Some generals may have said that, but it�s wrong. It�s what is said by generals who love to train and parade and buy expensive weapons systems and then retire to cushy jobs at Lockheed. The fact is we have to win both militarily and politically.
We have to learn to fight and win a war against terrorist and insurgent groups. If we have a military that can�t win this kind of war, then Iraq will be only the first of many defeats–Afghanistan, Jordan and Pakistan will soon follow. What would prevent that?
If we have a military that can�t fight and win a war such as this, then we have a military that is close to useless, because this is what war is going to look like in the 21st century. We�re not going to have a chance to fight Rommel in the desert again. We�re not going to send tanks into Poland.
These wars are unwinnable simply because the insurgencies are supported by the people. All guerrilla warfare depends on the continued support of at least a large number of the population. That is why in the end, all foreign troops will be pulled out of Iraq and Afganistan.
Foreign troops are not wanted in these countries. Whenever the people are asked they tell you they want the foreigners out.
When these (usually retired) military personnel come out and say things like this my first thought is:
“I guess that’s why you are not IN the military anymore!”
My second thought: ” I hope someone provides you with the smack in the head you so desperately need!”
When an ACTIVE member says things like this I worry!
This goes back to my younger days, but it may still apply.
Abe Lincoln reportedly said this in frustration when Genl McClellan (who later ran as a Dem against Abe for the presidency) trained and paraded his troops but wouldn’t engage the enemy:
“Now, if McClellan doesn’t want to use the army for awhile, I’d like to borrow it from him and see if I can’t do something or other with it.”
That enemy, the South, saw the Feds as foreigners, and wanted them out too. Genl Grant had the right idea – he sent Genl WT Sherman through enemy territory, destroying everything that sustained the Rebel cause.
Related: I got this via the Rottweiler. I think it�s a MUST READ.
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
Steved: “These wars are unwinnable simply because the insurgencies are supported by the people.”
And which people are those? The Iraqi people definitely do not support the insurgency in Iraq. The Afghani people do not support the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. The only people that do support the insurgency are the anti-America crowd and some celebrities in Hollywood–and they aren’t eligible to vote in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
It’s quite a stretch to say that because the “people do not want foreign armies in” to “the people support the insurgency.”
This post is mostly crap. This part is especially crap:
“If we set a deadline, we�re essentially saying to al Qaeda and Saddam loyalists in Iraq: �Here�s when we�ll be out of your way. Plan on it.� Is that really a smart idea?”
Can anyone explain how you’re going to move a couple hundred thousand soldiers and support staff without letting everybody know when you’ll be out of their way? They can’t just fedex themselves home in the night. Believe me, when the Yankees are set to leave, everyone will know. So that’s no arguement against leaving.
bigcitylib, you are a stupid f who gives steve d a run for his money.
No s, Sherlock.
Kate and the critics of John *F.* Kerry’s “policy” are saying that we shouldn’t announce when they’ll BEGIN troop redeployment until the mission is completed and that such announcements BEFORE the mission is accomplished are unhelpful – they aren’t saying the soldiers should disappear in the middle of the night.
Although I will point out that due to an astonishing triumph of American, British, and allied arms they made it to, and took, Baghdad in unprecedented time, which caused world capitals, such as Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran, to take note.
Chris,
Bush and Co. have also said that they will leave Iraq before the Insurgency has been defeated. In fact, they have made that very clear. (In fact, more than one Member of the Bush administration has stated that the solution to the insurgency must be political, but leave that aaside a moment).
So, with “mission accomplished” having been redefined this way, that means the U.S. will have to announce their plans well in advance of their actual exit date and plenty of insurgents will be around to hear it.
Take that, idiot boy.
steve d.: The Germans beat the crap out of the Yugo partisans in WW II and only had to give a substantial part of the country when the regular Red Army entered in September 1944. When the Soviets then moved out of Yugo into Hungary in October the Partisans got almost nowhere against the much weakened Germans until the end of the war.
http://din-timelines.com/1944_timeline.shtml
The French resistance also had very little military effect on the Germans until the Allies invaded, and not much after that.
Mark
Ottawa
Bush will ‘win’ in Iraq at least as well as the Americans ‘won’ in Vietnam.
Canada will lose all credibility as a ‘Peace Keeper’ and will win the status that ALL rightwingers actually want – lapdogs to Uncle Sam.
leftdog: Our mission in Afstan will this summer be under NATO command and is even now, under US Enduring Freedom, authorized by the UN Security Council (that right wing lapdog).
