Will Afghanistan define Canadian politics in 2007?
JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Canada and other countries that need help in Afghanistan have one last chance to persuade other NATO countries. Later this month, NATO's defence ministers will meet in Spain. When NATO leaders met in Riga, requests for more troops fell on deaf ears, except for Poland's.
Evidence is increasingly irrefutable that the NATO mission in southern and eastern Afghanistan confronts an ever-deadlier foe with safe refuge in Pakistan.
Will other NATO countries — Germany, Italy, Spain, France and others — help? Or will the United States and Britain be obliged once again to do more heavy lifting? Or will these countries, their forces already stretched and their politicians frustrated at other NATO countries' passing the buck, conclude they can do nothing more?
Lieutenant-General David Richards, the British officer commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan, complains that unmet pledges of troops and equipment have left him 10-per-cent to 15-per-cent short. He has also not received the 1,200 promised troops to act as a reserve force.
Insurgent attacks increased dramatically last year. A U.S. intelligence report says suicide attacks jumped to 139 in 2006 from 27 in 2005; roadside bomb attacks rose to 1,677 from 783; and direct attacks using small arms, grenades and other weapons increased to 4,542 from 1,558.
Some of this increase reflects more offensive operations by NATO. Most result from heightened mobilization by the Taliban and their allies, many of whom are snugly lodged in Pakistan.
Pakistan, of course, is playing a kind of double game. It signed an agreement with tribal leaders to withdraw many of its forces in exchange for a pledge by these groups to patrol the border and prevent the Taliban and other insurgents from crossing into Afghanistan.
This deal is now widely considered within NATO to have given insurgents an easier time in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, given the support the Taliban enjoy in border areas. Any counterinsurgency campaign that cannot seal borders will struggle to be effective.
Britain, its forces stationed in Helmand province, is stretched. The war in Iraq is unpopular at home. Prime Minister Tony Blair might be looking for ways to bring some of his soldiers home. Sending more to Afghanistan might not be possible, politically or militarily, even though the U.S. will ask.
As for the Americans, much depends on U.S. domestic politics. Robert Gates, the new Defence Secretary, just visited Afghanistan and said: “It's very important that we not let this success in Afghanistan slip away from us.” Mr. Gates added he was “sympathetic” to requests from U.S. and NATO officers for more troops.
But how? President George W. Bush has decided to send 20,000 additional U.S. soldiers to Iraq on a mission of almost certain futility to save the fiasco unleashed by his decision to invade that country. He can hardly redeploy soldiers and equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan under these circumstances. If anything, the Americans might want to deploy the other way, and thus will need more NATO troops to fill gaps in Afghanistan.
U.S. Democrats understand that their country, having botched Iraq, can ill afford a failure in Afghanistan. Always conscious of appearing “soft” on the “war” on terror, leading Democrats are suggesting freezing troop levels in Iraq and upping them in Afghanistan. That recommendation came this week from Senator Hillary Clinton, who is often a bellwether for centrist Democratic thinking and is, of course, her party's early favourite as presidential nominee.
Afghanistan might well be the defining issue of Canadian politics this year, so what happens militarily there will reverberate back home. The NDP and Bloc Québécois are already against further Canadian participation. The Liberals are split and have created an internal party committee under Senator (and former defence minister) Art Eggleton to find a common position.
It won't be easy. Nor will resisting the temptation to play to the out-of-Afghanistan voters in what might be an election year, during which the next Canadian troops heading to Afghanistan will be from notoriously pacifist Quebec.
Focus on military strategy, from NATO, the U.S., Canada or wherever, is important but perhaps misleading. In this kind of struggle, the war turns on the hearts, minds and stomachs of the local population, so corruption, the poppy trade, poverty and other non-military issues are as important as how many soldiers are present.
jsimpson@globeandmail.com
