Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

[enfield]

Infanteer, that is a pretty tenuous argument trying to lump the Soviet installed regime against Karzai and a UN sponsored, internationally approved, stability process commencing in December 2001, the Loyal Jurga in 2002, and democratic nationwide Presidential election in October 2004 and Parliamentary elections earlier this year. 

"UN Sponsored" and "Internationally approved" are two malleable and ambiguous terms. The invasion of Kosovo was neither - what does this mean for Canada? I'm pretty sure in 1983 the USSR could have drummed up a long list of nations that support what they were doing in Afghanistan - Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Uganda...
Remove US troops and support, and see how much the UN and the International Community really mean in Afghanistan. Does Karzai still have US bodyguards?
The international community approved the best available option (Karzai), which was dressed up in the proper window dressing of elections by the US. He's probably the best thing for the country in decades, but that doesn't make the political process different. I don't know the details of the Afghani electoral process, but I would be surprised if it didn't reflect pre-existing ethnic and tribal politics and Karzai and his government was made to meet these realities.

I saw our Afghani operation go something like this:
Failed state becomes a threat to us.
We invade, and help overthrow the existing regime.
We assist in installing a new regime, and back that new regime with force of arms, securing its capital region and now helping in offensive operations.

Morals make a nice background and justification, but we invaded Afghanistan for specific reasons of national interest in 2001, we deployed a stabilization force a couple years later for the same reasons, and now we are moving onto broader combat operations. All of which I applaud.
We have an interest in the stability of Afghanistan - and so did the USSR, and so did Britain and Russia in 1900. We are using force to support and encourage that stability. So did the Soviets, and the British, and whoever else has marched through. We are trying to make the world a better place through liberal democracy and elections. The USSR was using state ownership, command economy, and authoritarianism.

I agree with everything Canada has done in Afghanistan, and I know we have carried it out with a unheard of degree of humanism, restraint, and accountability, but I like to be realistic about why we're doing what we're doing, and the real background. I thought that a foreign policy based in values and morals went out with Lloyd Axworthy and that we are trying to escape the idea of neutral peacekeeper.

I don't agree with your assessment.  If you were comparing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the US in Iraq it would be a much clearer analogy.

Why? They've had UN approved elections, and the government in Iraq has sovereignty and international recognition, and arguable has more of a state apparatus in place than Afghanistan. The planned End State for Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same.

I don't know why we have to pretend like we're doing something new. We're doing it a lot better, and a lot nicer, then ever before - but its the same bag of tricks.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer, that is a pretty tenuous argument trying to lump the Soviet installed regime against Karzai and a UN sponsored, internationally approved, stability process commencing in December 2001, the Loyal Jurga in 2002, and democratic nationwide Presidential election in October 2004 and Parliamentary elections earlier this year.  Shades?  Difference is black and white.

Well, I'm not trying to point to the legitimacy of the regime in our eyes.  As Enfield pointed out, the new government seems to be better then the last two, but it doesn't change the fact that we put it there because we wanted it there.  Democracy sure seemed to be flourishing in Afghanistan prior to US Special Forces soldiers setting foot on Afghan soil.

I still can't figure out why everybody is focusing on the moral aspect - as I've said before; its the political one and if we are only going to define de facto regimes as ones we like, then we're going to get a one sided view of things.  The Soviets liked (and propped up) the Communist regime because they liked it.  We back Karzai and the Constitutional Loya Jirga because we like it.  In between then, everybody got bored of Afghanistan so Pakistan got to put its favorites in, the Taliban.  Throw in Central Asian oil and metastasizing fundamentalist Islam and you can see why the call this place the cockpit of the world.

Remember, the Soviet Union continued massive support to Najibullah's government.

...and we haven't supported Afghanistan's new government? 

As I asked before, how vibrant was democracy prior to overflying B-52's?  Do you think that the Northern Alliance, with the loss of Mossoud, would have had a lick of a chance of taking the Taliban down had their houseguest not spoiled it for them by bringing in the West?  Shortly before he was assassinated, Massoud was considering pulling out of the Panjshir Valley in the face of Taliban pressure - something that 6 Soviet divisional level assaults couldn't do.

True, we (or Ronald Reagon and the US) didn't like the Soviet's, but neither did most of the Afghani's.

There seems to be a proportion of Afghani's who don't like us either.  Granted, because we aren't blowing their kids up with toy-shaped mines, its not going to be as extreme, but I still fail to see the difference between "White Man on the Oxus" then and "White Man on the Oxus" now.

I don't agree with your assessment.  If you were comparing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the US in Iraq it would be a much clearer analogy.

