Afghan War Is Unwinnable
By GWYNNE DYER
The main purpose of British generals, it sometimes seems, is to say aloud the things that American generals (and British diplomats) think privately but dare not say in public. Things like: "We're not going to win this war."
That was what Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the senior British commander in Afghanistan, said last week at the end of his six-month tour in command of 16 Air Assault Brigade. His force saw a great deal of combat and lost 32 killed, but it didn't lose any battles. Regular troops rarely lose battles against guerrillas. But there were no lasting successes either — which is also typical of wars where foreign troops are fighting local guerrillas.
Carleton-Smith did not say that the foreign forces in Afghanistan will lose the war. He said that they could not deliver a "decisive military victory." The best they might do, over a period of years, would be to reduce the Taliban insurgency "to a manageable level . . . that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army."
This will not be news to any professional soldier who knows the conditions in Afghanistan. The question is whether it comes as a surprise to American and British politicians (including Barack Obama) who still promise "victory" in the Afghan war. Because if victory is not possible, then in the end the Afghan government will have to talk to the Taliban and negotiate a peace settlement.
Keep Reading ...
punditman says ... The West has allied itself on one side in what is essentially an ethnically based civil war. It isn't working and ultimately, it won't work. A regional peace settlement is the only workable solution.
(Mentarch here, barging in again, just to add: exactly.)
The main purpose of British generals, it sometimes seems, is to say aloud the things that American generals (and British diplomats) think privately but dare not say in public. Things like: "We're not going to win this war."
That was what Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the senior British commander in Afghanistan, said last week at the end of his six-month tour in command of 16 Air Assault Brigade. His force saw a great deal of combat and lost 32 killed, but it didn't lose any battles. Regular troops rarely lose battles against guerrillas. But there were no lasting successes either — which is also typical of wars where foreign troops are fighting local guerrillas.
Carleton-Smith did not say that the foreign forces in Afghanistan will lose the war. He said that they could not deliver a "decisive military victory." The best they might do, over a period of years, would be to reduce the Taliban insurgency "to a manageable level . . . that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army."
This will not be news to any professional soldier who knows the conditions in Afghanistan. The question is whether it comes as a surprise to American and British politicians (including Barack Obama) who still promise "victory" in the Afghan war. Because if victory is not possible, then in the end the Afghan government will have to talk to the Taliban and negotiate a peace settlement.
Keep Reading ...
punditman says ... The West has allied itself on one side in what is essentially an ethnically based civil war. It isn't working and ultimately, it won't work. A regional peace settlement is the only workable solution.
(Mentarch here, barging in again, just to add: exactly.)
Fighting TO LOSE
ReplyDeleteCanada has WASTED over 18B dollars.
Until Canada starts fighting corruption, which includes the land ownership and the drug problem in Afghanistan, we are wasting our time. Worse than wasting 18B we don't have, we are created enemies for ourselves. Thanks to corruption and unwillingness to expose corruption the world is NOT a safer place.
You will make me laugh/cry if you think Harper really wants to honestly expose corruption here in Canada.
That is the result of a wrongheaded, ill-planned and ill-conducted war, especially one which was largely about being a 9/11 vengeance operation for political expediency (including as well oil/pipeline interests, as you mentionned).
ReplyDeleteThat is why I've been clamoring for us to get out of there ever since the ISAF mission became one of combat operations above its previous one of reconstruction.
No one is dealing with corruption there, because we are there for purely political excercises - including showing "solidarity" with allies.
We were sent there to help the US and British clean up their own mess left unfinished at our own expense - in money and blood - while they went on adventuring in Iraq.
Before corruption there can be addressed, and reconstruction actually succeed, there must fist be peace.
Over here - all Harper and his Harpies are concerned about is having power and keeping it. Corruption is fine as long as they are the ones reaping from it.
All of the above can be summarized in one, simple word: *incompetence*.