The War in Afghanistan… Maybe it’s Time to Pull Out
September 21, 2009 · By Jonathan McLeod
Look, let’s all face it. The war in Afghanistan is not going as we’d hoped or planned. We’re eight years in and it could be another eighty till we’re out. I’m not quite ready to advocate a withdrawal just yet, but I think we need to re-focus, determine what purpose we’re trying to serve in Afghanistan then determine how we’re going to do it, and what milestones we might need to put in place.
Oh, and we should stop supporting the U.S. in their goals for poppy eradication, it’s just not worthwhile.
I’ve been thinking a fair amount about this recently after reading a series of posts at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.
So, what do people think? Should we stay the course, retreat to isolationism, return to our traditional peacekeeping role or develop – as I unfortunately put it in a response over there – a muscular, interventionist, liberal foreign policy?
Feel free to comment here, or pop over to The League to participate in their discussion.
I think the Canadian question of involvement in the mission has been settled. We’re out in 2011. As to the question of whether NATO should leave, I think the answer is a resounding no. The state cannot be allowed to fall back into a failed form of existence in which the Taliban rule under a theocratic dictatorship. How Canada supports the Afghan government after their military role ends remains to be seen, but it must uphold the mission parameters, even if the public cannot stomach any more military involvement.
Oh and, you’re right, poppy eradication is far too costly.
If the Afghan’s are not willing to fight against the Taliban, no amount of fire power will suffice. It’s up to the Afghans now. They know who the Taliban in their camps are, but they refuse to reveal them.
Our troops are doing a great job, but they can only do so much without the help of Afghans. The Iraqis were smart, they understood they could take power for themselves and so the war turned. They are now in power. Afghans so far have not figured this out, and so the country is up for grabs and we are getting tired of supporting people who do not want us there.
Our troops are warriors, not peacekeepers. To confine them to peacekeeper status is to drain them of their goals and to reduce Canadians to the ancient role of French “poofs” or can I say surrender monkeys? We should not do that to our brave soldiers.
To give credit to the Afghans, think of the number of leaders and potential leaders who were killed during the Russian invasion and all the subsequent fighting. It must take an awful lot of guts to stand up to the Taliban if you are a village leader, especially if you are not sure if the allies are going to stick around.
We just don’t have the troops, even if we wanted to stay longer. Thanks Liberals for gutting the military.
I was under the impression that when we first entered Afghanistan more than eight years ago, it was to remove the Taliban regime the was harbouring our terrorist enemies. However, somewhere along the line it became a humanitarian action, and it has since become a rather convoluted exercise in futility.
Short of complete colonization by the West, Afghanistan is and will remain a complete backwater in terms of any permanent (or effective) democratic institutions. You simply cannot impose democracy in a nation whose citizens have no particular knowledge or tradition of such freedoms.
The lofty goal of bring peace, order and good government to a place like Afghanistan is laughable, and I’m fairly certain that any stability we’ve created in Afghanistan over the past eight years will quickly dissolve into anarchy if we leave. However, that isn’t necessarily an argument to stay, it may in fact be an argument to leave. Because at some point we are going to have to come to the realization that the money and effort (and our soldiers lives) are better spent on projects with attainable goals.
My view has always been that it would have been better to simply isolate them over there (and let them slaughter each other) and use our resources here at home to ensure that none of them ever reach Canada.
i think i ll be short when i say that i have to agree with werner. intervention in these failed states is a useless endeavour. i have to say that i always have been of mixed opinion, probably more to the side of fighting on perhaps, but werners position is probably the best foreign policy idea we should adopt……….. speaking of staying out of other countries affairs, senator romeo dallaire has an idea he would like to see put into action i believe……..
I can see where people are coming from on this. I think a lot of us can agree that Afghanistan is a bit of a mess, but what will withdrawal do? Are we opening up Afghanistan to even more turmoil and bloodshed? Do we have any responsibility to try to help clean up the mess that we, arguably, helped to create?
Reading this blog post, I’m a little concerned about just walking away.
I’m really up in the air here. I didn’t present the questions with a specific answer in mind. I’m really worried that our actions, whether a continuation or quick withdrawal, will cause tremendous suffering.
Politically speaking, I’m seeing the tables being turned on the Conservatives here. While it’s true we weren’t the ones who sent out troops over there initially, we (conservatives) have been enormously supportive of our presence in Afghanistan. We are obliged to wear that and carry it. Simply throwing up hands and declaring that “it’s useless” to carry on now is simply a failure on our part.
I believe and continue to believe that we have a duty in our presence in Afghanistan, and that we played a role in creating the current violence over there. It’s our responsibility to see it through.
Now, Jonathan. About that “traditional peacekeeping role” thing. Simply put, that’s a fake tradition. It was an idea submitted by Lester B. Pearson in 1945 to the UN following the second world war. It’s barely been a single generation who has served in that capacity, and a single generation does not a national tradition make.
Until 1945, Canadian soldiers took an active role in wars/conflicts. They were not “peacekeepers”. Canadians distinguished themselves on battlefields around the world as a force to be respected and our recent habit of peacekeeping has been trading on that reputation. However, the neutering of our military forces’ ability to act when necessary during peacekeeping missions is what has nearly destroyed our legacy.
Afghanistan has been an unfortunate proving ground for Canada once again to show our mettle and that we can continue to punch above our weight class if given the tools and the opportunity to do so. That, in my personal opinion, is our Traditional Role.
Sure, I can agree to that, but that would have been seven years ago when the war was won. Afghanistan isn’t a war zone anymore, it’s a staging ground for an untested democracy building project.
Sure there were times when Allies occupied countries countries with the intent of building up the countries infrastructure and imposing democracy – Japan, West Germany, etc, but in all those cases, we were dealing with countries that has some tradition of stable political institutions and I think the results speak for themselves.
I supported the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the WAR. I never supported the democracy building exercises currently being waged in either country.
I wouldn’t consider the withdraw of forces a failure in either cases, as I would be preparing to engage the enemy in other areas of the world. If this is indeed a global war against terror, why are we bogging ourselves down in two areas?
I can agree with that somewhat. Where I think I disagree is what a withdrawal might accomplish. Should we allow the terrorist organizations the opportunity to move in and re-establish a power-base in the country?
Granted, this is a UN Mission being carried out by NATO at the UN’s request. Allowing the terrorists the chance to re-take the country is not an acceptable solution in my mind. So I ask, what IS the solution?
I guess there are different opinions on what The Threat Of Terrorism truly is or whether it even exists. I would even go so far as to debate whether the Canadian mission genuinely is concerned with terrorism. Be that as it may, if you want to support a war, I think you should do so on your own dime not mine.
As long as they are supported by taxes, Canadian foreign military interventionism deserves nothing more than to be pulled left, right and center subject to the ever-changing whim of the public and the politicians — just like any other government contract.
Why not? I am not worried about driving over a make-shift bomb here in Canada.
I have similar concerns as Sean. At the risk of oversimplifying, we helped make the mess, perhaps we should help clean it up.
However, if by cleaning up the mess, we mean complicity in child rape, it might be best if we just got out.
Do you seriously believe that Charles? I hope not, because what you’re proposing there could easily double or triple current expenditures in Logistics alone. If every time the public changes it mind on something the government immediately acted on that whim, transportation costs and breach of contract penalties with private entities tied into the operation/support of the military forces would be astronomical and a logistical and accounting nightmare. Frankly, I see that kind of reactionism irresponsible and a foolish waste of money, and I also find it surprising coming from someone who takes such care in pointing out when taxpayer money is being wasted.
I shouldn’t have to, but I will also mention that we have certain contract and treaty obligations with NATO when it comes to military interventionism.
I am not proposing it. I am just saying that is the way things are. As such, I think it all should be scrapped. That is how I defend tax-payer´s money.
Consider for a moment what would happen if the next election sends a majority NDP-Liberal-Bloc-Tory-Green-whatever combination you want coalition to the House of Commons. What do you think is going to happen? I will tell you: you can kiss your expectations for prudent use of tax dollars good bye.
So, in a nutshell, once you deem a service (in this case, warfare) to be a rightful government monopoly, it is YOU who is setting up the market to waste taxes — not me.
That’s good in theory Charles, but we also have to bend to reality sometimes. I don’t see it being scrapped any time soon. That being said, and given that we’re stuck with the current “model” for the foreseeable future, what do you think is the best way to proceed under the current circumstances?
Charles and Sean,
I’m really enjoying your back and forth. Keep it up!
Sean,
The most politically correct way that I can answer your question is to say that I believe the best way to proceed under the current circumstances is to bring all of the troops home and disband The Mission. I honestly think more and more Canadians are starting to think like me. So, I am not talking about theory. Rather, I am talking about brute political force.
What is so special about 2011? Why not end it now in 2009?
What’s so special about 2011? We committed to be there until the end of the current mission, which ends in 2011. He have already communicated to our allies that we would not extend our direct “front-line” involvement past that date. So we should honor that. It was debated in the House of Commons when the decision was being made, and the majority of the House voted in favor of maintaining the mission until 2011. That’s what’s so special about 2011 I guess.
This ties into our commitments and our responsibilities to bodies outside ourselves, namely NATO and by extension, the UN. People complain about Canada’s reputation on the world stage and then argue about breaking our word because it’s domestically advantageous. What does that do to our “reputation”? Do the people advocating immediate withdrawal even care about our reputation in this?
