Quibbling Equivocation: Afghanistan

Taliban: Graduates of a religious school
Madrassa: Religious school where Islamic law is taught
Jihad: Holy war to propagate Islamic faith and overthrow infidels
Hudud: Punishments in religious law, sharia, such as the stoning of a woman guilty of adultery, beheading for a crime, etc.

The thirty-nine countries that now represent NATO's make-up have obviously differing ideas of what their membership ties them to, whether it is a nominal presence of prestige to be part of a Western-based military partnership sharing a specific ideology and united purpose, or whether, in recognition of the aforesaid, each member has an unequivocal duty to share in all the hardships including dedicated combat when required at the direction of NATO authority.

Clearly, some of NATO's members would far prefer to offer their services on their own terms, relinquishing NATO's sterner purpose to the more obligating of its members. Trouble is, those member-states who take their membership in NATO sufficiently seriously to undertake the heavy lifting are suffering casualties out of all proportion to the shared obligations.

Further trouble is that when those overworked and overburdened nations suggest greater efforts on the part of their NATO peers through NATO's selection process, those upon whom they call to do their part, find it expedient to demur, indicating the difficulties they face at home, in the eyes of their electorate, unwilling to sacrifice the lives of sons and daughters on foreign soil.

Protection of one's own has a universal appeal; every nation in fact, seeks to protect its own. It's one of the expectations of those who place them in a position of power, after all. Just as those who gain electoral and legislative power have another obligation, a more universal one, to aid in the protection of other countries in dire need and obvious distress in the presentation of a unified force through NATO and, in this instance, the United Nations.

Now here is the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, through its just-released report, The Military Balance 2008, bemoaning the reality that the Taliban insurgency is continuing its expansion from the embattled south of the country into the northern provinces, hitherto somewhat becalmed, permitting NATO troops stationed there to engage in reconstruction and encouraging Afghan's military to learn to effectively fend for themselves.

Simply put, NATO troops in the south, where the Taliban is strongest, more active and present, are stretched beyond their limits to fend off their advance and secure the areas around Kandahar and Helmand Province. This is where troops from Canada, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and now Poland are stationed - with lamentably inadequate numbers for the task at hand, despite requesting assistance from other members' troops.

The simple fact is, in the south, representing 10% of the country's geography, where Canada, the U.K. and Netherlands are located, 70% of the violent action is occurring, day by weary day. The fear that this violence, unchecked, will spread is a real and justified one.

Eastern Afghanistan appears to be increasingly at risk of falling to the Taliban, and it's where intense fighting is beginning to erupt. And any Taliban victories assume a level of victorious triumph in the eyes of the Taliban unproportional to their true result, but having an effect of encouraging extremism and allowing them to assume a strategic importance readily imported elsewhere, say Pakistan.

NATO's current 41,000-strong force is struggling to maintain its purpose in Afghanistan. It wasn't that long ago that Russian forces, some 80,000-strong, were forced out of the country by armed and determined mujahadeen who later morphed into al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, drunk and exuberant on their victory, and happy with their discovery of a new, larger mission, to liberate themselves from any perceived vestiges of Western oppression.

Harmony between the ten top NATO contributors in Afghanistan has been found lacking. The United States, Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands and Poland appear to be pulling their weight, and more. Their presence is more notable in the south. While France, Germany, Italy, Australia and Turkey remain hesitantly engaged, in the northern provinces, unwilling to surrender to the collective need to share the pain.

Their adversaries are not prepared to accept the presence of apostates and infidels in a geography dedicated and sacred to Islam. Guerrilla fighters, rigidly fundamentalist Mullahs, Tribal Chiefs and Fedayeen have Allah on their side, urging them toward jihad. The poppy trade helps fuel their economic needs, and the fear of the ordinary Afghans living in tribal villages all benefit their zealous battle with the crusading foreigners.

Germany is incensed that Poland has accused it of "free-riding" in Afghanistan. Canada is adamant that she will have no option but to pull out her troops in February 2009 if no assistance is forthcoming from NATO-member troops, along with much-needed equipment, for Canadian soldiers have proportionately been sacrificed in greater numbers than any other nations' contingents.

NATO member-countries may believe they're all together in this battle for the safety and souls of Afghanistan's people, but the lop-sided commitment is gearing the entire enterprise up for a rather unwholesome collapse, and with it, the future of Afghanistan, and beyond. NATO must go beyond a coalition of those who are willing and those who remain kind-of willing.

It's the "beyond" quotient that is particularly worrying.