Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

On not winning in Afghanistan

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:54pm - 66 Comments

090304_afganistan51 The release of the federal government’s third quarterly report on “Canada’s Engagement in Afghanistan” was, as Colleague Wherry and Colleague Geddes will tell you, the occasion for yet another news conference in which government ministers insisted on progress while the numbers suggested that security in Kandahar continues to decline. A state of affairs that brings to mind Prime Minister Harper’s remarks broadcast over the weekend:

“We’re not going to win this war just by staying,” he told interviewer Fareed Zakaria.

“Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had – my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it’s probably had an insurgency forever of some kind.”

“What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency.”

We’re not shy in this corner about telling you when I think the PM is saying nothing honest or intelligible. But here I think he is trying to say something important but difficult to define. That’s the nature of modern counterinsurgency, and I’ve seen no better extended discussion of that set of issues than in Rupert Smith’s book The Utility of Force.

General Smith retired from the British army in 2002 after a 40-year career during which he commanded the UK Armoured Division in the 1990-91 Gulf War, the UN forces in Bosnia, British forces in Northern Ireland from 1996-99, and then as NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. His book is a treatise on what he calls “war amongst the people,” which is to say, modern counterinsurgency, in which the battlespace contains large numbers of civilians and the attitudes of those civilians are crucial to determining success or failure. He starts big: “War as cognitively known to most non-combatants, war as battle in a field between men and machinery, war as a massive deciding event in a dispute in international affairs: such war no longer exists.”

What’s taken its place? A less apocalyptic but subtler and more intractable kind of conflict: Smith’s “war amongst the people.” It has its own rules. Here are a few of those he outlines:

• “We fight amongst the people, a fact amplified literally and figuratively by the central role of the media: we fight in every living room in the world as well as on the streets and fields of a conflict zone.”

• “Our conflicts tend to be timeless, since we are seeking a condition, which then must be maintained until an agreement on a definitive outcome, which may take years or decades.”

• “We fight so as not to lose the force, rather than fighting by using the force at any cost to achieve the aim.”

• “The sides are mostly non-state” because, to paraphrase Smith, one side is usually a multi-national coalition and the other a highly mobile non-state actor like the Taliban and other Af-Pak insurgents.

All of this helps explain the cognitive dissonance that comes from watching conflicts like Afghanistan. “There are planes dropping precision bombs, missiles fired from hi-tech guns, soldiers in helmets and flak jackets driving round in tanks, political leaders gravely committing men to battle and underlining the importance of the venture and promising success. In short, recent conflicts have all the trappings and iconic images of industrial war, but it seems these wars are never won.” (emphasis added)

So why not? To me, Smith isn’t as good at explaining this as he is on other topics, but broadly, he’s saying that the objective of war has changed from the days of Napoleon and World War II, from smashing and holding forever a defined territory to something subtler, “establishing conditions in which [a political] outcome may be decided… by other means and in other ways.”

So armies go into chaotic situations, or create chaotic situations, and then hold the territory — not forever, to subjugate it — but until politics and a measure of order can set in, and sometimes that feels like forever. Smith points out that tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers have been stationed in South Korea for more than half a century; Cyprus has held foreign troops for nearly as long; Indochina/Vietnam lasted 30 years; “operations in Iraq have been ongoing since 1990, whilst the international community first intervened in the Balkans in 1992 and there is no end in sight.”

There are a lot of reasons that weird post-conflict purgatory can last a long time, but one of the big ones is that when it involves an insurgency or guerilla force, that force will avoid the kind of neat decisive battlefield engagement that Napoleon and Lincoln used to seek. Instead it’s harass-and-retreat, and meanwhile there are more innocents around than enemies, and the innocents’ opinion is the decisive variable. “What would in any event be a slow process is made even more so when one has to consider the people amongst whom the fight is taking place…. Rushing to achieve a quick victory against an opponent who refuses to cooperate in having the fight on your terms, particularly when operating amongst the people, is likely to alienate the people rather than win them over.”

Another reason modern war doesn’t look like the big wars of old is the modern Western aversion to taking massive losses. This is Smith’s point that “we fight to preserve the force,” and to him it has to do with a lot more than mere squeamishness. But it’s a striking difference: Napoleon, Lincoln, Stalin — they would grimly but willingly have sacrificed every soldier in their armies but one, if it would have broken the enemy and bring victory on their terms. The wars they fought were slaughterhouses. A weird nostalgia for that sort of thing is reflected in the musings of today’s armchair generals who complain that Canadians are softies if they complain about 35 or so Canadian deaths a year in Afghanistan.

