Afghanistan: The Endless Idiocy

To appoint Tony Blair as peace envoy to the Middle East is a sneering insult to both the Arab and Western worlds. He deceived his country leading it into an unnecessary war that cannot be won and has willingly presided over the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. For Mr. Blair the age of reason is long past and his Churchillian fantasies need to be checked. This country called Afghanistan has suffered more than its share of imperialist affections, starting with Britain, the USSR and now US led NATO forces. It is in large part because of the warm and ruthless embrace of imperialist affections this country exists in a constant state of warfare and persists as a tribal post-medieval society that refuses to be tamed or conform to Western values that are probably as alien as men from Mars are to us. Britain at the peak of its imperial power tried to colonize Afghanistan and received a sound thrashing for its efforts. In 1979 the USSR attacked deploying over100, 000 troops and a crushing amount of its state of the art weaponry only to suffer final defeat a decade later leaving over 15,000 dead on the battlefields of Afghanistan. The US led NATO coalition has the audacity to think it can colonize- yes, colonize the country-with a mere thirty thousand odd troops. For Western forces the problem that plagues Iraq also plagues Afghanistan. There simply aren’t troops on the ground to win military victories. Both these wars are being fought on the cheap. When US General Eric Shenseki, a highly respected member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speculated it would require at least a quarter million ground troops to secure Iraq he was promptly fired by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It turned out Shenseki was right and the astounding shortage of troops in Iraq is a fundamental reason that conflict blazes on. In Afghanistan less than willing NATO countries were coerced into this conflict because the US was acutely short of ground troops. An obvious consequence of too few troops on the ground is the indiscriminate use of air power. Desperate generals try to explain away unconscionable numbers of civilian casualties as “collateral damage”- part of the inevitable cost of war. There are, however, obvious correlations between the disproportionate number of civilian casualties, a shortage of ground troops and the indiscriminate use of air power. These wars set out to win the hearts and minds of indigenous populations but these populations become the chief victims of deeply flawed strategies and delusional leadership. Where Western generals deplore the Taliban’s use of civilians as human shields this is no more deplorable than the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets. Another reason air power is used so indiscriminately is that generals know their political masters cannot abide high casualties. In both Afghanistan and Iraq Western casualties compared to previous conflicts are very modest but for civilians in these countries their lives have no meaning, their deaths go uncounted, blithely dismissed- a deathly sort of liberation! Canada’s illustrious Minister of Defense, Gordon O’Connor, suffers an affliction common to many other Western leaders. This is the belief that a billion dollars worth of tanks will help win the war in Afghanistan. They might have been decisive in thwarting a Soviet invasion of Western Europe but they will not win a guerrilla war in the far reaches of Afghanistan. The current issue of Walrus Magazine features an article entitled: Is Canada’s strategy in Afghanistan too complex to succeed? The article outlines how Canada is pursuing three objectives simultaneously: military, diplomatic and development. War is often defined as diplomacy by other means and it is a dubious concept to think that war and diplomacy can be pursued simultaneously. Even more dubious is the idea that war and development can be pursued at the same time. Meaningful development can only occur once peace and a semblance of stability have been established. The three pronged approach is doomed to failure as it is readily apparent the military option dominates the diplomatic and development initiatives. In other words it is a berserk notion that you can wage war and development simultaneously. They cannot occupy the same space. It is utterly pretentious for Canada to speak of a strategy when it is a member of a 37 country coalition that is dominated by the US. In Afghanistan as Iraq the US is predisposed to a heavy-handed military solution. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai is in an untenable position. His Western sponsors undermine his government and leadership by their actions. In the June 25th National Post he accuses the NATO coalition of “indiscriminate and imprecise operations.” In spite of his repeated complaints over several years the “extreme use of force” continues. Karzai must be asking himself: With friends like these who needs enemies? Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently invited (somewhat belatedly) Canadians to arrive at a consensus on our future role in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister’s invitation has to be considered with some cynicism as in the rush to war the country was not consulted and even then it was obvious that escalating the war in Afghanistan was a questionable option. Even then it was apparent the military option was floundering. Harper, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair before him, allowed himself to be coerced into a war that is ill-conceived and futile. Where Blair was accused of being Bush’s poodle Harper becomes his Pomeranian- both lapdogs to America’s neo-imperialist ambitions. If by chance Canadians did send an explicit message to the PM pointing out the idiocy of our present position on Afghanistan and suggesting a return to our more traditional role as diplomats and developers would he have the political courage to change strategies? NATO, for its part, must also do a course correction. Originally conceived as a Cold War defense alliance for Western Europe it has now undeniably become an instrument of US foreign policy and must re-evaluate its raison d’etre. It is but another breed of lapdog- maybe the European mutt that isn’t too street smart. Western leadership is adrift. It is blazingly obvious the military options in both Afghanistan and Iraq are resounding failures. Diplomatic and developmental approaches must come to the forefront. The question is: Are there leaders out there with the political courage, wisdom, and insight to embark on more enlightened, balanced and proactive strategies? We might also consider that the best way to support our troops is to censure the chronic malfeasance of our present political leadership. Robert Billyard © _______________________ This article may be freely distributed as long as it is properly credited and not altered in any way.