Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

The Bush administration has back-peddled so much over the past eight years (WMD, Afghanistan, capturing Osama, Palestinian issues, Iraq and the “bring it on” statement - a statement that actually goaded the insurgency; intelligence on Iran, etc.) that the whole U.S. economy is finally peddling backwards too.

The latest integrity outage occurred the other day when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in explaining to the Los Angeles Timeswhy more U.S. troops were needed in Afghanistan, passed the buck. Gates stated that Canada and Britain were not up to the job, so more troops were needed and that NATO was not trained to fight counter-insurgency warfare — an outrageous, ham-fisted, counter-productive, public criticism.

Let me recap the back-peddling: Gates calls Minister of Defence Peter MacKay and his British counterpart (the Brits were furious), and begins the “I didn’t really mean it” spin process.
The next day, he makes a public announcement praising the NATO war effort and hard sacrifices and casualties. Canadian Prime Minister Harper chimes in with an “it’s all right” message, and that “there should be no ‘misinterpretation’ of these remarks vis-a-vis Canada.”

What? There is no misinterpretation. There was no misinterpretation. Gates said, and I quote, from the L.A. Times, “Our guys in the east, under Gen. Rodriguez, are doing a terrific job. They’ve got the (counterinsurgency) thing down pat. But, I think our allies over there this is not something they have experience with”.

The same day, Gates “spokesperson” declares that what Gates meant was that everyone in NATO, including the U.S., has trouble with counterinsurgency. But that is not what Gates said. That was spin.

What is more troubling is the reaction, right afterwards, by Mackay who breathlessly told reporters that he had spoken with Gates, that everything was fine, and that Gates’ comments were taken “out of context.”

Huh? The L.A. Times told me that they had the tapes if I wanted to hear them when I called. There was nothing “out of context.” Why should a senior government official like Mackay, whose salary we pay for, lie, and spin for another country’s official? Why should Harper effectively say the same thing the next day?

This is the same Canadian administration that wanted us to follow America into Iraq and now has exploited the weaknesses of the Paul Martin government that allowed Defence Chief Rick Hillier to slide us into a combat role in Afghanistan — something Harper wishes to expand upon. Harper, if he had his way, would have us fighting there for years. He cannot, publicly, say that however. But that is, strangely, what he would like to do.

Yet, 70 per cent of Canadians have said they do not want Canada in a combat role. So, the Harper administration is being cautious here.

Let’s get back to Gates. The reason for Gates outburst in the first place is frustration. Simply put, the mission in Afghanistan is failing. U.S. troop levels are now more than when the invasion started 7 years ago. That is not winning. So, the finger pointing game has begun.

According to the United Nations new “Super Envoy” to Afghanistan, Britain’s no-nonsense, imperious, Paddy Anderson, “we are losing in Afghanistan - and rather than losing militarily, we are losing the political mission - and in large part we are losing the political mission because there has been a complete failure of the international community to co-ordinate efforts.” Moreover, Anderson has said that the West is only spending one-quarter the amount of troops per head in Afghanistan, and one-half the amount of aid per head of population that we put into Bosnia and Kosovo.

Losing militarily is never a problem. The West never loses militarily: the U.S. was never defeated on the ground in Vietnam, or Iraq. But it didn’t matter.

The only guerrilla war America won was against the Philippines in the (1899-1902) and against the nomadic, disorganized, American Indians throughout the nineteenth century.

More often than not, in the modern era, “winning” militarily means nothing - you still lose.

That is why it is important that foreign policy not be determined by soldiers. War is always political and winning is always about politics.

We are not winning.

America is the last country to be giving lectures on counter-insurgency. Modern counter-insurgency cannot be won. It is not only common sense it is against the Powell military doctrine of overwhelming force; against the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq, the lessons of Israel in Lebanon last summer (and the 80s), and the lessons of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few short decades ago.

Blame Canada.