In Afganistan the final battle begins

Paul Wells: This time the tactics are different and backup has arrived

by Paul Wells on Friday, April 16, 2010 10:10am - 57 Comments

What’s needed are two things that are harder to conjure. Without them, even a bulked-up, population-focused ISAF mission stands every chance of failing. The first is time. The population has lived in a near-constant state of civil, regional and global war for decades. In that kind of environment, hope is ephemeral and never to be trusted. Success lies in assuring the population that a better standard of living, free of harassment from insurgents, might be permanent.

Of course this requirement slams up against the Canadian Parliament’s decision to end the military involvement in Kandahar in 2011. Nobody I talked to would say a word against this decision for the record. “I would never want the Canadian army to stay somewhere that the Canadian people didn’t want us to be,” Leslie said. “Ever. We go where the government sends us, we fight the good fight or whatever else the role requires us to do, we come home when Parliament sends us home.”
Privately, others involved in the military effort express a lot of frustration with the 2011 deadline. But whatever Canada does, or even the Americans, all this COIN stuff will come to little without the second needed ingredient: a legitimate, competent, compassionate Afghan government capable of responding to the population’s wishes and ensuring some level of comfort and security for them.

Which is why Hamid Karzai’s reliably erratic behaviour causes so much consternation. The Afghan president is plainly in over his head, unable to stem rampant corruption if he is not actively benefiting from it. It got worse during my trip, with Karzai even threatening to join the Taliban if he didn’t get proper respect from the West. (This caused great amusement even among Afghans I spoke to. “I’m sure if he tried it,” one interpreter told me, “the Taliban would cut him into 12 pieces.”)
Remarks like Karzai’s “are killing us,” one Western diplomat told Leslie in Kabul. Soldiers and Western civilian authorities can do a lot, but they cannot hold this country’s hand forever.

But the 2011 deadline and the fitness of the Karzai government are problems for another day. Neither will matter if the massively expanded ISAF force in Kandahar cannot change the dynamic in the province quickly. “Is this just another summer? Oh no,” Menard said. “This is the summer. And I’ll tell you why. We will be in a position to break them. I truly believe this. The reason is resources, force ratio, and the establishment of the ring of stability so the population is supporting us. It’s not us fighting the Taliban. It’s the population saying, ‘You know what? We’ve had enough of the Taliban.’ ”

All a visitor could do was to wish him and his forces luck. I found more reason for optimism on this visit to Afghanistan than on either of my other two visits. But soon enough the guesswork will be out of it. By the first days of autumn we will know whether anything has really changed in Kandahar. From there it will be easier to decide, at last, whether there would be any point in staying further.

Bookmark and Share
  • ssdd

    This is an excellent article but does not paint the real picture of what our soldiers are going through in Afghanistan. Check out chucksbunk.blogspot.com & read Chuckies Bunker for an account from someone who has been there for 6 months.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

    It appears from this article that the important changes in tactics described by Paul Wells that promise a real chance at success in Afhanistan, have been implemented AFTER General Rick Hillier left the Canadian Armed Forces. His idea that "he would prefer to just kill scumbags" was perhaps not a very professional one. I suspect Hillier was not capable of serious thought about how to engage the Aghan population. Hillier's testimony at the hearings on Aghan detainees would also suggest that his policy of hear no evil, see no evil regarding treatment of Afghan detainees likely alienated the Afghan population resulting in increased casualties for Canadian Forces personnel.

  • M Shannon

    The author did a good job giving the army's explanation of what and how they hope to achieve. The problem is military perception of the situation is wrong. ISAF never "clears" area of the Taliban. The insurgents fight a bit and then if the pressure gets too high down tools and go back to farming or walk away to fight another day. Menard's notion that he'd be happy if they go someplace else is exactly the definition of "whack-a-mole". The vast majority of Afghans don't want any more big ISAF offensives- which are guaranteed to kill more innocent Afghans and destroy a lot of property.

    The spring's big pushes in Helmand haven't worked- the Taliban are still there and now four ISAF battalions are tied down in areas much smaller and less heavily populated than any of the main districts in Kandahar.

    The summer offensive in Kandahar will be hugely expensive and cause relatively heavy innocent Afghan and ISAF casualties. It's effect will be temporary as there is no Afghan government to take over and ISAF will eventually withdraw leaving the field to the Taliban.

    The chances are very high we'll be discussing the latest ISAF plans to pacify Kandahar at this time next year.

    • ssdd

      Just curious, where do you get your information on what the vast majority of Afghans want.

      • M Shannon

        There was a poll published this week that indicated the vast majority of Kandharis were against the upcoming offensive and for negotiations. A second poll showed over half thought well of the Taliban. Whatever NATO has been doing to win over the locals it hasn't worked and they are seen as a foreign occupation force by large numbers of the population. The police are almost universally disrespected and I suspect the higher opinion in which the ANA is held by most Afghans is a result of lack of exposure and better behavior due to ISAF mentoring.

  • Richard Nelson

    Paul, a couple of questions for your considerations …

    1. I seem to remember that General Milner's predecessor as temporary Commander JTF Afghanistan had written that one of the Armed Forces' main uses in this post-Soviet era was cementing our commitments to our allies. With that purpose, how important is it to our forces' being there that the Afghan campaign (or whatever it is) be going well or ill? That is, as long as NATO is committed, should we (Canada) stay committed?

    2. Is one of the problems here that we expect our generals to defend public policy to the media & the public? Even under governments not as committed to message control it would be unusual to have Public Service officers around the Director or DG level to be speaking on the record in defence of broad government initiatives; but we expect 1- to 3-leaf generals to do that, and doesn't that (inevitably?) lead to their sounding like brainless cheerleaders?

  • orval

    Superb journalism. Excellent reporting. It is refreshing to know it still exists. Thank you.

    I hope you follow up with a visit to Brussels. I am anxious to know your views on our standing with our NATO Allies. As you know, we are in Afghanistan not because we want to help the Afghans (we do) but because we are a good and dependable Ally.

    You are right to point out that American combat troops under the command of a Canadian general is a big deal.

  • Sooraj

    Hardy and valiant Canadian Forces troops were more than able to beat back periodic Taliban offensives against Kandahar City. But they were desperately insufficient in number for the task of holding the vast territory beyond. The Canadians put a brave face on, but at best, for year after brutal year, they were buying time. Until what? It was never clear.
    Coach Hire
    nitric oxide supplements
    Pubic lice

  • http://mediaculpapost.blogspot.com/2010/04/and-even-more-mark-steyn-self.html Guest

    Nice work on an important subject, Mr. Wells, although at some point it would be nice to see some discussion about what it really means to for a society like ours to be at war with the 14th century (have to look elsewhere, perhaps). It’s also a bit sad that the number of comments for a good piece of journalism seem to be in inverse proportion to its quality. An article by one of your colleagues has over 500 comments – as well as an Editor’s note apologizing for significant erroneous quotes – typical errors, in that particular case. Clearly not everyone at Maclean’s works as hard.

From Macleans