| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Afghanistan | |
| No retreat from the War on Terror | |
| 2008-02-06 | |
David Aaronovitch In recent days, and unsurprisingly, it has become common to hear the mournless rites being read for liberal interventionism. If anyone has opined publicly about Afghanistan in the last week - and plenty did - it was to regret our presence there and to wish us away. If ever an argument was being won by default this was it, especially since those making the case for quitting were far too exuberant to want to slow up and allow for the possible objections to their reasoning. It was Condoleezza Rice, agitating for more Nato troops to be deployed in Afghanistan, who precipitated the current poison-ivy rash of isolationist critiques. This week in Lithuania Nato defence ministers are meeting to discuss finding 7,500 more troops to reinforce the existing 42,000, and last week there was a run-in between the Americans and the Germans over whether Bundeswehr resources could be sent to the dangerous south - a spat that the Bundesmedia seemed to enjoy a bit too much. To which many resonant voices here were raised to make this point: we don't have the men, and even if we did we shouldn't send them; in fact we should start talking about withdrawing the ones we've got because the whole thing is broken and cannot be mended. “We British,” wrote Matthew Parris on Saturday on these pages, “are at our limit and losing confidence in our usefulness.” Independent reports speak of a danger of failure and a “weakening international resolve”, and the few gains of our continued presence - “a few new schools and roads in the north”, according to Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times - are insufficient to stop the country fragmenting. And it is worse than that, they imply, because most of the problems that exist we have ourselves provoked and indeed spread to neighbouring Pakistan. “To have set one of the world's most ancient and ferocious people [the Pashtuns] on the warpath against both Kabul and Islamabad takes some doing. But Western diplomacy has done it,” says Jenkins; though why the Pashtuns are any more ancient than the rest of us, and why it should be so surprising that “one of the world's most ferocious peoples” might be relatively easily provoked, he doesn't explain. The tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, he argues, should have been left alone. There has, of course, to be another logical step taken here, and this is it: for what cause have these bloody errors been committed? The cause of combating terror. But terror is an overblown threat, they say, exaggerated by men like Bush and Musharraf: terror kills few in the West and is generally contained by good policing. Our troops are making things worse. Rather than a War on Terror, we might do better to talk of a musing on terror, or - at worst - the tiff with terror. In the current circumstances of the failure of the opium strategy, the bloody fighting in Helmand, the row inside Nato and the argument about Paddy Ashdown's unacceptability to Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, much of this pessimism seems appropriate. But if we are to follow its dictates, its proponents should do a better job of spelling out what it means. Anyone who still favours a military presence is easily decorated with the order of the armchair commentator, but let us see what other commentators are prepared to sit through. Canada has already threatened to pull out its troops from Kandahar province in a year's time if other Nato countries don't contribute more. We must assume that if Britain were to begin to talk about a draw-down, then Canada would carry out this threat. British forces would then be exposed in Helmand and, presumably, would also withdraw. Let us suppose that an angry and abandoned US follows the “lead” offered by its allies, and itself pulls out, leaving itself only an air-to-ground interdiction capability. Here are the likely consequences of such a pattern. The Afghan Government would collapse, to be replaced by an overt civil war fought between the Taleban and local governors in the various provinces. A million or more Afghan refugees would again flee their country, many of them ending up in the West. Deprived of support from the US, as recommended by our commentators, President Musharraf or a successor would effectively withdraw from the border regions, leaving a vast lawless area from central Afghanistan to north central Pakistan. Al-Qaeda and other jihadists would operate from these areas as they did before 9/11. This time these forces - already capable of assassinating a popular democratic politician - would seriously impact upon the stability of Pakistan, which is a nuclear state. Jihadists everywhere, from Indonesia to Palestine, would see this as a huge victory, democrats and moderates as a catastrophic defeat. There would hardly be a country, from Morocco to Malaysia, that wouldn't feel the impact of the reverse. That's before we calculate the cost to women and girls of no longer being educated or allowed medical treatment. And would there be less terror as a result? We have been here before. After the Afghans managed to defeat the Russians, the Yanks - and everyone else - left Afghanistan alone, to be swallowed up by the Taleban. Who then let Osama bin Laden in. It wasn't us who provoked the ferocious Pashtun in 2001, it was their Mullah Omar who gave sanctuary to the topplers of the twin towers. Many of bin Laden's people had themselves been radicalised by the failure of the West - in another non-intervention - to prevent Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims. Whatever the failures of Western policy - which have usually been about doing too little, not too much - they will not be dealt with by the creation of a new myth of non-interdependence. Just as the genocide in Darfur has refused to confine itself within the borders of the Sudan, but has now destabilised neighbouring Chad, so anything that happens in Pakistan or Afghanistan, whether we cause it or not, will come back to us in the shape of fleeing people, apocalyptic ideologues, weapons proliferation and the export of terror. Fortunately, it isn't just David Miliband who recognises this. Today America may decide that the next presidential election will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. All three recognise that America must continue to be the ideological and physical arsenal of democracy. Thank God. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #24 "Ten years down the road,..." You're still, um, preparing to attack Iran? Remember Iran? Everyone was so sure of it. Well, you still have a few months. Or maybe if McCain...nah...you won't vote for him, he's a rino. "Do you believe the Hindus and Chinese will step in the path of muslims knives to save YOUR unprepared ass?" Probably not, but neither would you so how are you any better than them? I doubt that Muslims will become the majority any time soon. There's no reason to fear-monger. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 23:45 |
| #23 Great repost SW. Must have passed the link by the first time. Thanks. It wouldn't have taken a PhD for Chamberlain to have made condescending cracks about Churchill's whacked out paranoia in 1938 either. Ten years down the road, we'll see if America's general response towards the war on Islamism is more effective than Europe's. Then we can see with whom Canada chooses to cast their lot. |
| Posted by: ryuge 2008-02-06 22:46 |
| #22 Muslims DO believe in taking up arms against their hosts, especially if their hosts are unaware and has their backs turned. Do you believe the Hindus and Chinese will step in the path of muslims knives to save YOUR unprepared ass? Or will they worry about the safety of themselves and their families? |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 21:19 |
| #21 The Chinese and Hindu immigrants don't consider themselves entitled to take up arms against their host nation Exactly. So I would think before Canada is doomed, radical Muslims would have to get by the Indian and Chinese and a myriad of other communities first, even the Quebecois, not to mention the Muslims who want no part of jihad and other religious nonsense. You are also missing the growing backlash against multi-culturalism in Canada. The Conservative candidate for Ontario lost the election precisely because of his support for faith-based schools. At first he wanted to woo the Jewish community, but people aren't stupid and realized this would also mean funding for Muslim-only schools sooner or later. So why are you fear-mongering? |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 21:09 |
| #20 I will worry about the Hindus and Confucians when they believe stuff like this: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them BTW, the first two verses are from the penultimate chapter of the koran. Any previous verses (when islam was weak) are abrogated by these final verses. Open your eyes VAE. You and your children ARE in mortal danger. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 20:38 |
| #19 The Chinese and Hindu immigrants don't consider themselves entitled to take up arms against their host nation, nor do they demand laws be changed to accommodate their habits, dear Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366. My charming Quebecoise mother-in-law has the same problems with the Muslim immigrants to her neighborhood in Lackawanna (Buffalo). Burka clad Yemeni women are in the habit of pushing her off the sidewalk, and there are loud demands for time and space for daily prayers in the public schools... not to be polluted by unbelievers. If you think that kind of thing is acceptable, then all the deaths commemorated on your Highway of Heroes will have been in vain, for what boots a nation to win the war abroad, if it surrender at home? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-02-06 19:47 |
| #18 Typical fear-mongering. What of the Chinese and Indian immigrants? Do you have the numbers for those? Or are they just as bad as the Muslims? Recent Immigrants in Metropolitan Areas: Toronto—A Comparative Profile Based on the 2001 Census |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 18:32 |
| #17 Listen up VEA. I didn't call Canadian soldiers burkha wearers. I appreciate what the Canadian military is doing. I don't don't appreciate how many Canadians ignore the genocidal cultists who are rapidly immigrating you your shores, who consider you mokeys and pigs and your women as nothing but cat meat to be taken for their pleasure. I did say Toronto is filling up burkha wearing islamists who recently plotted to blow up the Canadian Parliament, CBC, and Canadian military barracks. I called Toronto the burkha capital of NA. According to the 2000 Canadian census: 5% of all Toronto population is Muslims, , making Toronto the highest concentration of Muslims in any city in the US or Canada. There are 21 Federal ridings with 7% to 14% Muslim population which can emerge as a major electoral force. If Muslim maintained the same growth rate as the last decade since the census, today Muslims in Canada number 753,480. From 2001 to 2003, according to statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, an estimated 132,600 Muslims immigrated to Canada. ThatÂ’s a rise of 23 percent Lets see, 23% rise in muslim infestation in 2 years gives an annual rate of 11%. Extrapolate 30 years and muslims form an absolute majority in Toronto (that's optimistically assuming Canadians have 2.1 kids). Wanna bet then the highway that honor Canadians in Afghanistan fighting Pakistanis keeps its name? But don't fret, it won't take 30 years. The muslims' knives will come out it's sheath well before then. If you are not willing to defend Canadian civilization, don't expect your southern neighbors to do it for you. That is what is evident. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 17:42 |
