- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Scipio: Your arguments, although well articulated, seem in the end to fall into the same old camp of: "The Brits and the Russians screwed it up, and they're really weird and violent people over there in Afghanistan so why bother because we'll fail too".
This argument seems to be based on two falsehoods: that the military actually believes it offers the sole solution to the problems of Afghanistan, and that the Coalition/NATO forces there are not capable of doing any better than the British or the Red Army.
I was lucky enough to spend a tour in Afgh working directly with the US joint force HQ that was conducting Operation Enduring Freedom. (2004/2005). Despite the endless ignorant and utterly biased rubbish that has often appeared in Western media, the US forces and their leaders understood the situation very well, and knew quite clearly that they were only a part of the solution. So little credit has been given to US forces for their efforts in reconstruction, security sector reform, and development of Afghan capability (far, far more than NATO's ISAF has done) that I really find it sickening.
Just as the US forces realize that they are only a part of the solution, so do we. I don't know any Canadian soldier at any rank level, who doesn't understand that military force alone will not achieve any lasting measure of success in Afghanistan.
But, this understanding does not mean that there is no place for the use of military force as a tool in changing the situation. And, until Afghanistan can rebuild an Army (doing very well) and a reliable national police service(not doing so well) then we will be there to provide that security, to give the nation a chance. What is important is that all the other sectors (in which, by the way, Canada is involved and has been involved for a while, although we don't hear much about it) are equally well supported, and that ordinary Afghans begin to see some difference in their lives. I do know that in many parts of the country: the North, the West, the area surrounding Kabul Province (again, that we never seem to hear about) this is happening. To think that it will all happen overnight is ridiculous.
Comparisons with the British and Soviets are equally spurious. The First Afghan Expedition, and pretty much the entire Soviet operation, were hideous examples of incompetence and misunderstanding/disregard for the Afghan population. To suggest that either of those armies were working from the same perspective, or with the same objectives, as the Western forces there now is simply to ignore history and to draw convenient parallels.
The second British operation in Afghanistan, although it never "conquered" the entire country, was IIRC a much more successful affair, and resulted in a long period of British presence and relative stability. It did not produce the results that we are looking for today, but my point is that it is dangerous and false to dismiss foreign military intervention in Afghanistan.
And, if we are going to go out into the world and use force as a tool to try to better the lives of others, why not the people of Afghanistan? What makes people in Darfur or the African Great Lakes more deserving? Isn't that argument really not about who is "more deserving", but really about us going where those nasty Americans are not, so we can revert to that sickening Canadian moral pedestal-hopping that the Liberal dynasty was so fond of?
Cheers
This argument seems to be based on two falsehoods: that the military actually believes it offers the sole solution to the problems of Afghanistan, and that the Coalition/NATO forces there are not capable of doing any better than the British or the Red Army.
I was lucky enough to spend a tour in Afgh working directly with the US joint force HQ that was conducting Operation Enduring Freedom. (2004/2005). Despite the endless ignorant and utterly biased rubbish that has often appeared in Western media, the US forces and their leaders understood the situation very well, and knew quite clearly that they were only a part of the solution. So little credit has been given to US forces for their efforts in reconstruction, security sector reform, and development of Afghan capability (far, far more than NATO's ISAF has done) that I really find it sickening.
Just as the US forces realize that they are only a part of the solution, so do we. I don't know any Canadian soldier at any rank level, who doesn't understand that military force alone will not achieve any lasting measure of success in Afghanistan.
But, this understanding does not mean that there is no place for the use of military force as a tool in changing the situation. And, until Afghanistan can rebuild an Army (doing very well) and a reliable national police service(not doing so well) then we will be there to provide that security, to give the nation a chance. What is important is that all the other sectors (in which, by the way, Canada is involved and has been involved for a while, although we don't hear much about it) are equally well supported, and that ordinary Afghans begin to see some difference in their lives. I do know that in many parts of the country: the North, the West, the area surrounding Kabul Province (again, that we never seem to hear about) this is happening. To think that it will all happen overnight is ridiculous.
Comparisons with the British and Soviets are equally spurious. The First Afghan Expedition, and pretty much the entire Soviet operation, were hideous examples of incompetence and misunderstanding/disregard for the Afghan population. To suggest that either of those armies were working from the same perspective, or with the same objectives, as the Western forces there now is simply to ignore history and to draw convenient parallels.
The second British operation in Afghanistan, although it never "conquered" the entire country, was IIRC a much more successful affair, and resulted in a long period of British presence and relative stability. It did not produce the results that we are looking for today, but my point is that it is dangerous and false to dismiss foreign military intervention in Afghanistan.
And, if we are going to go out into the world and use force as a tool to try to better the lives of others, why not the people of Afghanistan? What makes people in Darfur or the African Great Lakes more deserving? Isn't that argument really not about who is "more deserving", but really about us going where those nasty Americans are not, so we can revert to that sickening Canadian moral pedestal-hopping that the Liberal dynasty was so fond of?
Cheers
Usually some people are against the war but not this many IN my town i am the only person with a support our troups sign in my yard. Its time to start backing up our boys in the Military
