Washington File

To the comments directed at NATO's lack of effectiveness when compared to the Second World War:

Guerilla warfare is what is being fought by NATO in Afghanistan. In military theory, one uses this strategy when you do not have sufficient numbers, supplies, or equipment in order to defeat the enemy in the field in large engagements. The purpose is to drain and confuse the enemy by attacking their logistical support structure and their patrols, which have the added theoretical value of lowering morale.

This type of warfare only works when you have support of some kind. In this case, the most likely supplier is the ISI, a Pakistani intelligence agency, judging by the best information available (not the CIA as some have suggested). The continued military and humanitarian efforts of NATO forces have been turning the tide in Afghanistan. The sudden increase of attacks on schools, government buildings, roads and other infrastructure works are a confirmation that this sort of work is what the Taliban and Al-Quada fear most. For only this sort of work can bring prosperity to Afghanistan and wean them off the drug trade, which is a triple blow for bin Laden:

1) It deprives him of people who are motivated by neglect or revenge to join his army in combat or support roles.

2) It gains support for the central government in Kabul and the United Nations.

3) The dwindling of the drug trade will lower revenues for bin Laden’s organization, and make it harder for him to fund and plan operations throughout the world, which is an expensive business.

This type of warfare can only be defeated by gaining the support of the local population, as Napoleon failed to learn in Spain. Fortunately, that is what our forces are doing now: by keeping them safe in their communities and helping the locals to build a country of their own. If we can accomplish that, then we will have proven not only that the United Nations has not died, but that hope and freedom have not died either.

Sorry Jeff but I don't support the war or our troops in Afghanistan. I'm sorry they are there and feel that they are pawns in Harper's plan to forge new relations with the neocons in the US administration. Harper wants to be George Bush's new best friend and he is shameless in his approach. Too bad for our military. They are caught in the to and fro of Canada US relations. My hope is Harper can be removed from office and replaced with a government who will call for the withdrawl from this troubled area. When this part of the world is ready for change it will come from within and not be imposed from outside.

Jeff, the Taliban arose from seminary students of mostly Pashtun background who were children during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. They are not foreign but local (but Pashtuns are divided betweeh Afghanistan and Pakistan because the British didn't partition along ethnic lines) and all are quite young since the Taliban took over from the post-Soviet warlord anarchy when they were in their teens and twenties. Mullah Omar is only in his mid- to late 30's, the rough environment makes them all look a lot older.

With regards to some of the prior comments, I believe that there are significant numbers of Afghan troups side-by-side with the Canadian troups in the most dangerous areas. Also, Canadian troups have the advantage that their families are beyond the reach of the Taliban. The families of the Afghan troups are not. And unless I'm mistaken, the Taliban are not Afghani, but foreign occupiers largely financed by the west to annoy the Soviets next door.

I'm not an expert on building a military from scratch, but I expect it takes more than five years. Higher ranking officers usually have a decade or two of experience behind them, and there's no shortcut for this. The Canadian army was built by serving alongside much older and more experienced armies in the World Wars and other conflicts.

I probably tend more to pacifism than anything, but I've travelled the world a little and benefitted greatly from Canada's reputation. Like it or not, this reputation is largely built on the blood of our veterans. If the soldiers believe in what they are doing and are willing to take the risks, than I am willing to support them. I'm a mildly left-wing artsy intellectual type and probably wouldn't get along too well with most military types, but I'm still damn proud of the work they are doing. If supporting them means slightly higher taxes so that they can have the equipment they need to stay alive, and if all the taxes cost me is a short delay in paying off a student loan or buying a larger TV, I'm all for it.

At least we Canadians can pride ourselves that no matter which party we voted for, our foreign & military policies are at least partly based on something other than political contributions and election support.

Afghanistan is still all about oil and pipelines wanted and guaranteed by the US to supply US and friends. Unfortunately, it did not work as anticipated and Bin Laden has been protected from capture by the US. Now, reports from Pakistan indicate that the CIA are giving support to the Taliban while US and coalition troops are trying to quell their influence. Same old story about the clandestine activities of spies, etc.
However , when Canadian troops are involved, we need to be concerned that they are being used to further the ambitions of other nations. Does any student of history expect victory from this exercise? Not since Alexander the Great has there been a defeat of Afghan people and calculate the chances of "winning"
Further, proceeds from the drug trade in Afghanistan could be siphoned to the Taliban. This has happened before in history.

Dear Diane, 75 years ago? 50 years ago? Way back in the 1700's? They are all a long time ago!

This is the 21st century! Afghanistan culture is hundreds, upon hundreds of years old! Islam is more that 1400 years old!

How much longer do people need?

If we in the West can change for the better and become less "backward," then so can everyone else! Your implied premise is that none are better than the others. OK!

But if none are better than others, then all can be and SHOULD be as good as the others. Therefore, if we, or anyone else have changed for the better by now, then so should have everyone else! Fair is fair!

Unless, Diane, you think that somehow others are LESS than us and are therefore incapable of producing a society that, for ALL its faults, is as free as ours, and has within it the seeds of its own improvement as does ours! But if that's what you think, then you should just come out and say so!

Either all can and should have accomplisehd what we have accomplished in terms of attitudes with regard to slavery, education, equality, democracy, freedom, and so on, or not! What say you?

And by the way, I don't imagine you were wearing a BURKA while writing your comment, were you? And the fact that you submitted a comment implies manifestly that you, a woman, as a girl, recieved an education!

I am astounded that you made excuses for those who deny girls an education, shoot their teachers, mortar their schools, and make their mothers wear a BURKA upon pain of getting shot in the back of the head in a derelict football stadium! Wow!

I want so very, very much more, RIGHT NOW, and will accept NOTHING LESS, for my fellow humans, who are female, than, it seems, you do. Or maybe not. But I will NEVER make excuses for inequlity of any kind anywhere in this, our 21st century!

Yes, Jeff, and I agree with you about the men in Afghanistan. I too was infuriated by the coverage when the "soldiers" in Afghanistan shed their uniforms and walked off the scene when they learned they would be heading to Kandahar to train with the our troops rather than staying in (relatively safe) Kabul. It infuriated me that there was the "sad plight" of 2 able bodied young men (brothers) from Afghanistan who had such a hard time finding housing and jobs in B.C. because of a language barrier. What are they doing here? Why aren't they in their own country fighting for the freedom they seek here???!!! Why is MY son going to Afghanistan while these guys collect government benefits here??? Many Canadians don't understand the critical work being done by our soldiers to keep the Taliban and therefore Al Quada at bay. There is a naive idea that we can just pack up and leave and some how the Taliban and the Al Quada training camps are not really going to flood back into the country. We are fighting for our OWN survival as much as the Afghan people. My frustration is also with the Pakistan government and the refuge they provide for Al Quada and the Taliban. Musharif is such a hypocite! His protests are full of "sound and fury" but ultimately signifying nothing. Fortunately our soldiers and our leaders know the consequences of abandoning the country and that is why they fight as they do. There is progress being made with the recruitment and training of the Afghan military. But I agree that 5 years should be enough for these men to get their act together. And my frustration is with the Canadian people who seem to think we don't really have a stake in the issues over there. I would think 17 arrests in Toronto would have smartened some people up and given them a slap on the head about the reality of the terrorist danger in our own back yard.

Misery loves company... I can only commend those of our Nato allies wise enough to keep out of this fight. We have no business fighting the Taliban on behalf of a gang of warlords and drug barons. This is an internal Afghani quarrel, and the Afghans themselves must sort it out. Troops out now, before they do more damage.

Cheers,
dba

Dear Joan, I TOTALLY support our Canadian mliltary! Our military never ceases to amaze me with regard to what they have been, and what they are able to accomplish with so very, very little resources (ie: government support) and, you are right, with so very little public support!

My point is that by now (5 years, for heaven's sake!), we (NATO) should only be "helping," we should no longer be "doing the heavy lifting."

It infuriates me when anyone, especially a fellow Canadian, lays ALL the blame for the MESS in Afghanistan on Canadian and NATO troops and their officers! SHAME!

