The Galloping Beaver
"...Canada ends up right back in the same situation six months after the additional troops arrive..." except with maybe a Conservative majority government, in Harper's dreams? Is this part of why they are pushing for an election now, when Harper looks like he can get action from other countries?
Vietnam and Soviet Afghanistan are the first thing that went through my head when I read "airmobile". Does moving to an airmobile focus free the roads (being major communication networks!) for the insurgents? Does this say something about how NATO commanders really feel about being there?
"As an additional note, Cheryl picked up on a statement made by Conservative MP Betty Hinton. Hinton stated that if Canada pulled out of Kandahar there would be a genocide. Given that Hinton in her entire term as an MP has never had an independent thought, you can count on hearing that again. It's a Conservative talking point."
Genocide is a bit much. However, a brutal civil war is extremely likely. The different tribes still have grudges to settle, and they would resume killing each other en masse should the Coalition pull out too soon.
Then throw tis into the pot:
"'Gen. Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, described in a wide-ranging interview how he is hamstrung by the combat restraints on some NATO troops, insufficient forces and intelligence capabilities, and a host of other political and military obstacles that undercut effective operations.
"Caveats deny me the ability to plan and prosecute," McNeill said. "I can't amass them to where I might have a decisive point. . . . Obviously I can't move as quickly as I want to," McNeill said.
McNeill said such constraints have led to unofficial proposals that U.S. forces take charge of the mission in southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest and where British, Canadian and Dutch troops now serve -- an idea that he said merits consideration."
From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...ec-world&
sub=AR
Later today Gates apparently said he didn't see the need but then again he said that just before heading to Vilnius.
But at least it makes it clear, yet again, that this is not a NATO mission.
Or at least it makes it clear to any but the dull and pigheaded.
In other words not to Harperites.
Jeff,
1)NATO 'supporting' the Karzai gov't/trg Afghan army against the Taleban;
2)Karzai gov't/ANA against the Taleban if NATO goes.
3)NATO goes, Kabul negotiates with Taleban/insurgent actors and a peace settles in.
The thing is, you and I don't really know what'll happen when NATO leaves. Right now though, NATO is dysfunctional semi-independent belligerent in someone else's civil war.
I agree Boris.
The thing is, those tribal grudges aren't so much grudges as power struggles between war-lords. Further, they aren't going away anytime soon. If the only thing preventing them from going at each other is the presence of combat troops then one has to ask how long we're expected to babysit the situation.
The statement about perpetrating a genocide came out of the most useless and dumbest MP in the Conservative Party. She doesn't say anything without a memo. So we have just been introduced to the next Harper talking point.
They use that argument for Iraq; so why not recycle it for Afghanistan. You know Harper gets all his ideas from the Bush war criminals.
Dave,
Not cool. I strongly resent you calling Betty Hinton the most usless MP in the Conservative Party.
from,
Enjoying my time in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.
Further to Dana's point....
Hey Dave, remember this?
US Marines insist on being removed from Iraq
Washington | Thursday, Oct 11 2007 IST
"The US Marine Corps has insisted that its forces be removed from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan instead to take the lead in combat there.
According to senior military and Pentagon officials, the suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defence Secretary Robert M Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders, the New York Times reported.
This would leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while the Marines would play an important role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.
The supporters of the idea argue that such a realignment of the troops could allow the Army and Marines to operate more efficiently in two wars that have put a strain on their forces. Presently, there are about 25,000 marines in Iraq and no major Marine units in Afghanistan."
I do remember that. In fact I've been mulling how things seems to be shaping up. Of course, there are 23,000 US troops not under NATO command that the USMC could replace, but I suspect at least some of them are headed for Kandahar.
Those grudges where held in check by King Zahir Shah... He was successful in building an Afghan identity over and above the Pashtun identity. He did it through strength, and specific reforms which did not offend tribal customs (the huge mistake the Soviets made was spitting in the face of those customs).
President Karzai has a chance to bring that back... Here me out before poo-poo'ing.
President Karzai is a Pashtun of Durrani descent (Durranis are like the lead house in the Pashtun tribes... The flow chart to follow the loyalties and pecking order of the Pashtun is fairly large). Despite the rumblings here in Canada, President Karzai enjoys a large support base ESPECIALLY in the south amongst the Pashtun tribes.
The Durrani are kinda like the British monarchy. Love her or hate her, the Queen has a following that would kill and die at her word. A large following.
A Durrani leader has the same sway.
A strong Durrani leader could unite the country once again, and put an end to the tribal infighting, or at least muzzle it. A Durrani leader that can be influenced more by Canada then anyone else has a chance at making some slow progressive progress (President Karzai is Queen's University Alumni, and is still fond of his time here... He has a butt load of pressure from hard core conservatives however to make stupid moves like the death sentance on the journo recently).
Make no mistake, he listens to the US, however he is influenced by us.
Change never comes over night... All we can hope for there, is to stabilise and strengthn the current government, so that ALL foreign forces are asked to leave (the Taliban and other insurgent groups have a very large population of foreign fighters... Always have, hence the reason why the Afghans in southern Afghanistan do not hate us as much as you think they do... They hate the others far more).
