PDA

View Full Version : Did Corporal Jamie Murphy die in vain?



EvanL
01-31-2004, 05:52 PM
By JEFFREY SIMPSON


UPDATED AT 5:26 PM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004





Advertisement





Alice Murphy asked her son about serving in Afghanistan: "Jamie boy, do you have to go over there? That's a bad country." His mother's instinct did not lie.

Corporal Jamie Brendan Murphy died in that "bad country" this week, killed by a Taliban suicide bomber. Three other Canadian soldiers were wounded.

It is comforting to say that Corp. Murphy did not die in vain because a stable Afghanistan without the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies is in the best interests of Canada, Afghanistan and civilized people everywhere. But Corp. Murphy's death might later be shown to be in vain if, as now seems possible, Afghanistan descends into a narco-state, essentially run outside Kabul by warlords, and de-stabilized by political and security forces in Pakistan.

Afghanistan's fate is now finely poised. Two months ago, Major-General Andrew Leslie, the Canadian deputy commander of the International Security Assistance Force there, said: "The status quo will only lead to failure."

This week, Sen. Richard Lugar, the worldly chairman of the U.S. Senate's foreign relations committee, asked of Afghanistan, "Are we winning or losing? Why should we have confidence that this is going to work out?"

Warnings have been issued for a long time. Last June, a task force of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society concluded its analysis: "Afghanistan remains a long way from achieving the U.S. goal of a stable, self-governing state that no longer serves as a haven for terrorists."

The following month, Human Rights Watch warned, "Afghanistan's window of opportunity is closing fast." The organization documented "widespread insecurity and human-rights abuse." Warlords were maintaining their grip.

The United Nations had already reported in 2002 that opium in Afghanistan was worth twice the value of all foreign aid. The drug traffickers were back, as were the Pakistani truck mafia. Afghanistan is again the world's largest producer of opium, the profits of which finance warlords' activities.

And now, the dedicated and brilliant chronicler of Afghanistan's long torment, Ahmed Rashid of Pakistan, reports: "That the Taliban are returning in force two years after their defeat is testimony enough that the West's support and strategy for rebuilding Afghanistan have so far been a failure."

Mr. Rashid, author of the definitive book on the Taliban, writes in the New York Review of Books, "The war against terrorism is still to be won in the Afghan mountains and deserts and among the Afghan people as well.

"Their nation, the largest and most tragic victim of terrorism, is not being rebuilt. Until that happens there is little incentive for al-Qaeda or extremists elsewhere to lose heart."

Afghanistan has largely vanished from the consciousness of countries engaged in the battle against terror. It quickly became yesterday's news once the U.S. shifted its focus to toppling Saddam Hussein.

An attack such as the one that killed Corp. Murphy creates a headline. His funeral produces another. Silence then descends.

Silence is not descending in either Afghanistan or neighbouring Pakistan, arguably now the world's most dangerous country. Pakistan's president-***-military ruler recently survived two assassination attempts. The country's security service contains elements still sympathetic to the Taliban. Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are believed to be hiding there. Some of the country's nuclear secrets have been sold on the international black market. In the state of Baluchistan, a radical Islamic party governs as part of a coalition and uses religious schools and mosques to train new recruits for terror in Afghanistan.

The good news from Afghanistan is that the loya jirga, or grand assembly, agreed in December on a new constitution. Elections are supposed to take place in June. This suits the Bush administration's desire to trumpet democratic progress in Afghanistan before the U.S. elections, except that the security situation is so bad that the vote might not mean much.

Only a fraction of Afghanistan's 10.5-million voters have been registered.

The World Bank said Afghanistan needed $10.5-billion in reconstruction aid over five years. It is receiving much less. The result, apparently, is restlessness and a certain disillusionment in the population with the slow rate of economic progress.

Security remains unsettled in parts of the country, especially the southeast. As some observers correctly predicted, once the Taliban regrouped it would concentrate terror in the cities, including Kabul, of the kind that just killed Corp. Murphy.

NATO is supposed to extend the International Security Assistance Force outside Kabul and environs, but it lacks the troops from member countries.

De-militarization of the warlords' armies, whose members are thought to be about 100,000, is barely proceeding.

Afghanistan remains a precarious, troubled country, although significantly better off than under the Taliban. It ought to have received -- and to receive -- more money, attention and sustained political effort from other countries to ensure that it does not become a failed state again.

