NATO in Afghanistan till 2015 (merged thread)

[Rex Brynen]

Taliban control more of Kandahar: analysis
GRAEME SMITH
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
July 15, 2008 at 7:53 PM EDT

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — More districts of Kandahar are controlled by the Taliban than by the Afghan government, according to a U.S. assessment that casts doubt on Canada's upbeat view of the war.

A detailed analysis by U.S. security officials shows that foreign troops and their local allies hold sway over the core, highly populated districts of Kandahar, but the zone of government control remains a small part of the vast territory assigned to Canadian responsibility two years ago.

The assessment divides Kandahar's districts into four categories: contested, Taliban controlled, locally controlled, and government controlled. Only four of 16 districts were classified as government controlled. The Taliban were described as controlling six districts.

...

Many other provinces also suffer from a strong Taliban presence according to the analysis, which found insurgents controlling or contesting roughly 130 of 398 districts assessed across the country.

Most of the districts heavily influenced by the insurgency were located in the south and east, but the study also found that the militants had gained a foothold in areas near Kabul, such as Wardak and Logar provinces.

[marct]

Rex, I have suspected for some time that the "assessments" being released are for the home environment. One key indicator, to me at least, was the ban on posting pictures or bloging by active CF personnelle. I am a touch surprised at the current "assessment"; at least with Hillier, we could count on a fairly accurate (if that has any meaning ) series of statements. I'm not so sanguine about the current form appearing...

[Rex Brynen]

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Fewer Norwegians Support Afghan Mission
July 26, 2008

Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Backing for Norway’s military engagement in Afghanistan has dwindled, according to a poll by Norstat released by NRK. 42 per cent of respondents support Norway’s participation in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), down 15 points since January.

[Rex Brynen]

Most Canadians say Afghan mission too costly, poll suggests

MURRAY BREWSTER
THE CANADIAN PRESS
Globe & Mail
September 4, 2008 at 4:30 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A new poll suggests a majority of Canadians believe the country is paying too high a price in blood and treasure for its involvement in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Press-Harris Decima survey also shows an overwhelming number of respondents were uncertain about whether the Kandahar mission has been a success.

...

To date, 96 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat and two aid workers have died in Afghanistan. The Conservative government has set aside $1.9-billion for aid and reconstruction in the war-torn country.

The survey found that 61 per cent of respondents believed the cost of the country's mission in lives and money has been unacceptable, while only one in three – 32 per cent – said it was acceptable.

When asked overall, whether they would say the mission in Afghanistan has been a success, a failure or that it is too soon to tell, a majority of respondents, roughly 48 per cent, took the wait-and-see answer.

At least 30 per cent were prepared to categorically declare the mission a success.

It also appears that Canadians are resigned to carrying out the country's duty in Kandahar until 2011, but would oppose attempts to “lengthen or increase its commitment.”

The survey said 57 per cent of respondents didn't want to stay longer in Afghanistan, even if the request came from United States.

...

[UrsaMaior]

It maybe my ignorance, but I have only recently realised that the population of Afghanistan is almost double of the iraqi (32 million vs 18).

I wonder whether planners are two feet on the ground thinking that so many, knowingly xenophobic people can be "stabilised" with a mere 47000+ troops. Or do they have to cook with what is available?

[Surferbeetle]

From the NYT By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and RACHEL DONADIO Afghan Blast Raises New Doubts in Europe

Earlier in the day, Umberto Bossi, the leader of the Northern League, arguably the most powerful party in Mr. Berlusconi’s coalition, reiterated his calls for an immediate withdrawal of Italian troops. “I hope by Christmas everyone can come home,” Mr. Bossi said, according to the news agency ANSA.

But the Italian defense minister, Ignazio La Russa, said in Parliament that the bomb attack would not stop Italy’s “firm commitment” to the international mission.

The powerful suicide car bomb exploded about noon in central Kabul near the heart of the American and NATO military command. It blew an Italian armored vehicle across two lanes of traffic and, according to Italian officials, left six soldiers dead and four wounded.

