It's the Tribes, Stupid

Author Steven Pressfield gives the blogesphere a try with his newly launched site It's the Tribes, Stupid.

On the site he produced five videos, on his own dime, focusing on the Afghan (and Iraqi) conflicts and how the western forces must realize who we are fighting: The eastern tribesman. Pressfield makes the case that the US made a major mistake, blundering in and hoping the spread of democracy was going to be popular. Au contraire, these people do not want democracy, because they have a different way of viewing the world. Freedom for them has a different meaning. Democracy is a threat to rheir way of life and is to be fought off.

While researching Alexander the Great's conquest of Afghanistan, for his book The Afghan Campaign, Pressfield realized there were incredible similarities to the modern US action in that country.

I have a review of the book here: The Afghan Campaign by Steven Pressfield. (This is one of my most popular posts.)

For anybody interested in the conflict and open to alternative viewpoints, it's well worth your time to have a look. Personally, I think Pressfield's angle is the best explanation of why, after eight years in Afghanistan and six in Iraq, we are failing.

Is It Possible Defeat a Guerrilla Insurgency?

I have come to conclude that the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are virtually unwinnable. Now that we're almost a decade into the conflcits, one has to wonder if a popular insurgency can ever be defeated. Robert Kaplan has a piece in The Atlantic on how the Sri Lankan government defeated the Tamil Tigers. It wasn't pretty, and the US and NATO troops will never be permitted to try the brutal tactics. Here's two examples:

The insurgents are using human shields? No problem. Just keep killing the innocent bystanders until you get to the fighters themselves. There is no comparison between the few civilians that have been killed by American Predator drones in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, and the many that were killed by the Sri Lankan government. The Americans have carefully targeted select al-Qaeda members and, in the process, killed a few—at the most, dozens—of civilians among whom the fighters were surrounded. By contrast, the Sri Lankan military indiscriminately killed large numbers of civilians—as many as 20,000 in the final months of fighting, according to the United Nations.

Bad media coverage is hurting morale and giving succor to the enemy? Just kill the journalists. That's what the Sri Lankan authorities did. Precisely because insurgencies are unconventional, there are no easy-to-follow infantry advances and retreats, so the media holds the power to shape a narrative for the public. Aware of the need for a compliant media to aid the war effort, the Sri Lankan government struck fear into the ranks of journalists. There were hundreds of disappearances of top opinion leaders.

In the run up to the Afghan War and more particularly, the Iraq War, was anybody asking if the Americans had a solution for a guerilla uprising? They lost Vietnam that way, you would think somebody might have. I guess nobody thought of it.

It should also be noted that it took Sri Lanka 26 years to totally defeat them. I can't see a democratic society accepting a commitment for that long.

Oh Yeah, That War

The BBC reports: At least 21 people have been killed and 75 people wounded in a spate of bomb attacks across Iraq, police say.

Three students on their way to sit exams, three Iraqi soldiers and a four-year-old child were reported to be among the dead.

More than 70 people were killed and 200 wounded by a massive truck bomb in the northern city of Kirkuk on Saturday - the deadliest single bomb this year.

The attacks come days before US troops pull out of Iraq's towns and cities.

With so many attacks in such a short space of time, it appears insurgents are determined to make things look as unstable as possible as the pull-out deadline approaches, the BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged Iraqis on Saturday: "Don't lose heart if a breach of security occurs here or there."

He said the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq's towns and cities by the end of this month would be a "great victory".

You don't hear much about Iraq these days.

I've said it before on this blog, it's not going to be an easy thing for the US to withdraw from Iraq. Fires are going to be burning. There won't be a smooth handing over ceremony and the country won't be at peace. There will be calls to stay. It will take an act of pure will by Obama, and that would mean turning his back on what could be an out of control situation. Whether he has the nerve to go through with this, is the question.

Absurd Afghan Push Under Way

Newly deployed American troops are in Afghanistan looking for a fight. They're going after Taliban and their cash crop:

The assault capped a day of fighting Saturday in the poppy fields, orchards and walled compounds of southern Afghanistan between newly arrived U.S. Marines and well dug-in Taliban fighters. It was a foretaste of what will likely be a bloody summer as Washington tries to turn around a bogged-down, eight-year-old war with a surge of 21,000 troops.

"This was the first time we pushed this far. I guess they don't like us coming into their back door," said Staff Sgt. Luke Medlin, who was sweeping the alley for booby traps as Marine Gunner John Daly covered him from behind when the Taliban struck.

