Its time to begin pulling out of Afghanistan
Yesterday, Canada suffered its 40th fatality in Afghanistan and I think at this point it is time to reflect on whether the sacrifice has been worth it. Some will disagree, but I believe the sacrifice has not been worth it. In World War II, there was a clear and imminent danger so the sacrifice was worth it. As for Afghanistan, I just don't buy this argument that terrorism presents a massive threat to Canada. We have yet to have one attack on us and it appears almost all the attacks have been aimed at countries with soldiers in the Middle East. This would suggest to me pulling out not staying and fighting would reduce our threat. It is easy as a blogger to say it is a worthwhile fight, but imagine you lost a family member in combat, would you still think it is worthwhile? Had I lost a family member in Afghanistan, I would be very angry at our government.
When Harper became PM, we had had 8 deaths over a period of 4 and half years. In his 8 months as prime-minister we've experienced thirty two deaths. Now I realize the Liberals started the Kandahar mission, but had Harper not extended it, we could have pulled out in 2007. Instead we are stuck until 2009 and possibly much longer. At its current rate, the death toll will likey be in the hundreds by the time we finally leave. I am not opposed to us being in Afghanistan to help for humanitarian purposes. Had we stayed in Kabul, I wouldn't be complaining, but with everything one must look at it through a sacrifice vs. benefits prism. In Kabul we were providing humanitarian aid and helping build schools and infrastructure, while losing few soldiers. In Kandahar, it has been all fighting with no end in sight and no goals of what we want to achieve. More importantly, had the United States not invaded Iraq, they would have had the soldiers necessary to do the dirty work in Kandahar. By being in Afghanistan, we are essentially indirectly helping the Americans in Iraq by freeing up soldiers to go fight in Iraq.
A common argument I've heard is this is a NATO operation supported by the UN, so as a NATO member we have an obligation to be there. What is ignored, is this year, 43% of all casualties have been Canadian, no other NATO nation besides Britain and the United States is willing to send soldiers to Kandahar or other dangerous regions and almost every NATO nation in Afghanistan has far fewer troops than we do. In fact we have lost more soldiers on a per capita basis than the United States has. If other NATO countries aren't willing to step up to the plate, we have to ask why is this? Being a NATO member means doing our fair share, not more as we are now.
There is also the 3-D approach, defence, diplomacy, and development, which the Liberals adopted, while Harper seems to only care about the first. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without winning the hearts and minds of the people, and if we are seen as an occupying force or an enemy, we won't win. I am afraid that the Afghans don't view us as liberators, but as occupiers. Had our combat role been coupled with aggressive involvement in development and trying to seek diplomacy, I might have been more supportive of this mission, but to date it hasn't, and considering how naive most of the Tory cabinet ministers are about foreign affairs, I don't think that will change anytime soon. If anything this mission has shown just how inexperienced our current government is. Now I understand that when you've been in opposition for a long time, this will be the case, but that is why rather than trying to differentiate themselves from the Liberals on every issue, they should differentiate themselves on issues that at least have some understanding of such as economic policy (although the Liberal record was pretty strong here, so tough to beat, unlike in 1984 when it had been quite weak so it was easy that time to do a better job), while not on issues they know little about.
My solution here is that whoever is the next Liberal leader should take a more assertive role in ensuring we either withdraw completely from Afghanistan or alter our role to a more balanced one that is in line with most other NATO countries. Pulling out before 2009 may carry some diplomatic risks, but I believe the only nations who would be upset would be the United States and maybe Britain, but since our foreign policy was very different than the United States and to a lesser extent Britain under the previous government, I think we could argue we are simply continuing our traditional foreign policy. Besides good Canada-US relations are important, but the interests of the Canadian people must always come first.
UPDATE:
I should add as Kyle Carruthers points out that there have been thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. While I suspect the majority have come from American troops during bombing raids as opposed to Canadian troops, we still are implicitly supporting it. Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but the numbers who would have died otherwise had we not gone to war must be greater than the number killed in the war, to make it just. In the case of Afghanistan, that is not the case since they pose no major threat to any sovereign nation and there is little chance of them becoming a democracy any time soon so as brutal as the Taliban was, whoever replaces them will not be enough of an improvement to make the number of casualties worth it.