[Surferbeetle]

...by TGV

From today's Times Online: Afghan lawsuit adds pressure for Sarkozyto agree troop withdrawal

Relatives of French soldiers killed in an ambush by insurgents in Afghanistan are to file a criminal lawsuit alleging that officers placed their troops’ lives at risk through a series of blunders.

The lawsuit is likely to add to President Sarkozy’s difficulties as he seeks to defend the French military presence in Afghanistan in the face of increasing public scepticism.

Mr Sarkozy has worked hard to improve relations with Nato, whose military arm France boycotted for several decades. But with 36 French soldiers killed in the conflict since 2001, 64 per cent of French voters believe that France should withdraw from Nato’s Afghanistan force. The percentage in favour has fallen by nine points in a year, the survey found.

Martine Aubry, the leader of the opposition French Socialist Party, has called on France to “get out of the quagmire”, although the Left is split over the issue of complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

[Fuchs]

...by TGV

From today's Times Online: Afghan lawsuit adds pressure for Sarkozyto agree troop withdrawal

Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

[Surferbeetle]

Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

His post-president ambitions will certainly be of interest...Tony Blair Deux?

From the Economist: Europe's new president, Jostling for position

The new president’s job involves chairing summits of the 27 national leaders of the EU, and representing them in meetings with other world leaders. The post will be created by the Lisbon treaty, which is now inching towards ratification. At the summit Europe’s leaders offered a written reassurance to the Czech Republic—the only country that has not yet signed the treaty—that nothing in Lisbon can lead to fresh property claims by ethnic Germans whose descendants were expelled from Czechoslovakia after the second world war. The fiercely Eurosceptic Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, has given what senior officials call a “political guarantee” that he will drop his opposition to Lisbon and sign the document, shortly after the Czech constitutional court gives it a green light at a hearing set for November 3rd.

[Fuchs]

Oops, Jedburgh. I was a bit puzzled by the editing until I learned that I had apparently mixed two threads that were opened in my browser at the same time.

I figure the edited-out part looked really kind of inappropriate.

[M-A Lagrange]

Originally Posted by Fuchs. Sarkozy is erratic. I doubt that any rational arguments like pressure here or there have decisive influence on his decisions about French troops in Afghanistan.

Do not think that Our beloved Sarkozy will have any effect on the presence of French troops or not in Afghanistan. Neither will the legal action.
According to the blog Secret Defense http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/

Un avocat, Me Laurent Epailly, consacre lui aussi un post sur son blog : "La procédure suivie ne me paraît pas idoine. Elle ne risque d'ailleurs pas de se solder par un "classement sans suite" ou un "débouté", pour répondre à vos lecteurs, mais par un non-lieu, afin d'être simplement précis.

A Lawyer, Mr Laurent Epailly also has a page on his blog : the actual procedure does not seems to be the ideal one. It may end up not to a dead end but to a non-lieu (non pronunciation of the court).

Also the reaction of the troops is extremely strong and against that legal action.

Sarkozy has very little credit from the troops compare to his predecessors who were all officers with active service during wars (WWII for Mitterand and Algeria for Chirac). He is looking for a recognition as a “supreme commander”.

He will not withdraw.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting paper: Caveats, Values and the Future of NATO Peace Operations, by Stephen Saideman; CIPS Policy Brief No. 6, October 2009: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca...asp#saideman_6

National caveats that restrict the activities of different NATO contingents in Afghanistan are more than just operationally problematic; they represent profound differences among NATO countries on the use of force.

These differences have had significant domestic political repercussions so that it is unlikely that NATO will be able to agree on deploying “out of area” operations in the near to medium future.

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Amidst a political crisis in Holland, over when Dutch forces will leave Afghanistan, it appears certain that no more extensions to their presence will be forthcoming and they will exit August 2010:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8526933.stm

[Fuchs]

I expect that some will *cry* about the Dutch move/stomach just as they did about the Spanish years ago.