But again, this is a different kind of conflict. Neither Western armies nor Afghan insurgents can depend on mass conscript armies; we need volunteers, they can only recruit or coerce so many fighters at a time. So on our side, armies are much better paid and more superbly trained than their ancestors, and their equipment is too expensive to destroy and discard. And today’s wars aren’t total war in the classic definition: the entire society isn’t bent to the war-fighting task, factories aren’t converted to arms production, food isn’t rationed — precisely so the society can go about its business, more or less unimpeded, while also supporting a limited conflict of indefinite duration. The difference between a sprint and a marathon.

Which brings me to what I think would be Gen. Smith’s main point of disagreement with Harper. Harper is right that victory can’t be only military. Which is why it’s important to continue development work, even in a security environment that’s worse than discouraging — and I want to be clear here that no kind of “victory” will be possible if the downward spiral of violence described in each of the Canadian government’s three reports continues.

Where Harper is off base is where he complains that Canada, and Western forces generally, have already been in Afghanistan for longer than World War II lasted. It’s possible, indeed likely, that the Canadian Forces have been working past their burn rate and, just because of the physics of wear and tear, need a substantial breather so they can recover. But World War II, as a point of comparison, has very little to do with anything. As U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates has pointed out, a better comparison is the Cold War, another case of holding a situation until politics could do its work. And Canada had thousands of soldiers stationed at Lahr for decades.

The hell of it, of course, is that Afghanistan is a betwixt-and-between case. It is a war amongst the people, so quick victory, as everyone has long since learned, is impossible. But neither is it a genteel peacekeeping assignment. The cost of participating is constant and disheartening. Understanding the cost and the reasons for it helps, but by itself it doesn’t fix anything.

Tags: counterinsurgency, Rupert Smith, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

Ti-Guy

We’re not shy in this corner about telling you when I think the PM is saying nothing honest or intelligible.

Hm. Anyway the pronoun shift in this sentence is jarring.
Critical Reasoning

It’s depressing that there don’t seem to be any conventional solutions to the insurgency stalemate, beyond long term development work and absorbing light casualties indefinitely.

I wonder if there are any “out of the box” proposals that might be worth considering.

Ti-Guy

Cheer up. This:

““War as cognitively known to most non-combatants, war as battle in a field between men and machinery, war as a massive deciding event in a dispute in international affairs: such war no longer exists.”

…probably represents the briefest of a hiatuses in the normal course of human events.

Critical Reasoning

…probably represents the briefest of a hiatuses in the normal course of human events.

I’ll stick to the conventional wisdom on this. Nukes and military technology have changed the game permanently – battlefield war is no longer a massive deciding event because any conflict between major powers risks becoming Armageddon.

Ti-Guy

Nukes and military technology have changed the game permanently

I don’t believe that at all. Nukes are unusable (which will be proved a minute after they’re used) and military technology is only prolonging conflict, and making it uneconomical in ways people might not understand right now. Along with the reduction of combat deaths comes a horrific increase in health issues (maiming, mental trauma etc.) that simply cannot be afforded over the long term.

The bottom line…money…is after all…the bottom line.

http://macleans.ca kc

It’s one of my fondest hopes [ probably unrealistic ] that war of any description will, eventually become uneconomical, in line with that joke about it being more cost effective to fly Iraq to the US and bomb it there, rather than us hyper- expensive B1or2 bombers. Or how the cost of the cruise missle attack on Iraq exceeded for the first time in history the target countries gdp – true apparently???

http://liliannattel.wordpress.com Lilian Nattel

An interesting analysis. It sounds like the military forces are based on an old form of warfare and that the conditions are so different that a new approach is needed, perhaps one that places a great deal more emphasis on learning about the culture and people of a place before barging into it militarily. However on the plus side, the western aversion to losing the force is a very good one. WWII resulted in military and civilian losses of over 70 million . I believe that WWI casualties, proportionately were greater at least as far as the military losses. Two generations were totally traumatized and I believe the legacy of that trauma lives on. So even though I regret the lost lives and billions that I believe could be better spent in building than destroying, I am totally for having an aversion to throwing human life away as canon fodder, which was done in those other wars.
http://macleans.ca kc