But the Bush administration had Iraq in its sights, cooked up reasons for invading that country, and is now spending vastly more money there than where terrorism really did take root, and is taking root again: Afghanistan.

jsimpson@globeandmail.ca

Dalleer
01-31-2004, 06:06 PM
I'm still waiting for the international community to do something to extend the Afghan governments power to other areas besides Kabul.

Of course it's going to take casulties, but that's about the only way something gets done.

As sad as it is.

DANJANOU
01-31-2004, 07:51 PM
Daller, I agree. it's going to mean a change in the mission and probably more troops but I think it's coming. However I don't think the Taliban and the various Narco Warlords are going to take it lying down either. The more we hit them the more they'll strike back until one side packs it in.

There have been a few reports that both ISAF deaths this week (Canadian and British) were payback for the raid staged by 3RCR which netted a couple of fairly large drug players in Kabul.

I wonder if NATO and more imprtantly the leaders of the members states will go the distance when the casualty lists start mounting. So far tragic as they are the 3 Canadian dead are well short of what DND themselves were predicting at the start of this mission. Then again it's only half over as the second ROTO is just arriving in country this month

the_spec
01-31-2004, 09:06 PM
I'm sorry guys, but I think that's bull****. If you really wanna change something in that country, "finish the job" so to say, then you need an awful lot of troops who'll have to engage in real combat, not just SOF missions and air power while our "afghan allies" do the dirty work. As we've all seen it's no problem to crush the armed forces of a third world country but as we've also seen, that's not the point. That's not the way to win the war. US forces are searching the hills for Osama while the rest of the country goes to hell just like before 9/11.
To "extent power" outside Kabul, you need tens of thousand more soldiers, but where are they supposed to be coming from? When you see how the US is trying to reduce their forces in iraq, you won't see them sending more guys to another crisis area. The allies either don't have the capabilities or just don't want to commit more forces. So as it looks right now, we made some big noise and now leave afghanistan back to itself, with troops acting as an alibi.

usa320
01-31-2004, 09:08 PM
bull**** indeed.

Though i agree, things could be better, but they definately are better than they were before october 7th of 2001.

I think things will get better once Afghan and international forces fan out across the whole country. Right now there is way to much concentration on Kabul. The only people working elsewhere is the US military.

DANJANOU
01-31-2004, 09:14 PM
it's going to mean a change in the mission and probably more troops but I think it's coming.

Guys that's what I said. We're on the same page here.

Word in the news up here is that instead of two 6 months tours its looks we'll be staying a lot longer. Although I'd love to know where were going to find the manpower as we're stretched pretty thin as it is.

EvanL
01-31-2004, 09:15 PM
bull**** indeed.

Though i agree, things could be better, but they definately are better than they were before october 7th of 2001.

I think things will get better once Afghan and international forces fan out across the whole country. Right now there is way to much concentration on Kabul. The only people working elsewhere is the US military.
Yes but the size of those operations isnt great enough, and Afghanistan is a large country with possibly the most rugged terrain anywhere. It will take alot of troops and alot of years to fully (if thats even possible) rid the country of the terrorist and fanatical scum that has so infected it in the past 20 years.

Maverick77
01-31-2004, 09:50 PM
Yes, this "peacekeeping" is bull****. The troops doing that are just targets for the terrorists.

They should be in the countryside, killing those ****ers.

11k troops out there is not enough. The Taliban is gaining more than the coalition right now. that is bull****.

California Joe
01-31-2004, 09:54 PM
This Taliban bull****e should have been taken care of before Saddam. Just my opinion. Sorry but it's the Bill Mahr in me. Notice I used the correct slang spelling per Argyll......."****e".

Resevoir Hogs
01-31-2004, 10:26 PM
BTW last I heard there were 10 000+ US troops in Afghanistan. That's more than when the invasion took place. They are also preparing for a major offensive. Too bad the Canadians have to sit in Kabul and can't join our troops outside the city.

EvanL
01-31-2004, 10:32 PM
BTW last I heard there were 10 000+ US troops in Afghanistan. That's more than when the invasion took place. They are also preparing for a major offensive. Too bad the Canadians have to sit in Kabul and can't join our troops outside the city.
I believe we are planniong on expanding. Although im not sure. Perhaps another Canadian on the board could confirm or deny this.

Maverick77
01-31-2004, 10:48 PM
Yeah I think once this peacekeeping run is over they are sending guys back out into a Combat role again.

Resevoir Hogs
01-31-2004, 10:53 PM
Actually it's ISAF that is expanding to the northern town of Mazar-e-Sharrif (I think). However since this rotation of Canadian troops is the last planned for ISAF it is unclear when the CF will contribute troops to the mission again.