When Harper became PM, we had had 8 deaths over a period of 4 and half years. In his 8 months as prime-minister we've experienced thirty two deaths. Now I realize the Liberals started the Kandahar mission, but had Harper not extended it, we could have pulled out in 2007. Instead we are stuck until 2009 and possibly much longer. At its current rate, the death toll will likey be in the hundreds by the time we finally leave. I am not opposed to us being in Afghanistan to help for humanitarian purposes. Had we stayed in Kabul, I wouldn't be complaining, but with everything one must look at it through a sacrifice vs. benefits prism. In Kabul we were providing humanitarian aid and helping build schools and infrastructure, while losing few soldiers. In Kandahar, it has been all fighting with no end in sight and no goals of what we want to achieve. More importantly, had the United States not invaded Iraq, they would have had the soldiers necessary to do the dirty work in Kandahar. By being in Afghanistan, we are essentially indirectly helping the Americans in Iraq by freeing up soldiers to go fight in Iraq.
A common argument I've heard is this is a NATO operation supported by the UN, so as a NATO member we have an obligation to be there. What is ignored, is this year, 43% of all casualties have been Canadian, no other NATO nation besides Britain and the United States is willing to send soldiers to Kandahar or other dangerous regions and almost every NATO nation in Afghanistan has far fewer troops than we do. In fact we have lost more soldiers on a per capita basis than the United States has. If other NATO countries aren't willing to step up to the plate, we have to ask why is this? Being a NATO member means doing our fair share, not more as we are now.
There is also the 3-D approach, defence, diplomacy, and development, which the Liberals adopted, while Harper seems to only care about the first. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without winning the hearts and minds of the people, and if we are seen as an occupying force or an enemy, we won't win. I am afraid that the Afghans don't view us as liberators, but as occupiers. Had our combat role been coupled with aggressive involvement in development and trying to seek diplomacy, I might have been more supportive of this mission, but to date it hasn't, and considering how naive most of the Tory cabinet ministers are about foreign affairs, I don't think that will change anytime soon. If anything this mission has shown just how inexperienced our current government is. Now I understand that when you've been in opposition for a long time, this will be the case, but that is why rather than trying to differentiate themselves from the Liberals on every issue, they should differentiate themselves on issues that at least have some understanding of such as economic policy (although the Liberal record was pretty strong here, so tough to beat, unlike in 1984 when it had been quite weak so it was easy that time to do a better job), while not on issues they know little about.
My solution here is that whoever is the next Liberal leader should take a more assertive role in ensuring we either withdraw completely from Afghanistan or alter our role to a more balanced one that is in line with most other NATO countries. Pulling out before 2009 may carry some diplomatic risks, but I believe the only nations who would be upset would be the United States and maybe Britain, but since our foreign policy was very different than the United States and to a lesser extent Britain under the previous government, I think we could argue we are simply continuing our traditional foreign policy. Besides good Canada-US relations are important, but the interests of the Canadian people must always come first.
UPDATE:
I should add as Kyle Carruthers points out that there have been thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. While I suspect the majority have come from American troops during bombing raids as opposed to Canadian troops, we still are implicitly supporting it. Civilian casualties are inevitable in war, but the numbers who would have died otherwise had we not gone to war must be greater than the number killed in the war, to make it just. In the case of Afghanistan, that is not the case since they pose no major threat to any sovereign nation and there is little chance of them becoming a democracy any time soon so as brutal as the Taliban was, whoever replaces them will not be enough of an improvement to make the number of casualties worth it.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 1:23 PM
14 Comments:
Miles,
Where were you on the first day of the war when many more than 40 Afghani civilians were killed? Why are you willing to accept so many Afghani civilians casualties, but want to pull out when 40 Canadians are killed? Does a Canadian soldier have higher moral worth than an Afghani civilian?
If you want to pull out of Afghanistan that is fine, but I think you are calling for it for the wrong reason.
