Sometimes I hate HTML

The last post seems to me a bit disjointed, but that is partially due to the technical problems I had with editing/posting it, derailing my train of thought.

To attempt to clear things up, for myself at least, this will serve as a bit of an addendum. I'd just edit the other one, but that gave me such a headache yesterday that I don't want to touch it again.

I feel that we've passed the point of diminishing returns in Afghanistan, see here. I have recovered (mostly) from the funk I was in when that was written, but the conclusions remain.
Our mission there(in my mind) is no longer really about fixing Afghanistan, as I don't think that's do-able by us or by anyone else. Afghanistan is the sort of marginal, faultline-of-empires kinds of place that will always be screwed up.

The current upswing in enemy activity in Afghanistan may or may not be sustainable, but it is a big mistake to rush to conclusions based on a few bad weeks or months. If they keep it up over the next year as well then it's time to reconsider.

Getting back to point two, the mission began as and has reverted to containment and damage control. Al-Qaeda took a pasting in Iraq and the survivors and wanna-be martyrs are turning to Afghanistan for another kick at the can. It might be necessary to maintain some sort of military/intelligence presence in Afghanistan long-term just to keep things from spilling outside of the current sphere.

How important that last objective is to us in North America is a matter of some debate, with myself falling on the "too bad for them, let them stew" part of the spectrum most of the time. All things being equal, I'd scale back our forces there and use it as a live-fire training scheme for our Special and highly motivated Regular forces on an all-volunteer basis. Piggyback on the American logistics and combat support system (more than we do now) and provide our best troops to respond to specific missions.

NATO is obsolete, but it remains important to stand by our real friends, and that sure doesn't include the Germans. THAT is the real mission for us now, although no politician would ever say that in public.

I sure as hell don't know how many dead or maimed Canadians Afghanistan is worth ("zero" comes to mind), but foreign policy doesn't have a price list. If you want my honest gut feeling on the matter, it's none of the public's fucking business how many of us get killed if they only use that information to grind whatever policy axes they may have. Ours is an all-volunteer Army, and no-one who feels that the risk is too high/not worth it can be forced to go. The Canadian Army is at war, but the country itself is not.

We'll get out eventually, but on the scale of our involment/comittment, it won't be at a point that is "too late". There is limited potential for disaster there, at least on the scale of the National Interest. Under no probable circumstances can we lose even a significant proprtion of our in-theatre forces. Even if the unthinkable happened and there was a repeat of the retreat from Kabul, 1842-style, Canada's geopolitical position would remain unchanged. The harsh truth is that our Armed Forces are already woefully inadequate to physically defend the country, so even losing 1/3 of our front-line soldiers and equipment would change little if anything in the event it was necessary to try.

I'll leave this on that cheery note. I'm not sure this clears up a whole lot as much as it opens more cans of wigglier worms, but I'm not getting paid for it, so what the hell? There are some other things going on, so I should see what else I can come up with. Not today though.