Why We Can't Win in Afghanistan?

Up in Canadia, Tony Smith has written an op-ed for the Vancouver Sun titled "Why we can't win in Afghanistan." If I may, I'd like to highlight this piece. It is one of the most poorly written and poorly organized opinion articles I've ever read. Ever. Some blurbs:

Smith opens up by explaining to the rubes-n-hicks-in-the-sticks who used to rule Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban for 11 years until 9/11.

Having thusly demonstrated his regional expertise, Mr. Smith apparently feels comfortable enough to make enormous generalizations and leaps in logic.

He spends the first third of his column explaining that Afghanistan is inextricably tied in with Pakistan, what with them both being Pashtun. While there are Pashtos in Afghanistan, it's hardly a monoethnic state. Smith then has the obligatory "America's at fault too!" throwaway line:

The Pashtun are Muslim, but were not fanatics until the Russians entered Afghanistan. The Americans decided to fund the Pashtun, to fight the Russians. The money was bought into N.W. Pakistan with the help of Pakistan's secret service. The Americans' partners were the Saudis.

This is an imprecise summary. The Americans (along with the UK, China, and others) gave money to the Afghans fighting the USSR through the Pakistani ISI. The Saudis gave money to the "Afghan Arabs" who joined the fight against the Soviets as unwanted outsiders:

Freelance cameraman Peter Jouvenal recalls: "There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.'"*

That's where OBL and al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, came from, not from coalition donations. Let it be shouted from the rooftops of campuses across this blessed land: The United States did not fund Osama bin Laden.

Back to the Smith piece.

He continues to avoid discussing his own column's supposed subject: the impossiblity of victory in Afghanistan. I'll summarize the argument he lays out as accurately as I can:

1. Taliban receives money from Saudi Arabia through underground channels.
2. Taliban receives money from opium sales which have been around a long time.
3. Taliban soldiers are paid more than ANA soldiers.
4. Therefore, the Taliban is still in power.

Q.E.D.? (Said in this voice.)

The Taliban, when it enjoys its rare public support, isn't supported because of its Wahabbism. Afghans who see that the coalition forces aren't protecting them will support the Taliban. Afghans who need food every day but are unemployed will support the Taliban. Opium farmers angry over lost revenue will support the Taliban.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of copies of this kind of journalism. Why pick this one to cut up? Because it highlights the worst elements of idiocy: a misplace confidence in a small collection of facts, an overbearing name-dropping, and a crystal case of someone using facts to fit a theory (in this case, "the U.S. is doing it wrong") rather than theorizing with facts.

Also, the byline was smirk-worthy.

Tony Smith lives in Langley.

It's not our Langley, but it wouldn't suprise me if some of our own Langley residents had similarly poorly-reasoned views.