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8495.doc.htm
Woof, woof.
Mark
Ottawa
There are 2 enemies.
The good news is that we are very fortunate in that the military enemy is a bunch of tribal losers in failed states that have demonstrated their incredible incompetence for centuries.
The bad news is that the political enemy is here at home. The left can�t stomach military losses even though those losses are no worse than a bad season in the Detroit ghettos. Should the US also exit Detroit?
Here�s some graphs on some data posted on an early thread.
http://yargb.blogspot.com/2006/04/heres-interesting-tidbit.html#links
“…all credibility as ‘A Peacekeeper’…”
What gave you that idea? Your Liberal indoctrination into revisionist history? leftdog (fitting name) do yourself and others a favour – go read up on Canada’s military history before commenting here.
Nightwolf:
Is that Dan Simmons link the story about the time traveller and the 100 year war? If so, it is definitely worth reading.
BCL,Mark C:
I know you can do reasoned debate. I’ve been in on it with you. There’s no need to crank up the rhetoric, it serves no good purpose. If you behave I might even join in.
Sorry Mark C I meant Chris
bigcitylib, you truly our a stupid f.
Bush & Co. never said the strategy is to defeat every last insurgent in Iraq any more than to “defeat” every last Nazi in Germany during WW2 or every last slaver in the Civil War – or every last Britain in the 1776 war: That’s impossible.
The strategy is to:
1. overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party (accomplished)
2. keep the terrorist enemies of the U.S.A. occupied by fighting overseas rather than on U.S. shores ala 9/11 (only partially accomplished as it’s ongoing – however, since everyone anticipated further significant attacks and captured al-Quaeda leaders said that they didn’t anticipate the full ferocity of the American counterattacks and how this would interrupt follow-up strikes, this has been “partially accomplished” to stunning effect)
3. help Iraq hold free and democratic elections (accomplished)
4. help Iraq train and rebuild a Ba’ath fascicm-free professional army, which take over security duties against the enemies of freedom and decency (i.e. no public rape rooms, torture chambers, mass graves, chemical strikes against civilians, invading neighbors, etc. – with and without chemical weapons) within Iraq, but also defend the newly free country against foreign threats (increasingly accomplished as the Iraqi army’s professionalism increases, insurgent attacks decrease, and casualties fall, including coalition, civilian, and Iraqi military casualties, all of which have fallen for 6-consecutive months uninterrupted)
5. increase the professionalism of the Iraqi police force on a non-police state basis (only partially accomplished… much work needs to be done)
6. there are other elements to the Bush Administration strategy to do with letting the Iraqi people improve their lives (for example, the country now produces more electricity than before the invasion, the average Iraqi has satelite television, a cell phone, and Internet access, and the freedom to speak their mind or travel, etc.) and letting Iraq serve as a spark and an example to other countries in the region (these too are partially accomplished with much work to be done)
Spain and Northern Ireland and Canada for that matter in the 70s had functioning countries with Internal dissent and terrorist conflict: It’s not an ideal solution, but we all have moved beyond it (domestic terrorism is now a non-issue in Canada, has been much reduced in Northern Ireland, and the Basque Separatists in Spain have recently renounced violence to accomplish their ends) yet all three and other countries have maintained democracy while the number of democracies across the world has grown from about 40 at the end of WW2 (with several less in the middle of it obviously until we opposed it on our defeated enemies following an OCCUPATION, dimwit) to over 120 now.
No strategy is perfect including that fought by any side in any of the conflicts previously mentioned here. The point isn’t that Bush is a military genius, although I’ll take his brain power over yours.
The point is that he’s on the RIGHT side.
War can only be won militarily.
Irwin:
Yes, it is. I think the story brings home the point very well.
Mark Collins:
Good commentary. When you are dealing with ideologues overwhelming force is the usual methodology. Otherwise, the whole exercise will drag on creating more casualties.
With ideologues reason takes a back seat.
Case in point: Breslau 1944-45 designated a fortress city. This little “side show” consumed some 8 Soviet divisions and 170,000 civilians, according to historian Norman Davies, and didn’t end until after the the fall of Berlin. The area was relatively untouched as it was out of reach of Allied airpower and hence contained many munitions factories. Gauleiter Hanke led the defence against overwhelming odds, but managed to hold out until munitions for their gaggle of 88mm guns and water ran out. Hanke even took to conscripting 10yr old boys for front line service.
