Canada and Afghanistan

I have to give props to Mr. Harper for visiting Afghanistan to show his support for the troops. This wasn't a Bush-style drop in and out visit, he stayed over a couple nights at the base (which has been shelled more than once), in one of the more dangerous regions of the country. Compared to Martin and Chretien, at least he's making an attempt to show his support for our armed forces. Whether or not you agree with the Canadian role in Afghanistan, if we finally have a government that is willing to support our military, then the Canadian peacekeeping missions elsewhere will also receive that support. An optimistic scenario is that well-supplied Canadian peacekeepers are sent to Darfur and other troubled regions around the globe.

Canada is sorely lacking in the peacekeeping department these days, the number of missions that Canadians are involved in has dwindled as the armed forces have seen their numbers and funding go down. More funding = better equipment = more service members = more peacekeeping missions. And whoever thinks that peacekeeping is not the same as engaging in combat had better think again and read about the Medak Pocket in the former Yugoslavia, where a well-armed, well-trained, no-nonsense Canadian brigade came across Croatian forces ethnically cleansing a Serbian village. Even more to the point, had Romeo Dallaire's forces in Rwanda been properly equipped, they could have intervened to halt the genocide there.

The fact remains that Canada wasn't in Afghanistan to keep the peace in the first place. On October 4, 2001, NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that, in response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S., the North Atlantic Council (NATO's senior advisory body) was invoking Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, which states that any attack on a NATO nation launched from outside that nation shall be interpreted as an attack on all the NATO nations. Canada was committed. They are not there with the UN. They are there with NATO. They are not peacekeeping as defined by the UN. I don't see why there is any conflict over that.

The real conflict lies in the notion that Canada is sucking up to America and aiding in US imperialism. I think that the reason why this theory is around is because Harper is in power, and he is viewed as a US crony (in some aspects, he deserves this label. In others, not so much). Nevertheless, it was first Jean Chretien, then Paul Martin, who committed the troops to Afghanistan - and everyone knows how friendly they were with the Bushies. What not many people seem to realize is that peacekeeping does entail military action when needed. Canadian troops going into the mountains to engage Taliban and al-Qaida fighters is not peacekeeping, but rather peace-ensuring. Like in Bosnia, the Canadian troops will have to earn the respect of the populace by being not only tough, but also by showing cultural sensitivity to the local people. Only then can anything meaningful be accomplished. I quote Michael Nickerson:

Well, let’s be clear on something. Canada does have a duty to
help Afghanistan rebuild considering our active role in destabilizing it by
helping to bring about the fall of the Taliban regime. Those who think this is
not our war to fight should have done more to intervene four years ago, because
we’re in it now whether we like it or not.

Nickerson goes on to explain the merits of a debate on the troop committment:

...it is also our duty to debate the how’s and why’s of what
we are doing. An opposition actually doing its job would be pushing with all its
might for a full vote on our next commitment to the region, with the current one
finishing up next February.

It would not only force Peter Mackay to stand up in parliament
and explain exactly what his department and CIDA are doing to rebuild a
shattered nation, but also pressure Harper to increase financial assistance,
push other nations to do their part, work to crack down on the corruption and
waste currently consuming foreign aid in Afghanistan, and generally do more than
play flyboy behind the control of our aging transports.

We could also start to discuss a foreign policy of pre-emption
that so far has done nothing to stop terrorism, even helping it to flourish.
Iraq should stand as an example of what not to do when you feel paranoid, but
instead we have terror-happy pronouncements that we have to stop terrorism
before it reaches our shores, perhaps missing the logical conclusion that we’ll
be invading most of the planet before the paranoia subsides and we’re all
committed.

I should read this site more often.