Does anybody think this is going to work? All the Taliban have to do is retreat over the Pakistan border to safe havens. Or fight and die, because they'll be more to replace them. The Americans and NATO can go on like this for the next 20 years and they can't win. There's no winning. Afghanistan isn't going to turn into a western style democracy.

The poppy crop is their only economy. To bring "Drug War" morality to the situation is folly. It's not going to win friends.

The only argument for continuing this war is that it is combating terrorism. But with safe harbors in Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Algeria,(to name a few) it's like swatting at a single mosquito in Winnipeg during bug season. A small accomplishment that doesn't solve the problem.

Retreat. Get out. We have a great thing over here in North America. Let's stick to our territory and defend against it.

Robert Kaplan: The Revenge of Geography

Heavyweight writer Robert Kaplan has a huge essay in Foreign Policy, about how we need to view the world, and its realities for the 21st Century. The focus is on Asia and the Middle East. All the big shot US government officials and policy makers read Foreign Policy.

I increasingly think a certain amount of isolationism is necessary for Europe and North America, away from the Middle East, and this article underlines some catastrophes and conflicts that could happen. Not to mention a power reorganization of Asia and the Middle East. (Guess what? There's not a lot of room for Americans.) We have to start looking at geopolitics in a new way and Kaplan gets the ball rolling. It's definitely one of those articles to plug in the coffee pot, find a comfortable chair, print it out (too long for on screen) and have a good read. There are too many parts to excerpt, but I'll put in this taster from the opening:

So now, chastened, we have all become realists. Or so we believe. But realism is about more than merely opposing a war in Iraq that we know from hindsight turned out badly. Realism means recognizing that international relations are ruled by a sadder, more limited reality than the one governing domestic affairs. It means valuing order above freedom, for the latter becomes important only after the former has been established. It means focusing on what divides humanity rather than on what unites it, as the high priests of globalization would have it. In short, realism is about recognizing and embracing those forces beyond our control that constrain human action—culture, tradition, history, the bleaker tides of passion that lie just beneath the veneer of civilization. This poses what, for realists, is the central question in foreign affairs: Who can do what to whom? And of all the unsavory truths in which realism is rooted, the bluntest, most uncomfortable, and most deterministic of all is geography.

(READ the entire article here.)

A Hard Deadline For Success in Afghanistan?

My excitment jumped seeing this Yahoo headline: Pentagon: Next 18 months key to Afghan victory

What does it mean?

He and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen told senators they're more optimistic now than in recent months about efforts to combat insurgents and extremists along the remote Afghan-Pakistan border.

But, Mullen said, "I think the next 12 to 18 months will really tell the tale."

Gates emphasized that he did not mean the Afghan campaign would achieve success in that time, but rather that officials hoped to "see a shift in the momentum" by then.

"It's very important for us to be able to show the American people that we are moving forward ... to show some shift in momentum," Gates said. "This is a long-term commitment, but I believe the American people will be willing to sustain this endeavor if they believe this is not just a stalemate."

Oh. I see. So by 2011 we can at best expect a momentum shift. (Whatever that means.) At that time the war will be a decade old. If that's not a stalemate, I don't know what is.

Yglesias: The Status Quo Remains the Policy in the Middle East

As the bills for the Middle East wars continue adding up in lives and treasure, and the US in poor economic health, they really have to figure out a new shift of direction. Obama had a great speech in Cairo, but it's the actions that are going to be important. If he keeps up what Bush started for his term as President, the words won't matter.

In a search to find alternative ideas, I stumbled across this Matthew Yglesias piece in the Daily Beast. He doesn't offer great solutions, but at least points out that the status quo isn't working. (Read the full article here.)

What we can do is change the way we relate to the existing governments. Currently, whether we're officially on record as favoring democracy or not, we're still deeply in bed with status quo regimes. Our global network of military bases includes installations in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Iraq and our warships operate constantly in the region's coastal waters. After Cairo, Obama went to Germany where America also has military bases. But unlike the German bases, the Middle Eastern ones are deeply unpopular and seen as a legacy of colonialism. When the president of the United States stands besides a German chancellor, a French president, or a British or Canadian prime minister, it is seen as a meeting of equals; in the Middle East, it's more like a visit from the imperial center to the provinces.

