A new found respect for mayhem
|
I read a lot of things on different travel websites that make tongue-in-cheek references to the United States' spotty foreign policy. Lord knows, I couldn't agree more; it has been pretty bad for the past 8 years (I miss Madeline Albricht) and had a rather interesting patch in the 60's. But I have to cast aside my anti-Bush, pro-peace ways for just a moment when I read an article like this: "U.S. says forces kill some 80 insurgents" Taliban. The only identifiable "enemy" in the "war on terror". Men arming themselves under a really bad ideology. None of this "we killed him because he belonged to a group that provided funding to a consortium that once tried to bomb a building under an islamic-extremist guise" or "tied to a country that supplies terrorist" or some other convoluted, vicarious justification for warfare. Just real simple; us and them. I only say this because my attitude over the years has changed. Mostly from listening to soldiers. Stories of "that point" where they went from believing that everything can be worked out with diplomacy, to realizing that there's a man in interrogation who, after wounding their friend in a suprise attack and being perforated by grenade shrapnel, is now bleeding and saying nothing other than "When I get out of here I am going to kill you all". Stories of when the safety is off and ironsights are trained on a child throwing rocks and making a "throat slashing" motion. Men and women who, a world away from combat, write and paint and farm and read books on philosophy and appreciate fine wine. Men and women who's only warrior distinction is that "moment". It can--and always will be--a very gray world. For all our efforts (I refer to travelers, people who exist in a world where we try to understand and respect other cultures--not vilify them) there will always be those--at home and abroad--who cannot see beyond themselves. When those people take up arms in that geo-centric ideology...well, we see what happens. The waters get stirred, people die, many suffer. In that respect, its nice when--for a brief, six hours--things are black and white. Bad guys 0, Good guys 80. Am I a bad guy for saying this? END NOTE: The article said something of interest to me:
NATO-led forces are also conducting operations in Helmand and Kandahar, but unlike the U.S.-led coalition force, do not release Taliban casualty figures. I wonder why? |
+ Enlarge
respect mayhem? cast aside your pro-peace beliefs? for just a moment? watch your line for what's acceptable start to stretch.
Oh, the tangled NATO web we weave! Operations in Afghanistan technically fall under the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This is first NATO operation ever done outside of Europe or North America, and originally only addressed Kabul.
Here's the funny part. The latest numbers indicate that 25 countries contribute 40,639 soldiers to ISAF. One country contributes over 42% of the troops there. Take a guess? Yep, the United States is handing 17,000 to the ISAF mission, IN ADDITION to their own contingent of 8,000 that remain solely under U.S. command.
Organizing 24 countries to one common cause is like trying to order Chinese take-out for 800; everyone will starve to death before food is ordered. Thus each nation puts caveats on their troop dedication--deployment times and breadth of missions among them. Thus, when the ISAF commanders get together and say "We need to hunt insurgents in the south", Germany step in and says "None of our 3,424 troops are fighting in any of the southern provinces." Thus, I think the Americans, being the bulk of the force anyway, simply find it easier to command their own forces.
Its also interesting to note, going back to Lauren Lim's blog on Poland politics, that Poland actually contributes more soldiers than France.
And finally...
...believe me--the most daunting thing about the whole "war on terror" BS is the "them" equation. There is no "them", with the limited exception of structured organizations, bent specifically on taking up arms (e.g.: Taliban) against their own defined enemies (you being one of them, for being an educated woman, speaking unprovoked to a man you're not married to, and me being one of them for not stoning you for it).
Believe me, the people I live around--some of them I've even called "friends" at one time or another--happily lump all the "ragheads" together, blaming "them" for 9/11. As far as their concerned, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, India might as well be the same country vis-a-vis Dirka-Dirka-Stan. These are the same guys that get erections when Blackwater kill count--an outfit of unprofessional glory seekers if I've ever seen one--goes up.
Jesus...I write too much. ;)
-JB
"In dealing with local police, U.S. citizens should be aware that the standard of professionalism might vary." -U.S. State Department on the Dominican Republic...and probably 100 other countries
Hah, yeah the north-south thing is big news up here. The lovely Chancellor Merkel thought it would be appropriate to intervene in the Canadian debate over how much longer to stay in Afghanistan, but her attempted guilt-trip / plea about our obligations was a bit rich from someone who won't send a single German soldier into Kandahar province.
Ahhhh what a mess.
Thanks for the breakdown on the different forces - didn't know there were some extra-NATO US troops on the ground.
I am confused by the distinction between US-led and NATO-led troops in Afghanistan. I thought the US went in under the NATO banner, theoretically granting the Afghan war effort a legitimacy that Iraq didn't have? Isn't it all one coalition?
I know what you mean about enjoying what seems like a clear-cut victory, but if the only way for "us" to "win" the "war on terror" is to kill all of "them" then we will lose. We had better hope someone in a top-secret lab somewhere is coming up with a better plan.