The second world war began in Silesia near Gleiwitz, when a Sicherheitsdienst group faked an attack on a German radio station to provide Hitler’s excuse to invade Poland. One of the most terrible parts played out at Breslau was the collection camp on the outskirts for many of the hundreds of thousands of blond Polish children seized by the Nazis as potential Aryans for their Lebensborn programme. Over 10,000 Jews were transported from the city to concentration camps. Only 160 survived. One saving grace in the Nazi nightmare, however, was the strong Breslau element in the German resistance and the July Plot — Count Helmuth James von Moltke, Count Peter Yorck von Wartenburg and Field– Marshal von Witzleben. But nothing could save Breslau in January 1945 when Marshal Konev’s Ist Ukrainian Front smashed through the German defences on the upper Vistula. A week later, the Gauleiter, Karl Hanke, ordered the immediate evacuation of all civilians. People were crushed in the stampede for trains. Some 60,000 women and children left on foot through heavy snow and temperatures of minus 20 Celsius. The Nazi party promised them food and vehicles, but no help materialised. Thousands collapsed and froze to death. Even many of those who escaped the Soviet attack met another fate. Churchill’s order to help the Red Army in Silesia led to the destruction of Dresden by RAF and USAF bombers. Train-loads of refugees were incinerated in the firestorm.
Hitler had ordered that Breslau should be turned into a fortress. Hanke obeyed with such fanaticism and cruelty that Hitler, in his last testament, appointed him to be Himmler’s successor. Even ten-year old children were dragooned into the futile struggle. As the siege intensified, Hanke maintained his rule of terror by firing squads on the market square. Many wanted the fighting to end, but many fought on instinctively. They were determined that this Germanic bastion should never surrender to another Asiatic horde, even if they almost all fell as their ancestors had under the Tatar arrows on the field of Legnica. Norman Davies rightly refers to `the faulty mental map that had so often led Germans astray’.
My mother’s family hailed from 60km south of here before the place went to hell in a handcart, with predictable Soviet reprisals of rape, pillage and plunder and a whole lot of more killing straight into 1946.
Just another shitstorm, my greater family managed to play survivor. We don’t need to watch the tv show of the same name. My mother still used to wake up screaming some 40 years later.
It kind of messes with your head, on permanent basis when you watch it all go down as a mere 12-13 year old.
When it comes to Afghanistan I am sure the garden variety Afghan is no different. It would be better to finish it fast as this garbage has dragged on since 1979; perhaps it is time to end it quickly.
How do you reason with an ideology that accepts no compromise?
A shrinking planet forces the development of transnational policing which is happening ‘tho imperfectly. Criminal activity has not been eliminated within any country but policing has hindered it, thus keeping it at a bearable level and making reasonable life a possibility for most.Similarly criminal or “rogue” states will be “policed” to the benefit of all. A new response is required given the dramatic reduction in distance between countries in the last 100 yrs.
I wonder bigcitylib, if you considered France defeated after the fall of Paris, or not because of the existence of the French underground (a popular movement (I mean the people, not the leaders, I might add, completely unlike the insurgency in Iraq)?
Hans Rupprecht
You are absolutly correct. I actually meet a Women while still 19 at a job who had been moved to a German farm because of her “Aryan” features. She had the good luck of being taken in by real Christians who dispised the Nazis. She still never found her family after the war. Meet a canadian servicemen & came to Alberta as a war bride.
The proof of her treatment is the fact she still was writing to them even than.
An off-topic heads up (but it will probably make you people pleased).
From the Montral Gazette:
“A clash between McGill University and the key federal agency that funds social science research in the country is sparking a scholarly debate in Canada about the theory of evolution.
“McGill University says the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council made a “factual error” when it denied Professor Brian Alters a $40,000 grant on the grounds that he’d failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct.”
(Link back at the old blog)
The name of the rejected project was “Detrimental Effects of Popularizing Anti-evolution’s Intelligent Design Theory on Canadian Students, Teachers, Parents, Administrators and Policymakers.”
Okay, reading the article and glancing at the conversation on Slashdot, it is not entirely clear what is going on here. Grant proposals get turned down for alot of reasons, and Professors are not above venting sour grapes. The SSHRC claims that Dr. Alters is taking “one line in the letter out of context”.
But it is McGill, not Dr. Alters, that has raised the complaint, and the one line he is supposedly misinterpreting says that Dr. Alter did not provide “adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct.”
