Inkless Wells

 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

Afghanistan: Turning the corner

by Paul Wells on Sunday, September 12, 2010 11:07pm - 0 Comments

The newish Canadian military commander in Kandahar promises “massive activities” for the autumn. His predecessor promised something similar for the summer. I was young and naive then, so I bought it, more than I should. Basically we are being given the runaround and have been for some time. Not even really intentionally: it’s not that all those sunshiny briefings were mendacious, it’s just that at every point in this conflict, commanders and civilian governments have preferred to hope for the best. So the title of this post is ironic: Every quarter for nine years it’s been easy enough to find someone who thought the Afghanistan conflict was turning a corner. And of course, if you turn enough corners you eventually realize you’re going around in circles.

Meanwhile what’s actually happening is that it is all getting worse. Violent incidents of all kind in Afghanistan were up by half in August over their level in August 2009, and everyone used to think the elections would make August 2009 the worst thing anyone could imagine. So August of 2010, last month, was half again worse than what everyone thought the worst would be. The Obama White House is trying to figure out how far downward they can redefine success. I have no particular fresh insights into any of this. Probably as a rule of thumb, it’s best to avoid screwing up a war for seven years before you pull your socks up. At some point, pulling up your socks is no longer much help.

Tags: ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    You have to learn to think in 'Friedman units'.

    The term is in reference to a May 16, 2006 article by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) detailing columnist Thomas Friedman's repeated use[10] of "the next six months" as the period in which, according to Friedman, "we're going to find out…whether a decent outcome is possible" in the Iraq War. As documented by FAIR, Friedman had been making such six-month predictions for a period of two and a half years, on at least fourteen different occasions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_(unit)

  • madeyoulook

    An honest question, because I just can't even guess what the right answer is anymore: Do you think there is anything Canada can accomplish to the benefit of the Afghan people by remaining until the already planned pullout, compared with bugging out by Thanksgiving?

    For added discussion, substitute "the benefit of the Afghan people" with:
    a) Canada's national interests;
    b) the cause of peace;
    c) the fight against Islamist terrorism.

    And if the best answer is "No, I can't think of anything" then a supplemental: Why the h— are we still there?

    • Emily

      I have no idea why we're still there. I say pack 'er in, and deeeee-part.

    • Cats

      Probably right.

      Should look at the downsides of leaving early though. Perhaps there are more negatives than just toughing it out until summer of '11.

      Cats?

    • Blacktop

      No waffling. Get out! Now

  • jarrid

    The Obama administration has been publicly half-hearted about this war. Obama's administration is putting all soldiers at risk by emboldening the enemy with his talk of a set withdrawal time. It's one thing for Obama's incompetence to put U.S troops at risk. It's another to put our Canadian troops at risk.

    Let's get our boys out of there, and pronto.

    • Inkless

      Remind me who the first ISAF head of goverment was to discuss withdrawal at a set time?

      • jarrid

        I must be behind in the news.

        Who's going to replace the Americans when Obama calls it a day, I must have missed it. The Chinese, the Russians?

        Your point was what again?

        • Inkless
          • madeyoulook

            Wasn't it Parliament's point?

          • Holly Stick

            And he always obeys Parliament.

          • Inkless

            If you like, although Parliament had already voted in favour of extending the mission (from 2009 to 2011) at this prime minister's request.

            I posted the video because Harper's reasoning, as he expressed it at length that morning in 2008 when Barack Obama was still an Illinois senator, was not only that Canada should end its military engagement, but that "our" message to Afghanistan should be that they should take responsibility for their own affairs. That is, that no country should fill in for Canada, but that all Western countries should leave with us.

            That was new in 2008. Having already passed an extension, Harper could have proposed another. He chose not to and he did not mean for it to apply only to Canada. You could have an interesting discussion about the wisdom of that chain of decisions. I don't have a strong opinion on that question, actually. Wise or not, the PM certainly seems to have been prescient.

            But if somebody wants to argue that talk of a set withdrawal time emboldens the enemy and puts lives at risk, I'm going to point out some chronology.

          • jarrid

            I don't see Harper saying that everyone should pull out. All he's saying is that Canada's done their bit.

          • Inkless

            And now everyone else knows why I posted the video.

          • jarrid

            Not so fast Paul. Your point was to equate Canada's role and the U.S.'s role as being the same. They're apples and oranges. When Harper's administration, through the Parliamentary motion, extended our troops presence until 2011 – and no further – the view was that Canada had contibuted what it could to the conflict. But the war would go on with another NATO country taking Canada's place. The U.S. signalling they're leaving the Afghan theatre is a whole different story. If the Americans turn tail, the fat lady has sung. Which makes your point quite pointless.

            Watching that video reminds me that Harper is nothing if not a man of his word, the very antithesis of his predecessor, Paul Martin, who used words very carelessly to the point of meaninglessness.

          • lenny

            Now, try watching the video with the sound on.

          • Mike T.

            Watching that video reminds me that Harper is nothing if not a man of his word

            ***
            But the word keeps changing.

        • Kenneth

          You're funny.

      • chet

        There is a middle ground. Far be if from me to defend Obama (his foreign policy is in tatters) but as to "redefining success" that is precisely what must be done.

        Let the Afghan parliament run their country as best they can. Let them "build" their own nation. Nation building cannot work from the outside, only within.

        But let the US Rangers, and whoever else has the stomach, along with an ever increasing devastating arsenal of killer drones, continue to hunt down the Taliban and Al Qaida. If our goal is to create a stable well functioning democracy in Afghanistan in the forseeable future then we've gauranteed our failure.