I am not morally obligated to follow through with any commitments made by war-mongerers and military industrialists whether they pretend that I am a fellow participating member of their organizations or not. I never made any of those commitments, I was never consulted and I never agreed to them.
I do not give a damn about ¨our reputation¨ and I doubt even foreigners care either. However, let me give you some food for thought.
First, I think you should consider the possibility that the Canadian military occupation or invasion of foreign lands does some harm to our reputation — whatever our reputation happens to be — instead of some good.
Second, your preference for what our reputation should be may not be shared by all Canadians. You seem to imply that everybody is on the same page. The concept of a desirable reputation differs among individuals just like favorite ice cream flavors differ.
Regardless, I am going to return to one single thing: my taxes. Since all of those expeditions, missions and what-nots are paid with my taxes and I am not given the option to opt out of their funding arrangement, nobody has the moral high-ground to tell anybody else what the military SHOULD be doing.
Of course it does and I’ve never denied that. Perception is a personal thing and no one goes to war believing they are on the “wrong” side.
I’ll even say that the perceptions only matter to people when they belong to someone who’s opinion counts to them. That’s why there will never, ever be “world peace”, whatever that means. So when I consider those whose opinion matters to me (and those who don’t), I will weigh my decisions and their consequences based both on what I personally believe and how it will affect those same people, and to what degree.
I’m very well aware that my preference isn’t shared by all Canadians. I’m not foolish enough to think that it is. What I was talking about was the hypocrisy of those people who rant about our international reputation only when it suits their purposes and might serve to further their own agenda, and then clearly and conveniently ignore it when it doesn’t.
And conversely, nobody has the moral high-ground to tell anybody else what the military SHOULDN’T be doing by that argument.
Did you vote in the last election? Did you cast your ballot to put your voice behind a particular candidate of your own choosing? If you did, then you were consulted and you authorized that person to act on your behalf if elected. If they were not elected, then there were more people in your area who believed something different than you do. Does that invalidate your beliefs? Certainly not, but in a democratic society, majority rules. Is democracy perfect? No, it’s clearly not, but can you suggest a better alternative?
Some people choose to die on their ideological “hills” and claim the virtue of having stuck to their principles. When all is said and done though, what exactly have they accomplished?
Sean, I find your arguments rather persuasive, but, to pick a nit, one thing didn’t ring true:
I would suggest that by using Charles’ argument as the perspective by which we judge the morality of military intervention, people can claim the high road only by saying what the military shouldn’t do.
If involuntary support for military intervention is deemed immoral, and taxes, supplied involuntarily by the citizenry, are the means by which we fund the military, then if any taxpayers are opposed to a particular military campaign, that campaign is immoral.
The debate would arise over whether or not Charles’ viewpoint is the appropriate means to judge these military campaigns.
There may be a point in that Jonathan, but bear with me for a second while I describe my logic on this.
Funding aside, if an individual citizen does not have the ability/authority to make decisions as to what the military does, I would say that it follows that the same individual citizen does not have the ability/authority to make decisions as to what the military doesn’t do.
Does anyone have the moral high-ground in this situation? That’s debatable given the earlier comments on perception of right and wrong. They may certainly judge the decisions made by those who do have that authority, and can band together with others of the same mind in an attempt to have that person replaced if they disagree, but ultimately, they have given their voice (for better or worse) to the Government to make those decisions on their behalf.
The idea of taxation towards the benefit of all precludes a system by which personal taxes can be directed to one area over another, possibly disproportionately due to misinformation, uneducated reasoning, simple ignorance or blind ideology. This is why as a democracy, the “power” and “authority” of the people is transferred by the people through majority vote to a “few” to act in trust for the betterment of all.
I think Charles will disagree with the principle of this system, but he’s far more educated and interested than most in the taxation system, and while I’m sure he would make an educated decision based on his own personal beliefs in a conscientious manner, the same can not be said for a larger portion of the general population.
I also have this to consider while we’re “picking nits” as you say:
But doesn’t taking a position on what the military should not do, imply that the opposite is what the military should do? Another way of saying this could be “I’m saying this is what should be done by declaring what shouldn’t be done.” or “I can’t come out and support this openly, but I can say that I would not support this”
I’m not saying that “absence of proof of innocence is evidence of guilt”, but rather that simply taking a position against one thing but not for another is wishy-washy at best, and leaves too much room for interpretation, and therefore an increasing chance for misunderstanding at exponential rates.
Definitely, Sean. I was just looking at one minor aspect of your comment and, admittedly, splitting hairs.
But you’re right, the notion that each taxpayer should have a de facto veto over anything a government does will, likely, lead to the government not doing anything.
While I can see some positives in this, I don’t think it’s the ideal situation.