Colin Kenny sees the writing on the wall

The Senate's Standing Committee on National Security recently issued a report (summarized in this op-ed piece in the Globe) saying how much good we're supposedly doing there. Well, Colin Kenny disagrees vehemently. And he's not afraid to say what he thinks:

The Taliban know what is going on here, and whether NATO leaves in 2011 or 2014, they are going to continue to pursue a murderous civil war.

So what are we accomplishing in Afghanistan, at the cost of so much money that could be spent wisely around the world and at home, at the cost of so many young Canadian lives?

From the Ottawa Citizen (h/t pogge). I'd feel a bit better if he said "at the cost of so many young Canadian and Afghan lives", but I fully agree with his overall conclusion, namely that we should just get the hell out of there.

As an aside, I wonder if Kenny plays chess? After all, a chess player knows that when defeat is inevitable, the reasonable thing to do is to resign. To continue with a futile struggle right down to the mate is an insult to your opponent, as well as a waste of time and effort for both sides. With war, all of the above also applies, but we're also wasting lives -- theirs as well as ours. Why continue?

What we're protecting in Afghanistan

Hamid Karzai, whose illegitimate election last year should have been the last straw for NATO, has thrown a major hissy fit over the very modest pressures that we've been putting on him to behave himself:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened over the weekend to quit the political process and join the Taliban if he continued to come under outside pressure to reform, several members of parliament said Monday.

Mr. Karzai made the unusual statement at a closed-door meeting on Saturday with selected lawmakers – just days after kicking up a diplomatic controversy with remarks alleging foreigners were behind fraud in last year's disputed elections.

From the Globe. So let's get this straight. We're propping up an illegitimate leader, risking our own troops' lives, killing civilians, and turning over prisoners to authorities who torture them, and now this arsehole threatens to join the Taliban?? And we're doing this for what exactly? To uphold democracy? See Karzai's election above. To protect the rights of women? A laudable goal, but maybe we should be working on this at home first. The pipeline? Probably a major reason. To save face? Probably another major reason. But even if we accept these last two goals as legitimate, we can only save face, or build the pipeline, if we can win the war. My opinion? We can't. The USSR was a huge country, with a lot fewer supply line problems than NATO (thanks to being right next door to them), and yet they lost. We will too, mark my words.

ETA: The coup in Kyrgyzstan (h/t Blaque) may help to speed things along, by depriving NATO of the use of a crucial air base.

Total Defeat for U.S. in Iraq

Purple Library Guy at pogge has located this:

On November 27 the Iraqi parliament voted by a large majority in favor of a security agreement with the US under which the 150,000 American troops in Iraq will withdraw from cities, towns and villages by June 30, 2009 and from all of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The Iraqi government will take over military responsibility for the Green Zone in Baghdad, the heart of American power in Iraq, in a few weeks time. Private security companies will lose their legal immunity. US military operations and the arrest of Iraqis will only be carried out with Iraqi consent. There will be no US military bases left behind when the last US troops leave in three years time and the US military is banned in the interim from carrying out attacks on other countries from Iraq.
The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed after eight months of rancorous negotiations, is categorical and unconditional. America’s bid to act as the world’s only super-power and to establish quasi-colonial control of Iraq, an attempt which began with the invasion of 2003, has ended in failure. There will be a national referendum on the new agreement next July, but the accord is to be implemented immediately so the poll will be largely irrelevant. Even Iran, which had furiously denounced the first drafts of the SOFA saying that they would establish a permanent US presence in Iraq, now says blithely that it will officially back the new security pact after the referendum. This is a sure sign that Iran, as America’s main rival in the Middle East, sees the pact as marking the final end of the US occupation and as a launching pad for military assaults on neighbours such as Iran.

So it's all over -- except for the tiny fact that lots more Iraqis and Americans are going to die senselessly in the next three years, and the US will continue to accumulate more debt as well as more antipathy from the rest of humanity.