Time to change the Piper

How U.S. Air Power is Hurting Canadian Efforts in Afghanistan

I would like to bring to your attention the ramifications of US Military actions on Nation development, specifically the adverse affect US firepower has on sustaining a credible positive posture in Afghanistan.

The actions that produced our latest fatality in Afghanistan was part of a greater attempt by Combined Allied Forces to destroy Taliban Insurgents in the areas south of Kandahar. An area long forgotten by US forces and still the traditional homeland of the Taliban, Canada has taken a key role in the region by staking a credible presence in the heart of badguy country on a permanent basis. It needs to be said that after nearly 4 years of occupation, this is the first time such a force has been deployed here. And due to the actions of the US military, it just got harder for our soldiers. I need to say, even deadlier because the end result will be a stronger Taliban, thanks to U.S. firepower.

When Taliban fighters retreated from open warfare in the region, they took shelter and used civilians as human shields to ward off the pressure, a tactic perfected against Western Forces by the insurgents in Iraq to great effect. The predictable result was a wholesale bombing of a town and the loss of innocent civilian lives. I ask, where have we seen this before?

This has caused a lot of hand wringing in Canada as it seems the tried and true method of pacification - leadership, bravery, fairness and respect for local lives and property and rights - has been tossed aside. Why? Because American firepower cannot be controlled in situations where it is crucial not to kill civilians.

The Prime Minister of Canada himself is sitting on pins and needles as this senseless slaughter of innocent people will in all likelihood set back all the work Canada has done towards pacification and bringing peace to the region. It has also placed in jeopardy all the sacrifice the men and women of Canada have paid for in blood, Goddard’s just being the newest instalment.

I'm going to add that if the whole thing there blows up into a full bore insurgency on the unremitting scale of the Sunni Triangle, Canadian support for the mission will crumble. Harper will face a disaster in policy directly because US firepower caused anti-Western sentiment to grow to an extent that sustained an increased number of Insurgents. Even though closer American ties will not be to blame for this, they will none the less be seen as a factor in Harper's Afghanistan policy. The opposition will pounce on the fact US firepower caused our credibility as peace-makers there to crumble. There will be a real linkage of the two factors and Harper will face a Lyndon Johnson dilemma.

Hamid Karzai is demanding an investigation into the circumstances that caused this screw-up. The American spokesman for the U.S. forces there simply said it was the fault of the Taliban for using these tactics. This infuriates the President, who knows that the Taliban has just been handed a terrible weapon and the U.S. can’t seem to understand why.

And rightly so.

It's been America's excuse for all the bloodshed in Iraq, and if anyone can show me that wholesale slaughter in the name of killing insurgents has benefited Iraq at all, I would like to see the details. Don't bother: we all know rhetorical righteousness when we hear it.

If continued US airstrikes murder more civilians the Kandahar region will certainly begin to side with the Taliban, causing open rebellion in a key region, probably threatening Karzai’s government. He’s very concerned to say the least.

I’m concerned.

I have been there, and I know the Afghan people’s hate of the U.S. warplanes. I heard many times the local’s dread and fear of U.S. helicopters and jets, as a result of their bombing. Many told me they lost family to the bombing. And I fully understand the fact that in Iraq, the misuse of U.S. firepower has condemned that war to unrelenting cycle of violence.

Insurgents using civilians as shields means we have to get in and get personal. That's gonna cost some Canadian lives. But that will ensure the minimum civilian casualties. The Taliban understood this when they changed tactics, and the results are obvious.

So far, Canada has had success in convincing Afghans that we are fair and there to develop the rightful Afghan government, not take their country over. That success was jeopardised by wholesale destruction. What I fear is more Canadians will have to die to kill the recruits this mess has garnished the Taliban and those Afghans who are opposed to the Government.

Time to do something about it.

First off, until we can implement change, all U.S. airpower and any other large scale support weaponry for any sector ISAF is working inmust be placed under fire control of ISAF fire controllers only - regardless of U.S. activity. That means ISAF and NATO rules of engagement are the only ones in effect. Those who are risking their lives on the ground should be the ones calling the shots - that’s fair enough for anyone.

Secondly, ISAF nations should supply their own airpower as soon as possible. The Canadian, British and Dutch forces have the capability, and therefore will supply all such support.

Eventually, NATO needs to take over all activity in Afghanistan. It’s the best thing for all concerned. The only proof I need to point to in this regard is Iraq and the mess specifically caused by firepower killing too many people in too wanton a manner.

American inability to control firepower must not be allowed to destroy the chance Afghanistan has. The removal of U.S. forces will benefit the U.S. people as well by demonstrating that given proper leadership and skill, insurgencies can be defeated. Just not the way America does it. They can judge the difference for themselves and hopefully make changes.

Make no mistake, this is gonna cost Stephan Harper and the leaders of the nations of NATO involved in Afghan peace. This means the deployment of at least a squadron of CF-18s and the financial strain that will cause will be directly felt in Conservative wiggle room back home on domestic spending. A widening of the war, any war, is seldom popular. This will be the same for the rest of the nations involved, and the prospect for widening NATO's involvement will be seen in Europe as highly divisive.

But right now, given the proven result of the Status Quo what other option does our Leadership have? They can allow US warplanes to decimate our credibility and cause more Canadian soldiers to die, or they can withdraw our forces. Or they can take a bold lead and elevate a key problem in establishing trust in that war torn country.

Canada has long stood on our reputation for leading peace but these days our laurels look to be in tatters. That comes from standing on them all day. We can re-establish with a bold move, showing our leadership in world affairs above our punchweight again and still accomplishing what we set out to do: bring peace to Afghanistan. It's a bold move to be sure, but doing nothing in any war will cause the worst to occur through inertia. If we are to avoid the repercussions of the policies of Iraq in our own Area of Operations, we need to change the way business is done.

And frankly I don’t want to see my buddies die because of mistakes re-made yet again by people who should know better. If we let Afghanistan turn into Iraq here, we have all failed. It's time for leadership.