Email This Story
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has termed the American-led NATO mission in Afghanistan “a litmus test for the effectiveness of the alliance in the 21st century.”
Perhaps. It’s just a shame that Gates sees his litmus paper through the discoloured and distorted lenses of the Bush administration.
It doesn’t take a genius in chemistry to understand why most of America’s NATO allies continue to resist sending their troops into combat missions commanded by Washington’s generals: they’re neither winning, nor capable of adapting to reverses of fortune.
Since leading the campaign to oust the Taliban, the Bush administration has had it all its own way in Afghanistan – at least with regard to dominating Western military strategy. The results are now painfully clear.
Overall strategy has been unimaginative and inflexible. The campaign has been undermanned and too reliant on technology. Meantime the US-crafted Karzai regime has surrendered to the enemy within – corrupt appointees and their cronies – and the Taliban leadership remains comfortably ensconced in their safe haven in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province.
Of course, the leaderships of NATO’s other member nations must accept some of the blame. They’ve been timid and deferential in the face of the Bush administration’s chronic inability to formulate a viable war plan.
Little wonder, then, that this week’s NATO ministerial conference in The Netherlands resembled a gathering of hesitant boy scouts being lectured by a bad-tempered troop leader.
Gates huffed: "I am not satisfied that an alliance whose members have over two million soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen cannot find the modest additional resources that have been committed for Afghanistan."
Evidently none of his NATO counterparts had the courage to explain the facts of life and litmus tests, which is that good assets come to those commanders who earn them.
At this point, it’s instructive to know the views of the people who are supposedly the object of the West’s military and aid initiatives – the Afghan civilian population.
A new US-funded poll, claimed to be based on the largest-ever sampling conducted at one time in all 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces, has found that only 42% of Afghans believe the country is moving in the right direction – a decrease from the 2006 figure of 44%, and 64% in 2004.
The public’s verdict on the Bush administration’s client regime in Kabul: 57% believe that corruption has worsened in the past year. Titled Afghanistan in 2007: A Survey of the Afghan People, the poll was commissioned by the Asia Foundation. Its findings are the result of some 6,263 in-person interviews with Afghan men and women 18 years of age and older.
Against this background of increasing despair, NATO’s failure to get to grips with its crisis of command is more than just exasperating. It forebodes defeat – a failure that could well surpass the Soviets’ disgrace in Afghanistan in the 1980’s.
So someone please tell Secretary Gates that it's time to put away the litmus paper, and start facing up to the circumstances endured, day in and day out, by the Afghan people - the circumstances known as reality.
I am wondering, Mr. Gates insist, the American' Allies has to follow Afghan order and he insist on increasing of soldieres. Mr. little Mullah Karzai is inviting Taliban and Mullah Gulbuddin for talk, even he is ready to share with them power. Whom we have believe, Mr. Gates or little Mullah Karzai, who is installed as president of Afghanistan?
So far we know, all decision regard Afghanistan will be made by USA Embassy in Kabul, I think, it will be much better, if Mr. Dick Cheney move to Afghanistan as president, in this case, we will have transparent situation in Afghanistan. He can start then to invite for talk Mullah Bin Laden too and suggest to him sharing of power.
It is really very childish conditions now, 37 countries are in Afghanistan, but NO 0,1% succeed, but they killed innocent people and destroyed the country, they have to ashamed on themselves. It is honest, if Mr. G. W. Bush shows his real face and say, we occupied Afghanistan, because of strategical condition of this country, the old time mechanism of british can not work in Afghanistan today, therefore Mr. Dick Cheney is requested in Afghanistan!
This is a little off this topic but I would be interested on how you look at the difference in timeline offered by the PMO office in Canada and the Chief of Defence Hillier. As an ex soldier and understanding a little about how things are in the real world, who is really the more objective. Gen Hillier has nothing to gain in his statement of a long period of time to assist the country. Prime Minister Harper has to face the fact that if you are going in to a region .. you just cant walk away because you feel pressure at home ...
Maybe the pressure at home would be less on our politicians if we could trust the reports in the North American Free Press .
Tony, Hillier's assessment is a long overdue shot of reality. For further background on the scandalous mismanagement of the Afghan National Army project, please keep an eye here, and on www.irpp.org - their Policy Options magazine, specifically the issue to be published Nov. 5th.
I wonder, Arthur, if you could address the worrisome problem of Iranian assistance to Afghanistan, which has been put forth by Cheney et al as one of the reasons for beating the war drums to invade Iran. Has Iran really provided arms to the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan or is this just a figment of Cheney's imagination?
Nato has "lost in Afghanistan" and its failure to bring stability there could provoke a regional sectarian war "on a grand scale", according to Lord Ashdown.
So Arthur,tell us,is Lord Ashton correct in his assessment?And if he is how will this affect NATO troops and imparticular Canadians in the south.
Another interesting item which surfaced this month.Blackwater provides security for the US embassy in Kabul, but the largest American government contract in the country is believed to be held by Texas-based USPI. According to reports in its home state last week, the company has been accused of overbilling the US government by millions of dollars for non-existent employees and vehicles. USPI acknowledges that it is being investigated, but insists that the allegations are untrue. That is the very last thing that Helmand needs at the moment," said a Western diplomat.
The US's very own mercenary army: siphoning off billions of tax dollars, and absolutely accountable to no one.
Hey Winnie.That's a scary thought.Cheney's imagination.Yikes!
Winnie, there's no question. Iran and Russia, China and India - and most particularly Pakistan. All are busy playing their own hands in Afghanistan's Great Game. More damaging than weaponry, though, are the bribes being dangled before the eyes of Afghan officials, warlords and other criminals by foreign intelligence agencies. Which is not to say that Western powers aren't fouling the landscape, too...
Ted, I'm afraid Paddy Ashdown's assessment will prove to be correct - unless Britain, Canada and their NATO partners free themselves from the Bush administration's bankrupt strategies.
Re US contractors and the Pentagon, please go to www.irpp.org next Monday, Nov. 5th, and search for Policy Options, Cashing In On Karzai & Co.
Arthur studied Afghanistan trouble very well, I am pleased for his view and analysis. I am sure, he and his team will be able to make the situation about Afghanistan more transparent to the responsible people and to the involved countries Nations. The patriot Afghans will support such positive actions with enthusiasm.