And while we shouldn't be naïve enough to think that Osama bin Laden would just pack up and live a quiet life in the absence of the heavy American military presence in the region, it can't be denied that they're frequently cited as a rallying cry and recruiting tool. What's more, it's their presence that undergirds the broader logic of al Qaeda's view that Muslims must attack the "far enemy"—the United States—in order to express their grievances with local governments. The invasion of Iraq, needless to say, did a great deal to intensify Arab fear that the United States is seeking the imperial subjugation of their lands (and oil). And Obama's disavowal of the invasion helps in this regard, but there continues to be speculation about "residual forces" remaining in Iraq even after Obama's promised withdrawal of "combat forces."

More tellingly, the bulk of our bases in the region were first established in the wake of the first Gulf War in order to "contain" the threat from Saddam Hussein. Today, Saddam is gone. But the bases aren't. On the merits, there's no need for them. The balance of power in the Persian Gulf is of some interest to the United States, but forces kept "over the horizon" could move into place if for some reason they were needed. Meanwhile, as long as the bases exist, they continue to serve as visible reminders of the ties between the U.S. and Arab autocracies—reminders that speak more powerfully than any speech can.

This is a big dilemma for the Americans. They can't understand why, and refuse to believe that the Arabs don't like their presence. America is a great force of good in the world, but they have to face up to the fact that the people in that region don't see it that way.

They need to pull up the stakes and get out of there. There's nothing in the US Constitution that says America has to protect democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's messy, it's ugly: Let them work it out alone. Don't think of it as a loss but a gain for the good of the country.

Shattered Delusions

Lately, I've been thinking about what a year 2008 was. You think of the monumental years out of the last 100: 1914, 1929, 1939, 1945, 1968, 1989, 2001. You have to agree that 2008 is in that lineup and in my lifetime, could be the most important. What did we find out? Wall Street, and US banks turned out to be a scam run by incompetents. Manufacturing giants like GM and GE weren't making money by producing things but through financial schemes. We were in Afghanistan for seven years and the Taliban were popular again. Pakistan is falling to the "terrorists." Communist China leads the capitalist world. Despite pumping in trillions of dollars and making Iraq a "democracy," the people made a hero of the man who threw the shoe at Bush.

In other words, we woke up to our delusions. I've put many core beliefs that I held under review. I'm trying to view the world with fresh eyes.

On this note, I saw this interview on Charlie Rose, with Joshua Cooper Ramo about his new chaos theory and new way of thinking. I don't agree with everything he says, and I don't agree with some of his "new thinking." But I think he has the germ of an idea here. The world has been turned upside down and our old ideas about analyzing it might be out of date. (Press play to view, it is 16 minutes.)

No Surprise: Taliban Using US Weapons

The Times Online reports on the duplicitous situation in Afghanistan.

The Taleban have been using rifles and ammunition that were supplied by the US to the Afghan Army, it was claimed yesterday.

Thirty rifle magazines taken recently from the bodies of insurgents killed in battle contained at least 17 rounds that were identical to ammunition that the US had given the Afghan forces, according to The New York Times.

Some of the thousands of M16 rifles supplied to Afghan soldiers to replace their Kalashnikovs have also ended up with the Taleban. M16s were found to have been used in a battle last year in which nine Americans died, The New York Times said.

It's an open secret that the US trained and supplied Afghan military is unreliable.

I'll go further to say, in my opinion, there is almost no doubt that the Afghan militia double deals with the US and the Taliban. The Americans are desperate to set up an Afghan military to do their job fighting the Taliban and they are getting suckered. They supply them arms and no doubt they turn around and sell them to the Taliban. It's very difficult to wage this war and deal with that kind of blatant duplicity.

Meanwhile in Pakistan the Taliban are hijacking US and NATO supply convoys and stealing arms.

What utter madness.

Thomas Ricks: Obama Only Now Realizing How Screwed He Is On the Iraq War

Thomas Ricks, Pulitzer Prize winning military journalist, who has written two best selling books on the Iraq struggle was on the Huge Hewitt Show yesterday. Transcript. Audio (see May 14)

Hewitt is a Pro-Bush hawk, and a leading defender of both the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. It took some nerve to have him on, and it makes for fascinating listening. Here are some highlights:

HH: What is your assessment of Pakistan right now, Thomas Ricks? Over at your blog at Foreign Policy, which is http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com, you have a caption – Pakistan: Have I Seen This Movie. What are you talking about?

