Afghanistan: Rethinking the Mission
July 21, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
The left has a problem: Is it possible to oppose the Afghanistan mission while simultaneously “supporting the troops”? This is not a question of principle (this is after all the left we’re talking about) but rather a conundrum of political communication. And a conundrum it is. If Canadian troops are doing good work in Afghanistan, then why would we pull them out? Surely any decision to do so reflects at least partially on the quality of the work the soldiers themselves are doing there. Not a good position to be in.
I sympathize somewhat with the leftist impulse to have a theoretical debate on Afghanistan without these sorts of niggly political implications. But that is also somewhat disingenuous. My support of the war has always relied on the information and the views provided by the troops themselves. If the left wishes to dismiss the views of the troops (and if they are honest, they will admit that they do), then I am driven (probably excessively) in my support of the mission by the troops’ own support.
Now, things appear to be changing. The father of a fallen soldier from a couple of weeks ago:
He acknowledged, however, that his son at times expressed feelings of anger and frustration about the mission. For instance, he felt betrayed by some of the very people he was trying to help, describing some local Afghans as “farmers by day and Taliban or killers by night.â€
“That is what is particularly frustrating about this mission — it’s a guerrilla war. You really don’t know who your enemy is,†Dawe Sr. said.
The humanitarian aspects of the mission have always been greatly over-rated. Afghanistan under the Taliban was an important base for Al Qaeda operations. Accordingly, it was a threat to our national security and the threat was taken out. Canada’s current role in Afghanistan is to sustain that victory by keeping the Taliban at bay and, if you are to believe some of the sunnier proponents of the mission, to build the institutions necessary for the development of the sort of democratic regime that would be less likely than was the Taliban to roll out the welcome mat for Al Qaeda.
We are succeeding in the first capacity and failing in the second. That failure has little to do with our military. It has to do with a populace that accepts Canadian aid from troops during the day and ambushes those same troops during the night. All the talk about stonings and burkas and oppression becomes darkly amusing when it is the people that we profess to save from such things that turn out to be the strongest proponents of going backwards. All but the most optimistic neo-conservative advocates of Arab democracy are in hiding at the current sight of Iraq. Which is why Dawe Sr.’s statement might compel conservatives to begin a new dialogue on why it is we support the shedding of Canadian blood in an alien desert (this is not, after all, Kosovo) when Iraq teaches us that what we are working toward is hopeless.
If Afghanistan should become a security threat to us again in twenty years or so (which is the scenario that someone like the prime minister might cite in response to what I’ve written above), then that is a problem that American bombs are manufactured to address.
European colonies had their excesses but by and large they were often highly effective at civilizing countries into the Western way. Many former British colonies derived significant benefit from the British legacy of the rule of law, an independent judiciary and parliamentary government; let alone established colleges and universities, transportation infrastructure, and stable commercial governance.
The problem today with Iraq and Afghanistan is that colony has become a dirty word. But the reality we face is one where we expect too much from these young democracies before they are able to sustain themselves as democratic and civilized regimes. One could wager that the only effective way to govern those countries is to declare them ours, or Her Majesty’s, give them a Governor, and start to build a parliament, independent judiciary, a Western trained military and so on—gradually integrating the natives into our way of government. As far as culture war goes, we need to get serious and flood those countries with Christian missionaries if we are to have any hope of bringing them around to our way of thinking.
That said, no one has the stomach for truly expanding Western civilization. In the alternative, we need to start thinking how to better secure the Anglosphere, militarily, commercially, and politically; trading with India before China; preferential immigration from English speaking common law countries.
I should also add that the casualties suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, by any coalition partner—strictly on the basis of numbers—have not been anywhere close to too high. We just happen to live in a country where, for a long while, few casualties were incurred by military personnel serving abroad, fighting to secure some strategic interest for Canada.
A country has to keep it’s strategic interests at the forefront of any military incursion, the securing of which may mean ongoing military casualties. This is the reality of defending a civilized country in a world full of barbarians, and Canadians would to well to wake up to it.
Even in Iraq we’re not talking Vietnam like numbers of nearly 60,000 dead US servicemen. 3500 is not an insignificant number over 4 years and is cause for concern, but the other side of the coin is that Western countries are chalk full of peacenik talking heads who make it very difficult for government to put any casualty figures in perspective.
Aaron, I’d like to see you debate Afghanistan, or Iraq, or any of the U.S foreign interventions with Glenn Fitzgerld on Blogs Canada.
You’d lose.
Pete
P.S: Blogs Canada is here:
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/
Here are a few past discussions on Blogs Canada about Afghanistan. Go over Glenn’s posts and then come back and tell me you can debate him:
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egro.....fba12a6795
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egro.....2f2948e9d4
I’m not sure what we would debate, to be honest.
I appreciate your concerns — thanks for sharing them here, and for being honest about them. I think you answer your own query — we just can’t leave the Afghans to the Taliban; butchery and terrorism would ensue, it’s almost like we’re saving them from themselves.
In the end, Saddam and the Taliban were removed because the former was a serial violator of UN resolutions, while the latter was neck-high is torture, murder, and terrorism…to leave either alone would have been treasonous, and, morally negligent.
My heart aches for our fallen soldiers and their families — but I am sure that they would want us to secure their legacy by seeing the work completed. We must support this mission — we have a lot to be happy about, and good things are taking place.
God bless our troops, may they achieve victory for our own sakes and the sakes of others.
I’m not sure I’m prepared to say hopeless yet, Aaron. I agree with your view on the security threat posed to the US and her allies after 9/11 and the current conundrum facing PMSH and his government. However, expecting a fundamental faith in democratic institutions in Afghanistan in a little over 5 years seems overly optimistic. My feeling is we have to harrow the ground a little deeper if we want these institutions to take root.
To the other part of the discussion, I can’t imagine the anxiety Canadian servicemen/women live with in performing their duties among guerillas. I dont think my second-order theorizing about it compares their experience of being attacked by those they are protecting. That the troops are fulfilling their assignment despite the potential absurdity of it reminds me of the profound sense of duty that comes in their vocation.
The Afghan invasion was illegal in the first place. Of course after the fact the ISAF mission was legitimised by a UN resolution but that does not change the fact the original invasion was illegal. There are numerous articles that show the illegality of the war. Here are two:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mandel5.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html
Or alternatively the articles are at my blog http://kencan7.blogspot.com
No one seems to remember that the Taliban were the product of the West’s promotion and funding of Islamic jihad against the Evil Empire in Afghanistan. Actually the Taliban were better than the warlords whom they defeated and left as a remnant in the north until the US led involvement helped them defeat the Taliban.
Yes Ken,
I remember that action was taken in the face of the Soviets being heavily involved there during the cold war. Did we employ ideal means?…maybe not. Presently, regardless of the legality of the initial strike, we’re there and require prudent thought and action to make the situation better.