Canadian soldiers handed over their battlefield to American units on Tuesday, effectively ending Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan. Americans are concerned about that development – at least, those Americans who know about it.
In U.S. military circles, Canada’s withdrawal is viewed as an added burden to carry while the Americans are scaling back their involvement in Afghanistan, says Faheem Haider, Afghanistan analyst for the U.S.-based think tank, Foreign Policy Association.
He says U.S. military leaders believe Canada has done “a brilliant job” meeting its objectives in Afghanistan, and adds that the absence of troops from Canada and other Western countries is going to become a serious issue for the Americans in the coming months.
But Haider confirms that, outside military circles, there is virtually no awareness in the U.S. of the Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, the conflict is viewed as an American war because the U.S. has the lion’s share of troops there.
Support for the war is waning in Canada – a Vision Critical/Angus Reid poll taken earlier this year indicates 63 percent of Canadians oppose it, up 16 per cent from last year – and sentiment seems to be the same in the U.S.
A recent CBS poll found that about four in five Americans approve of the U.S. President Barack Obama’s current plan to bring troops home from Afghanistan and more than half would approve an even bigger withdrawal.
Haider, who describes himself as a liberal interventionist, sees the merit in having an American presence in Afghanistan to help the local population. However, he sees “no justifiable reason” for American troops to be there when it comes to advancing U.S. foreign policy interests.
He dismisses claims that even the projected 70,000 or so U.S. troops who will remain in Afghanistan past this year’s drawdown need to be there to keep the Taliban on the ropes. He says Americans can do that with far fewer boots on the ground.
“Overall, I would say American involvement in Afghanistan has been 30 per cent good and 70 per cent bad,” he concludes.
Many other American commentators are less charitable.
“This sorry little war already has gone on for more than 10 years,” writes R.L. Schreadley, the former executive editor of the South Carolina-based Post and Courier. “No wonder the American people have grown sick of it.
"The strategy in Afghanistan, after the initial destruction of terrorist training camps and ouster of the ruling Taliban, did not spring full-blown out of the head of Gen. David Petraeus like the goddess Athena out of the forehead of Zeus.
"Counter-insurgency and nation-building have a long and not very distinguished history in the broader field of international relations…”
Haider also agrees with General Walt Natynczyk, Canada’s top commander, who says the UN’s traditional approach to peacekeeping is part of a bygone era.
"The peacekeeping myth is that you have a very controlled environment where two consenting states come up with a peace agreement and invite United Nations or another coalition force to interposition and help them monitor that peace,” Natynczyk said on Thursday. “That kind of situation is a rarity, and I’m not sure it’ll ever happen again."
Says Haider: “He’s 100 per cent right. That kind of peacekeeping is misplaced allocation of resources. It’s nonsense for troops to just stand there and not be able to do anything. I think future UN interventions are going to be more similar to recent NATO operations."
Comments