16
The reported remarks of Britain's top commander in Afghanistan should not be taken as defeatism, but as an opportunity to clarify the West's war aims. It is important to be clear on what Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said. He did not say Britain, Canada, the United States and the rest of the NATO and non-NATO countries fighting in Afghanistan should withdraw, or that a secure Afghanistan is no longer vitally important to the West. He told the Sunday Times, “We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.” That is hardly a surprising statement after nearly seven years of fighting Taliban insurgents, with no end in sight.
It echoes what a panel headed by John Manley, the former Liberal MP, told the Canadian government in a report commissioned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “In the end,” the Manley panel wrote in January, “the counterinsurgency war will have to won by Afghans. Few counterinsurgencies in history have been won by foreign armies, particularly where the indigenous insurgents enjoy convenient sanctuary in a bordering country.” Canada's mission is focusing increasingly on training Afghan forces to take on the job.
Brig. Carleton-Smith also spoke of negotiations, saying, “If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.” It's a big if, as long as the Taliban demand that all foreign armies leave as a precondition for talks. It's also a big if, as long as the Taliban remain committed to a form of Islamic law incompatible with civilized norms, which include the right of girls to go to school. The Taliban is not a monolith, and elements that can be co-opted or negotiated with, should be. Afghanistan is reportedly pressing Saudi Arabia to engage the Taliban in an attempt to facilitate talks. The Saudis could play a useful role, but any talks will bear fruit only if the NATO mission retains its leverage.
Comments by Britain's ambassador in Kabul, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, are defeatist, at least as reported in a French newspaper. (Britain says the report was inaccurate.) They suggest that more foreign troops would be counterproductive, in that they create more targets for the insurgents. By that logic, New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton is right, and Canada should withdraw at once rather than in 2011 as Mr. Harper promised rather suddenly during the current election campaign. (Mr. Layton is wrong, however, that the Brigadier's realism is in line with his own defeatism.) With few exceptions – Canada and Britain being two of them – NATO has not put its money where its mouth is on Afghanistan.
The fight for a secure Afghanistan does not require a total victory. It does require a stronger military presence (as well as more effective development aid) that will create the conditions for any useful talks. An emboldened Taliban is unlikely to have developed a realism of its own.
