Canada in Afganistan

In the recent Throne Speech, Prime Minister Harper stated that his government ("Canada's New Government" is the mandated phrase to be used) will seek to extend the stay of Canadian troops from 2009 to 2011.

On the surface, this seems like a reasoned extension of the War on Terror. Unlike the Iraq Invasion, the invasion of Afghanistan seemed linked directly to events of 9/11 and terrorist activity.

But events have intervened...

When the Taliban and Al Queda were trapped in Tora Bora, a little push would probably have captured Ben Laden and ended both the Taliban and Al Queda. But President Bush had other plans and the request of the field commander for 600 U.S. Army Rangers went unheeded. Those troops were diverted for the planned invasion of Iraq. Defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory thanks to that Bush/Cheney decision.

So what has happened since then? A surge in drug proceeds as the opium crop grows (by 50%, according to some) provides funding for the new guerrilla warfare. (Think about that for a moment - poppies need fields and time to grow. Only 12% of Afghanistan is available for agricultural crops and poppies can be spotted from the air. A 50% increase clearly shows that we lack the resources to find those fields of poppies growing during the months it takes to grow them). Violence is up and as more than one wag has stated, "Karzai (the Afghani President) is no more than the Mayor of Kabul". The rest of the country is seeing a surge in guerrilla activity as it faces 40% unemployment and appalling conditions, from lack of running water, sewage and electricity. The promised aid has not arrived or, when it has, it has been siphoned off to private pots or used in ways that limit any benefit. A report by the Asia Committee back in 2003 set out the issues and solutions. Few of those recommendations have been realized.
The Taliban, or insurgency, or whatever one wishes to call it, is stronger now than it was several years ago. One Australian report suggests this results from "resentment at NATO bombing of civilians, billions of dollars of wasted aid, a lack of jobs and record crops of opium". With no economy to speak of, the only way for an Afghan to earn money is to grow poppies or become a paid fighter for the Taliban. Pakistan is always there as a training ground. Guns, after so many years of war, are easy to get.
Not noted often is that Afganistan, after many years of warfare, has minefields everywhere. Children are often killed as they are sent out to gather fuel in the treeless country. Indeed, the number of Afghans killed or maimed by mines is staggering and the survivors of those events need special care.

Prior to Afghanistan, Canada had a reputation for providing "peacekeepers" in nations around the world. From Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize and the Suez Crisis to Cyprus, from the Israel border to Bosnia, Rwanda and more, our troops had a unique and special purpose. They were not there to fight but to try - and they often succeeded - to keep warring factions apart. We had a world-wide repudiation for peacekeeping.

I think many Canadians were justly proud of that reputation.

The status of our troops in Afghanistan is very different. We are not there as peacekeepers but as warriors. I doubt that many Afghanis can note any difference between the Canadian troops and the American troops. We used much the same equipment and profess the same goals. While the initial intention might have been noble and just, the failure of the United States to fully complete the mission prior to the Iraq invasion not only gave the Taliban time and resources to continue the fighting but changed the war in character. From a war that would quickly be ended, it became - with limited resources - a war that would drag on forever. This is so as we have Allies that provide only a limited number of troops, not sufficient to accomplish the broad goals stated, and some allies who limit where their troops can be sent to areas that are not active war zones. The number of troops presently available dooms this mission to a endless engagement.

Recently, the President of Afghanistan suggested that the Taliban be invited to form part of the government. Perhaps a practical solution to the mess, but what does that say about our continuing to fight the same Taliban in the same country?

From the British defeats over a century ago to the Soviet defeats in the past few decades, Afghanistan has shown it is easy to conquer, difficult to hold. Our goal is no longer to simply destroy terrorists. Indeed, one has to wonder what the present goals are given the invitation mentioned above. And if we cannot clearly set out what goals we have for our forces in the field, we should not be willing to risk Canadian lives in a war that lacks any clear purpose and promises to have no end.

The Throne Speech followed the establishment of a panel to examine Canada's role in Afghanistan last week. To be headed by John Manley, a hawk certainly, the panel is to advise "Canada's New Government" on what role we should play in that country.

Hey! As we have been there for several years perhaps we might have had a role and mission well thought out before?

Thanks to the early phasing back of American special forces, the opportunity to "win" was lost. All we can attain now is a continual festering sore of a war, one that keeps going long after any Energizer bunny has stopped. So it has always been with Afghanistan, from early days through the Brits and Soviets. If our mission is to train Afghan police, then let's do that without the large contingent of soldiers fighting a group that may form part of the government in a short time.