I rather exhausted myself after the Tony Blair two parter (which could be a trilogy after next Friday, if Brown doesn’t have to resign after ‘Bullygate’), so I’ll try a short and sweet one, as my wife often says. What’s tickled my prostate gland this week (and last week actually) is the Afghan War-winning Operation Moshtarak, civilian casualties, and the blatant reasons behind it. And no, I’m not talking about oil, money, or terminating the Taliban.
So ten days ago, as I was rubbing suntan lotion into the ageing skin of Mrs. Sucrose on the lovely beach of Pinamar (Argentina, for the geographically uneducated), the AP app on my iPhone tells me about Operation Moshtarak. A made up word? Most probably, but in this days of yogalates, Jargonaut, and meh, the dictionary is slowly becoming a fable, a Bible-esque collection of myths and legends. According to http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/operations/17644.aspx, one of the objectives of the operation is “improve security and freedom of movement within the main population areas of central Helmand province.” It will lead to “greater economic development and growth of governance.” Intrigued by this, especially after seeing the debacle of the Chilcot Inquiry, I asked Manuel to bring my portable HD plasma screen to the beach. Sky News then filled in all the blanks for me, and inspired patriotism for our great country. Even BBC News took on a patriotic slant, explaining how beneficial the Operation would be for the never-ending war in Afghanistan. “Yeah, let’s get those no-good Taliban!” I roared across the beach. Fortunately, no one was there-my private security force had cordoned off the entire area! The benefits of wealth...But then my wife asked “I thought the Taliban had been wiped out in 2001?” Current affairs have never been her speciality. If you’re talking about Eastenders, however, then she is the Mastermind.
After a couple of hours of being whipped into a patriotic fervour, reality soon dawned on me. One of our troops had died. And suddenly, the enthusiasm for the new offensive subsided, both in myself and the news. However, the news quickly moved on, hurling adulation onto the Operation and it’s achievement of several objectives (although I’m sure these were kept quiet). Civilians commented that the fighting in Marjah was continuing at ‘maximum intensity’ (something lost in translation?!?!?). And then the inevitable civilians casualties arrived, almost as soon as fighting had started. Faulty missile systems were blamed, as were the Taliban. The missile system, HAL, or High Mobility Artillery Rocket Sytem, was suspended, and an inquiry was promised. The word ‘inquiry’ provoked my anger, and it got me thinking-what is the point of this operation?
It’s the first offensive in the Helmand province since Obama’s surge of 30,000 troops (boy, that Peace Prize is proving to have hit the bullseye!) and Brown’s British reinforcements in the area. These troops need to be used, surely, but in the public glare. It would be fatal to Obama if these troops surge did not prove any tangible results. We’ve heard a lot about how successful the troop surge has been in ‘winning the war in Afghanistan’, but nothing says success like a massive offensive, both on the ground and in the media. And it became obvious to me that the offensive was targeting the media rather than the Taliban. You could always find an admission of difficulties hidden in all the articles and news reports about the offensive. The US Nato Commander General Stanley McChrystal often tried to quell expectations of quick success, and also placed doubt on what to do with the aftermath. It was the aftermath of the 2001 offensive, not the offensive itself, that caused the Taliban to rise again. From the initial ‘war’ almost a decade ago, it should be clear how easy it is to take on the Taliban. Sure, their guerrilla tactics make things a little difficult, but the military sophistication of Nato conjures the image of hitting a fly with a sledgehammer. Think about the estimates of the number of Taliban insurgents and the Nato alliance. The Taliban claims to have around 2000 in the region, whereas the US estimate this to be closer to 1000. And now the Nato alliance: 15,000! Excessive? Yes. There are 2,500 Afghan troops, to honour the pledge of handing over responsibility to the Afghan government. Let’s think about this for a second. Is the Afghan government responsible enough to take responsibility? The Afghan police force is incredibly corrupt, as are many officials. And it’s more than likely that once the Taliban have been removed, Nato will forget all about Marjah and move on to the next publicity feast.