One really obvious area where everthing has changed is the reporting, and in particular the realtime reporting of wars. Govts are trying to counter this, as in Iraq, by imbedding reporters, restricting access, and otherwise trying to tilt the battle-field in their favour. Ultimately this is futile. Imagine if you will the lone survivor of some botched bombing of a wedding party, who happens to have a cell phone camera – or better – with him – cue a PR disaster. On the whole this is a good thing for all concerned. The west in particular, can ill afford any more My lai massacres or Dieppes for that matter.
What puzzles me is why , in a sense Anthropologists aren’t more to the fore, especially in this conflict. Local knowledge, understanding of the finer pts of tribal customs, practises and politics are a must, everybit as important as tanks and guns i’d say. Perhaps we are doing this already, i certainly hope so. War never will be the same again, that is unless we want to start a really big one – with…like say…Russia Mr Harper!!

http://macleans.ca kc

Oops…embedding…gosh just the thought of imbedding reporters in the military makes me shudder!

Kaplan

“So armies go into chaotic situations, or create chaotic situations, and then hold the territory — not forever, to subjugate it — but until politics and a measure of order can set in, and sometimes that feels like forever. Smith points out that tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers have been stationed in South Korea for more than half a century; Cyprus has held foreign troops for nearly as long; Indochina/Vietnam lasted 30 years; ‘operations in Iraq have been ongoing since 1990, whilst the international community first intervened in the Balkans in 1992 and there is no end in sight.’”

Yes, but remember that in all these situations, the goal for whichever western state opted for military action wasn’t to go in and “hold the territory…until politics and a measure of order can set in.” Now, I haven’t read Smith’s book (although I’m going to hunt it down now), but it seems he’s doing a bit of a historical re-write to suit his own theory. Which is fine, but this analysis quite soundly ignores the international and domestic factors that have turned what were originally to be short-term engagements into long-term marriages.
http://macleans.ca kc

Of course out right brutality does still work…somewhat. Consider the Russian answer to the Chechen problem.

http://www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com Mark Bourrie

Didn’t work in for the Russians in Afghanistan and probably won’t work in Checnya.
(No one ever takes a good look at the Russian war in Afghanistan to compare it with the present conflict).
The best the military and foreigners can do is craft an independent local government that fairly reflects the political sentiments of the country, and thereby wins local political and military support, and keep it operating within the rules of international law. By that reckoning, a coalition government involving the Taliban but excluding al Qaeda might work.

Kaplan

Funny how Bosnia can’t quite go it alone yet…

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/ Mark Ottawa

“Armed Forces strength, which had dropped from 120 000 to 100 000 in the PEARSON years, was slashed by the Trudeau government to 78 000 men and women in the regular forces…”
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002205

So in the early 60s, with half the population we have now, twice as many people served in the regular Canadian military (now some 60,000), all volunteers. Put another way, per capita four times as many people were in the armed forces. And defence spending compared to GDP is way, way down:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/12/4/3391362.html

“1949-1956 (Louis St-Laurent): 6.5%
1957-1962 (John Diefenbaker): 5.4%
1963-1967 (Lester Pearson): 3.8%
1968-1984 (Pierre Trudeau): 2.1%
1984-1993 (Brian Mulroney): 2.0%
1994-2003 (Jean Chretien): 1.3%
2004 – current (Paul Martin, Stephen Harper): around 1.2%

So Canadians over the last 60 years have come, democratically, to the conclusion that defence for them really is not a major concern. That seems to be their view as the country goes forward.

Contrary to Mr Wells, a G8 country that finds a military death rate on operations of some 30 to 40 per year unbearable might as well stop using its military as an instrument of national interest. And, to be honest, that country had better stop thinking that it has any serious say in world affairs. Not that Canada has had that for quite some time.

Our economic position in the world has been shrinking since the 1950s (along with our military position). Why should we have any real influence internationally in “objective” terms? Also, the idea that we are some sort of moral power (great? middle?)–and thus will be listened to with great interest–is pure silliness.

But a good post.

Mark
Ottawa

archangel

Switzerland assigns 0.9% of GDP to its armed forces and they have conscription.

Perhaps we could forget about tougher sentences for gun crimes and draft young people into the forces to give their lives some meaning.

Instead of shooting each other, they can shoot insurgents in faraway places.

Just sayin’.

Ti-Guy

Instead of shooting each other, they can shoot insurgents in faraway places.