        But keeping the Taliban on the run, from cave to cave, constantly looking over their shoulders for the next lazer guided J-Dam, free only to plant a bomb or two then scurry back for cover, is far better than having them control the government, the country, openly able to build terrorist training camps.

        • Kaplan

          "But keeping the Taliban on the run, from cave to cave, constantly looking over their shoulders for the next lazer guided J-Dam, free only to plant a bomb or two then scurry back for cover, is far better than having them control the government, the country, openly able to build terrorist training camps."

          Good thing that's such an inexpensive endeavor, and has born such positive results so far!

          • chet

            I don't see too many Afghan trained terrorists blowing up buildings in N. America, do you?

          • lenny

            Can I interest you in some of my patented elephant repellant?
            BTW, I believe the hijackers got their flight training in the U.S., so what training did they recieve in Afghanistan? Box-cutter kung fu?

    • Thwim

      Putting a set withdrawal time actually doesn't put our soldiers at risk, and it may even serve to lessen the risk as the enemy thinks, "Meh.. why bother risking ourselves. Once they're gone we'll just take over." Of course, that's about the only good thing that it does that I can think of.

  • madeyoulook

    I was young and naive then, so I bought it, more than I should.

    Don't feel so bad. During Gulf War 1, the Iraqis bought the announcement of a massive amphibious assault.

  • A_logician

    In the Vietnam conflict, there was always light at the end of the tunnel.
    In the Vietnam conflict, the US continually escalated the number of troops.
    In the Vietnam conflict, the side opposing the US was ideologically motivated.
    In the Vietnam conflict, the US supported a government rife with corruption that lacked popular support.
    In the Vietnam conflict, the side opposing the US had safe havens across international borders.
    In the Vietnam conflict, the US justified its participation as necessary to prevent the spread of the enemy ideology to adjacent countries (the domino theory).
    In the Vietnam conflict, the US and allied forces had a massive technological advantage, to no avail.
    In the Vietnam conflict, civilian casualties of US military actions undermined the possibilities of popular support.

    We've seen this movie before. Does anyone remember how it ends?

    • Emily

      Seems to me I remember a heliocopter trailing people, fleeing from a rooftop in Saigon.

  • Mulletaur

    Afghanistan is all but lost to the Taliban. Karzai himself has every chance of ending up like Najibullah. Obama cannot fix the mistakes of the Bush administration there. While Pakistan was finally taking seriously the fight against the Taliban, it was worth staying. Now Pakistan has so many other problems, I don't see what difference our presence in Afghanistan can make. We did our duty with honour and valour. Time for our troops to come home immediately.

    • Cats

      Time for fresh thinking.

      Why not occupy Pakistan because of the flooding ? Break the country into three parts. Have India take over security.

      Its basically the Joe Biden solution for Iraq.

      Interesting Cats!

      • Emily

        Why yes, let's invade yet another country for no reason.

        One that's a nuclear power at that.

        What could possibly go wrong?

        • Cats

          Maybe round up the nukes ?

          That's the only real reason we're still in Afghanistan. Because if it falls apart then Pakistan could fall apart too and the crazies will get nukes.

          So how about the US go in and grab all the nukes, destroy them, and everybody gets to leave ?

          Or we could just follow Emily's great plan and leave and get nuked !!
          What could possibly go wrong with being nuked by a terrorist!

          Cats!

          • Emily

            How about you sit down and think about that for awhile.

          • croghan27

            "………….then Pakistan could fall apart too and the crazies will get nukes. "

            Oh Nos …. a (dreaded) domino effect…. whatever shall we do? Quick, quick, Invade.

          • Thwim

            You're assuming we have perfect intelligence as to where the nukes are. The question arises.. what if we don't?

          • Cats

            I think I read that in return for the billions and billions of assistance they get that Pakistan has fully disclosed and accounted for their nukes to the US.

            Cats!

          • Thwim

            Aaand.. you assume they told the truth because?

          • Style

            I hope the nukes don't get jostled while the Americans are grabbing them. That would be embarassing! The Americans would only have seconds to fly into outerspace with the nukes and fling them into the sun. And the Americans are always flinging things into the sun. It's become a cliche.

  • Style

    Why does Paul Wells hate the troops? (Supplemental: why has it taken him this long?)

  • chet

    In our current world of:

    thirty second sound bites,
    "fast" food,
    technology that changes by the second,
    "history" being not what happened over the last century but the last six months,

    we simply do not have the long view necessary for wars like this. Recall Afghanistan was supposed to be the "good war" in the middle east. The one where we could justify without debate as with Iraq. After all, the terrorists who instantly killed three thousans N. Americans were harboured and trained there. It was the epicenter of the radical Islamist terror world. An entire country run by terrorists intent on destroying the Western World.

    Today in discussions about whether we should stay or not, the reason we went there is barely mentioned. The costs of staying ring loud. The costs of leaving only whispered.

    • Kaplan

      Man, I knew those quarter pounders would be the death of us all.

  • chet

    Bush once proclaimed that our soldiers fight them over there, so they won't come kill us over here.

    Bush. Such a simple man, with such simple notions.

    Simple and right.

    • Blacktop

      No, Bush's excuse for going after targets irrelevant to terror but right in line with his, Cheney and his cronie' objectives

  • Phil_King

    If at first you don't succeed… redefine success. (check)

    If at first you don't succeed… failure may be your style. (check)

    If at first you don't succeed… give up, no use being a damn fool. (pending)

    If at first you don't succeed… destroy all evidence that you tried. (pending)

    Just goes to show, if everything seems to be going right, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on.

Previous

Next

From Macleans