Gloomy, but possibly correct. Any ideas on what happens after failure? What is our response? Should we prepare for a BIG war now that we seem unable to stay focused on winning the smaller ones we're currently in?
TJ: I wrote about what I think will happen eventually... about 20 or so years from now... maybe sooner. I hope I'm wrong, but we will win the war on Islamic Fascism... but it'll be very very ugly:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/0...paved-
with.html
Ah, something like the 3 Conjectures. Thanks for the nightmares.:)
Let me amplify my first question. Should the government and society in general abandon the Afghan project and devote ourselves to preparing for What Is To Come? I don't see any way to convince the people of the west that 'war is upon you' until a major city is destroyed. Nevertheless there must be preparations that can be made, both materiel and psychological.
A really outstanding analysis. NATO is on the verge of complete irrelevance and risks having its credibility become equal to that of the UN.
It boils down to the question of whether we (the "west") prefer paying now or paying later"
Precedent suggests we will defer as long as possible at ultimately horrendous cost; including I believe, quite possibly, the end of our "civilization."
Judging by the NATO reaction to Afghanistan, I think that NATO chiefs and their prospective governments realize this... but they don't have publics that do.
Consider that a poll today suggests that over half of Canadians agree with combat for Canadians if the cause is worth it... I bet that in the EU hardly any citizens would agree with combat for their troops.
(by the way, I can just imagine the horrified gasps at the Canuck poll results in the editorial rooms of most MSM outfits)
It's not NATO that's the problem... it's the people who pay the taxes in the EU.
>...Any ideas on what happens after failure? What is our response?...
Actually, being in Afghanistan is excellent preparation for "what happens after." We are gaining an effective, well-equipped, combat-hardened armed forces that should come in very handy over the next decade.
We will most likely exit Afghanistan in the same way America will exit Iraq... declare victory and leave.
What we leave will be less important that how. We'll be flying out our combat-hardened troops, and our own helicopters, in our own strategic transports.
Afghanistan is a prelude, I suspect the wars to come will erase it's significance.
David: My personal feeling is the same as yours on how we leave Afghanistan. I think that we are in for decades of low level protracted wars, or failing that, Islamic Fascism will become the standard ideology of all Muslim nations... and eventually this will trigger a showdown where all Muslims will be targetted as the enemy. Ironically, a war where an entire people are targeted, as was the case in WW2, is easier to fight, but much more bloody.
I do see one glimmer of hope though, and that is that the continued Muslim onslaught via terrorism is beginning to have an effect in Europe and Canada in a hardening of opinion. Most people will not see it as a Islamic Fascist problem, but will simply blame all Muslims ... too bad for Muslims... luck for us. I wish ordinary Muslims could see what they are heading into by remaining passive and silent.
One danger is that the backlash will take too long to take shape because of the Western utopian mindset... in that case the day will come when desperate Western masses will turn to extremism... then we realy will have the 1930's all over again. In either case, the industrial West will absolutely brutilize the Muslim world.
Utopians are so arrogant, that they can't conceive of humans falling back on base human traits... but desperation to survive will trigger exactly that. If you can get a naive peaceful office worker to rush the cockpit of an airplain to bring the plane down on 911 ... you can motivate people to do anything.
Muslims in general and utopian dreamers are simply creating the conditions for the Western industrial backlash... nobody is going to make Canadians and Americans... and most Western Europeans, step backward forever.
Debris Trail, you may agree with my exit strategy for Afghanistan, but it appears we disagree on most other things. You blame Muslims, I blame American policy makers - the people agitating for a fight anywhere they can make one.
Well, we do agree on something else... if you push people far enough, they will resort to extremism. Guess why I think there are a lot of Muslim extremists around? Oh, and guess what else... Canadians are Muslims, and Hindu, and Buddist, and Christian, and secular too. If American gets it's much sought after "Clash of Civilisations," it won't Canadians fighting Muslims somewhere else, it will be civil war.
Ah Yes... the neocon agenda; the American Industrial Complex... not to mention American hegomony and imperialism! Sounds like you've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky.
I obviously don't agree with you on American or Islam...
Islam is a tribal rule book and as such incompatible with Liberal Democracy. I actually don't know of a single Muslim state that functions as a Liberal democracy... do you? And that would have to include Turkey. But then again, it could be America's fault that Islam and democracy can't function together... yep, push people to far... sounds like the typical utopian viewpoint. No takers here mate! I'm sure you'd consider yourself enlightened... I call it naive.
> ...I obviously don't agree with you on American or Islam...
Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that. I'm done.