At least, they’d be spending less time banging out nonsense in front of their computers.

Ti-Guy

So Canadians over the last 60 years have come, democratically, to the conclusion that defence for them really is not a major concern.

And when exactly, have Canadians been faced with the an imperative of defence in the last 60 years? I don’t seem to remember any threat of invasion…

Critical Reasoning

I don’t seem to remember any threat of invasion…

Maybe not invasion, but the Cold War certainly threatened Canada, both directly and indirectly. And there was the small matter of our defensive military alliances and agreements (NATO, NORAD, etc.).

Ti-Guy

Maybe not invasion, but the Cold War certainly threatened Canada,

How exactly?

Sisyphus

Well, the only country that’s ever invaded Canada was one of the coldest of warriors ….

Ti-Guy

No, I’m serious. I want to know what a 20-something remembers and understands of the Cold War.

Critical Reasoning

The direct and indirect threat of nuclear warfare, for one.

Ti-Guy

The direct and indirect threat of nuclear warfare, for one.

Y’see, that’s the problem. The existential threat of nuclear warfare should void it as a real threat. There isn’t much of a threat in annihilation. When you’re dead, you’re dead.

Got anything else?
Critical Reasoning

The existential threat of nuclear warfare should void it as a real threat.

Interesting that someone born shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis claims nuclear warfare was never a threat.

Got anything else?

Well, our military personnel were under constant threat in their Cold War-era deployments outside of Canada. I’m not claiming that Canadian soil was exposed to any direct non-nuclear threats.
Ti-Guy

Interesting that someone born shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis claims nuclear warfare was never a threat.

I didn’t even hear about the Cuban Missile Crisis until 1975. How much do you remember from the first 13 years of your life?

…*ugh* On second thought, don’t tell me. I remember them…

Well, our military personnel were under constant threat in their Cold War-era deployments outside of Canada. I’m not claiming that Canadian soil was exposed to any direct non-nuclear threats

*Bleh*. Verbose and ahistorical nonsense.
Critical Reasoning

*Bleh*. Verbose and ahistorical nonsense.

Both of my parents served in the military during the Cold War. My assertion that “military personnel were under constant threat in their Cold War-era deployments outside of Canada” may be verbose, but it’s not nonsense.
Ti-Guy

Both of my parents served in the military during the Cold War.

Overseas?

My assertion that “military personnel were under constant threat in their Cold War-era deployments outside of Canada” may be verbose, but it’s not nonsense.

Yeah, but it’s still an assertion and not an argument.
Critical Reasoning

Overseas?

Of course – I wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise. My mom was an Army RN who did time in Germany. My dad was a career Navy officer.

Yeah, but it’s still an assertion and not an argument.

Classic thread killer. That’s why I called it an “assertion”, bright boy. I choose my words carefully.
Ti-Guy

Of course – I wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise. My mom was an Army RN who did time in Germany. My dad was a career Navy officer.

Of course…

Pardon me if I don’t believe you. It just doesn’t smell right. But, for argument’s sake, where were they stationed?

That’s why I called it an “assertion”, bright boy. I choose my words carefully.

I think you meant “pointlessly,” not “carefully.”
Critical Reasoning

Victoria and Halifax, mostly. For crying out loud, Ti-Guy. Your pathological need to have the last word pollutes these blogs with insanely long threads. Why don’t you go “trouble-shoot some dysfunctional organizations” – I hear there’s a cleanup in Aisle 6.
Critical Reasoning

Served overseas, not stationed overseas. My dad saw half the world over two decades but as far as I know he was always stationed in Canada. My mom spent a year in Germany before I was born, a small fraction of her armed forces career. I don’t know where she was stationed at that time. Now go run off and play nicely somewhere else.

Derek Pearce

Do obligations under NATO count for nothing? Direct amphibious invasion of course was not a concern, but standing with allies in the face of a real land-based threat was important to defending the “western” way of life.

Don Mitchell

Well we could be like Iceland or Luxembourg and have no military at all. They seem to get along alright.

Ti-Guy

Except neither of those two countries is among largest economies in the World.

It’s not an either/or issue I’m positing here. I’m just wondering if Canadians actually understand what a military is supposed to be.

Don Mitchell

Canadian’s understanding of a military:
Regional/multicultural industry benefits; and
Standing around in Blue Berets making Canadians feel good.

