Matt asked me this question (Matt being Matthew
Barganier, merciless editor at this Web site) in response to a draft rant from
me about NATO's role in Afghanistan. It's a good question: what should
NATO do in Afghanistan? Here's my answer: (1) read the Globe
and Mail, (2) take it to the streets. I don't think there's an Afghan
edition of the Globe and Mail, but there should be. Home delivery in
the Pashtun translation would solve a lot of problems, but it's not like you
can just throw a newspaper at somebody's front porch in Kandahar at 6 a.m. without
worrying about the consequences.
The Globe is "Canada's National Newspaper" and has a distinguished
history, blotted by its support for the Iraq misadventure and the Afghanistan
disaster. I have been sarcastic about it on this very Web site; nevertheless,
the Globe has some fabulous reporters who hold the keys to the future,
and NATO should read these guys. Meanwhile, NATO is lining itself up for what
Alexander Cockburn
called The Tenth Crusade.
Pope
Urban's more famous (so far) First Crusade "took its first public shape
at the Council of Piacenza, where in March 1095 Urban received an ambassador
from the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenus, asking for help against the Muslims."
It didn't work, relying as it did on primitive communications and technology.
People had to be killed by hand. No more. A modern Crusade can be waged ruthlessly
from space, at hypersonic speed, antiseptically, from anywhere within the continental
USA… or Brussels. North Americans, from right-wing nutbars like Ron
Parsley to trendy Manhattan
artist John Currin, have decided we're at war with Islam, whoever "we"
are.
Meanwhile George Bush (Urban Lite) will be flying to a NATO meeting in Romania
to promote the "mission"
in Afghanistan, which has not been defined but is legally a "collective
right of self-defense" enshrined in the NATO
Charter (Article 5) and the UN
Charter (Article 51), and dignified by UN Security
Council Resolution 1386 and subsequent extensions. So, now that NATO has
defended itself by quelling the terrorist upwelling in Afghanistan – that fearsome
boring of termite holes into the Hindu Kush, with legions of mindless workers
serving a bloated terrorist queen who incubates nuclear weapons composed of
spare parts supplied by A.Q. Khan – now that we've stopped all that, what do
we do?
Go small or go home. Gen.
Dan McNeill says it would take 400,000 NATO troops to occupy Afghanistan,
and it ain't gonna happen, there being some 40,000 troops available now, and
many of those on a short leash. NATO is stuck in Afghanistan like the U.S. is
stuck in Iraq. There is no plan. This was made clear by the French foreign minister,
Bernard
Kouchner, who obviously has a black sense of humor, since he explained that
"a strategy is necessary." The real answer lies in the street.
As reported by Oliver
Moore, heroic volunteers are immunizing children against polio in southern
Afghanistan, and it's working. As reported by Mark
MacKinnon, local movements are achieving some peace and stability in the
Middle East, where ponderous international intervention has failed. And as reported
by Stephanie
Nolen, local action in Mali has made an enormous difference in the quality
of life for women and children.
What NATO should do is declare victory and go home. The future of the world
lies in self-determination, not global policing. NATO should recognize that
the military solution is bankrupt and withdraw. NATO can't make Kosovo work,
it can't make Afghanistan work, it can't make anything work. What it can do
is support international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the
Red Cross, and the United Nations (bumbling as these institutions might be),
and withdraw, making offers of support for basic services such as clean water
and clearance of land mines.
NATO's origins
in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, were admirable, but something has gone terribly
awry. Built to save the world from a totalitarian menace, NATO now seems a purpose
without a cause, an enormous military enterprise drifting into the hands of
people who think Pope Urban had the right idea but not enough firepower.