Bush has used NATO as a de-facto military reserve, a mere extension of the U.S. military. NATO was pressed into service because the UN wouldn't go along, even though no NATO countries were threatened. The Administration has even gone as far as implying that Afghanistan is NATO's problem, and that the U.S. is just "helping out". We saw the same pattern in the push for an Iranian invasion; first the UN, then NATO, then the EU...next the Boy Scouts, perhaps.
Just as in Iraq, Bush planned only for the best-case scenario in Afghanistan. Complexities were magically transformed into childlike simplicity by the Decider. Elections would solve all problems, the warlords would give up power in awe of Bush's brilliance, and tribal, ethnic, and social conflicts would be subsumed by a national Afghan identity that has never existed, in national boundaries that were arbitrarily drawn up by the British in the late 19th century. This scheme was handed to NATO, who was assured it would succeed because the Decider decreed that it would. The allies were free to work on the margins of Bush's vision, as long as they recognised that Bush was the Boss and His Will Must Prevail.
More than six years later, Bush has steadfastly refused to admit any over-optimism or flaws in his scheme. Instead, he has blamed the allies for all failures while simultaneously crowing about the success of the Afghan mission. When the Administration admonishes the allies to send more troops to consolidate our "gains", surely the NATO countries must wonder aloud about what 'gains' this crazy delusional fool is going on about. For the average Afghan, Bush has simply replaced a corrupt, war-focused regime with another corrupt, war-focused regime. The National Shakedown remains, only the uniforms have changed. The warlords are still the power outside of Kabul, and the economy is still in ruins.
Further down is a commentary on the Afghan effort from Al-Hayat that supports much of what I have been posting about Afghanistan for several months now.
story from The Globe and Mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------VILNIUS — Canada is hoping to find a single country willing to send 1,000 troops to Kandahar, but Defence Minister Peter MacKay conceded today it might come down to cobbling together smaller contingents from several countries.Few can meet Canada's Afghan troop demand: MacKay
On the first day of a meeting of NATO defence ministers, Mr. MacKay noted there are a few countries that might be able to meet Canada's demand for 1,000 reinforcements – including the U.S. and Britain, which already have troops in southern Afghanistan, or possibly France – but noted that last year the Dutch had to rely on smaller deployments from several allies.
“The Dutch were able to – I don't mean to sound derogatory – cobble together a combination of countries to fit the bill,” Mr. MacKay told reporters. “Our preference would be a single commitment.”
Mr. MacKay said he is in Vilnius to make it clear “in no uncertain terms” that Canada must have reinforcements of troops and equipments to continue the mission – saying that it is “not a negotiable item.” And he added that he wants a commitment before a summit of NATO national leaders in Bucharest which starts April 2.
He also signalled that Canada wants reinforcements who will share heavy counter-insurgency operations in Kandahar province, where fighting with the Taliban has been most fierce.
“Let's be frank, that's what Canada is looking for here, is a partner in the south, to do the necessary work in Kandahar province, to secure that ground, to see that we're able to do more development work, more humanitarian work, build the infrastructure, and secure what is in my view the funnel, or the pipeline into Afghanistan, from Taliban insurgents coming in from Pakistan,” Mr. MacKay said.
The reference to the Dutch experience is a reminder, however, that countries seeking help have often needed to take it where they can. The Netherlands last fall approved of their own mission in Oruzgan, just north of Kandahar, after a tense parliamentary debate, and patching together a group of reinforcement commitments. Belgium last week announced another 140 troops would be sent there for four months.
Combining several contingents makes co-ordinating military operations more difficult, however, and a single partner would likely make it easier to make the case at home in Canada that it has found reinforcements who will share the burden of combat.
In Paris, a spokesman for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, David Martinon,said France is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan, but no decision has been made.
Canadian officials have identified France as a key hope — and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives know that politically, reinforcements from a country like France is likely to be better for their desire of having an extension approved at home than an increased contribution from the U.S. That's because it would then be seen more as an expanded multi-lateral effort, rather than Canada backing U.S. policy.
Mr. MacKay spent the morning in bilateral sessions with other countries with troops in Afghanistan's dangerous south, including Britain, Holland, and Australia, sharing information about which countries might be coaxed into doing more there.
Dutch defence minister Eimert van Middelkoop told reporters that he had warned Mr. MacKay that there is no point in approaching some NATO allies for help in the south, although he did not say which ones.
Public admonishments from allies active in southern Afghanistan that NATO's future is on the line have raised consternation from some other allies and the alliance's secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
On Wednesday, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates's warned that NATO is at risk of becoming a two-tiered alliance of those will fight and those who will not.
“I would go so far as to say that we want to avoid having a two-tier NATO,” Mr. MacKay said today. “In fact what we want to see is more of a one-for-all approach, and that includes burden-sharing in the south.”
NATO's Afghan Quagmire
Patrick Seale Al-Hayat - 08/02/08//
NATO -- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- is the world's most powerful military alliance. It has two million men under its command, a thousand helicopters and countless other military resources. Yet it is facing failure, if not actual defeat, in Afghanistan. Why?
The answer is simple. The Afghan war was misconceived from the very start. It was decided in rage and haste by Washington, without proper thought or planning, in response to al-Qaida's 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States.
Instead of patiently tracking down al-Qaida's leaders by police and counter-terrorist methods, the United Sates launched an all-out war against Afghanistan with the declared goal not only of smashing Al-Qaida, but also the Taliban regime which, willingly or unwillingly, was giving it sanctuary.