Thats about it.
Ti-Guy

Regional/multicultural industry benefits; and
Standing around in Blue Berets making Canadians feel good.

Heh. The second part would have been amusing, but it was rendered dumb by the first part. What on Earth led you to put “multicultural industry” into that rantlet?

Anyway, you proved my point. Canadians understand zilch about the role of the military.
http://www.jackmitchell.ca Jack Mitchell

My own view, FWIW, has always been that we should have a military strong enough to defeat another non-nuclear power of about our own size. Like, say, Spain. Lord knows we’re never likely to fight a war on our own, least of all with Spain, but that seems like a reasonable hypothetical scenario for deciding how large the CF should be in peacetime. One reason, incidentally, that I’ve always wished we had a light carrier group.

Rick T

Actually Luxembourg does have a military albeit a small one (one company of infantry if I recall correctly, and the NATO AWACS aircraft are registered there).

DT

if by defense you mean an overt threat of attack or invasion, perhaps not since german subs were sunk within miles of the Atlantic coast in the second world war. However, you must admit that the cold war was a threat to Canadian security if only because of the relative efficiency of overflying our airspace in order to reach the continental US with long range bombers, you remember the DEW line I assume. Furthermore, If you’re definition of threat requires paratroops dropping from the skies or tanks rolling through Halifax off of Russian RO/RO’s then we probably can’t meet your threshold. If however you’re concerned with more nuanced threats such as would be suicide bombers crossing from Vancouver into Washington state en route to LA or juvenile Al Queda wannabees plotting to kill the PM then you should rethink that statement.

In general, I think you should focus more on substance and fact than quick two line retorts aimed at trying to demonstrate how witty and au currant you are. But that’s just my opinion, carry on.
Thinkster

Right. Mulroney sold Canada to the USA in the so-called “free trade” deal, in which Canada cannot refuse “equal treatment” to American companies who want to buy our resources or companies. Since the US economy is around 13 times the size of Canada’s, that means we’ve already been sold – the US is merely taking delivery of around 12/13th of our nation’s resources gradually, as it needs them. The USA would never tolerate a third country invading Canada, and the USA itself need not invade Canada since it already owns our country anyway, thanks to Mulroney et al. So no invasion is in the offing. We’re a bit of a special case. A token military is all we need.

rutin

Another product of Canada’s infamously informative media and education system.

As Mel Hurtig once railed at a 1973 Canada Studies forum: ” the US owns 98 % of everything in Canada”.

1973 would be before the Dark Period( CBC tm) of Mulroney rule.

Terren

I hear you are best friends with Peter Mackay? Is this how you get all the good stories?

Critical Reasoning

You’re kidding, right? Paul used MacKay’s effigy for target practice in at least five recent blog postings. That’s some kind of friendship.

Terren

They say mockery is the best kind of compliment.
Actually they probably don’t but I heard they are friends, they go out for supper, etc. But it’s Ottawa, what’s new?

Paul Wells

Well, if the question is germane:

I’ve often been at social events with MacKay…and dozens or hundreds of others. He and I sometimes make friendly small talk. I had dinner with him once, in maybe 2001, and a lunch with him in 2003, for my first Maclean’s column, will probably not soon be followed by another lunch, because it didn’t produce the kind of column he’d be inclined to press into his Book of Memories. I think he’s in the top half of the Harper cabinet but I’m on friendlier terms with many other MPs.

Martin Levenson

Just a couple of points: Smith’s last tour of active duty, that is, in close proximity to a battleground, is listed as Northern Ireland between 1996-99. So this quote, which Kaplan already pointed out, “… armies go into chaotic situations, or create chaotic situations, and then hold the territory — not forever, to subjugate it — but until politics and a measure of order can set in, and sometimes that feels like forever.” is somewhat more understandable. However, I doubt if the English governments of the day(s) would have appreciated him voicing this position TOO publically at the time.

Another point was made about the end of “modern warfare”. “insurgency” as warfare has been with us forever. One of the FACTS that seems to be conveniently overlooked is that NOBODY has ever been able to subjugate the Afghani’s. NOT EVEN THE BRITS AT THE HEIGHT OF THEIR IMPERIAL POWER. Not the Russians. Not even any Afghani leaders. I suspect that this might be what Harper was refering to. I don’t know why he came to this realization so late in the game; the information is there, in books like “The Great Game”. Maybe he finally took the time to inform himself.

