 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| The Atlantic Affairs Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |
Iraq is only a battlefield in a war with no borders
By Art Patnaude
Posted: April 25, 2006
The Netherlands decided on April 19 to rush an additional
200 troops to Afghanistan, making the grand total of their in-country
personnel 1,600.
Question. The Dutch? Afghanistan? Isn’t it the US in Iraq?
Hardly. The Dutch are part of the coalition in the war on terror, which
seems to get overshadowed by the war in Iraq. But a battle with a
nameless enemy is a battle with no front. Iraq has its terrorists and
freedom fighters and Afghanistan has them, too. To counteract,
Operation Enduring Freedom has been the ongoing coalition mission
in Afghanistan since late 2001.
The additional Dutch troops were sent due to the “considerable
worsening” of the security situation, according to the Dutch Military
Intelligence Service (MIVD). Risk has “risen significantly.” Taliban
fighters appear to be “increasingly better organized… and possess
good communications systems,” according to Dutch wire service ANP.
“This threatens to translate into more bombings, ambushes and
attacks on helicopters in and around the Dutch compounds.”
So ignore Iraq for a second. Ignore those who say the coalition is
winning or losing there. Because Iraq is not the war. It is a battlefield.
By looking at Afghanistan, another front in the war on terror, we can
see the war is not close to the finish. In 2005, the deadliest year for the
coalition in Afghanistan, 129 coalition soldiers were killed. That
number does not include the wounded. It does not include civilians.
And it does not include enemy combatants.
But conversation these days focuses on Iraq, not the war on terror.
When you hear about the Bush administration, you think about Iraq.
When you hear about the coalition, you think about Iraq. When you
hear about the Dutch, well, you think about wooden shoes and
windmills. But when you hear about IEDs and gunfights and
casualties, you think about Iraq.
This is because Iraq is a pretty big part of the war on terror.
According to figures from February, US operations in Iraq alone cost
about $100,000 a minute. Conversely, in a quick search of the
Internet – both legit news sources and search engines – a stand-
alone price tag for Afghanistan was not readily available. The Afghan
war was always listed alongside with Iraq.
This said, it is obvious why the war consumes so much of the news.
War, death, and big money make big stories. In this sense, Iraq is far
more newsworthy than Afghanistan. Iraq sees more casualties and it
costs more, so it gets more news coverage.
But the war against terror, according to what the White House has
been saying since 2001, knows no borders. “The terrorists regard Iraq
as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must
recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror,” George Bush
said last October in a speech at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Iraq dominates news coverage because it is the most obvious
materialization of this foreign policy strategy in the war on terror. Iraq is
happening now, before the eyes of the world, on TV, radio and famous
front pages. Yet the Dutch government makes no effort to avoid the fact
that they are rushing more troops to Afghanistan because things are
getting worse.
So then, the war is not Iraq. But it does not seem to be in
Afghanistan, either. Ah yes, it is a war with no borders.
### ### ###
Art Patnaude is an MA student in global journalism, currently at the
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
By Art Patnaude
Posted: April 25, 2006
The Netherlands decided on April 19 to rush an additional
200 troops to Afghanistan, making the grand total of their in-country
personnel 1,600.
Question. The Dutch? Afghanistan? Isn’t it the US in Iraq?
Hardly. The Dutch are part of the coalition in the war on terror, which
seems to get overshadowed by the war in Iraq. But a battle with a
nameless enemy is a battle with no front. Iraq has its terrorists and
freedom fighters and Afghanistan has them, too. To counteract,
Operation Enduring Freedom has been the ongoing coalition mission
in Afghanistan since late 2001.
The additional Dutch troops were sent due to the “considerable
worsening” of the security situation, according to the Dutch Military
Intelligence Service (MIVD). Risk has “risen significantly.” Taliban
fighters appear to be “increasingly better organized… and possess
good communications systems,” according to Dutch wire service ANP.
“This threatens to translate into more bombings, ambushes and
attacks on helicopters in and around the Dutch compounds.”
So ignore Iraq for a second. Ignore those who say the coalition is
winning or losing there. Because Iraq is not the war. It is a battlefield.
By looking at Afghanistan, another front in the war on terror, we can
see the war is not close to the finish. In 2005, the deadliest year for the
coalition in Afghanistan, 129 coalition soldiers were killed. That
number does not include the wounded. It does not include civilians.
And it does not include enemy combatants.
But conversation these days focuses on Iraq, not the war on terror.
When you hear about the Bush administration, you think about Iraq.
When you hear about the coalition, you think about Iraq. When you
hear about the Dutch, well, you think about wooden shoes and
windmills. But when you hear about IEDs and gunfights and
casualties, you think about Iraq.
This is because Iraq is a pretty big part of the war on terror.
According to figures from February, US operations in Iraq alone cost
about $100,000 a minute. Conversely, in a quick search of the
Internet – both legit news sources and search engines – a stand-
alone price tag for Afghanistan was not readily available. The Afghan
war was always listed alongside with Iraq.
This said, it is obvious why the war consumes so much of the news.
War, death, and big money make big stories. In this sense, Iraq is far
more newsworthy than Afghanistan. Iraq sees more casualties and it
costs more, so it gets more news coverage.
But the war against terror, according to what the White House has
been saying since 2001, knows no borders. “The terrorists regard Iraq
as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must
recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror,” George Bush
said last October in a speech at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Iraq dominates news coverage because it is the most obvious
materialization of this foreign policy strategy in the war on terror. Iraq is
happening now, before the eyes of the world, on TV, radio and famous
front pages. Yet the Dutch government makes no effort to avoid the fact
that they are rushing more troops to Afghanistan because things are
getting worse.
So then, the war is not Iraq. But it does not seem to be in
Afghanistan, either. Ah yes, it is a war with no borders.
### ### ###
Art Patnaude is an MA student in global journalism, currently at the
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| I N S I G H T -------- European Imams Kate Huber Jack Jihad C Beenfeldt Fatal Britain Civitas Report Escalation, Death ASH Smyth 'Clear Wine' Kate Huber Nationalizing Kids Patricia Morgan Escalation, Death ASH Smyth India Matters Condi Rice |
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |