Afstan update: It's not just "George Bush's War on Terror"

For some reason major Canadian newspapers did not cover this story. As far as I can see only the Globe gave any coverage: a one paragraph news brief, that did not mention Canada, in the Ottawa print edition. No wonder so many of our politicians and pundits are ignorant of what is going on. The story (from the CBC website):

NATO is expanding its force from 9,700 to 16,000 by late July, doubling international troop numbers in the southern region, which was the Taliban's heartland.

The deployment of more troops into former Taliban strongholds in the south has been met by a wave of attacks, including suicide bombings against international forces, including 2,300 Canadians, and their Afghan allies...

The alliance hopes to complete its expansion across the whole of Afghanistan by November by taking on the eastern sector, bringing its total numbers in the country to up to 25,000, although Rumsfeld said the exact timing was not yet certain...

The United States has said it will take command of the NATO force in Afghanistan through 2007, replacing the current British general.

The Pentagon said the United States has at least 21,000 troops in Afghanistan but there has been talk of a cut of as much as 20 per cent. Many of those who remain will be incorporated into the NATO force as it moves south and east. However, the United States will also maintain a combat force independent of NATO to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaida militants...

One of the Globe's most irritating pundits, Rick Salutin, writes today about Canada and Afstan that (full text not online):

...it may be more useful to go the painstaking routes of aid and diplomacy, while letting local forces sort themselves out, rather than trying to militarily impose a plan.It also may mean cutting loose from the U.S. agenda, which has its own aims. The United States invaded because it wanted to attack someone after 9/11, and in pursuit of geopolitical goals that do not coincide with ours...

Some observations on this nonsense:

1) If the local forces are left to "sort themselves out" then it will be rather difficult to provide aid in the south and east. Moreover, the Taliban might eventually win again. Does Mr Salutin want that? And with whom are we to conduct diplomacy? The Taliban?

2) We would not be just "cutting loose from the U.S. agenda". We would be cutting loose from the NATO (see above) and UN Security Council agendas. Why does Mr Salutin not mention those facts?

3) The US did not "invade" Afstan. The Northern Alliance received air support and assistance from special forces (both US and British); that however is not an invasion. Substantial foreign ground combat forces--including Canadian--only entered the country after the Taliban regime had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces in November 2001, and those foreign troops entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance. It is important to remember in this connection that the Alliance had kept Afghanistan's UN seat, so the US and others were actually supporting an internationally-recognized government.

4) The action against the Taliban was not just because the US "wanted to attack someone". It was because the Taliban had allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to run extensive terrorist training camps and to plan terrorist acts, including 9/11, in Afstan. The US demanded that the Taliban surrender bin Laden for trial; the Taliban refused. Military action followed. At that time the US's "geopolitical goals" coincided completely with Canada's. Indeed in February 2002 the Liberal government sent Canadian troops to Kandahar for a combat mission fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Yet Mr Salutin's mythic and anti-American version of reality is widely believed.