Finally, in concurrance with Mark Ottawa’s comments, Canada has developed a mythology of importance on the world stage (probably starting with Pearson) that is not understood by anyone outside the country. We’re not a great power, we’re a “serially monogamous” colony. We’re currently an adjunct of the US, and in the past we were one of the treasure houses of both the French and the English.
Don Mitchell

That’s what I like about you Ti-Guy, your ability to insult everyone all the time. You should take a look at any PWGSC contract proposal, there is always a section regarding aboriginal industrial offsets, visibile minority input and a host of other add-ons that do nothing but add to the cost and increase the time any government tendered contract is completed.

http://macleans.ca kc

You could be forgiven for thinking that aboriginals or visable minorities were Canadians i suppose.

Don Mitchell

And you are the same type of person who moans and drips about the cost of government procurement.

http://macleans.ca kc

I see where yr going, but nope. No complaint from me. It’s pretty much the cost of doing business in this country. You know the way $500 hammers seem to be down south.

Mulletaur

Good article. We need a fulsome debate on what we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan and how we should best go about doing it, particularly in view of the disproportionate casualty rate our troops (and their families) are suffering. I am afraid that Harper’s change of tone is the harbinger of a creeping ‘cut and run’ mentality which is starting to permeate our discussion of involvement in Afghanistan. That would be a disaster.

There are two fundamental problems with our current Afghanistan policy. To start, our counterinsurgency strategy is wrong : we are not harnessing the power of local tribal chieftans to help do this work by identifying and eliminating the al Qaida and foreign fighters amongst those who are taking on the ISAF and Afghan forces. More important, though, is the problem of governance in Afghanistan – there is none. Karzai is utterly useless and (worse) is perceived by his own people as a puppet of the Yankees. The Kabul government has no legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people despite its democratic election mainly because it has not produced good economic and social results for them, only foreign occupation and corruption, which is why the insurgents are becoming stronger. If the government were more legitimate, it would be much harder for the insurgent al Qaida fish to swim in the sea of the Afghan peasantry.

More than seven years after 9-11, I don’t think it’s good enough anymore just to hold the line against the potential domination by Afghanistan of Islamic extremists. ISAF participants have to try a new approach. Canada is not going to do this on its own – we have to hope that Obama comes up with a viable new strategy and is willing to invest the political capital and time to make it work.
Wascally Wabbit

Some profound thoughts on war Mr. Wells. You sit up there with another of my journalistic heroes in this arena – Eric Margolis!
My take – for what it is worth – is that military colleges all over – certainly the Western world – are still training their leaders to fight wars with big guns…I can see no progress between the carpet bombings and Agent Orange in Vietnam – and the bombing in the hill country along the Afghanistan – Pakistan border – hoping massive damage would somehow find Osama bin Laden in the middle of the mess…
A more intel driven / infiltration approach seems to be better suited to today’s enemy!
Bill Simpson

Perhaps if we stop thinking in terms of “war”, and start thinking in terms of “policing”, we may get closer to a workable plan. A good proportion of what is occurring in Afghanistan is basically just criminal behavior, or good old-fashioned banditry. We won’t defeat that in the sense that the enemy will surrender to us, any more than the mob or some other local criminal gang will surrender to us, but we can sure as heck squeeze them down to the very minimum of impact.

Of course, if the conditions that gave rise to these criminal activities do not change, then it becomes an expensive exercise with no apparent end in sight.

We have lent our own armed forces to help clean up Afghanistan, and this seems like a good thing, given that otherwise the criminals are likely to grow in strength and start to damage our wider interests. Somalia is an interesting example in this respect; everyone walked away from that mess, and we have now ended up with a serious piracy problem. History provides many other examples where “failed states” and similar chaotic situations have become springboards for large-scale banditry that ends up affecting us sooner or later.

I have always harbored an unrealistic hope that the UN would grow to assume responsibility for these kinds of messes, and to establish not just a peace-keeping force, but an international,well-armed police force that could step in. But that is a long way off, even if it is desirable.