Oh, and yes... Without a strong leadership in place... When we leave, there will be a very violent civil war. Aside from a short period near the end of Taliban rule, Afghanistan is expereince less violence currently then any time since the late '70s.
The very old blood fueds (some are centuries old) would be called up on top of the struggle for power and ethnic dominance.
Jeff T,
First, what happened in the late 70s to cause all that violence?
Second, your approach to Afghanistan sounds like it came out of 19th or early 20th century British officer's mess with all the talk about which Afghan leaders are have been co-opted for US interests. Part of the US problem with Afghanistan is blowback from past periods of fuckery in there.
Third, Canada has no interest in Afghanistan. The territorial and personal security of Canada and Canadians is not contingent on maintaining a battlegroup over there. In fact, it was past politico-military adventurism over there that prompted the reason we are there now, our presence may actually detrimental to the security of Canada and Canadians. Do you really want to be part of someone elses "blood feud"?
Fourth, Karzai is a 2 penny piece of jacketed lead away from a permanent lack of support.
Fifth, Afghanistan is split between urban and rural. The farmers want to feed themselves, and as a friend who spent a long time there said, they mostly just want to be left alone by us and them.
Sixth, Afghanistan is a constructed state of a variety of different of different loyalties, sects and divisions that are not defined by lines on a map. Trying to impose a Western idea of nationalist identity on that particular arrangement AND expect it to stick, especially one that favours our "interests" is a fool's errand.
Seventh,
People have been living together in that part of the world for millenia. Most of the past 2 centuries blood in the region are a result of Western (USSR incl) imperial fuckery. If you think our quite one-sided interference is not furthering that cycle, I have a bridge to sell you.
Can't buy your argument.
Boris, what you see here is straight from Afghanistan. If you were not the usual kind of leftist elistist snob, you would have at least googled Durrani & Pashtu... You didn't, and thus, you are the usual garden variety IDIOT.
It's called facts, and all of it easily verifiable. Assuming you are not a lazy ass.
Further, for the useless ass who could not be bothered to research, who said we are trying to change them? They will not take our values... They will accept small chunks like they did in the 50's and 60's.
Putting words in my mouth pisses me off... Get that feeling from me? Now take this suggestion, shut your yap, open your mind, and click on google. It's amazing... It actually takes you to new ideas.
Oh, and your xenophobic tendancies are showing through beautifully here. It's ok though, most westerners regardless of political bent ARE xenophobic.
Touched a nerve did I, Jeff? Lotsa name calling, little substance in that last post. You call me idiot, lazy ass, and leftist elitist snob and yet also xenophobe? You seem confused.
1) You talk about Durrani as being a local elite we can coopt to get the Afghans to do our bidding. This is imperialism.
2) "Who said we are trying to change them?"
But earlier you said:
"Change never comes over night... All we can hope for there, is to stabilise and strengthn the current government, so that ALL foreign forces are asked to leave"
Again, you seem confused. Allow me to help you. 43 000 foreign soldiers has a significant impact on the local population. Training an army to fight against part of its own population has an impact. Reinforcing a US friendly local government against the will of at least some of the locals has an impact. Telling farmers they can't grow opium but failing to provide them with adequate alternative livelihoods has an impact. Making all these changes and, as you actually put it, "hoping" for the best is using the Afghan population as a goddamn laboratory. The entire premise of the West's presence in Afghanistan is to change them into something less hostile to us. We can do that better by just leaving them the fuck alone. Oh and on not imparting values: a NATO soldier is a walking talking value system. So is a westerner, in western clothes, speaking English in a land where this is not the norm. I can explain why and how if you ask nicely.
3) Further, I don't give a fuck where you're writing this from. The validity of your argument extends only as far the sense that it makes. So far all you've written, aside from name calling when you didn't like my rejection of your entire premise, is some kind of doublespeak bullshit about claiming to not want to change the Afghans, while talking about how we want to change the way their country is organised.
in my last "1)" should read "the Durrani".
Jeff T, take this as notice.
When Boris speaks we all listen. He has personal, face on experience in more places in the world than you can name. Further, he's done his time with a weapon in his arms.
I have stood on Afghan soil, in rig, with weapons and been face to face with the same mother-fuckers you are telling me about.
Can you actually point out the Khyber pass? I've stood on it. In fact, I had to fight my way out of it.
The fact that you offer your opinion is just fine with me. But when you reject others on the basis that someone does not agree with you is representative of your political affiliation.
You have no voice among the learned. Satisfy yourself with worrying about whether your Hyundai Tiberon will hold its own on Ontario's highways.
In short, go fuck yourself. You don't have the stripes to comment here in the fashion you presume.
You know nothing. If you knew more, we would give you an audience.
Sit back and get an education. That, or get your sorry ass down to a recruiting office. You live in far too much comfort to be calling anyone who has done the job anything but, Sir.
"Straight from Afghanistan":
http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/02...-worker-
on.html
Good letter. I'll try to post more on it later today.
Commenting by HaloScan