It's important to have a full view on the topic, though.
A continuation of the Dutch mission would have hurt democracy and freedom more in the Netherlands than it would have promoted the same in Afghanistan.
The Dutch participation in the AFG civil war was a cabinet war, waged against a solid and significant majority of the own population. The Netherlands have a political crisis that is much more general than just AFG, they lost their political stability years ago due to an assassination of a right wing populist and they simply need a government that governs in the interest and in majority consensus with the own people to settle down and resume their admirably reform-capable politics.

It's good news that their AFG mission will end soon.

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs,

I expect that some will *cry* about the Dutch move/stomach just as they did about the Spanish years ago.

Just in case I assume you mean when the Spanish left Iraq, after the Atocha train station bombings and a change of government? The Spanish are still on the ground in Afghanistan, IIRC in Herat.

[Fuchs]

Yes, there were some stupid comments at the time that asserted that the Spanish had succumbed to terrorist's demands. It did look very different to me; like an electorate disposing of a lying government that didn't govern in the nation's interests.

Euro-bashing is quite popular in some circles, and the Dutch will likely receive an increased dosage in the next months.

[Firn]

It is hardly surprising, that in a war of choice, in which the influence political logic is more pronounced and visible, there are great internal and external differences in thought and action. The conflict in Afghanistan or in the larger theater is not existential for any Western nation, and the dynamics of Dutch democracy rightly influence the Dutch foreign policies through the Dutch politics.

So in short nothing surprising, just democracy at work.


Firn

[Firn]

According to the NYTimes the attack against three vehicles near the mountain pass of Khotal Chowzar, in central Afghanistan, was not requested by troops on the ground.

The Special Forces helicopters were hunting for insurgents who had escaped the NATO offensive in the Marja area, about 150 miles away, according to Gen. Abdul Hameed, an Afghan National Army commander in Dehrawood, which is part of Oruzgan Province. General Hameed, interviewed by telephone, said there had been no request from any ground forces to carry out an attack.

...

“If the reports are true, this is the worst case since McChrystal has announced his new strategy of reducing the use of air power,” Nadir Nadery, commissioner of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, said Monday. “In Kunduz, the target was legitimate militarily but the bombing was disproportionate, 70-plus civilians died, but at least it was a justified military target.”

It does look bad and begs a lot of questions. A very great deal of faith seems to have been put into remote surveillance, if we consider the long distance and long hours travelled by this civilians who were believed to be insurgents.


Firn

[Tukhachevskii]

Civilian deaths in strikes have caused widespread resentment in Afghanistanhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm

This is a general response to the “moral” fallout from the death of civilians in Operation Moshtarak in the open source media and from “heated” diatribes I often hear Muslims deliver on the streets of my home town (there was a time when Hyde Park corner sufficed to satiate these types).

Our overwhelming superiority in firepower is our major strength (war, after all, is about “killing and destruction” as per Gian Gentile) , our congenital inability to apply that without second guessing ourselves or adopting ROEs with will only lead into strategic cul-de-sacs and coffins being flown home is our greatest weakness. A weakness they exploit. So what if 20 civilians die on an operation against the Taliban? Why are WE apologising? How many Muslims currently residing in the “West” condemned the attacks of 7/7, 9/11 etc.? They didn’t. They justified/absolved them (ironically, Arab public opinion seemed less clear cut) and shifted the blame/passed the buck. If the Afghan people (whoever they are and that’s a different matter) don’t like the presence of NATO forces on their soil they should be reminded of why we are there...because of the Taliban. If civilians are dying in operations conducted by NATO to destroy the Taliban who hide like cowards “amongst the people” then that is the fault of the Taliban. Just compare the range of “services” we strain ourselves to supply to the Afghans (at no cost to themselves) with what the Taliban did and make the Afghan’s decide. If the Afghans want us out why don’t we tie that demand in to the destruction of the Taliban. Once they are long gone (difficult metric to satisfy I know) so will we be and leave the Pakistanis, and Iranians to sort out the mess/responsibility (and blame should they fail); after all Pakistan’s role in this imbroglio nor its responsibility should not be forgotten. Instead of trying to “capture” the hearts and minds of the “Afghan” people why aren’t we making them participants, stakeholders or whatever buzzword is currently in fashion, in a process that will finally get us to some kind of satisfactory situation (another flammable metric) where we can get out “with honour”? Why are we adhering to these Liberal neo-colonial (there’s no two ways about it) preconceptions that somehow these “primitive children” can be “forced to be free”, that inside every Gook or Arab or Afghan is a middle-class, atheistic, latte drinking, Franz Fanon reading, sexually confused, moral-relativist trying to get out? Take for instance the following neo-developmentalist/modernisation drivel;