Maverick77
01-31-2004, 10:56 PM
Defence min said Canada will continue to contribute to the mission in Afghanistan.

the_spec
01-31-2004, 10:57 PM
The only people working elsewhere is the US military.
Don't you forget the 150 or so german soldiers in Kunduz which is just another proof how senseless this whole mission is. We're sending over a hundred soldiers there but who's in control? Local warlords. Population is complaining that we don't do anything and we have to turn a blind eye on local drug production there. If this small contigent would interfere with "local business", they'd have attacks on their ass, just like the canadians. Should anything happen, this force is too small and ill equipped to respond in any effective way and that's why their presence isn't more than a "look, we're here".

BTW last I heard there were 10 000+ US troops in Afghanistan. That's more than when the invasion took place. They are also preparing for a major offensive. Too bad the Canadians have to sit in Kabul and can't join our troops outside the city.
Sounds great, but if you think about it, it's nothing. 10.000 isn't much for a country like that. In Iraq they have 120.000 and complaining that they haven't got enough troops. The major offensive is another great "let's get osama and the taliban" mission, but it doesn't change the fact so much that you have the wild west outside kabul.

California Joe
01-31-2004, 11:01 PM
This guy speaks the truth. Word. Can't police an entire country from one tiny spot.

martinexsquaddie
02-01-2004, 02:04 AM
as 90% of European heroin cames from Afganistan Nato should pssibly deploy more troops there.
But is that then a stabilsation Force or an invasion?
what value is there in wiping out the poppy fields if there just goining to spring up in pakistan?
it would probably need at least 200,000 plus troops to secure the country
and keep up that commitment for at least 10 years.
the there's the massive rebuilding effort needed afganistan has'nt got any oil either :(

Marxist203
02-01-2004, 02:44 AM
Just think of it...George Bush Jr. could have put the resources he put into toppling Saddam Hussein over non-existant WMD into say, stabilizing Afghanistan and capturing Osama Bin Laden. Instead, he decided to waste the lives of 500 of his soldiers in a war that should have come at a later date.

Canadian News shows, and foriegn ones as well, were asking the question "Will the United States ignore Afghanistan like it did with the end of the Soviet war?" well, that seems to be true. Canada is paying the lions share of the cash to stabilize Afghanistan...and what? we get called down by Americans who think that we Canadians are cowards and bad allies for not helping them in Iraq?

The international community should be flooding Afghanistan with troops, not Iraq. Honestly man...Afghanistan is just going to turn into a Terrorist training camp again.

Trident-za
02-01-2004, 03:34 AM
I don't think Jamie Murphy died in vain.... but I also don't think the coalition can possibly "win" the war in Afghanistan with their current numbers and tactics, although they certainly won the first couple of battles.

Ultimately, it will be up to the politicians to decide how short-term or long-term their goals are. If they take the short-term view, then Afghansitan is already a success story. If they are determined to actually change Afghansitan and prevent the taliban/AQ/terrorists from coming back they are a LONG LONG way from getting the job done.

I'm not sure of all the details (maybe some of the Russian guys can help me out here), but I was under the impression that the russians were also very successful in the first year or 2 of their Afghan war. As should be obvious, this means nothing in the long term....

Royal
02-01-2004, 03:36 PM
bull**** indeed.



The only people working elsewhere is the US military.

Wrong way round - get yourt facts straight before you spout ****e...

Yeoman
02-01-2004, 10:17 PM
well alot of countries do have reservists. I mean really there's about a dozen men in my company that WANT to go to a-stan to help (including myself), and I know of alot of other guys that want to go as well, but can't get a spot.
reservists can be used for scenario's like this, I see no reason why it wouldn't be acceptable. you did join the army for intentions to do this. that or you wanted to look cool as a fat ass in greens.
and he did not die in vain. he knew what was going to happen, you have to accept that if you do that, there is a chance of being killed.
we've lost a member of the RCR regiment, decided that having a shot in his name last training night was a good idea. pro patria
Greg

the_spec
02-01-2004, 10:46 PM
Yeah, you probably find a lot of adventurers and good samaritans among the reserves but thing is that deploying troops and maintaining presence costs money. Training these guys for their jobs in a-stan costs time and should **** hit the fan, what politician wants to take the blame for it? The german armed forces at current don't even have the capabilities to send in much more troops than they already did. Sure, we have a 250,000 man army, but guess how small the percentage is that is actually trained and available for these missions. Also, the complicated cycle of train-standby-deploy-rest doesn't leave to many soldiers available to be send.