Friday, July 31, 2009

Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa bureau chief
OTTAWA–In all of Afghanistan's fighting seasons this decade, none has been as deadly as this one.

Even NATO commanders have struggled to find new words to convey their grief as they cope with the worst month on record for casualties among coalition forces that invaded the country in 2001.

News releases announcing the latest deaths arrive almost daily, expressing "great sorrow," "sincere condolences," "heartfelt condolences" and "deepest sympathies" to the families of the slain soldiers.

So far this month, 72 coalition soldiers – including five Canadians – have died, many as a result of offensive operations by British and American forces in southern Afghanistan to seize territory long under Taliban influence.

The previous monthly high was 46 last August, according to the website icasualties.org.

But will the International Security Assistance Force be able to hold these hard-won regions to ensure insurgents don't come back?

The answer will determine the fate of the mission and the future of the troubled nation, experts say. And it's a question sure to prompt new questions about the NATO military alliance and Canada's own pledge to withdraw its troops in 2011.

"We are at an important point in Afghanistan's history and NATO's work there, and a testing point," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said this week.

Britain this week announced the end of Operation Panther's Claw, a five-week offensive to push out insurgents from parts of Helmand province in southern Afghanistan in advance of elections on Aug. 20.

Commanders declared the operation a success, but conceded the heavy price – Britain has lost 22 soldiers in July, pushing its death toll in Afghanistan past the losses suffered in Iraq. Britain has now lost 191 soldiers in Afghanistan, compared with 179 in Iraq.

That stiff toll is sparking fresh questions about the quality of equipment provided to front-line British troops and fuelling public doubts in Britain whether the Afghan war is winnable.

But in an address at NATO's Brussels headquarters Monday, Miliband said the coalition must stay.

"NATO needs to show the Afghan people that we will not abandon them to Taliban retribution; that our forces will stay until Afghan communities can protect themselves," he said. "It is only when the cooperation, passive and active, of ordinary Afghans is removed that the insurgency will be fatally undermined."

The offensive push in southern Afghanistan has taken coalition troops into the "belly of the beast," so a rise in violence was expected, said Seth Jones, an expert on Afghanistan with the Rand Corp., a U.S. think tank.

"You're talking about areas where there is a major Taliban presence that either territory is controlled or ... influenced by Taliban operations," Jones said in an interview.

But Jones questions whether coalition forces have enough troops to ensure a long-term presence in these newly seized territories.

"It's hard to know what the long-term commitment is going to be. I mean the challenge in the south, including with the Canadians in Kandahar, has been holding territory," he said.

"I really don't see the numbers from either NATO or Afghan national security forces for this size territory," said Jones, author of the recently released book In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan.

That's why ISAF will have to develop a strategy to win over local tribes and clans and have them act as the "de facto holding force," said Jones, recently returned from Lashkar Gah in Helmand.

At stake is the loyalty of local Afghans, whose support is vital to ending the insurgency, yet who remain wary of backing the coalition for fear of Taliban retribution should the coalition forces pull up stakes and leave.

"The question is going to be eight months from now what is the situation looking like ... If territory is not held, which has been the big problem, it's a very dangerous message to be signalling to the locals," Jones said.

He conceded that the Canadian plan to withdraw from Kandahar in 2011 doesn't help ease the fears of local Afghans. "I think there are questions about NATO's staying power," he said.

Military historian Jack Granatstein says Canadians likely could have been convinced to keep more than 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other federal politicians had done more to tell the public about the goals of the mission.

"The government ... has simply not been willing for the last two years to explain to people why we are there, what we are doing," he said. "We should stay, but I think it's very difficult to sustain a commitment to a military operation without public support. And the way you get public support is to have your political leaders tell you why you are there and why it's important."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay linked the spike in violence to the upcoming elections but denied insurgents were getting the upper hand.

"There's no question that this has been a very difficult and active fighting season. With the election on, that is another factor. There's an attempt by the insurgents, the Taliban to destabilize and give people a feeling they are waiting in the wings," MacKay said this week.

He said the surge of U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan – an extra 17,000 soldiers are being deployed – would help bring stability while allowing Canadians to "recalibrate and focus" on development projects and training the Afghan army.

"We're working very closely, collaborating with all the NATO allies, but the American surge of troops is inevitably, in my view, going to make a difference, a positive difference," MacKay said.

No comments:

Post a Comment