.Afghanistan’s recent history doesn’t look good for NATO force’s prospects
ALMOST lost in the rising casualty count among our troops in Afghanistan was last week’s quiet transition of overall command in Kandahar.
Since our contingent first redeployed south from the relatively stable International Security and Assistance Force mission in Kabul last February, Canadians have been engaging in combat with Afghan insurgents as part of U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. With the handover ceremony staged July 31, our 2,300 troops are now officially under NATO authority and under the direct command of British Lt.-Gen. David Richards.
Readers may be forgiven if they mistakenly believe that the Canadians in Afghanistan had already been part of either a "UN-sanctioned" force or a "NATO coalition" in Kandahar. Those terms purporting a wider "coalition of the willing" were bandied about by both the Harper government and the military brass in an attempt to prop up sagging support for the war effort.
For the past six months, our troops have, in fact, been paving the way for NATO to officially take over the reins from the U.S. in the volatile southern Afghan sector. Now that this transfer of responsibility is complete, Richards has tactical control over some 18,000 NATO personnel, including the sizable Canadian contingent.
Thrust into the media spotlight as a result of the recent heavy losses, Richards proclaimed himself to be a "lifelong" military historian. In-depth knowledge of the theatre of operations is certainly a welcome asset in a commander, and the British undoubtedly have their share of "lessons learned" from their prior ventures into Afghanistan. But the fact that their repeated historical attempts to subdue this region resulted in a series of unmitigated military disasters for the British Empire should be factored into Richards’ optimistic outlook.
Richards believes he has about a five-month window of opportunity to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans in the Kandahar region and, if successful, another five years of international assistance should see Afghanistan on the road to becoming a successful, happy democracy.
This is all well and good, but it is the rationale used by Richards to justify Western military intervention in Afghanistan that is the most puzzling. In an interview with The Canadian Press, Richards says that we must "stay the course in Afghanistan" because we owe these people a debt of gratitude for toppling the Soviet Union. That’s right, the very same Islamic Taliban mujahedeen that are now killing our soldiers (including Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida) deserve our respect because they helped to end the Soviet’s Evil Empire.
Confused? Let’s back up and follow the bouncing ball.
In 1979, the embattled Communist government in Afghanistan invited the Soviet armed forces to assist them in combating rebellious warlords. The Soviets rolled in about 115,000 troops to shore up the Kabul regime, and the Americans decided to up the ante by pouring arms and Islamic jihadist fighters into the war-torn country. The goal of the Soviets was to stabilize a volatile region and thereby secure their own satellite republics bordering Afghanistan. By using a large number of Islamic Soviet troops from Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Moscow felt it could diminish any cultural and religious divide with the local Afghan population (particularly the Turkmen, Tajik and Uzbek minorities). Crushing the rebellious warlords, eliminating the poppy trade, suppressing radical Islamic ideas, training and equipping an Afghan force, and establishing a strong central education and health system were all stated objectives of the Soviet Union’s mission in Afghanistan.
Sound vaguely familiar? The U.S. fuelled the Afghans’ traditional hatred for foreign occupiers, provided the warlords with high-tech weaponry and encouraged the drug trade to flourish. (Come on, they had to pay for Stinger missiles somehow.) The Soviets’ resulting nine-year campaign in Afghanistan cost them over 15,000 soldiers killed and an additional 50,000 wounded.
Richards also supports the notion that the economic cost of this lengthy war is what eventually bankrupted the entire Soviet Union. Therefore, we owe a debt of gratitude to those resolute Afghan "freedom fighters" who refused to submit themselves to a foreign army’s occupation and would not accept an imposed social and religious revolution on their Islamic tribal societies.
What better way to demonstrate that gratitude than by bringing in our own foreign troops to force Afghans to accept our democratic capitalist values at gunpoint?
The Chronicle Herald
Boy the Canadian media sure is cut throat, People complain about American media, they seem like sheep in comparison. Let just their troops are as vicious
Since our contingent first redeployed south from the relatively stable International Security and Assistance Force mission in Kabul last February, Canadians have been engaging in combat with Afghan insurgents as part of U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom. With the handover ceremony staged July 31, our 2,300 troops are now officially under NATO authority and under the direct command of British Lt.-Gen. David Richards.
Readers may be forgiven if they mistakenly believe that the Canadians in Afghanistan had already been part of either a "UN-sanctioned" force or a "NATO coalition" in Kandahar. Those terms purporting a wider "coalition of the willing" were bandied about by both the Harper government and the military brass in an attempt to prop up sagging support for the war effort.
For the past six months, our troops have, in fact, been paving the way for NATO to officially take over the reins from the U.S. in the volatile southern Afghan sector. Now that this transfer of responsibility is complete, Richards has tactical control over some 18,000 NATO personnel, including the sizable Canadian contingent.
Thrust into the media spotlight as a result of the recent heavy losses, Richards proclaimed himself to be a "lifelong" military historian. In-depth knowledge of the theatre of operations is certainly a welcome asset in a commander, and the British undoubtedly have their share of "lessons learned" from their prior ventures into Afghanistan. But the fact that their repeated historical attempts to subdue this region resulted in a series of unmitigated military disasters for the British Empire should be factored into Richards’ optimistic outlook.
Richards believes he has about a five-month window of opportunity to win over the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans in the Kandahar region and, if successful, another five years of international assistance should see Afghanistan on the road to becoming a successful, happy democracy.
This is all well and good, but it is the rationale used by Richards to justify Western military intervention in Afghanistan that is the most puzzling. In an interview with The Canadian Press, Richards says that we must "stay the course in Afghanistan" because we owe these people a debt of gratitude for toppling the Soviet Union. That’s right, the very same Islamic Taliban mujahedeen that are now killing our soldiers (including Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida) deserve our respect because they helped to end the Soviet’s Evil Empire.
Confused? Let’s back up and follow the bouncing ball.
In 1979, the embattled Communist government in Afghanistan invited the Soviet armed forces to assist them in combating rebellious warlords. The Soviets rolled in about 115,000 troops to shore up the Kabul regime, and the Americans decided to up the ante by pouring arms and Islamic jihadist fighters into the war-torn country. The goal of the Soviets was to stabilize a volatile region and thereby secure their own satellite republics bordering Afghanistan. By using a large number of Islamic Soviet troops from Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Moscow felt it could diminish any cultural and religious divide with the local Afghan population (particularly the Turkmen, Tajik and Uzbek minorities). Crushing the rebellious warlords, eliminating the poppy trade, suppressing radical Islamic ideas, training and equipping an Afghan force, and establishing a strong central education and health system were all stated objectives of the Soviet Union’s mission in Afghanistan.
Sound vaguely familiar? The U.S. fuelled the Afghans’ traditional hatred for foreign occupiers, provided the warlords with high-tech weaponry and encouraged the drug trade to flourish. (Come on, they had to pay for Stinger missiles somehow.) The Soviets’ resulting nine-year campaign in Afghanistan cost them over 15,000 soldiers killed and an additional 50,000 wounded.
Richards also supports the notion that the economic cost of this lengthy war is what eventually bankrupted the entire Soviet Union. Therefore, we owe a debt of gratitude to those resolute Afghan "freedom fighters" who refused to submit themselves to a foreign army’s occupation and would not accept an imposed social and religious revolution on their Islamic tribal societies.
What better way to demonstrate that gratitude than by bringing in our own foreign troops to force Afghans to accept our democratic capitalist values at gunpoint?
The Chronicle Herald
Boy the Canadian media sure is cut throat, People complain about American media, they seem like sheep in comparison. Let just their troops are as vicious
posted by madtom at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home