The U.S. war against Afghanistan - Operation Enduring Freedom -- was launched on 7 October 2001 with a vast display of airpower: long-range bombers were used as well as carrier-based fighters and Tomahawk cruise missiles. As a result, the Afghans suffered great loss of life and much physical destruction, but the Al-Qaida leadership managed to escape, and the movement has today mushroomed into a world-wide terrorist threat, with franchises in many countries.
Instead of seeking to separate al-Qaida from its Taliban hosts - which would have been the sensible thing to do -- the U.S. war has cemented them together, with the result that, five years on, NATO is today fighting not just a small band of al-Qaida extremists, but a mass tribal movement, which enjoys strong support from its brothers across the 2,500 kilometre Afghan-Pakistan border.
Yet al-Qaida and the Taliban are very different creatures. Al-Qaida is a militant group of dedicated Islamic fighters - Arabs, Chechens, Tajiks, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Uighurs and others -- of global reach and international aims. These aims include fighting America, fighting Western and Israeli occupation of Muslim lands, and overthrowing pro-Western regimes, in particular the ruling al-Saud family in Arabia.
The Taliban, in contrast, are a local not an international movement. Their prime aim is the security of their tribal areas, free from foreign attack and intervention, on either side of the Afghan-Pakistan frontier - a frontier drawn by Britain in 1893 which the local tribes have never recognised.
Whether they are called Pashtuns on the Afghan side of the border or Pathans in Pakistan's adjacent tribal areas, they are one and the same people, dreaming of a united 'Pashtunistan.'
If one American mistake was to merge al-Qaida and the Taliban into a single enemy, another was to imagine that Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI - itself made up largely of Pathans - could be mobilized effectively against the Taliban.
The war in Afghanistan is almost certainly unwinnable. Instead of going in deeper, as the U.S. is urging, NATO should plan an exit strategy. That would be the sensible option.
All the indications are that the war is going badly. Security has steadily deteriorated since the Taliban government was overthrown in 2001. Insurgency activity has intensified every year. Suicide bombings have greatly increased and casualty rates have soared. The Taliban have re-grouped and are now vigorously on the warpath.
Kabul itself is no longer safe. On 14 January, multiple suicide attacks on the Serena Hotel killed eight people during a visit by the Norwegian Foreign Minister. On 31 January, the deputy governor of Helmand province and five others were killed in an attack on a mosque.
At the same time, U.S. blunders continue to inflict casualties on Afghan civilians and Afghan security forces. On 25 January, for example, nine Afghan police were killed in a firefight with U.S troops - an incident described by the U.S. as a 'misunderstanding.'
The United States has been urging its allies to commit more troops to the fight against the Taliban. But several NATO member countries are refusing to comply. Germany, for instance, has 3,200 men in Afghanistan, based in the relatively peaceful northern part of the country. It has rejected a U.S. appeal to redeploy them to the volatile Helmand province in the south. The Canadians would like to pull out their contingent altogether.
Several Western leaders are beginning to doubt the wisdom of the American-led war. The Afghan war has, in fact, become a subject of intense controversy inside NATO, threatening the alliance with a major split.
Strong words will be exchanged when NATO defence ministers meet this week at Vilnius in Lithuania, and it is doubtful whether a full-scale row can be avoided when NATO heads of state and government hold their summit meeting in the Romanian capital of Bucharest in early April.
Part of the trouble is that the war in Afghanistan has been portrayed -- mistakenly but repeatedly -- as a 'test case' for the alliance, a sort of make or break affair. Either NATO can prove itself by defeating the Taliban or it will be shown to be a paper tiger. This is a mistaken approach.
In the United States itself, influential voices have arisen in the Congress and among former senior officers expressing alarm at the absence of an over-arching strategy. The most telling criticism has come from a former NATO Supreme Commander, General James Jones, who in a recent report deplored the lack of a 'clear and consistent comprehensive strategy.'
Three aspects of the scene spell doom for NATO's war effort. First, instead of confronting Afghan's predatory warlords, President Hamid Karzai has brought them into his government. This is predictable behavior by a weak leader who, unsure of how long he can depend on fickle foreign backers, needs powerful local friends.
Secondly, the Afghan National Army, on which the U.S, has spent billions of dollars, suffers from mass desertions and is widely believed to be infiltrated by Taliban sympathizers.
Thirdly, the Afghan police force is thoroughly corrupt, largely because of the flourishing drug trade. In 2007, Afghanistan produced a record 8,200 tons of opium, twice as much as in 2005 -- accounting for 93 per cent of the world's heroin. Fifty percent of the crop was produced in Helmand province which, not surprisingly, is the scene of the heaviest fighting.
On 29 January, an unmanned Predator aircraft, operated by the CIA Special Activities Division, launched a missile inside Pakistan against an al-Qaida target in North Waziristan - apparently without the authorization of the Pakistan government. A senior al-Qaida commander, Abu Laith al-Libi, is believed to have been killed, together with many others.
The CIA can claim a success but, rather than isolating al-Qaida, such operations offend Pakistan and cement al-Qaida's ties with the Taliban.
America's two wars -- in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were fought against the wrong enemy, with catastrophic consequences for the countries concerned and for America itself.
Iraq had no link whatsoever with Al-Qaida, yet it was smashed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and millions more displaced. Material damage is incalculable. Four thousand US troops have died and perhaps as many as 40,000 seriously wounded. The enormous sum of some $600 billion has been squandered -- and the absurd war goes on at a cost of $12billion a month. Rarely in modern history has there been such a criminal enterprise.
The Afghan tragedy is not yet on this scale. But the longer it continues - the more men and resources are thrown at it -- the more the United States and its allies will find themselves embroiled inextricably in an unwinnable tribal war such as defeated the British army in the 19th century.
end
No comments:
Post a Comment