-
Source: Reuters -
Related
The government is right when it says that the death of Lt Tim O'Donnell is no reason to pull our troops out of Afghanistan, but it still has one heck of a problem explaining to New Zealanders why we're there and what we're achieving.
When I asked a member of a New York think-tank last week how the war was going, they replied, "I can tell you in one word. Badly." Seven years in, this is no longer the mission it once was.
The death toll of foreign troops has increased, serious questions are being raised about the competency of the Afghan national forces and even Pakistan president Asif Ali Zadari reckons "that the international community, which Pakistan belongs to, is in the process of losing the war against the Taliban ... And that is, above all, because we have lost the battle for hearts and minds."
His view is backed by a poll of Afghan men in the south of the country, where the fighting is at its most brutal. Three-quarters of those surveyed believed that foreign troops disrespect their religion and tradition and said working with those troops was wrong. Most think the Taliban should be part of the government.
To be fair, this is the most difficult phase of the war for some time. The surge of troop numbers was never going to be popular and the push this year into the Taliban heartland was always going to mean more dead soldiers, who like Lt O'Donnell, are all someone's son, someone's friend.
But the fact remains that the international forces invaded Afghanistan in response to the bombings on 9/11. Defence Minister Wayne Mapp said as much on Q+A this week , adding:
"New Zealanders have been killed in 9/11, New Zealanders have been killed in London, and in Jakarta, and in Bali. So that's why we are there, and we just simply cannot have a nation that is a safe haven for terrorists, it's simply a risk to ourselves if we let that happen."
The problem with that argument is that the "reality on the ground", as the Americans like to call it, has changed. The job of rooting out Al Qaeda from Afghanistan is more or less complete. For now. As the CIA director Leon Panetta said in June, there are only 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, "maybe less".
Most surviving members are in the Pakistan border areas, or have moved on to Somalia, Yemen, Uganda and the like. We're left fighting the Taliban, an essentially local outfit that, while cruel and fanatical, is not an organisation of international terrorists.
Those safe havens Dr Mapp is so concerned about are now elsewhere. Which leaves a critical question that our government has no answer to: If the goal of this war is to ensure no safe haven for Al Qaeda, why aren't we fighting in those other countries and are we ultimately going to have to follow them there?
The answers are simply that we can only fight on so many fronts at once and that the West lacks the stomach for more war; and of course our government has no desire to send troops into Yemen or Somalia or anywhere else for that matter. But then it should be honest with us and admit that those first principles behind the Afghanistan war no longer apply and that the "War on Terror" is no longer going to be fought by invading armies, but by drones, covert ops and, most hopefully, by civilian aid missions.
The stark reality is that the only reason we're still in Afghanistan is that we can't get out; at least not without the risk of it becoming another failed state, one which draws Pakistan - complete with its nuclear weapons - into a regional conflict. We were stupid enough to go in and now we're obliged to patch things up as best we can before we leave.
Our only hope - and it's no more than a hope - is that somehow Afghanistan will hold together as a country and it's corrupt government will improve before it's over-run by warlords, its own rotten core and what's left of the Taliban.
Having said that, we can't just pull out tomorrow. That would be irresponsible and could have terrible consequences.
But let's get it straight, the hard lesson of history to take from this is that invading countries only creates chaos and makes a mess. And let's be honest, this war is no longer about safe havens or terror. It's a clean-up operation.
Tim Watkin is a producer for Q+A - Sundays on TV ONE from 9am. Read more of his articles here .
Latest NZ News Video
-
Kiwi speaks to TVNZ7 from Everest base camp (1:59)
-
Immigration advisor Bill Milnes discusses claims (4:34)
-
Dance to save Shakti service (0:41)
Add a Comment:
Post new commentMR P Thomas said on 2010-08-09 @ 11:21 NZDT: Report abusive post
war on terror is just a war on guerilla fighting and to win there needs to be a revamp of the over all strategy like finding there main op bases and hitting them hard like the brits did in helmand province
Zanziabar said on 2010-08-08 @ 16:37 NZDT: Report abusive post
The entire "War on Terror" was doomed from the onset, You can't fight terror because it's not a military technique, it's a political one. It's like declaring a war on flanking. Not to mention that for the last however many years we've been in Afghanistan we've had a clear lack of concise military objectives We've had a Politician vaguely outline "restoring democracy and freedom" but how we're suppose to achieve that has been left blank, piss-poor effort all round from our leaders.
MR P Thomas said on 2010-08-05 @ 12:25 NZDT: Report abusive post
yes Afghanistan has been invaded over the years but we all must remember it is a reconstruction mission not a hostel take over we have troops there to help restore some order along with other nations like the UK and USA what i can not understand is why the USA didn't send out a ERT (emergency response team) chopper they have the tech to fly in some really bad weather but what has happened has happened the army can only learn from this.