Further, Janet Halliwell, the SSHRC’s executive vice-president and a chemist by training, remarked on the situation by noting that there are phenomena that “may not be easily explained by current theories of evolution” and that the scientific world’s understanding of life “is not static. There’s an evolution in the theory of evolution.”
I do not find these remarks particularly comforting.
I think several questions need to be asked here. The most important one is: what are the political affiliations of Ms. Halliwell and the other members of the SSHRC committee, who include Susan Bennett of the department of English literature at the University of Calgary; Lawrence Felt of the department of sociology at Memorial University of Newfoundland; University of Ottawa history professor Ruby Heap; Gilbert Larochelle from the department of human sciences at the Universite du Quebec a Chicoutimi; and Ruth Rose from the department of economics at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
Are they Harper appointees? Are the Conservatives trying to sneak hard right yobos into the education system while maintaining a moderate front?
Now, again, Dr. Alter may well be maliciously misinterpreting a line from a letter informing him that, essentially, his research is unworthy. From what I know of academia, that would not surprise me and, if so, shame on him. But on the other hand any encroachment of Intelligent Design into the Canadian education has to be fought tooth and nail. I could rant on and on about that, but won’t right now.
There’s a link to the origonal story back at my blog.
Nomdenet, you wrote:
“The good news is that we are very fortunate in that the military enemy is a bunch of tribal losers in failed states that have demonstrated their incredible incompetence for centuries.”
You weren’t thinking about Afghans when you wrote this, were you?
Here’s a date for you, 12th January, 1842.
And consider that in its time the British army was arguably the biggest-and-baddest.
And most recently, let’s not forget that the Afghans (with some foreign aid) defeated the mightiest conventional military of the time (again) when the Soviets were sent packing.
Currently I think the Canadian mission in Afdghanistan is being supported by the majority of Afghans, and is doing some very good work. The problems come if we lose that hearts-and-minds battle.
bigcitylib, I notice you haven’t responded to my last post eviscerating your series of brain dead comments (here for anyone to read) or answered Phil’s question and instead have decided to change the topic.
Is this really because you are a dumb f and your “answer” wouldn’t make any sense anyway?
BCL….
are you the one that got the 150K grant from mclibral to study the sex lives of flying squirrels ? geez man give yourself a shake.
About a week ago a guest host on “Charlie Rose” had a roundatable discussion with three generations of West Point PHds. Their topic was the evo/revolution in the particular form of war being waged in Iraq – counterinsurgency.
Very enlightening and encouraging.
The faculty and students at the Point are using data and input from the boots on the ground in Iraq to realtime edit the training manuals for the troops. Some of the things they have learned is to reduce the amount of force used and to have as low a profile as possible.
One of the guests noted that the casualties in March were the lowest since the liberation.
War is different today from what it was 30 yrs ago and the US and its allies are changing their tactics in response.
Hans Rupprecht: Brilliant comment.
I might have added to mine that the ARVN was not defeated by guerrillas but in 1975 by the PAVN with tanks and artillery in a completely conventional military assault.
Pity the wrong side sometimes fights best.
Albert4: The British clearly won the Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880,
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/afguk1878.htm
and the Third Anglo-Afghan War 1919 ended not necessarily to Britain’s disadvantage.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/afguk1919.htm
In 1842 the British Army was far from the “biggest-and-baddest”. Think of the French, Russian, Prussian, Austrian, Ottoman. The Royal Navy however was pre-eminent. Thank goodness.
Mark
Ottawa
No time to read all the foregoing commentary, but the truth is that the war on terror IS winnable. Let there be no doubt.
All I would ask is that everyone remember WWII. The Free World won it. How? By simply, brutally defeating the enemy nations, forcing them to surrender unconditionally and then ensuring that the evil idealogies behind the Axis’ warmongering and imperialist plans never again came to be; making sure they rebuilt themselves according to the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
Take Germany (Nazi no more since its defeat) and Japan (Imperialistic no more since being nuked). We, after accepting their surrenders, proceeded to assist their rebuilding, allowing them to keep their cultures, their own democracies, etc. with the provision that any more of the previous evil stupidity wouldn’t be tolerated.
This is how the war on imperialistic Islamofascism and on imperialistic communism will eventually be won. Diplomacy is an illusion, as it was prior to WWII. The enemy needs to see how high the stakes are and needs to be certain that should they attempt to invade the Free World, they WILL be destroyed. This is what prevented the Soviet Union from attacking the Free World. Mutually Assured Destruction. Remember, evildoers are selfish; they wish to survive, and if they know they can’t do something and survive, then they won’t do it.