“1-18. The Narrative: Mobilising the Population. The narrative is central to the counterinsurgency effort. The narrative must be a carefully crafted message which aims to strengthen the legitimacy and build the authority of the indigenous government in the eyes of the population. It has to resonate with the local population, use their words and imagery in a way that taps into deep cultural undercurrents. The narrative aims to convince the people that the indigenous government, supported by international forces and organisations, can deliver a better future in terms of security, justice and material wealth.” (British Army Field Manual, Vol.1, Pt. 10, Counter Insurgency, October 2009)


Yet those “deep cultural undercurrents”, their words and imagery (or symbols and the narratives that they “illustrate”) are part of the whole problem in the first place. Don’t get me started with the Pushtunwali code or even the meaning of “deliver” (liberal-economic analogies be damned! ...how well do our own governments “deliver” on their pledges) or of the meaning of “justice” (man-made law anyone?). As J. K. Akins points out,
“To fight today’s international terrorism, we must fight jihad. To fight jihad, we must understand Islam, and to understand Islam, we must first put away our own ethnocentric view of religion and values and try to comprehend a culture in which women bear and raise children just so they can become suicide bombers and kill Jews. We must also recognize that Islamist terrorism is more accurately understood as the product of the history of Islam than as the product of the history of terrorism” (“A Broader Conceptualisation of Islam and Terrorism”, Joint Forces Quarterly, No. 45, 2007, p. 72)


WE are not in business of propping up failed states or building new ones (there’s a pun in there somewhere). I don’t think we got out of the imperial policing business just to return and make the same mistakes. Just think of all the filoos/money that we have spent pouring down the drain in Afghanistan (amongst other places) that could have been spent in our recession hit economies and, more importantly, on homeland defence. WE do not have the answers for THEM (and it’s important we remember that distinction) nor do we need to waste the lives of our young men and women on installing dams or generators when they will be inoperable within a decade after we have gone. Let’s admit that, get the job done (i.e., make a point of killing as many Taliban as possible to send a message to anyone who tries that in the future) and get out of there. And if we really must educate them in the ways of democracy then let’s introduce them to the concept of accountability for ones actions. Why aren’t we being straight with everyone concerned? “Look”, we say, “we are here because AQ launched attacks on us from your territory with the aid/acquiescence of the Taliban and we are not leaving until AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan have been wiped off the face of the map. If your civilians get killed along the way you know who to blame...that’s right, the Taliban. So if you want us out then help us kill every last Taliban fighter and their foreign friends and we will leave you alone to go back to your tribal feuds. Inshallah”. Perhaps that’s the language of a bygone era but it was an era in which our self-confidence, honour and prestige was unmatched for the ferocity of its “delivery”.


Our real front lines are, IMO, our rear areas or home fronts. Once we inoculate ourselves against Islam and everything it touches ( a touchy subject given our inability to treat Islam as anything other than a religion. Cf comments above and below re: church/state) at home while rediscovering pride in ourselves and our civilisation what, then, must we fear from our enemies abroad? They manage to smuggle a suicide bomber onto our planes, trains and automobiles (jocularity aside) then we TLAM a village (perhaps where we went wrong in Afghanistan was occupying territory when we should simply have toppled the regime and let local forces battle it out to stalemate).