There is a difference between OIF and OEF/ISAF?  If there is, it fooled me....

 

[Gunner]

"UN Sponsored" and "Internationally approved" are two malleable and ambiguous terms. The invasion of Kosovo was neither - what does this mean for Canada? I'm pretty sure in 1983 the USSR could have drummed up a long list of nations that support what they were doing in Afghanistan - Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Uganda...

It's not a perfect system but it is the one we have.  We, as have many other countries, ratified entry into the UN.  What other case do we have for a just cause?  The remainder were simply puppet states of the Soviets.  

Remove US troops and support, and see how much the UN and the International Community really mean in Afghanistan. Does Karzai still have US bodyguards?

Afghanistan is slowly getting to its feet.  It's not perfect but what is the alternate?  Allowing ot lapse into a failed state and turning it back to the terrorist.

The international community approved the best available option (Karzai), which was dressed up in the proper window dressing of elections by the US. He's probably the best thing for the country in decades, but that doesn't make the political process different. I don't know the details of the Afghani electoral process, but I would be surprised if it didn't reflect pre-existing ethnic and tribal politics and Karzai and his government was made to meet these realities.

It wasn't just the international community, it was also the key domestic actors.  Karzai was elected by majority of Afghani's which was quite an accomplishment considering the multiethnic make up of the country.  You can find the results here.

http://www.jemb.org/

We have an interest in the stability of Afghanistan - and so did the USSR, and so did Britain and Russia in 1900. We are using force to support and encourage that stability. So did the Soviets, and the British, and whoever else has marched through. We are trying to make the world a better place through liberal democracy and elections. The USSR was using state ownership, command economy, and authoritarianism.

You don't see a big difference in your statements between the two or do you just classify it simply as meddling in the affairs of another country?

I thought that a foreign policy based in values and morals went out with Lloyd Axworthy and that we are trying to escape the idea of neutral peacekeeper.

I don't see a realist foreign policy for us for quite some time my friend.

Why? They've had UN approved elections, and the government in Iraq has sovereignty and international recognition, and arguable has more of a state apparatus in place than Afghanistan. The planned End State for Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same.

No, in terms of the US and the Soviet Union both invaded a sovereign country with relatively questionable authority to do so.  End state is hopefully the same.

I don't know why we have to pretend like we're doing something new. We're doing it a lot better, and a lot nicer, then ever before - but its the same bag of tricks.

We are arguing colours or shades of colours.  Not whether history repeats itself or not.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't know why we have to pretend like we're doing something new. We're doing it a lot better, and a lot nicer, then ever before - but its the same bag of tricks.

Same ole bag of tricks; heh.  Here is my crystal ball - down the road, we are going to forget about Afghanistan - who knows, Latin America will be the new feature on CNN.  Anyways, it is going to still be a pile of rocks and they are going to come to the UN and plead for money to keep democracy alive.  Of course, it's election year and giving billions of dollars to other people isn't very popular, so they will be sent back with empty stockings.  Then, some warlord, seeing that someone else is getting the big piece of whatever pie is left, is going to get some nice new bang-sticks - it won't be hard; Russia to the North, Iran West, Pakistan South and India/China to the East.  Everybody is going to pick their sides and we are going to see the game played out for the umpteenth time.

Infact, I'm willing to wager that when the West has managed to blow itself to pieces, those Afghan tribesmen will still be doing what they were doing 2,500 years ago when Alexander came waltzing through.  I guess they'll get the last laugh....

 

[McG]

Doesn't change the fact that politically, then and now were the same in political terms (supporting a friendly government). 

"Then" was supporting a government defined by the Soviets.  "Now" we have given the Afghani people the power to define the government that we are supporting.

As I asked before, how vibrant was democracy prior to overflying B-52's?

No.  It was not.
. . . but, this is only relevant if you want us to believe that we invaded Afghanistan to introduce democracy.  The Soviets invaded to prop-up communism.  We invaded to defeat an enemy that was sheltering/supporing an organization that was actively attacking the west.

Something we learned too late after the First World War, was that if you do not rebuild the defeated nation(s) then you risk another war.  (A fact more true in Afghanistan where the defeated enemy still lingers on the country's fringes).  It could be suggested that we are currently involved in a Marshal Plan for Afghanistan.

Yes, re-building government did require an interim government that was selected not entirely by Afghanis.  You seem fixated on this interim government despite the fact that we have since given the Afghanis a chance to select their own.