Where the bloody-hell are all those "martial" spirited Afghan men?! It is THEIR country that is in danger! Why aren't they doing MOST of the FIGHTING?!

Dear Joan, I say: If the men of Afghanistan will not fight for their own country, then we should NOT allow our very, very finest to risk death and permanent injury for Afghanistan.

I am very, very sorry to all those in the Canadian (and NATO) military who have suffered loss in Afghanistan, but I hope you can see my point: It should not be a Canadian, international affairs policy that we will send our very bravest, most selfless, and most dedicated youth to fight and die for people (MEN!!!!!) who will NOT fight for themselves!

I appologize again, but this situation absolutely infuriates me!

And yes, pity the poor women and girls that we leave in the hands of such men!

But for the life of me, I see only ONE solution: Demand that the men of Afghanistan shoulder the burden with our help, or go somewhere where they will!

Who knows, maybe the men of Darfur would respond more sensibly, selflessly, and bravely to the help and inspiration of our most remarkable Canadian military!! We haven't even given them a chance! We've given the men of Afghanistan 5 YEARS! See what I mean?

Do let us remember - before we have much to say about the backwardness of other countries - that it was just about 75 years ago that women in this country were given the vote, just 50 years since Japanese Canadians had their civil rights trampled, and a mere 140 years since slavery was abolished in the U.S. Now that we have discovered rights and freedoms, and democracy is universal, we suddenly want to impose - as one writer to this forum has mentioned - democracy from the top down. If you google "american abolition", you will discover that the fight for abolition began in the late 1700s and took most of a century to be achieved.

And as for pride in military, let's not forget that the German people, in a fit of collective wrong-thinking, worshipped their military and leaders, too. Until there is a draft, our soldiers are doing a job they applied to do and receive a pay cheque for doing, and we will know that we are maturing as a nation when we recognize the sacrifice (whether worthwhile or not) but deplore that it was necessary, yet feel free to deplore it without being told that we are unpatriotic, and when as many newspaper pages are devoted to the admiration of women who build libraries in Ghana as to young men who shoot the enemy - the enemies identified by our leaders, that is.

The same men and women who wrote to the Globe and Mail that they were embarrassed by our lack of support of our friends and allies, the Americans, in their fight in Iraq, are suddenly silent. I wonder why? Talk is cheap. So is "support".

It's sad that so many Canadians fail to appreciate the significant work done by our troops. In spite of a great leader like Gen Hillier and a supportive Prime Minister who actually cares about our troops, the Candian news media focus only on the insurgents and bombings. (It's just not news worthy to talk about the roads being built, the schools being opened for girls to be educated, the irrigation canals being dug.) If more NATO countries upped their ante in Afghanistan and if Pakistan stopped hiding the Taliban under cover the country could progress out of their dark medieval lifestyle and move forward. Until then Canadians should be supporting their troops any way they can. Seeing the fighter jets over the Grey Cup game made me proud of our military, proud of the work our troops are doing and proud of our country's leaders.

I want to know how long it took Britain to mobilize itself after Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII. A few months only, wasn't it?

And I want to know how long it took Canada to mobilize. Only a few months too, I think.

And how long did it take America to mobilize after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Very, very little time, I'm sure!

So, what the heck is going on in Afghanistan? Why, after 5 whole years, has NATO not been able to muster, train, equip, and support an Afghan army to fight and beat the Taliban? Why is mobilization taking so long in Afghanistan?

Someone or something is definately to blame!

Either: NATO has totally failed to do in 5 years what some of its members were able to do in only months, more than 5 decades ago, with far less technology.

Or: The men of Afghanistan don't want to fight! You will NEVER convince me that Afghan men are incapable of fighting!!

I can think of NO other reasons?

An army of Afgan men - trained, equiped, and given communications (satellite) support, intellegence (there's those satellites again!) support, and most importantly: air support - should have been able to fight and beat the Taliban by now! Seriously!

The problem is not the lack of NATO troops! The problem is the fact that, after 5 years of NATO support, there is STILL no Afghan army that can fight and beat the Taliban! ABSURD!