Kyle - The civilian casualties is definitely a concern too, that I should have mentioned. While we have no way of knowing what the numbers are, I suspect they are too high. Some civilian casualties always happen in a war, but it must be proportionate to the threat. Since it is likely higher than the number killed in the twin tower attacks it is probably not proportionate. If we were helping Afghanistan more so in terms of humanitarian aid, the casualties, might be proportionate due to the long-term benefits, but since we aren't they clearly aren't proportionate.
Good one Miles. See znet for more comment.
Good analysis Miles. This war is increasingly becoming a classical guerilla war.
Recent history, including the experiences of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, demonstrates that the "great power" in a guerilla war always seems to lose.
The reason they lose? Pressure from the home front. Political pressure builds up at home until the government of the day finds it untenable to continue the war effort. So they invent a reason to leave, usually by declaring "victory", and they triumphantly bring the troops home. In the aftermath, the "defeated" guerillas rise up and destroy the puppet regime the great power left behind destroying any good the great power might have done during the war and causing all of the deaths they suffered to be in vain.
In my opinion I think we should skip to the final act of this little drama and bring the troops home now. Sure, the Taliban will take power again but that is going to happen anyway so whether it happens this year or in 2010 makes no difference except that it happening now will save between 100-120 Canadian lives.
Miles,
I support the war. I don't want to break faith with the troops. I must confess to having moments of weakness though where I toyed with the idea of eventual and perhaps premature withdrawal.
How do the soldiers feel about those who have died fighting bravely or otherwise doing their duty in Afghanistan? Those men and women paid the ultimate price. How do the ranks feel we should honour our war dead? Stay and continue the fight or withdraw our forces? There reaches a point in any war where there are only two alternatives: victory or defeat. I'm of the view that the troops will ultimately determine our eventual course of action. When their comrades-in-arms reach the conclusion that it is time to go, I will support it. Until then, we should do the best we can to make a difference and to weaken the Taliban as much as possible. Granted, in the end, this may ultimately play out in much the same way as Vietnam did. Time will tell.
It is time to evacuate our troops. The return of the Taliban to dominance in Afghanistan will bother women who again will be driven from educational pursuits and denied health care, but since when is that a Canadian problem. As Liberals we know that our needs come first. Abandon Afghanistan now!
You obviously don't understand Afghanistan. Its easy for you sitting at your computer to support a war without actually having to see the devastation war causes. I don't endorse the Taliban, but I also know war is a horrific thing and we are talking about lives of real human beings, not just statistics. Any decision to go to war should never be taken lightly.
Fragmunt do you have a link. I am generally no fan of the leftist view of foreign policy since I find both the left and right base their opinions too much on simplistic ideas. The right about the US and the West being good and the rest being bad, while the left about the US and the West being bad. I tend to base my opinions of foreign policy on more complex arguments.
Ottlib - Good analysis. It is tragic that the Taliban probably will re-take power, but I would rather see the Afghans solve their own problems by themselves. Democracy when brought from within usually succeeds, but when brought from the outside, is when it fails. Free trade and humanitarian aid will ultimately raise the standard of living of the Afghan people and as their standard of living rises, they will demand more freedoms including democracy. Bombing the country away and killing innocent Afghans will make them more hostile, not more open to democracy.
PSM - I too support our troops and lets make clear, opposing the war doesn't mean opposing our troops. Our military does whatever they are told, it is the politicians who make the decisions and they are the ones who should be blamed, not the military. I happen to believe this war is unwinneable and therefore we should pull out before suffering an embarassment.
Ex-dipper,
Canadians supported Canada's involvement in both the First and Second World Wars because they believed that their way of life was threatened by Imperial and Nazi Germany. They supported Canada's involvement in Korea because the actions of the Soviet Union and its satillites presented the same threat.
It is now the beginning of the 21st Century. Canadians are much more confident in the resilience of our democratic institutions and of our way of life.
Canada has faced the threats of Imperial Germany, the Nazis and the Communists of the Soviet Union, all of which had vast armies, modern societies and in one case huge numbers of nuclear weapons. After all of that Canadians do not see the actions of a bunch of people living in caves, in a country that is only slightly more advanced than a Medieval fiefdom, as being a credible threat to our way of life. As a result, their support for the war in Afghanistan is not very solid and it only erodes with each death of a Canadian serviceman.