 

[valleyhills]

This article shares my sentiments regarding Canada’s role in Afghanistan.
But I’m interested to hear some informed views regarding this editorial, from current & past members of the Canadian military.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Toronto Star
Link: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1139611812882
Date: February 12, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is our mission about preserving our way of life, or helping U.S. extend its supremacy? asks Linda McQuaig


Feb. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM
LINDA MCQUAIG


As we revel in our commitment to free speech, we barely seem to notice the limited range of things we actually discuss with all this free speech.

Take the question: Why are there so many suicide bombers in the Muslim world?

Of course, there's a rote answer to this that we hear all the time: Muslims have a culture of death; their blind rage against our freedom leads them to sacrifice their lives to spite us.

Another explanation — one you rarely hear — is that they're blowing themselves up to fight military incursions into their lands. (In this sense, they're not that different from people throughout history who sacrificed their lives to defend territory against foreign armies.)

One person who's been saying this — and getting little attention — is Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Based on the comprehensive databank he's developed as director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, Pape concludes there's been a strategic goal common to nearly every act of suicide terrorism in the past 25 years: "To compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."

If we paid more attention to this, and less to the self-satisfying babble about our superior Western ways, we probably wouldn't be increasing our contingent of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Our troops are attempting a number of things in Afghanistan, including helping the Afghan people build a country. But we are also there to wage war, to kill "scumbags" who "detest our freedoms," as our top military leader, Gen. Rick Hillier, has said.

Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.

But what is the U.S. actually up to over there? Along with Britain, it has a long history of intervening in that energy-rich part of the world. Washington is currently beefing up its presence in the Middle East and central Asia, including 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and nine in Afghanistan, in order to increase its "forward presence" in areas it considers economically and militarily strategic.

Along with chasing down Al Qaeda, Washington has long been interested in securing a safe route for pipelines to move energy from the Caspian Sea area through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea.

So is Canada's mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our "way of life," or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?

Canadian Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, echoing Hillier, has talked about Canada's role in Afghanistan as a 20-year commitment fraught with danger: "There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

True. But I doubt Canadians would consider Washington's desire for global dominance to be one of those things.

 

[George Wallace]

Before we go any further, could you provide the source of this material, and links.  That just provides the rest of us with some sort of proof of its authenticity.

 

[George Wallace]

Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.

Sounds like something I have heard somewhere before........Carlton University......York University.......Simone Fraser.......UBC........NDP........

But what is the U.S. actually up to over there? Along with Britain, it has a long history of intervening in that energy-rich part of the world. Washington is currently beefing up its presence in the Middle East and central Asia, including 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and nine in Afghanistan, in order to increase its "forward presence" in areas it considers economically and militarily strategic.

I haven't heard any mention of "permanent military bases" being set up in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Nor did I ever know of such a large number of "energy resources" being found in Afghanistan.

Along with chasing down Al Qaeda, Washington has long been interested in securing a safe route for pipelines to move energy from the Caspian Sea area through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea.

This looks to me like someone needs a geography lesson.  There are much shorter routes, more cost effective/cheaper routes, such a pipeline could take to deliver former Soviet Union crude to Russia and the European markets.

So is Canada's mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our "way of life," or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?

..... But I doubt Canadians would consider Washington's desire for global dominance to be one of those things.

I wonder where we have heard all this rhetoric before?

 

[HDE]

Suggestion:

    Check out a few of McQuaig's past columns.  You'll note that really thoughtful analysis isn't her strong suit.  She plays to the anti-American, anti-conservative, both large and small c, anti-corporate worldview.  By all means read her work, but keep in mind that she knows what the"facts" are before she even begins doing the research

For example:

The U.S. "carpet bombed" Baghdad  :'(
Scandinavian countries are models of what Canada should aspire to.  I'd love to raise the issue of how much of their GDP is spent on their defence
There are the "elites", financial, political, media and so on, then there are the "masses".    No cliches there!

I'd imagine she and "Polaris" Staples would be soulmates  :

 

[Long in the tooth]

More left wing head in the sand phantom economics adle pate claptrap.  Whenever I see this name on a column I avoid it.  Just Shoot The Hippo!

 

[Tow Tripod]

Linda,
That is a really neat trick. Being able to talk out your backside and attempt to make any sense what so ever!!!! I wish people like Linda could come to Afghanistan and listen to some of the stories about this country prior to the start of Operation Enduring Freedom. To be blunt Linda, if you where in this country prior to October 6, 2002 I'm pretty sure that you would have ended up at a end of a long rope and your feet off the ground.(If you know what I mean) I doubt many Canadians want the former Taliban regime back in power any time soon.

Have a nice day!!!!!!!

