As I’ve stated in the past here, here and here, I’m a supporter of the efforts to rebuild Afghanistan and Canada’s role within that effort. During the election when Harper and Dion both committed to pull Canada out of Kandahar in 2011, I accepted this on the grounds that Canada’s troops need a break from the combat heavy region, and also in that in the absence of enough commitment from the other NATO states to help get the job done, continuing to subject our troops to death and strife with little prospect of gain was becoming untenable. The mission may be noble and justified, but if not enough allies are willing to see it through, then there’s no justification to continue beating our heads against the wall.
As noted in the Star today, Obama’s entry on the scene and his promises to make Afghanistan a priority over Iraq changes the landscape. We’ll have to wait and see how able he is to make the changes he’s promising, but if the US wades into Kandahar in a more substantial fashion it may make Canada’s role there less frustrating.
There are, however, other nagging considerations that continue to cast doubt on the wisdom of Canada pressing on in a combat role past 2011. First is Pakistan, from which the Taliban continue to energize and prepare for their excursions into Afghanistan. This is a matter not easily solved, and the preferred diplomatic route will be long and ultimately doubtful as Pakistan, so far, seems either unwilling or unable to police its outlaw regions and porous border.
The second factor is the strategic approach being utilized. As much as development and reconstruction work have been emphasized, reports are this has been slow going due to the required emphasis on defense and security issues. Also, there’s the lack of progress on the “hearts and minds” battle, as the Taliban seem to have no problem refreshing its resources. Finally, the ultimate desire to have Afghanis establish their own police and army to the extent that they can take over and maintain security on their own continues to be a distant prospect.
Obama has a couple of choices, the first being John McCain’s cherished “surge.” There is no question more troops can overwhelm insurgents and, at the very least, get the security issue under control – at the very least Iraq has shown the effectiveness of this tactic. Getting the security matter under control solves the first of the issues related to strategy. But what’s not clear, in Iraq or elsewhere, is whether a heavier military presence will help or hinder the “hearts and minds” aspect. As I noted recently, soundly defeating a weak opponent isn’t necessarily a recipe to long term peace. It is therefore critical that military action is purely aimed at maintaining order so development and some semblance of normal living can start. There should be no notions of chasing the Taliban into Pakistan or even of ferreting them out of their Afghanistan hiding spots. Keeping them wandering the empty expanses of the countryside is ok for now, as long as the towns and roads are kept safe. What’s needed is for Afghanis to see a path to peace and the establishment of their own society, replete with their own economic, social and cultural activities. They need to see the NATO forces as partners in their success and not a source of conflict and destruction. Then, with security and civil development on a positive path, the chances rise of establishing an effective Afghani security force. More importantly, Afghanis may start to reject the Taliban as the least desirable option and take the wind out of their sails.
So, where does this leave Canada? The choices facing us will hopefully become clear because, let’s face it, it all depends on Obama and the Americans’ next steps. The hope is that more American focus in Kandahar achieves a quick result and 2011 arrives with more focus on development than combat, and Canadians can rally behind our forces doing the work we’d rather they’d been doing all along. The harder option is a lack of progress on the security front and a continuance of the draining combat work. In that case the 2011 withdrawal plan should stand.
Obama, as has been well documented by the media, represents a hope for more than just Americans. Solving the economic crisis and winning two wars simultaneously is no slight challenge, so Canada needs to stand by and be willing to help if and when his hope turns into progress.
As noted in the Star today, Obama’s entry on the scene and his promises to make Afghanistan a priority over Iraq changes the landscape. We’ll have to wait and see how able he is to make the changes he’s promising, but if the US wades into Kandahar in a more substantial fashion it may make Canada’s role there less frustrating.
There are, however, other nagging considerations that continue to cast doubt on the wisdom of Canada pressing on in a combat role past 2011. First is Pakistan, from which the Taliban continue to energize and prepare for their excursions into Afghanistan. This is a matter not easily solved, and the preferred diplomatic route will be long and ultimately doubtful as Pakistan, so far, seems either unwilling or unable to police its outlaw regions and porous border.
The second factor is the strategic approach being utilized. As much as development and reconstruction work have been emphasized, reports are this has been slow going due to the required emphasis on defense and security issues. Also, there’s the lack of progress on the “hearts and minds” battle, as the Taliban seem to have no problem refreshing its resources. Finally, the ultimate desire to have Afghanis establish their own police and army to the extent that they can take over and maintain security on their own continues to be a distant prospect.
Obama has a couple of choices, the first being John McCain’s cherished “surge.” There is no question more troops can overwhelm insurgents and, at the very least, get the security issue under control – at the very least Iraq has shown the effectiveness of this tactic. Getting the security matter under control solves the first of the issues related to strategy. But what’s not clear, in Iraq or elsewhere, is whether a heavier military presence will help or hinder the “hearts and minds” aspect. As I noted recently, soundly defeating a weak opponent isn’t necessarily a recipe to long term peace. It is therefore critical that military action is purely aimed at maintaining order so development and some semblance of normal living can start. There should be no notions of chasing the Taliban into Pakistan or even of ferreting them out of their Afghanistan hiding spots. Keeping them wandering the empty expanses of the countryside is ok for now, as long as the towns and roads are kept safe. What’s needed is for Afghanis to see a path to peace and the establishment of their own society, replete with their own economic, social and cultural activities. They need to see the NATO forces as partners in their success and not a source of conflict and destruction. Then, with security and civil development on a positive path, the chances rise of establishing an effective Afghani security force. More importantly, Afghanis may start to reject the Taliban as the least desirable option and take the wind out of their sails.
So, where does this leave Canada? The choices facing us will hopefully become clear because, let’s face it, it all depends on Obama and the Americans’ next steps. The hope is that more American focus in Kandahar achieves a quick result and 2011 arrives with more focus on development than combat, and Canadians can rally behind our forces doing the work we’d rather they’d been doing all along. The harder option is a lack of progress on the security front and a continuance of the draining combat work. In that case the 2011 withdrawal plan should stand.
Obama, as has been well documented by the media, represents a hope for more than just Americans. Solving the economic crisis and winning two wars simultaneously is no slight challenge, so Canada needs to stand by and be willing to help if and when his hope turns into progress.
0 comments:
Post a Comment