Even Ahmadinejad doesn’t want Jihad if he believes that he, himself, will be joining Saddam in the cage, should he make a stupid move on a free nation.
Let history be the guide.
Who really cares, myself and all my friends have no interest what so ever in joining the military to go to Afghanistan or Iraq if it should come to that. Got better things to do with our lives and don’t want to die for that place nor in 10-15 yrs time see ourselves with limbs missing and/or wheelchair bound. Shove it……..
sls: Welcome to the caliphate or the Welthauptstadt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welthauptstadt_Germania
Mark
Ottawa
Very inspiring, Neil.
The dozens of Canadians who died on September 11, 2001, the millions of people slaughtered by evil regimes, the people terrorized, tortured, and with their free spirtis crushed by their own governments around the world, the woman brutalized… are all very appreciative, I’m sure.
Truth be told, you have no obligation toward them – merely to your own values and not to harm others.
At least your opinion is rational, unlike bigcitylib, who is a moron.
Neil = sls
Let me commend this this story about a 43 year-old British immigrant (ex-RN) preparing to serve in Afstan as a reserve engineer private. And congratulations to The Brick for being truly a brick.
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/McRae_Earl/2006/04/06/1522015.html
Mark
Ottawa
….bad people their own worst enemies, eventually their wonderful existence will collapse under its own weight…it would happen a lot faster if the fools over here quit sending them money…
A fair question Albert4: who is the enemy that I�m talking about?
Islamofascists!
Pardon my ambiguity but I consider Afghanistan and Iraq to simply be battles in a long war that we are having against the jihadists, thte radicals not the ordinary citizens. I agree with you that the Afghans can rise to the occasion of democracy. Ditto the �tribes� in Iraq and so on. It would be racist to think their brains are coded in such a way as to not be able to adapt and flourish with democracy. That�s the key; turn tribal forms of government into democratic countries. There is lots of evidence this can be done despite the years of suppression under radical Islam and/or totalitarians like Saddam
You�ve noted the tough history of battles militarily in the mountains of Afghanistan but as you point out we can win together with the Afghans for the reasons that Gord Tulk adds optimism. But the challenge is the �hearts and minds� both over there and as I said over here too. Just look at some of these Blog postings, appeasement never dies. But war was ever thus. Often the winner is simply the side most determined, not necessarily the best militarily. That�s the worry, that we�ll lose heart. So, we have to keep fighting for �hearts and minds�.
Mark Collins
There has never been a guerilla war that hasn’t been supported by the people.
These wars have already been going on for 4 and 5 years! They are not going away. These people live there. Unless the foreign troops take up permanent residence and we are ready to bleed for years without end this effort is doomed to failure. I am not being pessimistic just realistic. Every day troops are in these countries more enemies are made. These are tribal cultures. The insurgent you kill could be rrelated to the person you are trying to win over. Virtually every promise that America has been made has been broken. The people are fed up.
The Americans have already muddied the waters in Afganistan. Now the Taliban are coming back. But they were defeated right? Funny how they are defeated but aren’t. They live there they always have and they always will. Unless of course we kill everyone that would solve it.
Steve D,
Surely you know that many tribal insurgencies have lost and are losing around the globe. And. Sometimes these are the good guys.
My wife’s family was part of a 26 year insurgency that lost and sued for peace.
All the tribal insurgencies in Burma are losing. It doesn’t matter that they are popularly supported or that their cause is just or that they’re brave or can live off the land. They keep getting shot and killed. The Myanmar military is ruthless and effective.
Overwhelming force against guerilla forces eventually win. Guerillas only win when they can transform themselves into a regular army with superior forces that can exact a price that their enemy isn’t willing to pay. (That’s a real possibility in Iraq.)
BCL & Steve D. how nuch time have you spent in the M-east? How do you know how the locals feel towards anything. Somehow I suspect you are just like me and have no idea what they think.
As to how these people came to hate westerners I suspect, note I say suspect, that its from generations of indoctrination by their cleric in, I hope, a vain attempt to maintain their dictatorial powers.
This was attempted by the catholic church. I give you the Inquisition, and fortunately it didn’t work then and it appears we are starting to see the end of the age of political correctnes.