"not to mention ever growing Muslim enclaves that can, like in Belgium, determine electoral success or failure."
True. Which is why Flemish Nationalist sentiment is growing. Search google or my blog archives for this recent growth.
"Without the Taliban being hunted down and killed where they lurk, development will be a failure."
The problem, so I've heard, is that NATO must win the hearts and minds of the people by remaining accountable when they kill civilians. Apologize. Explain. Talk to tribal leaders. Otherwise you can kill Taliban from here to Kingdom Come, and more will be created by collateral damages.
"This world view theorizes that all conflict can be solved with dialogue, development, and multilateralism."
Multilateralism is generally a more welcome concept... lest we forget and to promote your own allegory above, the Americans refused to fight Hitler until they were directly involved.
"Unless Pakistan first, and then Iran, are dealt with"
What does this mean, exactly?
CBC Newsworld today (http://www.cbc.ca/ourworld/) had Kathy Gannon on in an interview about Afghanistan. She's the only Western journalist to have been in Afghanistan in the 1980's during the Soviet rule, when the Taliban were ousted in 2001, and has written a book called "I is for Infidel".
She spoke about the conflict and said that while it is winnable, NATO and the U.S. are going about the strategy in a singular "stay the course" mindset, instead of changing strategies to win "hearts and minds". Some of her key suggestions:
1. When the U.S. abducts young men from villages to interrogate them, alert the tribal elders. Tell them where Abdul is being held, and explain why. Tell them he is safe, and all they want to do is question him. Imagine if people were abducted in Canada for interrogation and not told where they were being held. Not a good scene on the ground.
2. Find out where most civilian casualties have taken place and make aggressive measures to reconcile. Explain and apologize. Show Afghanis why and how these accidents happen. Silence turns mourners into murderers.
3. Get rid of the corrupt elements in Karzai's government. Several key members are known criminals and drug lords.
4. Show Afghanis a better life than they knew before 2001 when desperation turned them to the ultra-radical Taliban in the first place.
5. Create accountable measures to deal with corrupt police who extort civilians or else turn them into to NATO and say they are "Taliban". How can one defend themselves once they are branded "Taliban"? Just look at the movie "Road to Guantanamo.
A fascinating look at how success might be achieved; if only NATO were willing to do a little research, a little PR, and actually discuss matters with the Afghanis themselves.
The Bush doctrine of "do as we say, not as we do" is not going to work in Afghanistan.
Adrian: Most of what you suggest as a winnable formula is being suggested by NATO itself. As a function of mediaright.ca, I read great quantities of Op-ed each week from around the world, and the points as you give are the standard coming from NATO itself. And, much of what folks suggest, as if it is not taking place, is and has been taking place. Anyone who follows Mediaright.ca will have to come to that conclusion because it's simply a fact.
For example, the treatment of civilian casualties as you suggest is part of the 3 Block War concept which is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the new mode of warfare. Millions of dollars are spent rebuilding damaged property and compensating for deaths; even if the deaths are accidental or a result of deliberate human shield use by Islamists.
It is very frustrating reading "suggestions" only to find out that most are already in place and have been part of military doctrine.
And, suggestions are just that... there is no guarrantee that changes in course will work any better than what is already being done. We also tend to give way to much weight to the opinions of people who may have been in Afghanistan at one time, yet who have no expertice as to the delivery of "suggestions" or their outcomes. In the end it's all theoretical and it will take trial and error to fine tune or discard that which doesn't work. Modern military doctrine involves adaptability and being able to adjust.
Furthermore, it takes time to test a theoretical approach... and most folks nowadays don't have the attention span or a realistic expectation of how much time it takes for any given concept to take hold.
Kathy Gannon denies these suggestions are in place currently, but I can't speak to that because I don't know whether it is true. I would also hesitate to quote her accurately. All I did was watch an interview. Perhaps her book provides more insights.
Like I said Adrian, much of what she suggests is part of, and has been part of, the mission already. Having said that, I'm sure that many approaches will prove ineffective simply because the Taliban will change tactics to adapt. That is the nature of conflict; but most analysts seem to forget this. They treat conflict as if application B will work while application A won't, as if all things are a constant. The oponent will adapt as well, and will change tactics when his application B or A aren't working.
Constantly evolving tactics to fit the conditions is vital; and is part and parcel of modern Western Armed Forces. In afghanistan, I'm sure that the advice given in your post will work perfectly in some regions, some time... but fail in others. It'll take very adaptive and creative and brave folks to see it through.
Sadly, I don't think our democracies have what it takes. Winning elections is more important than winning conflicts.
Commenting by HaloScan