Now, with such a great number of Nato troops, dodgy missile systems, and the Taliban’s favourite tactic of using civilians as human shields, how can this Operation “secure areas routinely used by the Taliban as a base from which to launch attacks against ISAF troops and the Afghan civilian population” (that great army/MOD website again.) Maybe one should swap the ‘ISAF’ with ‘the Taliban’?!?!? That was truly scathing! That’s how I earned £800 million! And along with civilian casualties comes negative publicity, a BAD THING in this media war. How can we help Afghan civilians if we keep killing them?
I know all about successful media campaigns to reinvigorate a failing operation. After allegations of an affair with my private secretary, I used all of my monetary skill to convince the media of their errors. Shots of me and my wife happily strolling around our mansion plagued BBC News for a while. She wrote a few articles for the Daily Mail, explaining our eternal love and mutual destiny. And it worked a treat. The private secretary is now serving a life sentence for inflicting trauma and indefinite stress upon all members of my family. And my stocks reached an all-time high. She was the only civilian casualty in the whole mess. However, when it comes to (modern) war, civilian casualties take a hefty wedge in the overall death toll pie.
So, today, we had McChrystal issuing a televised apology to the Afghan people (who suffer froma want for electricity due to the destruction the Afghanistan War has caused) for a strike in the Uruzgan province that allegedly killed 21 people on Sunday. It was unrelated to the Marjah offensive, but will be seen as mutually dependent on it. It will be seen as just another example of Nato’s indifference to Afghans, as HAL’s mistakes were earlier last week. Nato jets attacked a convoy of cars thought to be insurgents. How wrong they were. “I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans...I have instituted a thorough investigation to prevent this from happening again.” So now we have a war on two fronts; the western front, to paint the picture that this offensive will lead to the end of the Afghan war, and the eastern front, to paint the picture that civilians casualties are an unfortunate but unstoppable consequence of the march to liberty and victory. Both of these work against the last goal of “help[ing] the Afghan Government take more responsibility for the security and stability of the province.” (MOD website again! I love the information age!). The more the civilian death toll increases, the less that either front can be won. Western liberals will pounce upon these facts and denounce the Afghan War once again, and the Afghan population will shrug their shoulders, and say ‘business as usual.’ It shocked me to the core when some political commentator on Sky News said that the Afghan population will see the civilians deaths as a necessary part of liberation. He said they won’t be disheartened by the deaths, and take the philosophy of “it’s all for the greater good.”
It’s not for the greater good. It’s a campaign to bolster Obama’s troop surge and subdue the apathy for the Afghan War. Many of us have forgotten why we’re over there, blemished by scenes of blossoming poppy fields and dead civilians. Think about our reaction to the death of a troop in Afghanistan. ‘Why are we still there?’ ‘What are we fighting for?’ I’m sure similar questions occur to the majority of Afghans when they see family members in pieces thanks to a machine’s error. Especially if they heard the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen saying that the efforts against the Taliban were ‘incredibly wasteful,’ as was ‘war in general.’ ‘But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the cost.’
Apparently, Moshtarak means ‘Together’ in Dari. How meaningful. What an inappropriate name for an offensive, one that’s trying to foster the belief that Nato and Afghanistan are working as one, whereas the evidence on the ground means that they couldn’t be further apart. And the apology from McChrystal will not be accepted. I’m just waiting for Darth Vader to choke him after another apology when the next batch of civilians die thanks to modern technology. And for the entire initial media blitz, it might as well be a movie, or the next Call of Duty. As a close friend, a very Mad Man, commented at the start of ‘Together’, it is a simulation of sorts. Nothing will be decided in this Operation, just as my son will achieve nothing killing virtual soldiers on the recent Call of Duty. Well, I’d much prefer the stylised violence of Modern Warfare 2 than think about the futility of this new offensive. At least I won’t have the displeasure of listening to Kay Burley and her almost racist references to civilian casualties. I wish she would die in a faulty missile blast. But then I simply reflect that I’m nearly a billionaire, and spend thousands on a new car. That’s the life I lead.
Posts