It is not a sign of weakness amongst Canadians. It is an acknowledgement that Canada will survive anything Islamic extremists will throw at it.
I think Ottlib's response to Ex-NDIP was right on. Korean War was more of proxy war with the Soviet Union while Nazi Germany did present a long-term threat to Canada. Both of those countries were large powers, whereas the terrorists are an organization, not a state actor. Afghanistan is a poor impoverished nation that if they ever attacked Canada, would even with our weak army be defeated in a few weeks.
World War II was definitely worth fighting. In hindsight the Korean War might have not been necessary since the Soviet Union eventually collapsed under its own weight, however in 1953, no one knew that was going to happen so based on what we knew then, the Korean War was definitely justified. Also China still is a communist country and when considering the stark difference between North Korea and South Korea its probably not a bad thing that North Korea didn't conquer the whole peninsula. Finally both were conventional wars as opposed to guerilla wars. Guerilla wars we cannot win (and note when I said we would beat Afghanistan in two weeks that is on Canadian soil, not on Afghan soil). The Soviets failed in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam and in both cases those were guerilla wars as opposed to conventional wars.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of your point Miles.
When Saddam was still in power and he still had an organized army the United States rolled over them without much problem.
However, once Saddam was overthrown and the organized Iraqi army formations were destroyed their remnants escaped and have been doing way more damage to the Americans than they ever did as organized formations.
The same is true of the Taliban. When they ran Afghanistan and they were the army of that country the allied forces rolled over them and defeated them. They then escaped into the mountains and we know the rest of the story.
The Americans have no hope of a military solution in Iraq and there is no military solution in Afghanistan either. The only difference between the two is the stage of the guerilla war. It has gone too far in Iraq and the US is in too deep for its extrication to be anything but messy. The Afghan situation is still in its early stages so, for now, the Afghan situation is still salvagable if NATO leaders have the forethought and the courage to take advantage of it. (I am not holding my breath)
I fully agree Ottlib. I think too many people don't understand the difference between conventional warfare, which the United States is very good at versus guerilla warfare which it is terrible at. Ironically enough the reason the Americans defeated the British in 1776 was because the British couldn't win in a guerilla war.
I would say that this discussion displays perfectly how the publicly disclosed reasons for these wars are not the true reasons.
Does anyone actually think that with all the resources available to the leaders of the western countries such as the USA or Canada (or any of the other NATO countries), and that with all the advisors and historical experiences and records available, none of them have been able to come to the conclusion that you guys are coming to?
The "war" is most likely not winnable, as many pundits other than yourselves have said. How likely is it that the only ones that haven't figured this out are the ones in control? Not very.
Could it be that war is what is desired and that the "liberation" of the Afghani public is not an actual goal?
Does anyone actually think that with all the resources available to the leaders of the western countries such as the USA or Canada (or any of the other NATO countries), and that with all the advisors and historical experiences and records available, none of them have been able to come to the conclusion that you guys are coming to
I suspect some have come to the same conclusions as you and I, but for whatever reason they have decided to still be in Afghanistan. And also lets note most NATO countries are making token contributions, which is probably a sign they are not very comfortable with the mission. Only Canada, Britain, and the United States are making significant contributions in Afghanistan.
The "war" is most likely not winnable, as many pundits other than yourselves have said. How likely is it that the only ones that haven't figured this out are the ones in control? Not very
I think they have figured it out, they just know it would be a huge embarassment to pull out in defeat so they are staying in to put off the inevitable in the hopes they can somehow find a way to declare victory without victory actually happening.
Could it be that war is what is desired and that the "liberation" of the Afghani public is not an actual goal
I think the goal is to stop terrorism, but I think they are going about it the wrong way and taking a naive approach.
14 Million free women.
4 Million Children in school.
Not worth it eh?
14 Million free women.
4 Million Children in school.
Not worth it eh?
Afghanistan is not free until all foreign occupiers leave. Having a foreign army roaming your streets and frequent bombing attacks is not my idea of a free country. Besides it is not our job to go around interferring in other people's affairs. Democracy is an ugly battle that didn't come easily and it is best if left to its own people than trying to bring it at the end of a gun barrel from a foreign occupier.
Post a Comment
<< Home