My husband and I happened to be in Ohio at the beginning of Shock and Awe. We were sitting at the modest hotel bar, enjoying a cocktail before leaving for dinner, and watching CNN's live coverage of the first night of the bombing of Baghdad. I exclaimed, a little too loudly because I forgot that I was on foreign soil, "good grief, they're bombing Baghdad!" Many heads turned my way, then glanced up at the TV for mere seconds, and then went back to conversation. Just one more war - it's what we do (and the only time we don't want to do it is when we aren't victorious or winning).

Virtually every shop (including the chains), church, and most homes displayed "support our troops" signs. There were so many flags that the word infestation came to mind. Anyone who would like to see how sport, military, and religion are a troubling mix, just needs to take a leisurely trip through the backwaters of the U.S. where each member of this trinity can be seen fully supporting the other two. One sign in front of a military base in South Carolina or Georgia read: "the roar you hear is the sound of freedom." Modern Sparta. And when military jets fly over Grey Cup games, one fears that Canada is at the top of the slippery slope that the U.S. is already sliding down.

Thank you Henry for being the best in the field of reporting US politics to the Canadian people. I would like to comment on the lack of concern or interest for the fighting in Afghanistan by the US media. Thank heavens for Joe Biden who is trying to bring more countries into this conflict for a quicker end to the Taliban threat. The american media just doesn't get it - why do they focus so intently on one thing while conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, Ethopia and other countries get only brief coverage. This conflict in Afghanistan comes down to 4 countries trying to do the job that at least 10 countries could be doing more to help. Where is Europe??? How soon is the past forgotten when their liberation is not an issue. But of course thats another story the media does not discuss.

It should be obvious to Americans that Bush never had any attention of implementing the BAKER GROUP recommendations - too humiliating to admit your total failure at just about everything you tried, particularly after you have been so arrogant in espousing how right you were.

Now he's on a roll, found a way to SEEM to be doing something constructive but actually continuing with his destructive policies.

Afghanistan? Where's that? Eh, let the Canadians and other fools take care of it for us, we are too busy tending to what's left of our shock and awe strategy - in our Green Zone first, then Baghdad, then the whole of Iraq (it looks too peaceful from the air). We got plans boys! Always good to have a plan.

Then there's the Congress. They have tied their own hands by refusing to consider witholding approval of any funds Bush wants, lest they be accused of "not supporting the troops". They prove once again how potential political gain overwhelms common sense, even at the expense of the young American lives at risk because of the recklessness of both the old and new Congress and the American President.

It's going to be a LOSE-LOSE situation from here on out... until OBAMA gets into the White House and clears out the rubble and he changes American Foreign Policy to make some moral or even practical sense. That may take another 6 years. So the world is doomed to suffer the fallout from the Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld /Wolfowitz /Condi disasters for many more years.

Americans believe in winners and when Bush and the gang turned losers, they wanted to slap them around. Trouble is, you can't slap this gang around because then they will come up with an even more devious method to achieve their original aims. That method has now been put into action. What did the world do to deserve this nightmare?

Afghanistan is Mr.Bush's legacy.Canadian, British and Dutch troops as well as some U.S. troops are fighting an uphill battle against a resurgent Taliban. It is up to Mr.Bush,now, to come to their assistance with additional troops if this is not to become a disaster.
His original focus on the war on terrorists was in Afghanistan and is surely his responsibility still..

Iraq was a bad idea to begin with and all it invites are more bad ideas. Unfortunately George Bush and his cronies will be pushing up daisies while my generation will still be dealing with the effects of it and everything that has spun out of it. The west needs to ween itself off oil and stay out of direct action in the middle east.
The first thing we need to do in the Afghanistan is abandon democracy. Yeah, you heard me. This ridiculous preoccupation we have with installing democracy is a dead end. (and we don't support it in action in Palestine anyway) If you look at the successful rebuilding in Japan and Korea (and many other places) it began not with an empty symbolic vote but with stability. First comes stability and food on people's tables, then infrastructure and education, then a reasonable civil society, and THEN you have a case for building democracy. Right now it is absurd and a huge waste of resources, time, and human life to be backing up a government that can't exercise any authority. The Afghani PM is nothing but a figurehead for western photo-ops sitting in the middle of a fractured state. He has no authority anywhere and that makes this entire pretense that Afghanistan is a governed democracy preposterous. The country needs a strong man and the west needs to abandon "democracy" as an instrument of uniting a country under a government.