TR: I’m talking about Algeria, commando raids that the French did in Algeria in the 1950s, which are captured in that movie, Battle Of Algiers, were tactically productive, but strategically counterproductive, that is they had some battlefield success, but it undercut the political will to do much there. And the French ended up losing the war. The Pakistan military strikes me as being very much on the same course, which is they don’t want to do counterinsurgency, they don’t know how to do it. Instead, they’re going in and whacking people in neighborhoods, they’re antagonizing the locals, they’re losing support, and increasing support for their enemy Taliban.

(...)

This is timely for me. Last week I wrote a review of the film, read it here: Battle of Algiers

(...)

TR: I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. I’m just telling you the fact of the matter is twice now, the military has confronted him and made him throw out existing positions that he has taken. He campaigned on getting a brigade out a month in Iraq, every month, for the first year he was in office. Almost the first thing he did when he began talking about Iraq was throw that campaign promise overboard. Now I’m not saying I agree with it or disagree with it. I’m just saying that a lot of people voted for him to do what he promised to do. It’s a bad thing, I think, if a guy gets elected on one thing and does another thing. On the other hand, I do think yeah, number one, Obama is a strategic thinker, and is willing to make short terms course corrections to achieve a long term goal. And second, I think he’s only now realizing just how screwed he is on Iraq, that this was the biggest mess in the history of American foreign policy, invading Iraq was the worst decision in the history of American foreign policy, and it’s going to take him years, and it’s going to take the president after him many more years to clean up the mess that George Bush made.

HH: Of course there’s a counter-argument to that, but I’m running low on time....

Great comeback Hugh.

If you have the time, give it a listen. It's very interesting.

Ralph Peters: Wrong Mission

I'm a big fan of Ralph Peters and once again, in this NY Post op-ed, he comes out swinging. He doesn't think Washington, and the Miliatry High Command understand the Afghanistan situation. AFGHAN GRAVEYARD

As this column has pointed out repeatedly, Afghanistan's worthless in and of itself. Securing hundreds of premedieval villages means local progress at the cost of strategic paralysis. To fight a mobile enemy, we need to be hypermobile. The dirt doesn't matter.

That's where special-ops come in. Our efforts should concentrate on supporting our black-program professionals. It's their fight. We need fewer troops, but a clear vision and more guts.

McChrystal needs to question all the "givens." And he needs to dismantle the NATO pleasure-palace that only impedes the war effort. Our commitment must be streamlined, not fattened and diffused. We need to focus on what must be done, casting aside what just seems nice to do.

Getting it right in Afghanistan -- and across the frontier in Pakistan -- means digging fewer wells and forcing our enemies to dig more graves. I'll bet on McChrystal to get it right. If he's allowed to.

Er, Good News: Support for bin Laden down to 34% from 50% in Pakistan

Fred Kaplan has a blunt article on the Afghanistan-Pakistan puzzle in Slate:

In short, we can send Pakistanis money, arms, handbooks, and the like. But we can't make them do what they say they're going to do or even effectively monitor whether they're doing it. Bush sent $10 billion to then-President Pervez Musharraf, who pledged that he would use the aid to go after the terrorists. For the most part, he didn't.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani military has little desire to improve its counterinsurgency skills. Many officers are more loyal to the Taliban than to the central government. And though the army is beginning to crack down on Taliban fighters in the Swat and Buner districts, it is still the case that 80 percent or 90 percent of Pakistani troops are stationed on the border with India, which most officers still see as the country's greatest threat. This perception is no mere idiosyncrasy; it is integral to the Pakistani worldview, dating back to the founding of the nation and the partition from India in 1947. It has been reinforced by three wars between the two nations, in '47, '65, and '71, as well as a war or two that nearly broke out in the past decade, and has been hammered home further by the fact that both counties have nuclear weapons.

Maybe this time the Pakistani military is really getting serious. Certainly the population is less enamored of Islamist terrorists than it used to be. Those who say they support suicide bombing under certain circumstances has plummeted from 40 percent in 2004 to just 5 percent in 2008, according to a Pew survey released this past March. (Then again, 34 percent of Pakistanis still say they have confidence in Osama bin Laden, down from 50 percent.)

I like how Kaplan throws out the bin Laden poll way down in the article. 34% is no tiny minority of extremists. The Taliban are much more popular than the Americans. There's no way to change it, but the Americans keep playing pretend and sending money. It's impossible that this will end well. Impossible.

