Why the Conventional Wisdom on Afghanistan is What it Is

The conventional wisdom on Afghanistan reads something like this: The Bush Administration's preoccupation with Iraq caused the United States to shift attention away from the main theater in the War on Terror to topple Saddam's regime. As a result, the United States has effectively given up the search for Osama bin Laden and allowed the Taliban to reconstitute. Reports emanating out of Afghanistan speak of a weak grasp on power by the Karzai government in Kabul, continued roles for various militias, record poppy production financially fueling bad elements and of course, the ever-occurring Taliban reconstitution. In short, the United States has failed in Afghanistan and in short order, the strides made will be plowed asunder by that country's radical elements. Now, some say, it behooves us to enter into negotiations with the Taliban to resove politically that which cannot be resolved militarily. Sue for peace. Am I right? Isn't that what you pretty much hear?

Take this article from Reuters for example. In it, we learn that Tony Blair has admitted the Afghan War is "tougher than expected." We also learn that the Helmland Province in the south is the site of some of the "fiercest fighting" since the toppling of the Taliban in 2001, ostensibly evidence of a reconstituted Taliban. We also learn of reports from British soldiers in theater that things are not going so swimmingly for NATO during this fighting. Just the other night on NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams lead off the telecast with ITN video showing a British helicopter landing in the region and then immediately coming under fire in an ambush orchestrated by Taliban or jihadist forces.

OK. That's essentially the conventional wisdom. Now, time for the reality check. A few weeks ago, I made an accidental, surprising discovery while listening to a BBC broadcast featuring a British general. Seems this Taliban "uprising" we've been reading about is nothing of the sort. Rather, the intensified violence in southern Afghanistan is the result of a NATO offensive.

Take a minute and let that sink in. OK, good.

So it seems that the southern region around Kandahar had intentionally been left alone since 2001 due to the heavy concentration of Taliban and Muslim radicals. They were largely contained, they couldn't project power, etc. Now NATO has decided to go in and clear that area out. The violence and attacks coming from the bad guys are their natural responses to being the targets of the NATO offensive. I don't know about you, but this small distinction in reporting makes a world of difference for me. An uprising and increased attacks make it sound like it's a Taliban insurrection or offensive. That their power is ascendant. But flip the angle and turn it into a NATO offensive and it sounds more to me like NATO has the upper hand and is simply taking the next logical military step in trying to finish the job.

Aside from the interview with the British general, I have not heard ONE mention of the NATO offensive in any reports I have come across. Not a single one. The Reuters article I posted actually came closest when it referred to the "Afghan War" (which no one has referred to since 2001 or 2002) and when it included this referential Tony Blair quote:

The whole reason we've gone into that as part of the NATO force under the U.N. resolution is because it is essential for the Taliban and al-Qaida to come back into the southern part of
Afghanistan and it's essential for us to keep them out," Blair said.

But still, nowhere can the words "NATO offensive" be found. Is it just sloppy journalism? Perhaps. But that ITN video from southern Afghanistan I mentioned? The reporter described the ambush executed in southern Afghanistan against the British helicopter landing in dramatic fashion. He spoke of heavy gunfire and RPGs. The herky-jerky video showed British troops under fire and firing their weapons at an unseen enemy. One got the sense that this was a major battle. And it probably was pretty hairy. But later in his breathless and urgent report, the ITN reporter slipped in the fact that the opposition forces numbered between 5 and 10. Yes, you read that correctly.

Is Afghanistan an ascendant Sweden? No. Does it still have major challenges and difficulties? Yes. Do the narcotics trade and nationalist militias represent thorns in the side of those who seek to revitalize the country? Certainly. Is the Taliban still capable of pulling it together from time to time and blowing up sixteen people or mounting an ambush using 5-10 guys? You bet. Are they capable of wresting control from Karzai? Absolutely not. Is Afghanistan in far better shape than at any time in the last 30 years. Yes.

I just want to know when we are going to get balanced, accurate reporting on Afghanistan.