The linked article from Military.com addresses these challenges briefly so have a look at that. With that done, we'll talk about the roots of my cynicism, or as I term it, ''realism''. They are simple; I read (present and past tense) a LOT, and generally prefer history, natural science, that sort of thing.
Jerry Pournelle, whose mail section is the precipitating factor for this piece, has frequently pointed out that our side needs to recruit ''auxiliaries'' to actually police the place, freeing our small armies to do the jobs of ''breaking things and killing people''. The Romans knew this (and many other things many of us seem to have forgotten) and recent developments in Afghanistan and Iraq have brought it back to those who are involved in trying to sort both of those messes out.
Specifically about Afghanistan, Karzai and a variety of western media sources are starting to harp on the civilian casualties that are coming as a result of us trying to do our job over there. This brings to mind the Israel-Hizbollah fight last summer, but the idea of attacking ''western'' forces in the middle of civilian areas, or hiding there to provoke an attack with ensuing collateral casualties is a common terrorist tactic which is not exactly new.
Having auxiliaries like the Anbar Salvation Front can cause different sorts of headaches for our side, but summary executions are ''just how they roll''. Payback's a bitch, and if we don't want to get our hands dirty, having the locals sort things out at least allows us a bit of plausible deniability with people who care about the treatment of terrorists. As you could guess, I'm not one of them.
I personally am of the opinion, backed loosely by the Laws of Armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, etc. that we should only be taking these yahoos prisoner if it seems likely we'll get some worthwhile int from them. Otherwise, they have by their actions placed themselves outside the protections our rules provide. Therefore, getting locals to clean their own house is win-win and is to be encouraged.
In this vein, it has to be realized, and PUSHED to the media and the public, that these counter-insurgencies are nasty business, and heads are going to be cracked in a most decidedly non-Charter of Rights and Freedoms kind of way. Particularly when we train, equip, and turn them loose to straighten out their own mess. We didn't make it, and I think it's very nice of us to try to drag them into the modern world. Pity many of them have no desire to go there...
And now, the fearless prediction part of the piece. I like the sound of that so much that I'll see if I can make it a regular feature. As always, you are guaranteed your money back on any promises I make or imply here. ;)
Anyway, my notional money is placed on Canada not renewing our Battlegroup level commitment to Afghanistan past its' current expiration in early 2009. There is nothing happening politically which favours such a move, and the mounting casualties are fueling the calls to at least not extend things over there. From my perspective, I honestly think that we are past the point of diminishing returns considering the half-assed support that NATO is giving to the mission. Long-term success requires short to medium-term commitment of at least three times the troops we have there right now, particularly in the south.
Someone asked me recently what I saw as a possible positive, non-military solution to Afghanistan. The only thing I could come up with was some sort of political arrangement with the Taliban factions, but unless they loosen up significantly (not likely) this will put things right back where we started. As well, the time to do that was last year when NATO (the useful members at least) had handed the bad guys a solid pounding. Now it would just look like (and be) backing down. And don't even get me started on Pakistan...
I personally am of the opinion, backed loosely by the Laws of Armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, etc. that we should only be taking these yahoos prisoner if it seems likely we'll get some worthwhile int from them. Otherwise, they have by their actions placed themselves outside the protections our rules provide. Therefore, getting locals to clean their own house is win-win and is to be encouraged.
In this vein, it has to be realized, and PUSHED to the media and the public, that these counter-insurgencies are nasty business, and heads are going to be cracked in a most decidedly non-Charter of Rights and Freedoms kind of way. Particularly when we train, equip, and turn them loose to straighten out their own mess. We didn't make it, and I think it's very nice of us to try to drag them into the modern world. Pity many of them have no desire to go there...
And now, the fearless prediction part of the piece. I like the sound of that so much that I'll see if I can make it a regular feature. As always, you are guaranteed your money back on any promises I make or imply here. ;)
Anyway, my notional money is placed on Canada not renewing our Battlegroup level commitment to Afghanistan past its' current expiration in early 2009. There is nothing happening politically which favours such a move, and the mounting casualties are fueling the calls to at least not extend things over there. From my perspective, I honestly think that we are past the point of diminishing returns considering the half-assed support that NATO is giving to the mission. Long-term success requires short to medium-term commitment of at least three times the troops we have there right now, particularly in the south.
Someone asked me recently what I saw as a possible positive, non-military solution to Afghanistan. The only thing I could come up with was some sort of political arrangement with the Taliban factions, but unless they loosen up significantly (not likely) this will put things right back where we started. As well, the time to do that was last year when NATO (the useful members at least) had handed the bad guys a solid pounding. Now it would just look like (and be) backing down. And don't even get me started on Pakistan...
No comments:
Post a Comment