Ruthless?

Definitely, but that’s a language THEY understand (psychologically speaking); in the face of overwhelming power Islam retreats (even to the extent of releasing its spell on Muslims); “The situation changed rapidly a month into the Allied campaign against the Taliban. Muslims saw the unequivocal power of American military might, and turned away from bin Laden and the Taliban” (Lazar Berman , “Understanding Arab Culture”, Small Wars Journal, p.6). That Islam and Muslims recoil in the face of power is a historical fact (i.e., the Battle of Tours and the Siege of Vienna) and a psychological-semiotic sore-nerve in their system in which the MASTER/SLAVE (Domination/ subordination) dialectic has been taken to the extreme (but without hope of an aufhebung) i.e., God is the Master and Muslims, those who have submitted, are his slaves (notice the popularity of the prefix ‘Abd for male names, flippant as observations go, but ethnographically telling all the same)...their only consolation from resignation to their earthly misery being the ability to enslave others themselves (ghanima) and thus feel like masters... but never of their own destiny [al-mustaqbal ‘ind-Allah].


Do they threaten our oil lines of communication, or SLOC for that matter, then seek alternatives or get our buddies in the region who profit from us (while funding our enemies I might add) to do the leg work or lose our support (offshore balancing I think they call it). Trying to export a foreign way of life (and all the tacit premises, which we forget, that underpin it) to people for whom it represents a greater threat than the presence of our troops (who are seen to be advancing that “unintended” colonial/anti-Islamic agenda anyway) is hardly money or, more importantly, lives well spent; Afghanistan is not worth the lives of even one Allied grenadier.

Am I being more than usually naive?

Maybe I need a latte?

Rant over.

Apologies to all those who are offended and there will, no doubt, be many and for good reason which passion blinds me from seeing at the present moment in time. I take full responsibility for the above opinions, offensive as they may be to some, and am aware that my opinions may lead to my banishment/disbarment from the SWC. I accept that responsibility (I am used to the “wilderness”). I just needed to get that frustration off my chest and, well who knows, maybe wiser heads (and, thankfully, there are many of those in the SWC), will prevail and counsel me (no pun intended) regarding these doubts/fears/frustrations.

[davidbfpo]

Taken from a lengthy comment by Tukhachevskii:

How many Muslims currently residing in the “West” condemned the attacks of 7/7, 9/11 etc.? They didn’t.

It may suit your argument, but many Muslims not only in the West condemned the attacks of 7/7 and 9/11. Some quite loudly at the time, with very little press attention beyond their cities. What we often ignore - in the UK - is that some Muslims cautioned against our "alliances" with the Jihadist faction and long before we opposed "radicalism" ideologically contested the "extremist" outlook. Yes, in a few places, notably London, there was a strange "alliance" formed to oust extremist clerics and long before law enforcement got involved.

I see no reason to deny responsibility and apologise if we kill a group of civilians by mistake / error in Afghanistan. Quickly too.

The JFQ quote:

To fight today’s international terrorism, we must fight jihad. To fight jihad, we must understand Islam, and to understand Islam, we must first put away our own ethnocentric view of religion and values and try to comprehend a culture in which women bear and raise children just so they can become suicide bombers and kill Jews. We must also recognize that Islamist terrorism is more accurately understood as the product of the history of Islam than as the product of the history of terrorism” (“A Broader Conceptualisation of Islam and Terrorism”, Joint Forces Quarterly, No. 45, 2007, p. 72)

I find odd, being diplomatic and we are not at war with Islam. We are at 'war' with those within the religion of Islam who follow their violent Jihad, from a very different interpretation of the faith than the vast majority. A majority who want little to do with them, yes they may share some of their concerns over political and other issues - not the use of terrorism.

The world is a complex place, always has been and your 'rant' does not aid understanding or comprehension - either in our "armchairs" or for those we send to faraway places.