A troop surge won't do anything to address the underlying problem in Afghanistan, a weak ineffectual government with no credibility. Any increase in troops needs to be accompanied with more resources for the central government and for reconstruction efforts that focus on the nuts and bolts of a society like jobs and roads. Democracy can't be instilled from the top but only built from the bottom up.

Put yourself in Osama’s place. Your number 1 enemy toppled and lynched your number 2 enemy, and weakened and isolated themselves in the process. Now your 1 enemy is making saber rattling noises at your number 3 enemy. For every fighter you lost in aphganistan, you’ve gained a thousand fold all over the Middle East. Yep, I’d wager things are looking up to Osama.

Former lord of war Rumsfeld drew down US troops by 80% in Afghanistan when he decided the war on terror was over. He was wrong. I can’t help but think the US cut and ran on said war on terror to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi oil fields.

Equally important is the recognition that Iraq has pushed every other file in the American world view under the table. The hard reality is that President Bush only has time for input on Iraq and that input only from a very limited crew.

I find it distressing that, while the West has a chance at laying the foundations for an Afghani state that is something other than irredeemably 8th Century, these efforts are being sapped by the bleeding hearts and the namby-pambies. (I wonder where we would be today if these same ivory tower inhabitants had prevailed in 1939.)

If we believe that justice, the rule of law and tolerance, as examples, are worth pursuing, and if we wish to bring those concepts to a deprived culture such as Afghanistan, we must be prepared to continue what we've started.

I'm not foolish enough to aver that Afghanistan is the ideal battleground. However, I do believe the NATO missions have the potential for giving a more modernistic society a chance. That means laying new infrastructure where possible and applying military sanctions in those provinces where the Taliban still holds sway.

We have not yet addressed the issues of corruptness and entrenched tribal warlords in Afghanistan and we should. They will represent as much a threat as the Taliban.

In the meantime, our Canadian troops, with their American, British and Dutch compatriots, do us proud.

Well, Joe, don't you think that Iraq was really about oil but the administration justified the invasion by appealling to a) fear of terrorism, the average American being somewhat confused by the geography; and b) altruism and arrogance -- we're so great, shouldn't we help them be more like us? As I understand it, though the issue is barely mentioned, some 16? American air bases are being built in Iraq. Unfortunately, it seems that Canadians are succumbing to the same altruism and arrogance, but about Afghanistan. A writer to the Globe once said that Pakistan is a military with a country, which is sometimes how the U.S. seems, but increasingly Canada seems like a two-man military junta (Harper and Hillier). While some Canadians are still fretting about the relatively few dollars siphoned away by some sleazy Quebec Liberals, some of which found its way to PQ pockets, the fact that the Canadian military is about to single-source billions of dollars in military boys toys, doesn't even seem to be raising eyebrows.

Interesting goo-goo-ga-ga from our friendly leader of our downstair neighbours&friends next week

Additional troops in Afghanistan instead of Iraq is something that should have happened years ago.

Osama Bin Laden (assuming anyone remembers who was even responsible for 9/11 and who still remains at large) was apparently operating training and logistical bases there while under the protection of the Taliban. Yet, the number of US troops committed to that mission has been a tiny fraction of the number deployed in the Iraqi invasion and now occupation.

Despite the "mystery" behind this apparent error in military judgement, now we see calls for increased troop movements toward Iraq but not Afghanistan?

Did I miss some vital part of Bush's resaoning over the past few years? Because call me crazy but the current situation seems to be one where OBL is basically a barely mentioned ghost, Iraq is a quagmire devoid of an acceptable US exit strategy and Afghanistan a continuing struggle for NATO troops who are quickly losing domestic support for their missions.

The facts tell us that the only arguably moral military action Bush could have taken since being elected was in Afghanistan yet even in the light of current situations it remains basically ignored.

Sort of makes one wonder where the White House's real motivations lie because from where I am sitting the logic and justifications seem just a wee bit off kilter.