| #16 I at least, remember my friends who have sacrificed everything for our common good, and don't call them burka wearers. I don't take glee at the prospect of a neighbour's downfall, quite the opposite in fact: when it's evident to me that my neighbour's "my way or the highway" approach will lead to failure, I make sure my voice is heard. The worst and most dangerous type of neighbour is one who doesn't say anything when danger is near. Crusosh, what on earth are you talking about? |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 17:05 |
| #15 Oh, and then you choose to hide from criticism behind the gravestones of better men than you. Be sure to wave the Maple leaf flag from behind those headstones just to show what kind of man you really are. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 16:39 |
| #14 "Whenever you're in the Burkha capital of N.A. I invite you to take a car ride along the Highway of Heroes, to remind you of what you seem to easily forget." That was then. This is now. Based on your history of postings at Rantburg, it is a bit hypocritical for you to be donning that mantle of the dead, no? |
| Posted by: Crusosh Smith3454 2008-02-06 16:38 |
| #13 It's your job to defend your civilization. Instead you take glee at the prospect of a neighbor's downfall. How small, mean and petty of you. Instead of strengthening your defenses against murdering barbarians, you choose to bury your head in the tar sand and let them do this crap in your hometown. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 16:34 |
| #12 Go ahead, besmirch the memories of the fallen, if you wish. Seems the Burka wearers in Toronto have more honour than you. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 16:25 |
| #11 And how long before it is recommemorated as the 12th Imam Memorial Highway? |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 16:17 |
| #10 Highway of Heroes |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 16:11 |
| #9 Dan, it's an observation that I've made, over the years. Fred would say I have a "prejudice" of sorts. "Don't waste American lives to fight for those who won't fight for themselves." And while making that statement Ed seems to have forgotten about the lives sacrificed fighting alongside the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whenever you're in the Burkha capital of N.A. I invite you to take a car ride along the Highway of Heroes, to remind you of what you seem to easily forget. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 16:09 |
| #8 Never be more concerned about someone else's security than they are concerned themselves. Don't waste American lives to fight for those who won't fight for themselves. That applies to NATO states, Afghans, Iraqis and Saudis. And it applies to Canadians in the burkha capital of North America, Toronto. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-06 15:46 |
| #7 victor -- i would say with your shallow responses you do need a phd to comment..give some substance and you will not be a troll...canadians will be a running to the US once little oh denmark really gets agressive in the artic...or maybe the ruskies..oh wait they have already laid claim..puhtak |
| Posted by: dan 2008-02-06 15:35 |
| #6 Your name calling won't change the fact that you give the appearance of being plain whacked out paranoid. You don't need a PhD to make that argument. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 15:21 |
| #5 Really, Toronto troll, you grow wearisome. It's not the intentional disagreement here, but the limited number and shallow depth of the critiques that bores. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-06 14:41 |
| #4 At this rate the islamofascists won't have to lift a finger to destroy the US. Your paranoia combined with some of your other characteristics will do it for them. |
| Posted by: Victor Emmanuel Angalet7366 2008-02-06 14:30 |
| #3 The fact is the Islamists will claim credit anytime we leave anywhere. That is the risk of putting a single footprint in an Islamic nation. "Yes the Americans killed every last one of us, but they left! They have no stomach for combat!" We should avoid giving them big victories but at some point it can't run our policy entirely. The Afghans should be stepping up. Sometimes fear Uncle Sugar is gonna leave is what it takes to get others to step up. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-06 13:40 |
| #2 Obama has not been a noted WOT supporter Quite the opposite, in fact. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-06 11:45 |
| #1 Today America may decide that the next presidential election will be between John McCain and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. All three recognise that America must continue to be the ideological and physical arsenal of democracy. Thank God. I'm not so sure about that. Hillary blows whichever way the polls point and Obama has not been a noted WOT supporter. I don't see either with the internal conviction necessary to convince allies to follow or to proceed alone. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-02-06 11:43 |