If you don’t think that indoctrination works look around yourself. After years of promising the “free lunch” and being caught red handed with both hands in the till, up to their armpits, better than 30% of Canadians still voted for liberals. If that includes you just remember, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
At the risk of stating the obvious:
We need to examine the causes of these current military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq:
Our worldview is justifiably diametrically opposed to the worldview of the Global Jihadist Islam that has sworn to destroy us.
Jihadist Islam still believes that it can defeat the trend of world history as exemplified by the West and the trends of Globalization.
The vast majority of Muslims remain on the sidelines waiting to see who will win in the current Wars
before deciding where to place their long term trust.
Jihadist Islam claims that by the power of Allah it owns the future and the ultimate destiny of all mankind.
A decisive defeat of Jihadist Islam in either or both Iraq or Afghanistan is crucial to the West,
because it will demoralize them by showing that their interpretation of history is false.
This will encourage secular revolutionary activism of the kind we would like to see in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Plaidshirt
How many times has tribal insurgency been defeated in Afganistan? None. In a thousand years they have been beaten down but always came back. That is exactly what is happening today.
How many times do you beat them down before you give up in frustration? We are going to find out.
CAW
There is a plethora of information written and video on the ME from every perspective. If you play close attention to the Iraqi and Arab perspective you get a whole different picture of what is going on. I know that in the end it is their perspective that counts. Everything else is merely hot air.
Little Green Footballs has an article on what the west is up against in the ME. Attalah Afu al-Sibbah, a muslim scholar and Hamas cabinet minister for culture, commenting on the rampant immorality of belly dancers spreading across Palestine said, “If the phenomenon of belly-dancing spreads, people might react against it by killing people. We don’t want our people to become like the Taliban.”
Belly-dancing! aargh! Eeet makes me wan to keeeeel people!
Little Green Footballs has an article on what the west is up against in the ME. Attalah Afu al-Sibbah, a muslim scholar and Hamas cabinet minister for culture, commenting on the rampant immorality of belly dancers spreading across Palestine said, “If the phenomenon of belly-dancing spreads, people might react against it by killing people. We don’t want our people to become like the Taliban.”
Belly-dancing! aargh! Eeet makes me wan to keeeeel people!
“… the ARVN was not defeated by guerrillas but in 1975 by the PAVN with tanks and artillery in a completely conventional military assault.”
Mark Collins, you have repeated this in various threads. The point you are trying to make would be valid if, and only if, there had not been a decade of warfare in Vietnam before 1975, and if the ARVN had not been trained, equipped and supported by the USA/MACV.
As it was, South Vietnam stands as an example of failed “democratization,” “nation building” and guerilla warfare. It is not the simple case of external aggression by superior forces that you would like it to be.
While parallels to the French Resistance, Vietnam and Burma are interesting, they have nothing to do with either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Accidents and insurgents have killed about 350 coalition soldiers in Afghanistan since 2001. I’ll bet the French resistance did more damage than that to the Germans. It’s all about context.
By the measures of the Second World War or any sort of Big Army yardstick, Iraq and Afghanistan have already been won. What is left are two small wars facing rebels that are not terribly organized, not very co-ordinated and quite unpopular, so far.
Therefore, the arguments over whether these wars are “winable” turn on two answers that must come from home: Can our will be sustained as casualites rise until the mission is accomplished? How do we define that success?
There will be deadly bombs, poorly aimed rockets and the occasional more spectacular and successful attack until the moment we leave Afghanistan and the moment the Americans leave Iraq. Success in confronting these attacks will also ebb and flow. After all, it doesn’t take an army to build a roadside bomb.
But what constitutes victory in these places? Can we pull out when the Afghan (or Iraqi) army can be trusted to patrol every road and every village in the country? Are we buying time until the police and judiciary can find some sort of equilibrium with the narcotics industry? Until Afghanistan finally has some sort of functioning economy? ANY economy? When its democratically elected leaders can rule and maintain their own security without our help?
All of the above? God help us if that’s the answer, because the day may never arrive, especially in Afghanistan.
Five years from now if Canada stays the course, Karzai will still survive at the pleasure of his American body guards and governors of Kandahar and other provinces will run through their palaces like steers through the chute of an abattoir on their way to slaughter. Poppies will still be Afghanistan’s main cash crop. Canada will have lost dozens of soldiers there. Will we be any closer to our elusively defined victory?
Sadly, instead of coming to a principled answer to this question, I predict that about 20 months from now, if not sooner, we will declare operational fatigue for our under-manned and over-bureaucratized armed forces. Then we will cut and run.