The sooner Canada gets its troops out of Afghanistan the better because the mission is a waste of lives and money in a doomed cause, one of Canada's most eminent diplomats told a Montreal conference Sunday.That is Robert Fowler, who has told the Liberal party's Canada 150 conference: "The bottom line is that we will not prevail in Afghanistan." He adds: "Once we understand and accept that reality it is time to leave, not a moment, not a life and not a dollar later."

View full article here

When in Afghanistan, never attribute to stupidity what is clearly malice. Whoever is telling us there is "a lot of good being done in Afghanistan" is responsible for us being there. And we are there for their "vital interests", not ours.

Not like this site to leave such a gaping hole in an otherwise coherent article but the missing word is 'islam': i.e. in order for there to be peace and respect for the rights of women etc, Afghanistan would have to be de-islamised. I note that replacing their culture with ours was mentioned but let's get to the point as to why we should not be in their country and they should not be in ours. The tens of thousands of Afghans getting to the west have not renounced islam and are as savage and backward as the Taliban. They are no threat to us in their own ruined lands when we withdraw but they are a threat to us when they are here.

For better assessment of the progress in afganistan

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

The tribes are older than Islam ... take away Islam and there would still be the tribes ... and nothing much would have changed.



wfo ... Kandahar is the ancient capital of Afghanistan, heart of the Pashtun nation. The US may cover the ground ... they may temporarily dominate it. They will never conquer it. Yon sees what he sees, and reports what he sees. But he sees only a tiny snapshot in the history of a nation that has seen off every occupier since the Persians.

It is not a question of "winning". This IS a low-grade, civilisational war, protecting the limes (yes, yes, don't point out modern air transportation de-localises war ... it doesn't). Politically incorrect it may be, but barbarians must be confronted in their homes, and not allowed into our heartlands.

This Canadian guy is a defeatist. He does not acknowledge the real war being raged; a long war, it has been going on since 622.

Richard,

"The tribes are older than Islam ... take away Islam and there would still be the tribes ... and nothing much would have changed."

No. Agreed the tribes have no conflict with the West; but they are being driven, forced, against their will, to support an Islamic war against, not only "the West", but all non-islamic people, who are scum in their Islamic eyes.

I think most of us here agreed on that years ago.

The Canadians are right, of course...it distresses me to say that because it is becoming increasingly evident that Canada is so very wrong in other areas, such as freedom of speech & expression as it tries to out-Obama Obama's miserable bunch in pursuing dictatorial Socilalism...and it's shameful treatment of Mark Steyn & Mr.Levant.

And what's our own current body-count? Did I read somewhere today it's 248+...No figures for wounded total which must now run into four figures of horribly maimed soldiery...and for what?
I read that our bunch is being 'strategically re-deployed'...and being replaced by US Marines.
Fine & good if that's what the US military's head honch wants...but let's not kid ourselves about the implications.
Years ago I said on these pages (DoR) that we had no business in Afghanistan...& I have not changed my opinion...the 'redeployment' should be to Colchester, not Kandahar.

A very good post and interesting to read. As you say all we tend to get in the media is goodies vs baddies, it's nice to get a little more insight into the politics at play in the region.

As for the eventual outcome, it's astonishing that anyone with even a basic grasp of the history of the region could think things could have turned out differently. Our two choices are accept that we won't create a western style democracy there and make the best of a bad job before getting out or set up a new Raj.

As I've said before - this is a silly war in a silly place.

Allan_Aberdeen » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:49 pm
Agree - Islam is the political ideology that would need to be neutralised for a civilised Afghanistan i.e. victory.

Islam is the ideology that holds all the tribes together in their hostility to Infidels and outsiders alike. Without Islam, they would just be tribals - still hostile to outsiders, but that hostility would not be doctrinally based. In addition, Islam provides Afghans with a ready source of Mujahids from the Islamic world, as well as Britain, and plenty of money from the Islamic world, as well as Muslims in the West. The last two are very important sources for fuelling the war - money, weapons and men, which would not be available without Islam. Therefore the war would be won fairly quickly without Islam.

Do we leave Afghanistan, as we have no way of making a civilised Afghanistan without de-Islamifying it? The answer lies in what our real objectives are. If it is to make Afghanistan a civilised democratic country, then we shouldn’t be there, as we cannot win without de-Islamifying it.

OTH, withdrawal will give the Islamic world reason to celebrate their victory not only over the USSR superpower, but also over the Western superpower - a victory even after 9/11 and 7/7. That would invigorate the Jihad worldwide like nothing else, and increase the tempo of the Islamification of the West by all means, including violence.

It is a maxim not to get involved in unnecessary wars, but once involved, there is no other way but to go for victory. We are thus facing what appears to be a dilemma. We cannot withdraw for that would give Islam a victory, but neither can we achieve a victory without attacking Islam. Given this situation, we are really in ‘No mans land’, strategically speaking.

But there are other reasons, not stated, why we should be in Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly even intervene in other Muslims nations - strictly for humanitarian reasons of course. This war needs to be looked at in historic terms, rather then short term perspectives, as well as from a domestic view point. That is how Islam views Jihad - in the long term.

An excellent resume but seemingly beyond the grasp of our ruling elite. They are deaf to any gainsayer. As with AGW, follow the money for any sense of logic. Money is the only thing noisy enough to penetrate their cloth ears.

Not so much beyond their grasp as beyond their competence ... the key role of India is acknowledged, but there is no abilty to deal with the high politics involved. The FCO is beyond useless and the poltical relationships are such that there is no mechanism for setting up the multi-lateral negotiations that would be needed. Therefore, we dance round the edges, knowing that the core issues are not being addressed, but hoping that somehow it will all come right.



Whether we should be in either AFG or Iraq is a different question from whether we can actually deliver ... theory versus practice. There might be good geopolitical reasons for being there (and there are some good reasons why we should not). But the fact is that, under the current operational paradigm, we can achieve nothing of consequence, while doing ourselves great harm. Personally, I see Islam as a nuisance more than a threat ... it is a losers' creed, a reaction to modernity and an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The resurgence of militant Islam is thus the last throw of the loser ... we should treat it as such. The real problem is our own people, who treat it seriously, and pander to it. The enemy is within, not without.

"The enemy is within, not without."

So what we have is an internal security problem. Was it Dennis Healey who said the first rule when in a hole - is to stop digging. So stop importing Islamic goat herders would be step one. Then deport as many as possible. Then make the rest conform to the laws of the land. God knows, we have enough laws.

Afghanistan is a battle hardened country with centuries of experience in war. They adapt and change to new situations that any military would love to be able to do. After all WE are the invaders.

Would any of us do any differently if our homelands we invaded?

I was in the Canadian Military from 1981-1985 and any new officer that came in was hungry and looking for a quick promotion on the backs of their men. Not well loved when your life is expendable at anothers eggerness for promotion. The odd officer was extremely good and those were the one that men respected as your life did count and you are a person behind all that battle armer. Adaptation is the only way to survive and at times tradition of how things were done in the past does not count when your life and others are on the line. Military adaptation takes time to go up and down the chain of command. You don't have that time when situations are constantly changing and new adaptations are constantly being made. Emotions can get you killed when the sitution is in the extreme. So no emotion. Quick thinking and reflexes to the situation usually will save your life and the guys around you.