Monday, September 21, 2009

BruceR on "Anti-Wente"

The start and conclusion of a very helpful riposte at Flit; if only our major media had pieces like this--please read the whole thing for the great detail and excellent analysis:
On that Wente column

The Torch is an amazing resource, and a great Canadian milblog. But it can get a little defensive about the military at times (as indeed, can I). Case in point today, reacting to a Margaret Wente Globe and Mail column that was critical of the military last week:

"Ms Wente might wish to read this..."

Unfortunately, a careful read of the article linked, however, actually reinforces Wente's argument, that Canadian troops are not outside of the wire enough, engaging with the Afghans.

Wente's article was eminently attackable on one point, that the Canadians were mostly inside the wire back at Kandahar Air Field (KAF). That's not true, as many commentators have since pointed out. The majority of combat troops are forward of KAF, in suitably named Forward Operating Bases. KAF is a soul-destroying place: the food alone makes you weep for humanity. No one who has an excuse to get outside the wire doesn't jump at the chance. I was luckier in some respects in that regard. But Wente's larger, hidden point, that we're not having the effects we should have for all our outlay, is still valid despite her error in that regard. Goes the article:

"There's a thin line of defence between this area of the sparesly (sic) populated Panjwaii district and the wild, wild west where the Taliban are pretty much free to roam at will..."

All that to say, look, yes, Wente's piece was somewhat over the top, but we shouldn't knee-jerk too far in the other direction. Above all, we shouldn't pretend that there's some secret asterisk implied, one that says, "psst, not you, Canadians" in Gen. McChrystal's report this week:

"McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. "Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us -- physically and psychologically -- from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves."

We're far from the worst offender in ISAF in this regard. But to a degree the Commander is talking about Canadians, too. The senior general in theatre is actually agreeing with Wente when he says he wants to see us, and the rest of our allies, taking even more risks with our soldiers than we are now. As a country, we need to hoist that in.

Let the dialectic continue.

2 Comments:

Blogger Terry Glavin said...

I get what Bruce is saying and defer to him on all matters military, but he is wrong about Ms. Wente's column in question, in this way:

Its "larger, hidden point" was not hidden, and it wasn't that "we're not having the effects we should have for all our outlay"; that was just an argument she attempted to support her point. And her point was not that she "wants to see us, and the rest of our allies, taking even more risks with our soldiers than we are now." Her column was just as ill-informed as many of her columns are, but her main point was quite clear: "The Taliban are evil, but they have no designs on us," which is to say that so long as the Taliban are just bothering the wogs and not Ms. Wente, we shouldn't be going to so much trouble.

No soup for Peggy.

8:36 p.m., September 21, 2009  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

But it can get a little defensive about the military at times...

Heh. That's actually one of the prime reasons I started the damned thing: to defend those in uniform in ways they couldn't themselves.

So, yeah: fair point, although I don't see it as criticism. :)

12:25 a.m., September 22, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home