But in the meantime, Harper has at least raised his own discussion of the problem to a more mature level and that offers some hope that a better approach will emerge.

http://macleans.ca kc

This is an interesting pt you raise – war making, or policing? The Q has political consequences that we might want to re-examine. Re-examine because it’s all the rage now to label folks fools or naive who believe in, or are proud of our role in the past as peacekeepers.But are the two so mutually exclusive?
As you say Aganistan’s problems are largely criminal, not to discount Al Qaeda at all, but that organization is foreign to many Afganis and so hiving them off politically ie; appealing to Afganis patriotism would be smart – a little flattery costs nothing. So clearly the military is needed to deal with the security issues, and the policing for the criminal stuff – bearing in mind that no sane person expects the place to change overnight, so realistic goals are a given. All this will take a lot of local knowledge and savvy and is probably best left to their polce – which, unfortunately is very corrupt at the moment – fixing must be a prority.
But someone is crying, we are already doing these things! [ i hope ] Yes it seems we are! [ again i trust ] Now back to yr pt about policing, and mine about politics. I contend [ courtesy of hindsight of course ] that the current fad of discarding and disparaging peacekeeping in favour of peacemaking is a political mistake on our part. [ also i think the motivation of some of the war crowd is a little too idealogical for me ] Mistaken, because the two aren’t mutually exclusive at all. Given the present generations love of and attachment to our mythology it would have been wiser perhaps, to have harnessed the power of myths for good [ what other use are they? ] and sell this as a policing action with a needed peacemaking component. If we had many more Canadians would now be fully behind this war.
As the old saying goes, throwing things that work out with the bath water, in order to try and change the mindset of a country that’s loves its myths is both foolish and akin to throwing away a useful tool, just because you think shiny new ones work better ; and besides they get you noticed more and impress yr most importent friends.

Bill Simpson

The practice of “peacekeeping” always had several fundamental flaws (not least that the warring parties had to agree to it in the first place), and only worked in a couple of limited situations. It clearly has no application in Afghanistan.

The term “peacemaking” is no more helpful, in my view, since it is still based on the premise that there is a “war” in progress, which I challenge. We can neither “win” nor “lose” in Afghanistan, but we can continue to battle the rag-tag collection of criminal bandits, thugs and religious fanatics until they cease to threaten regional and world security.

http://macleans.ca kc

I see yr pt. Perhaps it was always unwise to label anything “peacekeeping”? [ always exceptions ]
But what we have is what we have i guess. I think my pt is still valid, there is still a large pool of goodwil towards an of image of ourselves as peacekeepers. Educating folks a bit will help; but why not call what we’re doing by some new name that flatters those of us who still cherish our myths – although Father time is all ready working on that problem, i predict he’ll have it licked in no time at all!
A police action a la Maylaya is fine by me. If that clown down south hadn’t run around like a lunitic yelling “Crusaders”! and ” Barbarians at the gates”! Perhaps we would all be calling this what it is – a quasi-military police action in support of a failing state with a few additional other problems! Hmmm, Crusaders is catchy, thanks George – thanks alot!!

PolJunkie

I wonder if Rick Hillier will end up wearing any of this mess…
Neil

This latest is like the final years of the Vietnam war in the US during the early 70′s.Average people were losing interest in any discussions, even the media got tired of it until the Pentagon Papers were released summer of 1971, even then it took prodding to get them interested. Harper has said it (Afghanistan) isn’t winnable so most will say “I figured as much” and go about their daily lives.
This conflict will be but a footnote in the last pages of the history books in thirty years time.
Jim Ison

I am new to the blog and to blogging, and I’m looking for a rational and intelligent website, which this seems to be. I would suggest that those who want to disagree on issues wandering far from the topic should exchange e-mail addresses, and write to each other, leaving the rest of us out of the increasingly uninteresting (to me) and esoteric context of your disagreement…

But to the issue, I assume… Afghanistan and our role there. I recommend reading novels and essays coming out of Afghanistan, one recent one being “The Bookseller of Kabul” in which the reader discovers that our role there is misunderstood and extremely beyond our own current levels of cultural understanding, so that really, if we “won,” we would not know how to proceed from that moment… What do other readers think of the social matrix our soldiers meet there: marriage vows and rules, patrimony, tribalism, family and tribal ties, obligations of boys and daughters, and on and on? What are we fighting for, and who with, in the face of these complications?
http://politigrok.blogspot.com/ Mark

Today I attended a talk by Gwynne Dyer on this subject. His analysis in the matter was pretty simple. We, NATO, are fighting the Taliban, who are essentially an arm of the Pashtun people. The Pashtun, Mr. Dyer continued, are 40% of the population in Afghanistan, and simply can’t be beaten by conventional means. He thinks President Obama is making a mistake by sending more troops and trying to win in Afghanistan, and he suspects the president will realize this by 2011 and withdraw by the end of that year, to let the Afghans hash out some kind of a deal.

