Afghans were right all along. The West can't be trusted.
They had the wrong impression, exposed essentially to soldiers, who are a different breed and mean what they say, putting their lives on the line for ideals as espoused by their fair-weather political bosses.
Of course, soldiers don't often speak of ideals, the geopolitical framework of the Afghanistan mission, and when they do, to journalists, it sounds stilted or corny, as if rehearsed or reading off a teleprompter. They know the sound bytes that are required of them and getting to the pith of the thing requires a level of trust that must be earned. But even beneath the patina of propaganda, and despite the quietly expressed doubts that some troops might harbour about the assignment – not self-doubt; rather, suspicion of politicians and shifting public opinion – there is sturdiness and confidence in their sense of purpose.
Their governments, too many of which have paid mere lip service to the rehabilitation of Afghanistan as a functioning state, are made of weaker stuff.
Only Canada, Britain and the United States – selectively, Holland, and a small Romanian contingent – have genuinely put their shoulders to the wheel. The failure of most NATO countries to fulfil their Bonn Conference promises has severely jeopardized, perhaps outright doomed, the bold undertaking. By this impotence, the very concept of NATO has been invalidated.
There's no reason to believe other member-nations will step up if Canada abandons Afghanistan in 2009, or retreats to the relative safety of Kabul as an urban cantonment. The likes of France, Italy and Germany won't fill the combustible gap in Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan. Easier for them to stay beyond reach in Kunduz or Herat, where insurgent attacks are rarities and showcase reconstruction humming alone nicely: All the brass polishing with none of the blood.
And this façade of deployment is what many Canadians want for their troops.
No comments:
Post a Comment