Tow tripod

 

[HDE]

No doubt Linda would also be absolutely outraged at the Talibam treatment of women!  She appears to have landed herself a fairly comfortable existence being a "commentator" on just about everything without having to take actual responsibilty for anything.  It would be useful if she'd, at very least, put some research into her writing, however I'd imagine she plays well to the crowd she caters to.

 

[Cannonfodder]

I do not agree with her point of view but there are some statements that deserve a further looking into .  Afghanistan is strategically important  in that it separates China from Iran's rich oil reserves   . China's appetite for oil is increasing at 7% per year , as we approach peak oil  these reserves will want to be accessed  by all . The shortest route to Chinese markets is through Afghanistan , a pan Afghanistan pipeline to China is not out of the question .
 If the viability of your economy is based on cheap oil , you have a vested interest in maintaining a cheap source of supply . True , there are oil sands in Alberta but they are energy intensive and expensive to develop and will only satisfy a portion of the diet of the US . Partially humanitarian , but basically a strategic decision to maintain a prescance in Afghanistan . It could be possible that the US may be trying to deter a  future alliance between Tehran and Beijing , the stakes will only get higher once China becomes involved .

 

[stukirkpatrick]

Another explanation — one you rarely hear — is that they're blowing themselves up to fight military incursions into their lands. (In this sense, they're not that different from people throughout history who sacrificed their lives to defend territory against foreign armies.)

I'm surprised the article didn't mention the most basic reason why Western forces ever came to Afghanistan:  Finding and "prosecuting" those responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001.  The Americans (and Canada) lost too many innocent citizens to just forgive and forget the terrorist acts that al-Qaeda had sponsored and carried out, and the main leaders and planners are still alleged to be in the Afghanistan region somewhere.  They can't be negotiated/reasoned with, because one of their primary beliefs is a traditional hatred of Israel.  There was no other alternative, since if they were left alone, they would continue (and they indeed have continued) to strike at western society.

 

[armyvern]

A couple of more points/discrepencies with the original article:

Our troops are attempting a number of things in Afghanistan, including helping the Afghan people build a country. But we are also there to wage war, to kill "scumbags" who "detest our freedoms," as our top military leader, Gen. Rick Hillier, has said.

Those scumbags also detest the freedoms that the great majority of Afghan citizens are now enjoying. Remember the Burka? Unfortunately, as long as the extremists and the Taliban remnants are still roaming the country-side, there is no guarantee of the Afghan nation building it's country free of intervention from those who would wish to send it back to the dark ages once again.

Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.

Hugely inaccurate statement here isn't it? Seeing as how Canada was actively conducting support to Afghanistan operations (via SAL Det etc) in Novemeber 2001 and deployed a Battle Group of troops to Afghanistan in January 2002. Yes, the PPCLI battle Group (Op Apollo) did leave Afghanistan prior to the War In Iraq and Canada did not send in another Battle Group (Op Athena) until the spring of 2003 (after the beginning of the War in Iraq). However; despite there being no "Battle Group" on ground, let me assure you that there were still hundreds of Canadians in-theatre serving with Op Apollo from the time the Op Apollo battle group left in 2002 until the Op Athena Battle Group arrived in the spring of 2003. I was there.. just one of many many of us from Dec 2002- Aug 2003. Therefore the War in Iraq started after Canada was already in Afghanistan. The old making up to the US argument is tired, old, and complete BS.

 

[armyvern]

I doubt many Canadians want the former Taliban regime back in power any time soon.

I also highly doubt that many Afghanis want to see them back in power....ever!!

 

[George Wallace]

Has anyone seen this article in print somewhere?

I wonder if the person who signed up to become a member of Army.ca this morning and was online long enough to post this topic and watch it long enough to see some interest, may in fact be doing so to gleam some points to print another article altogether?  ;D  Ulterior motives perhaps? 

I have sent 'valleyhills' a PM requesting the source and credits due this piece and have not gotten any results back.

I am very tempted to delete the whole post due to their lack of copyright accreditation.

 

[armyvern]

Has anyone seen this article in print somewhere?... I am very tempted to delete the whole post due to their lack of copyright accreditation.

George, Valleyhills must have edited the original post because the link is there now:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1139611812882

 

[George Wallace]

Ah!  Caught me snoozing.  My Bad.  :-[

 

[GO!!!]

One more left wing columnist with no vested interest in our actions on the world stage.

I'd love to see a collaberative workby her, Steven Staples, Scott Taylor and other self styled "experts", just to see what the left actually believes.

Canada goes to Afghanistan - We are supporting Washington's quest for global domination.

Canada does not go to Afghanistan - We are wallowing in decadence and allowing the third world to self destruct.

Ever wonder why the Star is only read in TO, or why the NDP is still part of the opposition?