-scale, covert guerrilla war through Afghan proxies – whose strongholds in Baluchistan and Waziristan are flourishing. Their mission in Afghanistan is to keep Pashtun nationalism down, India out and Mr. Karzai weak.

It has nothing to do with Islam, whose principles they trample; indeed, the flower of Afghanistan's ulema (religious leaders) have been among their victims.

Gen. Kayani and others will deny complicity. But as the WikiLeaks material demonstrates, their heavy-handed involvement is now obvious at all levels...

By any measure, Afghan society has recovered smartly since 2001. The latest annual growth in gross domestic product was 22 per cent – despite the global crisis. Government revenue increased by 60 per cent in 18 months. Annual inflation has been minus 12 per cent, as domestic agriculture substituted for pricey imports.

A renaissance has continued in media and culture. Schools, clinics and new rural infrastructure have opened the door to better lives.

Despite thickets of corruption, several Afghan ministries have combined integrity with delivery...

Few Pakistanis rejoice in the ISI's duplicity.

Most see the ISI's strategy for the outrage it is. It has brought their military into disrepute, sullied Pakistan's good name and unleashed unprecedented strife in its streets. Pakistani influence at Kabul is at its lowest ebb since 1947.

The vast majority of Pakistanis do not equate their national interest with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Indeed, The Dawn, Pakistan's largest daily, warned in an editorial after the Kabul conference against any precipitate U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Pakistan's army's interference in Afghanistan's recovery violates a key provision of the UN Charter, on non-interference – and at its new scale, it represents a threat to international peace and security. It deserves serious discussion in multilateral forums, including the UN.

Most citizens of both countries want to see the Taliban defeated, and legitimate governments strengthened. The trade deal signed by Afghanistan and Pakistan on July 20 – the first since partition – is a good start.

A similar deal on the border would be historic.

Without Pakistani military support, all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse like a house of cards. Peace and reconciliation would prosper...

Turning the corner on this issue will require a concerted show of will – and much tougher action in the eyes of the new storm of violence in North Waziristan and Baluchistan [emphasis added]...   

For all the damage the WikiLeaks data dump could cause, at least they have brought our attention back to where it should be – to the real obstacles to peace.

Chris Alexander was ambassador of Canada to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009. The views expressed in this article are entirely his own. The Long Way Back – his book on Afghanistan's story since 2001 – will be published by HarperCollins in 2011.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Afstan: Two cheers for Bob Rae/Iraq: Clearly not Vietnam
http://unambig.com/afstan-two-cheers-for-bob-raeiraq-clearly-not-vietnam/

Afstan: Good on Bobbity, though in this piece he only hints at a continuing role, i.e. non-combat training  in the Kabul area, for the CF post-2011.  Will the prime minister be willing to take up and run with what is clearly more than a hint?..

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Afstan: Two cheers for Bob Rae/Iraq: Clearly not Vietnam
http://unambig.com/afstan-two-cheers-for-bob-raeiraq-clearly-not-vietnam/

Two cheers?  Hmmmm...rather convenient recollection by Rae of the Liberal's drive to withdraw fully from combat operations in Afghanistan by 2009...

(2010, from above link) ..."The Liberal party helped draft the 2008 parliamentary resolution that permitted our troops to stay in Kandahar in a combat role, with an ever increasing role for the Afghan police and army and a stronger civilian and development presence."

With these words, Rae makes it seem as though the Liberals were supportive of Canada staying in Afghanistan in the combat role with a transition to mentoring later on, when nothing was further from the truth...he (and the Liberals) were clear that the primary mission should not be combat at all, that only the Afghans ans other nations should conduct combat operations:

(CTV: 2 Dec 2007)...Rae said the Liberal party wants Canadian troops to remain engaged in rebuilding Afghanistan, but not with a primary mission of combat.

"That is a role that has to be assumed by the Afghan army and frankly by others if that's what NATO decides," he said.

This and other recent revisionistic recollections by opposition parties of their past policies serves only to remind us of the temporal, partisan nature of political response to societal beliefs.  Perhaps more like a bit of guilt on the part of those who were first against extension of the Canadian mission past 2009, then against Canada's involvement in the very combat operations in which they needed to engage in order to mentor the Afghan National Security Forces, and yet now against the very withdrawal in 2011 that they pressed the Government of the day for. 

Sadly, it seems the response by oppositions places primacy on opposition vice a critical consideration of what the right thing to do is and press the Government for action in a consistent and constructive manner.  :-\

G2G
 
Now, even Senator Colin Kenny says it's time to go:
.... Afghanistan has no strategic significance to Canada. It supposedly has strategic value to our most important ally, the United States, but much of that value is cited in denying the dreaded al-Qaeda a sanctuary. But al-Qaeda has no shortage of sanctuaries in the Middle East and elsewhere, and going after the Taliban certainly hasn't put the slightest dent in al-Qaeda's influence around the world. If anything, it would appear to have convinced more young Muslims that the West wants to eradicate their belief system.

What should Canada do? We should get out of Afghanistan at the earliest opportunity, rebuild the Canadian Forces, and get on with missions that a) mean something to Canadians and b) have some chance of success.

Parliament has made the right decision. We can wallow around Afghanistan for another three years trying to save face. Or we can be adults and not get burned twice. Let us face a harsh truth: for all the efforts of our courageous troops, and the courageous troops of our allies, nation-building doesn't make sense in a nation that doesn't want to get built ....
 
Back
Top