Losing Afghanistan

As a supporter of the NATO and ISAF mission in Afghanistan, and as a parent of a Canadian Armed Forces soldier, it pains me to give my Afghanistan prediction. The Afghan mission will fail.

First, let me say that I believe that the Afghan conflict is winnable. I believe that if NATO were made of the right stuff, 10 years from now would have Afghans living in relative peace and security. Contrary to what the majority of media pundits and those who stake their political ground on the “talk-don’t-shoot” side of the aisle have to say, beating the Taliban militarily is not only possible, but not that difficult. The problem lies, as it has from the start in Iraq, and as it did in Vietnam, in mustering the political and domestic will to do what it takes to win. To this end, there are several realities at play that will make winning in Afghanistan problematic; if not impossible.

NATO: Our NATO allies must remove the caveats that prevent their troops from “fighting”. Unfortunately, the Canadian example scares the pants off of most European states which must contend with a pacifist mindset and rampant anti-Americanism within their voting publics… not to mention ever growing Muslim enclaves that can, like in Belgium, determine electoral success or failure. Canada’s military casualties in Afghanistan stand as a clear reminder to our NATO allies that getting serious in Afghanistan means taking casualties, and for Europeans, that would spell a million Jack Laytons marching in the streets of Berlin, Paris, and Copenhagen ranting against the Bush/Blair/Hitler war. It is possible that only the UK government can politically survive the Afghan shooting war.

The reality though, is that killing Taliban and risking troops is the only way to win. Without increased security, schools will be burned down faster than they can be built, construction crews murdered while applying asphalt, and female leaders butchered as a warning to others. It takes months to build a school, yet it takes only a can of petrol and one Jihadist to burn it down. It takes enormous trust and faith to fill a school with girls and only one grenade to murder and maim them. It takes education and trust to inspire “progressive” Afghans, yet they can be exterminated faster than they can rebuild their country. It takes incredible amounts of money to rebuild a shattered country, yet drug lords can generate that and more in one growing season. Living, breathing, radical Taliban, can not exist in harmony with any peaceful Afghan state.

The problem is that Non-English Europe, as in 1939, doesn’t have the stomach for armed conflict, and would rather capitulate (as it did in 1939), than stand up for democratic principles, stand up to Islamic Fascism, and stand with the Afghan people. Without the Taliban being hunted down and killed where they lurk, development will be a failure. Development is the greatest enemy of Jihadists; and they know it.

Punditry: Critique of the Afghan mission must become concrete and based in reality; not on utopian fantasy, or for pure political gain. I read scores of opinion pieces a week from which I select a few to go into the MediaRight.ca opinion section. What I have found is that for the most part, opposition to the war effort amounts to an incessant drumbeat of doom and gloom all with two purposes in mind; to defeat conservatives in elections, or to promote a utopian view of the world. This world view theorizes that all conflict can be solved with dialogue, development, and multilateralism. Seldom is contrary opinion on the Afghan conflict based in a truly balanced critique and analysis drawn from all partisan viewpoints. Literally, most critique is structured solely to tear down those administering the conflict.

The end result is that ordinary citizens must ignore the constant negative spin inflicted on them via the MSM, and come to conclusions that seem contrary to a misleading consensus view. The chances of this happening are slim; and no matter how intellectually robust and how well informed citizens are, the constant nay saying is bound to sap public support.

Every Canadian casualty on the battle field causes a convulsion of moaning, hand wringing, navel gazing, and second guessing on the part of the majority of pundits and MSM scribes. And worse, it causes that much more pacifist drum beating from the utopian left and that much more shrill criticism from the opposition in parliament. Canadian deaths, handed us via the Taliban, are used by opposition parliamentarians as leverage to knock the ruling conservatives out of office; not as a call to share in the ISAF mission. In other words, the goal of opposition parties to win elections supersedes that of beating the Taliban.

Safe Havens: Virtually every single successful insurgency or guerilla war has had a donor and safe haven. Afghanistan has Iran on one side and Pakistan on the other. Both act as did Cambodia and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Pakistan and Iran play the disingenuous neutral or even allied game, soothing with the right words and just enough action to keep their territories from being targeted. Yet, from each comes a steady, even growing, supply of suicide murderers and foot soldiers. Unless Pakistan first, and then Iran, are dealt with, the Taliban can maintain the current tempo of conflict for decades and Canadians can count on 20 to a 100 dead soldiers every year with nothing but a little development to show for it.

The Taliban: Victory for the Taliban is straightforward. Casualties must be inflicted on NATO forces not in order to win on the field of battle, but to sap support for the mission in the West. This task is, in fact, fairly simple. A suicide murder here; a bicycle bomb there, an IED tossed in for good measure, and specifically targeted countries can be influenced. Knock off enough Canucks and the likes of Craig Oliver of the CTV will almost wet themselves with anxiety on national television. Gone are the WW2 days when a defeat at the hands of fascists meant that much harsher a response.

Then, there is the Taliban war on progress; destroy infrastructure, terrorize relief and aid efforts, break whatever is fixed by NATO, and you will win. Not only will Afghans begin to despair, but NATO home front pacifists will crow all the louder and demand withdrawal. If NATO wants to talk, the Taliban will talk… then they’ll do as Muslims do all over the world… say one thing, do another… make promises, break them… talk peace, then commit murder. It’s Muslim skullduggery at its best, and it’s a method as old as Mohammad and the way business is done in almost every single Muslim country on earth.

Conclusion: In the end, if NATO is not ready and willing to confront, root out, and kill Taliban, we might as well pack up and go home now. Sure, wonderful warm and fuzzy development projects with cute little girls sitting in school make “progressives” coo; but development will continue to be an illusive dream if those who wage Jihad are not ruthlessly and mercilessly engaged in war. That, is the pure, simple, realistic, and unavoidable fact of combating evil.

Consider the supreme irony. The goal of the Taliban is to remove Canadian Armed Forces from Afghanistan… this is also the goal of Canada’s “progressive” party, the NDP. The goal of the Taliban is to remove the most “hawkish” Western administrations from power… this is also the goal of the Liberal oppositions in both the United States and Canada. In other words, the Taliban need only play to the home front in Europe and Canada, and they will win.

I fully trust that my son and his fellow soldiers are up to the task, but I don’t trust the “progressive” opposition and the Liberal press to set aside it’s partisan rhetoric in order to deny the Jihadists a target here at home and to give our forces a chance. If given the full weight of Canadian support and NATO cooperation, the Taliban will be literally bled into submission as has been every other enemy we have ever defeated, and Afghanistan will become peaceful enough for the real work of development to begin. I don’t trust though, for a moment, the decadent Western Liberal elite; to keep it’s critique constructive; and to play the part of a team player. That would be asking too much.

Related Reading: Link Link