The Canadian Debate on Afghanistan

We are seeing the beginning of a vigorous debate on Canada’s role in Afghanistan, spurred by Canada’s recent takeover of command in the south and our recent casualties there.

Military officials have said Canadian troops will be required there for at least a decade, so we can expect a steadily mounting body count, and with it, a raucous struggle between Canadian liberals and conservatives – one that is sure to feature unhealthy amounts of mudslinging and accusations of cowardice and naivete, or war-mongering and complicity with American imperialism.

Here are a couple of good examples. The first is from an article called The Good Fight by Lorne Gunter, published in the National Post:

[W]e are not simply [in Afghanistan] to win favour with Washington.

To believe that, you have to forget Canadians were killed by Taliban-supported terrorists on 9/11, that Canadians died as a result of plots hatched in Afghan caves and at the hands of killers trained in Afghan terrorist camps. You have to see the war in the Afghan mountains as just another conflict among far-off warlords who are pretty much morally equivalent. You would have to believe we shouldn’t be taking sides.

Above all, you have to swallow the naive conviction that if we simply show no aggression toward the extremist Muslims we are fighting there, they will show no aggression toward us. Canada won’t be a target so long as no Canadians are fighting terrorists or their co-religionists overseas. So let’s all scurry into our hidey-holes and wait for the current unpleasantness to blow over.

The second is from an article with a long title by Linda McQuaig, published in the Toronto Star:

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.

McQuaig goes on to ask, “So is Canada’s mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our ‘way of life,’ or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?”

Stephen Harper’s decision to reject a debate in Parliament on Canada’s increased and apparently extended role in Afghanistan makes the issue even more confusing. A debate in Parliament would clear the air a little by allowing MPs to explain their personal positions and those of their parties, instead of leaving us to be picked over by spokespeople and spin doctors.

Statements like this one by Harper, as reported by the CBC, make the situation even stranger:

“It’s not the intention of this government to question the particular commitment when our troops are in danger,” he said. “Such a debate or such a lack of strength by any of the political parties in Canada will merely weaken the resolve of our troops and will even put our troops in even more danger.”

Are we to honestly believe that the Conservatives will not question any decisions made by the Liberals? Who controls Canadian policy in Afghanistan: the generals, or the government? Do debates really put our troops in “more danger”?

The situation in Afghanistan is, as usual, more complex than the forces of left and right would have us believe. On the one hand, the decision to invade Afghanistan was not a knee-jerk reaction by Canada because “Canadians died as a result of plots hatched in Afghan caves”, as Lorne Hunter says. And we should not be frightened to ask why Islamist fundamentalists despise the West so much, and why we ended up on bin Laden’s hit list.

On the other hand, “Afghanistan is not Iraq”, says Ahmed Rashid in It’s Worth The Sacrifice (Word document), in spite of the constant comparisons made between the countries by people opposed to the wars there:

Today, NATO has as much of a responsibility to Afghanistan as the Americans do. But some NATO countries, such as the Netherlands, are balking at the prospect of having to carry out not just peacekeeping but also combat duties, as the south is the epicentre of the Taliban/al-Qaeda resurgence.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. For every layer of lies, subterfuge and lack of legality that we now know constituted Washington’s raison d’être for its invasion of Iraq, there was a parallel layer of transparency, international legality and massive public support when the United Nations Security Council and NATO sanctioned the removal of the Taliban regime in 2001.

The proof lies in the fact that, five years after the defeat of the Taliban, the majority of Afghans still support the presence of NATO troops in their country. Contrast that with Iraq.

A poll conducted in late 2005 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that the “Afghan public overwhelmingly rejects al-Qaeda [and the] Taliban”, “endorses the overthrow of the Taliban” and “strongly supports [the] US and international presence” there.

I can’t speak for the accuracy of that poll, but the idea that Canada’s mission in Afghanistan enjoys the support of many Afghans is reassuring. Given the brutal and repressive nature of the Taliban, it’s not particularly surprising, either.

But that doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want. Our conduct in Afghanistan needs to be examined as closely as our reasons for being there.

The Taliban were killers and they harboured al-Qaeda, but that doesn’t excuse the US air strikes that turned Afghan villages into rubble, killing many civilians, or the US support of the murderers and rapists of the Northern Alliance. Nor does the shadowy nature of al-Qaeda and the Afghan insurgency justify imprisoning hundreds of people without trial in secretive American prisons, or their abuse, “extraordinary rendition”, torture and even murder.

To truly build a free and democratic Afghanistan requires absolute respect for human rights and for the law, equally, fairly and transparently applied to Afghan and foreigner alike. That includes ending Canadian support for the Guantanomo prison and our practice of handing detainees over to Americans or anyone else who doesn’t guarantee their right to a trial and their safe treatment.

If that means Canada needs to create fair tribunals for people our troops capture, and a prison to house the ones that are found guilty, that is a price we should be willing to pay: because sacrificing Canadian values in order to promote them doesn’t make a whit of sense.