Opaque Canadian Forces Mission in Afghanistan

I take tracking the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan seriously. However, it's very hard to know what the goals and the results are when one reads the reports, like this one in the National Post: Forces dismantle police substation in Afghanistan ‘drawback’

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Canada's military says it has not abandoned villagers in the Taliban-controlled western Panjwaii district, insisting that the "drawback" of troops last week and the dismantling of a Canadian-built police substation are tactical victories.

Tearing down the Mushan substation signals the start of a new strategy that will see Canadian Forces troops move closer to Kandahar city, where the majority of Kandaharis live and where a greater security presence is considered an urgent priority.

But Mushan village and surrounding communities are now left without a fixed Canadian presence for the first time in two years, after hard-won battles and casualties in the area.

The police substation, lately referred to as a strong point, was taken apart and troops were redeployed in a large-scale operation called Munkiredal, the Pashto word for deny.

(...)

The entire Panjwaii district area remains an area of Canadian responsibility. The number of Taliban operating there is difficult to determine. Their movements are seasonal, and they concentrate in certain areas. Canadian officers can't say if there are fewer insurgents now compared to three years ago.

How do they expect to garner support on the homefront for the mission, when it is not clear what exactly they are doing and and if there is any success while doing it? The government needs to do more than claim: "We're doing important work."

US Calling Pakistan's Eight Year Bluff? Supporting a Coup?

Supposedly, the Americans are imposing a deadline on the Pakistan Army to do something about the Taliban take-over of their country. The Daily Telegraph Reports:

Gen Petraeus reportedly said that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the next course of action for the US.

"The Pakistanis have run out of excuses" and are "finally getting serious" about combating the threat from Taliban and al-Qaeda extremists operating out of north-west Pakistan, the general added.

He made these assessments in talks with US congressmen and members of the Senate, according to the Fox News channel.

Officials said that Gen Petraeus and senior officials in the Obama administration believe that the Pakistani army, led by Gen Ashfaq Kayani, is "superior" to the civilian government.

Petraeus is a very credible voice in the US Army, and we'll what that means. By the sound of it, they appear to be supporting a Coup d’état from the Pakistani military. This makes for interesting intrigue.

I'm surprised they are using such candid words about the military being superior to the civilian government. Bringing supposed democracy to Afghanistan but supporting a military coup in the neighboring country looks hypocritical. (Or maybe this is the American version of a bluff.)

This has always been a problem the US will face in the region. They promote democracy, but what happens if the popular vote elect a fundamentalist, and terrorist supporting party, like they did with Hamas in Gaza? Or in the case of Pakistan a weak, ineffectual government that is not stopping a Taliban take-over of their country? It's a difficult question. Too difficult to make a hands on decision. Therefore, the answer is a hands off solution: Leave the region entirely. Send the tankers, protected by the navy to pick up the oil, and leave it at that.

Is withdrawing from the region so crazy and unthinkable? Compared to dealing with this irrational region, with its shape shifting allegiances? The US is draining its Treasury, and wasting time and effort trying to stabilize it. Unfortunately, it's ending up destabilizing themselves. Get. Out. Of. There.

British Leave Iraq: Not With a Bang

I confess I had almost forgotten that the UK were still in Iraq. At the height of their commitment, they had 46,000 troops over there. It's perhaps too early yet to reflect on their role over there but I get a sense of emptiness. Britain ends combat operations in Iraq

"They will always be remembered for the service they have given. Our country owes them a huge debt of gratitude," [Prime Minster Gordon] Brown said.

Brown, who supported predecessor Tony Blair's decision to join the invasion, defended Britain's military mission, saying it had helped to bring new opportunities for Iraq's people.

"Today Iraq is a success story. We owe much of that to the efforts of British troops. Our mission has not always been an easy one; many have said that we would fail," he told reporters.

Not exactly stirring words, considering how controversial this issue was over there. It was a deeply unpopular war and remains so.

If/when the US withdraw, let's hope the occasion is this dull. Not another helicopters on the embassy roof situation.

Taliban Spreading: Pakistani Army Play Pinochle in Barracks

The ridiculous theatre continues as the US pay $2 billion in military a year to Pakistan to fight the Taliban, and they in turn, pretend to. Even Time magazine is writing sarcastic headlines: Pakistan Pushes Back Against the Taliban. But How Far?

