Q&A with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretary General of NATO ( Deaths of Canadians Americas Fault?)

NATO headquarters, Brussels — The following is an edited transcript of an interview with Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Secretary General of NATO.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: I have heard about the axeing of a Canadian soldier, and the death of [Canadian diplomat] Glyn Berry, and the other Canadian soldiers who died in a rollover . . .

Question: The axe attack is interesting, because some of the reports indicate that they were visiting a village that had been aggravated by earlier U.S. searches. This is a topic that is alarming the public in Canada and elsewhere: To what extent is this a distinct NATO mission, and to what extent are NATO troops simply taking over from the U.S.?

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: It is a NATO mission. It is a mission which is now being expanded on the basis of a clear UN mandate. It is a mission where now Canadians and Dutch and Brits and Danes and Romanians and possibly Australians are going into what has proven dramatically for some Canadians to be less than benign territory . . . dangerous territory.

We'll keep the mission distinct from [Operation] Enduring Freedom [the U.S.-led war effort in Afghanistan]. I do, we do, and the allies do consider this a NATO mission. Parliaments and public opinion should realize that it is a dangerous mission. And knowing the debate in Canada, knowing the debate in the Netherlands, after some debate it has been agreed that this is what NATO is doing. And we cannot give up. We cannot give up because we have decided to commit ourselves to supporting [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai's government, supporting the Afghan people.

And we cannot give up because it's crystal clear that the spoilers of the whole process in Afghanistan, they have access to the Internet. They follow political developments here. If giving up means saying, "OK, you've won," then the results will be felt in Canada and the Netherlands and France and elsewhere.

Question: Yes, but there is a big difference between a post-conflict reconstruction mission that takes some anti-insurgent actions, if necessary, and a predominantly anti-terrorist operation with some reconstruction efforts on the side. Do you make that distinction?

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: It's certainly not predominantly an anti-terrorism or counterinsurgency mission. It is not. It is a stabilization and reconstruction mission, giving the Afghan government the opportunity to extend its authority and training the national army. But, at the same time, people have to realize that there are spoilers, that roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices can be put along a road in the north and the west and in the south, and that's a difference . . . there are considerable risks, and that a commanding officer of a provincial reconstruction team cannot have himself or his men and his women sitting there with one arm tied behind their backs. That's not the way this will go . . .

Question: Why do the Provincial Reconstruction Teams seem to be such a small part of the mission? They seem subordinate and secondary to the combat troops.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: That's definitely not the opinion that I hear when I go to Afghanistan. First of all, there is not a single PRT concept — there are many concepts. It's not one size fits all. Secondly, up to now, the combination of civilian and military in a PRT has proven to work very well. NATO is learning lessons, it's a new concept. You need the people for combat because, if you accept that ISAF is not going to allow spoilers to disrupt or ruin the process, you need combat forces. So I say again, it is about stabilization, reconstruction, it is about winning the hearts and minds, but it is certainly also being able to be robust — the new operational plan for the whole country is a plan with robust rules of engagement.

This is not an easy mission. This is a complicated, difficult mission, which is risky, but which nevertheless — and that's why I'm glad for the Canadian participation, and the Dutch, Romanians, Germans, Brits, Spain and Italy. There's 30 nations. Those 30 nations — NATO and non-NATO alike — are convinced that we need to stay the course.

Question: Indeed, the public did learn, during the Balkans especially, that peacekeeping cannot be passive, that sometimes peacekeepers need to fight. But we have also learned, from the U.S. experience in Iraq especially, that counterinsurgency operations just as much need to be sensitive to local needs, and that they can ruin nation-building.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: I do not accept the explicit or implicit reasoning that this [NATO mission] is making up for what the U.S. has done wrong. I know in Europe and elsewhere, the argument is . . . "Let's point the finger at the U.S. and everything that's gone wrong."

By the way, I don't compare Iraq and Afghanistan because I think it's wrong. But I do say that many allied nations including Canadians have their forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, and they do realize that it's necessary in Afghanistan — and that's the less attractive side of the battle, I agree — it's absolutely necessary to have counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, because the simple fact is that there are too many spoilers.

Question: Are we creating these spoilers by having a principal focus in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency?

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: I don't think so. We do not create spoilers. Other people create spoilers, be it Taliban, be it al-Qaeda. I don't think that we create spoilers. What is necessary is that we have an effective and efficient counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. If we don't, we don't stand a chance. ISAF will absolutely not stand a chance. Agreed that it is not easy, it is not easy to win hearts and minds in areas where counterinsurgency and counterterrorism is being done, and I don't single out the U.S. because there are many NATO allies who are doing the same as the U.S. are doing . . . it's absolutely necessary. And it is a precondition for ISAF to have a chance.

I think, by the way, that ISAF is doing well. And many nations, including Canada, realize why we are there. And that is why I think that the Canadian body politic, and the Canadian public, will go on supporting ISAF. Because, one, it is necessary to see the positive developments to help a nation, help a people, to see that girls can go to school, to see that women can vote, to see that you have a parliament and a president in a country which has of course no great democratic tradition for reasons we all know.

But secondly I say again, what we are doing there is also preventing Afghanistan from becoming the black hole that it was. Because it is from there that terrorism was exported all over the world, including 9/11.

Question: You say the NATO approach is different from the U.S. approach, but you describe it in a way that sounds very similar to the Operation Enduring Freedom methods. Is there a danger that you're sending contradictory messages?

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: I don't want [to create] this gap between what the U.S. is doing and has done, and what NATO is doing. The U.S. is a member of NATO, and is fully supporting what NATO is doing. The nasty thing is, and that is perhaps less understandable to the public's opinion — it was the crux of the debate in my nation as well, and it might be in Canada — is that you need to do the nasty things, that is fight terrorism, before you create yourself a basis for winning hearts and minds and starting reconstruction. The spoilers are going to prevent us from doing reconstruction and reconciliation.

Question: But the lesson from a lot of places seems to be that if you open up a postwar reconstruction campaign with a focus on counterinsurgency, the population, formerly neutral or peaceful, end up joining the insurgency because you're seen as an outside aggressor.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060306.wjaap0306/BNStory/Afghanistan/?pageRequested=3

Canada has lost control of her destiny, and politics are being played with the lives of Canadian Soldiers. This is important because NATO is replacing American troops in Afghanistan. Nato is still torn by humanitarian arguments against the use of interdictive force.

The Canadians may have joined fortress Europe to eventually undo what America has succeeded in doing : freeing the nation of Afghanistan.

This will weaken US Security against Islamofascism unless Canada turns its force into one that prevents the Taliban from sending terrorist cadres from Quetta, Pakistan into Kandahar to kill hundreds of Canadians and NATO troops, whose actions are forced by humanitarian rules of engagement to be passively reconstructive instead of interdictive.

Humanitarianism will be the Euro excuse for the death and failure of it's own forces that are crippled by an ineffective liberal political ideology and Utopianism.

Note the last entry :

"Question: Is there a failure-based exit strategy also?

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: I think that would require another 50 minutes. We'll have to leave it at that."

You can express your concern that Canadian Soldiers be free to take non-passive anti guerrilla measueres,to Stephen Harper the Prime Minister of Canada at:

E-Mail:

pm@pm.gc.ca

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.