If it's not the Taliban's knowledge of the lay of the land that will do in the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, it will be those nifty contraptions called improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Cpl. James Hayward Arnal of Winnipeg, 25, was killed by such a device Friday while on foot patrol. He is the 88th soldier Canadian to die in the line of duty, along with one diplomat, since the mission began.
While one can still support the mission in principle, as many like I do, one can also support the troops without necessarily supporting the reason why they're there, or else can strongly object to the course of the mission and how long it's taken. There is nothing unpatriotic in doing so. Like civilian programs, we have a right to know if we're getting value for taxpayers' money.
Maybe it is the nature of the war, but I think people in the West have the right to demand why it's taken longer to defeat the Taliban than it did to win a war against both Germany and Japan, a war multiple times in scope, many times more expensive (adjusted for inflation) and fought on countless fronts. Instead, we get these "Red Flag" days and the suggestion if we don't support the war we're not supporting the troops and therefore we're not patriotic.
Death does comes with war. It's just part of the beast. There is a difference between dying with honour in a just war and dying in a cause without reason.
Without compromising security considerations, I think Canadians should be getting regular updates from our Prime Minister (as recommended repeatedly by the Senate) about the course of the mission and where we are in terms of deterrence, diplomacy and development. The silence on all three indicates we're failing on all of those items on the checklist and that the PM is willing to tolerate increased deaths without any significant progress. That is simply unacceptable. It is not acceptable that Canada has secured Kandahar City proper, the Americans Kabul -- and the rest of Afghanistan is in anarchy.
I personally think the tolerance threshold will be one hundred deaths. Once we pass that mark, it will be only then that Canadians will say enough is enough. Until we reach that mark, another eleven families will have to go through the grief of burying another loved one lost to a battle that is becoming untenable and utterly pointless.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
1 comment:
Why haven't we won the war in Afghanistan yet?
I think the answer lies in the fact that the Afghan and Iraqi militias have very little to gain from the cessation of fighting, if the end result is that order and a solid political system are given a chance to take hold in either country.
It's not like we are confronting an organized state military in either situation. In addition, from the political end, these are both failed states.
Why did WWII end more quickly? On the Axis side, Germany, Japan and Italy all were leading states, with organized societies and political systems fully in control before, during and after the war.
The leaders (once Hitler and Mussolini were removed from power) in each state realized that they had lost the war and they understood that their national interests were best served in ending the hostilities and restoring order.
There are almost no similarities in the present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no effective or legitimate authority present in either state. There is no overwhelming force or power with control over the state police, military, communications, transport, and social programs.
While life for the general population was substantially better before the wars started in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact is in Afghanistan, for the Taliban and al-Qa'ida, life is pretty much the same whether or not they are in a hot war or a planning war, except that they are probably a bit busier right now.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the insurgents are working under the assumption that the West is going to leave one day and when they do, they will immediately return to power. They have no experience dealing with the West as partners, just a history of being subordinate proxies in the Cold War.
The difference with Germany, Italy and Japan during WWII, was that they were all part of the developed world and again, it was in their national best interests to return to normalcy as quickly as possible.
There are no national best interests in the minds of the Taliban, al-Qa'ida and the Mahdi Army, for them, it is only about who assumes power after the West leaves.
And on top of all of that, what exactly is 'normal' for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Frederick Forsyth wrote a book called "The Fist of God", published in 1994. In it, he wrote a fictitious memo from a group of political and intelligence analysts to then Secretary of State, James Baker. An excerpt from the memo is posted here http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Iraqi-War-Consequences29mar03.htm
Again, keep in mind that this memo was published in 1994!!! Almost 10 years before the current conquest of Iraq started.
What does all of this mean for Canada? It means that we are presently in a zero gain situation. If we bail out of our present military operations we will leave Afghanistan open for business for terrorists and rogue political leaders with a huge axe to grind against the West. If we stay, we will lose blood, lives and treasure.
As difficult as it is to say, we need to look at what options are best for our own selfish national interests and how long will Canada continue to sacrifice its young men and women in order to give another country a chance to succeed?
We must also ask whether we should abandon our policy of trying to establish democratic rule in Iraq and Afghanistan and instead focus on establishing order and security.
We have seen the degradation of civil rights in the US and to some extent in Canada as a result of the elevation of security as a predominant interest.
Now imagine what this would mean in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Imagine what kind of regimes and policies we would need to support in order to establish security and order in those countries. Would we maintain our reputation in the world if we commanded our soldiers to establish order at any cost?
Would we maintain our reputation in the world if we put in place regimes that imposed order at any cost?
Are we prepared to hand over power and the necessary tools to a facsimile of Saddam Hussein (or worse)?
Are we prepared to aid and abet a new tyrant?
The choices available are not good and they won't get any easier as time passes and we lose more soldiers.
As a nation, we need to start dealing with our options. If we do decide that we are prepared to see order imposed at a horrible cost, then we need to clearly make the insurgents understand that this option IS on the table. If we and our allies wash our collective hands of the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rules of the game will change substantially.
The U.S. will likely reach this point when they have syphoned as much crude oil out of Iraq as they can before they spark a civil war between the Iraqi factions and evacuate.
I entirely agree with your comments about Stephen Harper not engaging the Canadian public on this issue.
Our government needs to understand where the country stands with respect to the war in Afghanistan and it needs to clearly gauge when our own national interests supersede our desire to be a good member of the global community.
Harper has not done this. In fact, Stephen Harper has run from the whole issue. I have not heard him make a substantive comment on Afghanistan in months. Photo ops do not equal engagement on the issues.
Without engagement, Stephen Harper has little legitimacy when it comes to Canada's role in the war.
The sad fact is that there is a complete disconnect between the reality that Canada is presently AT WAR and the day-to-day thoughts of the average Canadian.
Gee whiz, why is gas so expensive?
Why are commodity prices so high?
Why is the housing market so unstable?
Wake up!!
It is insulting that there is no national dialogue?
Thank you for the great post.
Post a Comment