We all want to succeed in Afghanistan, but it seems no one wants to pay for it
Canada's Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home) and the Guardian have recently stepped up their coverage of the Afghanistan troop debate.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that no one wants to take a lead in Afghanistan - it is too costly, both in dollar figures and in the potential troop loss. Most NATO countries are discussing how they can withdraw from the country, and when - the sooner it seems the better. And yet very few discussions, in Parliaments and elsewhere discuss the ramifications of withdrawal, and I mean really discuss them.
I recently read an article that said leaders should be open about the possibility of casualties in Afghanistan, and it is certainly true - I particularly wish that in Canada, instead of playing politics and attempting to ride the opinion polls our politicians would make judgements regarding Afghanistan with a larger picture in mind, not just an electoral victory, but victory of peace and prosperity in another country - one Canadians committed to.
It is easy to walk away, and say we do not have the money, or that we do not have the troop capacity - it is a much harder decision to stay even when the road is rough.
Perhaps all NATO allies should get back to discussing the possibilities and discuss a new action plan for Afghanistan instead of packing our things to go - I definately think (especially after reading this book about illicit trading, and the drug trade's effect on the Afghan economy) that it is a worthwile endeavor.
2 Comments
Astrid Haas
I completely agree with you - as soon as the going gets slightly tough, its not worth it anymore. However, even if they do not want to stay for the greater good of "peace and prosperity," it is completely in their own interests to stay and ensure the country is stable. No one wants to see Afghanistan slip into its former state as a safe have for the Al-Quaeda.
Liviu Croitoru
Quite true. It's the essence of pragmatism, or hypocrisy depending on your point of view. Most NATO states have come to realize that domestic security is tied to that of security and stability across the world -- most even have it in their defence policy. It's a lovely sentiment but lacking in application for nearly all the participating members of the International Security Assistance Force...