In as much as I’m a fan of Mr. Dyer, I can’t help but disagree with his analysis. I think Obama is coming to win, and I think it’s doable, at least to a certain value of “win.” Outright victory in Afghanistan was never really a reality, and a government where the Pashtun were never really involved wasn’t a situation that could last.

Last week, Al Jazeera reported that there were “secret talks” ongoing between the Afghan government and the leader of Hezb-i-Islami, who are local allies of the Taliban. Also according to Al Jazeera, these talks were being mediated, and indeed had been suggested, by British officials. If all this is true, it probably reflects the reality that the only way to “win” in Afghanistan is to bring about a situation where the Taliban, and more importantly the Pashtun, are willing to come to the table and hammer out some kind of a settlement that lets them back into the political process. And it might represent that Western officials are coming around to the idea.

Of course, I have no idea if this will actually happen. But in my mind it represents the best opportunity for any kind of a resolution to this war.
Guest

But what if you were, like Harper, a politician; what would you say? to the the troops and to the living room? How would you describe the ability to move Afghan society (and in the future other groups) from a tribal based society to a modern society?

I am not trying to criticize your role as a journalist, but just wondering how would you present this to a populace with varying degrees of interest and understanding of the situation
Guest

But what if you were, like Harper, a politician; what would you say? to the the troops and to the living room? How would you describe the ability to move Afghan society (and in the future other groups) from a tribal based society to a modern society?

I am not trying to criticize your role as a journalist, but just wondering how would you present this to a populace with varying degrees of interest and understanding of the situation
http://macleans.ca kc

What are the consequences of losing exactly Kody. Please don’t tell me you foresee Talban commandoes or SBers waltzing down our mainstreets, because that never was a realistic possibility, certainly not now. Faure for nato might be another matter altogether.
On the bright side i’m happy to see yr following our condescending admonishments.
Derek Pearce

Instead of spending all your time complaining about Wells, how about answering kc’s question? What would the consequences of losing be?
Riley

KC

Failure for NATO and “consequences for Canada” are entirely the same thing. Failure for NATO means blanket defence for Canada is gone. Anybody who thinks Canada is some kind of island which has no security threats is an idiot.

1.) I don’t mean to say we’ll suddenly have terrorist attacks like 9/11 or some idiot driving a fuel-tanker onto Parliament Hill. If NATO fails in Afghanistan or they let it crumble, it gives a green light to every other dictator or angry-group (ie Al Qaeda) out there to pick up the fight because they can “win” against the West and have their way. It encourages the behavior that leads to instability like the pirates who attack fuel ships in the Gulf, or terrorists who attack Nigerian oil-rigs, or even the kidnapping of our diplomats. Like it or not, Canada has huge overseas interests and a lot of these relationships and economic development partnerships could be jeopardized by a upswing in insurgent activity globally as a result of an Afghan abandonment.
2.) It tells Russia, China and Iran that NATO can not work together long enough to muster up a significant force to counter an actual threat. I think we are seeing the result of that already with Russia moving into Georgia and cutting off energy shipments to Europe. What is NATO going to do about that if they can’t even get their act together on one project, let alone two? Again, don’t pretend like we don’t want to trade with South-East asia and require Eastern Europe to be stable in order to do business.
3.) The Arctic is a place where Canada has interests. Showing that we can’t sustain a conflict in Afghanistan or show resolve in a major NATO mission is just going to tell every other country out there that we are weak and they can waltz into the Arctic and do what they please.
4.) Lastly, do we pretend like women’s rights, peace and stability are not important values to Canadians? How can we act like we give a damn about that kind of stuff, yet turn a blind eye when some jerk with a can of acid sprays it on young school-girls because he doesn’t think they should be allowed to study? Could we live with ourselves and pretend like we have a “responsibility to protect” if we left Afghanistan before the country was stable? Would that not be a consequence on our conscience?
Mulletaur

I agree with pretty well all of that, Riley. If human rights are universal, they should be protected universality. Either we believe in human rights or we don’t. Time to step up to the plate in a place where we could still make a difference. We can’t solve all the world’s problems, but at least we can make a stand in a place which could be a lot of trouble for our own security down the line if we abandon the Afghans to the tender mercy of the Taliban.