First of all, kudos to Rick Mercer. I love that guy. Not just for this article and his endless support of the CF, but just his ongoing political commentary (in a humorous fashion) is terrific. As somebody else said, a true 100% Canadian.
Second, there were a few things I find interesting in her article.
We won't achieve this goal partly because shelling the Taliban has only proven to make them stronger...
You know, we hear this alot but what is the evidence to back it up? Where is this newer, stronger Taliban? Have I been missing something, but it seems to me that the Taliban keep getting their rear ends handed to them by the ISAF. Yes, there is the "new offensive" in the Spring coming, but it sounds like the ISAF is ready for it. I predict there will be more of the same in A'stan. The Taliban being forced into battles from fixed positions and they'll be annihilated. The Taliban will continue to ambush, and the ISAF will continue to counter ambush and beat them silly. The Taliban will continue to plant IEDs and conduct suicide bombings and the bulk of the casualties they cause will be this way.
We risk a VietNam of our own otherwise...
I find this to be particularly ironic taken in the context of the quote above, and the entire claim that the West cannot win militarily. In Vietnam the US forces
did win militarily. Following the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong were all but eliminated (and I mean eliminated, not reduced, not nothing but eliminated) as a fighting force. The NVA suffered 45,000 deaths and an unknown number of wounded although estimated at perhaps 2-3 times the number of dead (note, prior to the Tet they had roughly 330,000 total troops). Some estimates put their combat strength as being reduced by 80%!!!
What happened in Vietnam is the political and popular will eroded because of media reports. The so-called "credibility gap" widened to a point where the gov't could no longer sustain the conflict.
Sound familiar at all?
I'd say we can have a military victory in A'stan. We can reduce or eliminate the Taliban. They can only sustain so many casualties. It isn't endless hordes of clones coming out of vats and test tubes. Eventually, they Taliban will be put into the same position the VC and NVA were put into. Make a big offensive, or lose via attrition. Either way they lose ... but here's the key ... they lose
militarily.
Can we sustain the political and popular will to see it through or will we indeed have another Vietnam thanks to people like her?
It's quite clear that the Taliban is a fanatical religious regime quite willing to harm its own citizens in order to maintain its grip on power. Who would argue that the Bush administration doesn't also fit that description? And yet no-one's talking about cutting off any recourse for bi-lateral talks with them.
Ahhh... the mandatory Bush bashing. You just can't have an anti-war article without some good old fashioned Bush bashing. What exactly has Bush done to maintain his grip on power? Has he suspended elections in the US? Nope. Executed his political rivals? Nope. Outlawed his political rivals? Nope. Sent death squads around to kill people who don't follow his rules? Nope. Executed women for teaching? Nope. etc. etc. etc.
So what exactly has he done that compares him to the Taliban? I tell you what.. if in Feb 2009 President Bush is still President of the United States of America. If he has usurped the political process there and declared himself president-for-life, AND the Unitied States armed forces haven't risen up to throw his a** out for usurping the political freedom of their nation, let me know, and then we'll start to compare Bush to the Taliban.