Pressed by Washington and by public opinion in Pakistan, the government made clear in negotiations with the Taliban that it could not tolerate them extending their authority beyond Swat - and the militants staged their photo-opportunity withdrawal. But, as TIME reported earlier this week, scores of fighters remained visible in the valley. "After the government's repeated warnings, only a symbolic withdrawal was made," said Gen. Abbas. The militants simply scaled down their visible presence and removed their checkpoints, but continued to recruit locals to be sent for training in Swat.

This is one of the great scams of all time.

This Was Easy To Predict

The Endless War continues on. Reports the New York Times: Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are Proposed

BAGHDAD — The United States and Iraq will begin negotiating possible exceptions to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraqi cities, focusing on the troubled northern city of Mosul, according to military officials. Some parts of Baghdad also will still have combat troops.

Everywhere else, the withdrawal of United States combat troops from all Iraqi cities and towns is on schedule to finish by the June 30 deadline, and in many cases even earlier. But because of the level of insurgent activity in Mosul, United States and Iraqi military officials will meet Monday to decide whether to consider the city an exception to the deadline in the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, between the countries.

It will be a miracle if Obama manages to withdraw the US from Iraq. There will be a million excuses such as this to keep them there. It will take guts for Obama to live up to his promise, something we haven't seen from him yet.

Nation Building Ideal Almost Lost

Pulling out of Afghanistan is gaining support on the right. Here's Diana West in at the ultra-neo-conservative Townhall: Let Afghanistan Go

I decided to ask someone with real military experience how we could fend off jihad without further digging ourselves into Central Asia. I called up retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of the few top military leaders who talks on the record, to ask for his strategy recommendation for Afghanistan.

"Basically, let it go," he said.

Let Afghanistan go -- music to my ears, particularly given the source is no Hate-America-First professor or Moveon-dot-org-nik, but a lifelong patriotic conservative warrior. "There's nothing to win there," he explained, engaging in an all-too-exotic display of common sense. "What do you get for it? What's the return? Well, the return's all negative for the United States."

Obama is making a huge mistake by continuing this war. I thought he was supposed to bring "change"?

We Don't Like It: But the Taliban are Popular in Pakistan

With the Taliban creeping up on Islamabad, the world is becoming concerned that Pakistan will be taken over by Islamic extremists. I wrote a few days ago that nobody in the main stream media reports as to whether the Taliban are popular or not. It seems that with everything I read, the angle of the story is like a zombie movie scenario where the Taliban are multiplying by contagion to the unwitting, and unwilling populace.

Google makes things easy and I came upon this article from the Guardian. The Taliban and Islamic Law are popular in the "tribal" areas.

Though there is strong support for better female access to health and education, there was profound reluctance among the largely male survey respondents to empower women more generally, with 67% supporting "honour killings". Over 50% of those polled believed Islamic law brought peace to the region and only 3.6%considered the Taliban to be terrorists.

This is appalling, but not surprising. The western, liberal lifestyle is rejected over there. Let's stop acting disingenuous.

Fresh New Nation Building in Afghanistan

Canadian Forces have a new strategy. It's described with corporate buzz words and bureaucratese. Forces plan to defeat Taliban town by town

The innovative approach is to start in the town of Deh-EBagh in Dand District, where the Taliban recently launched a major attack. Afghan-led, the strategy is to involve targeted Canadian aid, technical assistance, and mentoring within a security bubble established by Afghan and Canadian forces.

Mentoring. That's one buzz word I can't stand. Corporations no longer do a review or assessment to see whether you deserve a bonus for the year, but they now "mentor" you. It's meant to put a positive spin on the situation but ends up coming across as condescending.

But seriously, we're in a war here. I don't think General Patton ever talked about "mentoring" the Germans.

"We want this to be absolutely tangible to the 800 or 1,000 people in that community," said Brigadier-General Jon Vance, who commands Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

"We develop the district in governance and R & D [reconstruction and development], and re-establish the social, political and economic fabric of a town in a district, and then another town, and another and another."

Listen to the general. He sounds like the Premier of PEI talking about repairing bridges.

The project, which will, over time, be expanded to include many more communities across Kandahar province, is designed to show Afghans what they can do in a secure environment, and to push out the insurgents who threaten the communities and use them as a base of operations.

This is sounding very long term. Have they forgotten that we are ending our commitment over there in 2011?

Does nation building work as a strategy? The situation has gotten worse, despite all the money and effort. It depresses me that we just keep trying harder. The article mentions that the Canadian initiative bears resemblance to the "Hearts and Minds" campaign by the Americans in Vietnam. And that one worked out well for them.