Steve’s Sleight of Hand
The Prime Minister bolstered Canada’s military engagement in Afghanistan last night on CBC’s The National. In an interview with Peter Mansbridge, Mr. Harper claimed the interaction has made Canada’s military stronger and a better fighting force.
No one will argue with him on that point. In Afghanistan, the military is doing what it is trained to do. However, we may want to ask “to what end?”
Last year, the House of Commons held a scant debate on Canada’s role in Afghanistan. Australian Prime Minister John Howard was making a planned visit to Canada and Prime Minister Harper rushed the debate, ostensibly to accommodate Mr. Howard’s address in the House – a poor excuse by every standard.
Yesterday’s opening Question Period in the House of Commons further confirmed the void of military purpose defining Canada’s role in Afghanistan. Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor deflected opposition criticisms by saying that Canada was not about to hand Afghanistan back over to the Taliban.
Again, no one will question the premise here. Rather, Canadians are unsure about the alternative. The Prime Minister has done little to rationalize the death of 36 Canadian soldiers. Instead, his focus has been patriotic rebuke:
If I can be frank about this, you know, in some ways I think we can complain that only a handful of countries are carrying the bulk of the load and the bulk of the danger there. It’s certainly raising Canada’s leadership role, once again, in the United Nations and in the world community where we used to have an important leadership role.
If one were to think quite literally, the Prime Minister’s stance seems to be that Canada needs this war as much as Afghanistan. His motives for the continued military engagement are going to be called into question. What kind of answer can we expect?
The Prime Minister has arranged a diplomatic visit by Afghan President Hamid Karzai later this week. Karzai will address the House of Commons. He will also attend a wreath-laying ceremony with Mr. Harper at the Canadian War Memorial in Ottawa. Canadians can expect effusive praise from Karzai for the Canadian military’s efforts in Afghanistan.
However, the diplomatic visit is little more than political sleight of hand. Harper expects to drown uncertainty about the war in a patriotic deluge. It is a page out of the George Bush playbook. I can hardly understand why the Prime Minister would think this is a good way to define his foreign policy objectives.
———
This post was written by alevo. The timestamp has been adjusted to give this post the attention it deserves.
[tags]afghanistan, canada, politics[/tags]
September 21st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Well Spoken.
Anything to add after hearing Harper address the UN?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I think Canadians who are having doubts about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan would feel a lot more reassured if we had a really good handle on what Canada is doing there, and if we felt assured that we are in control of the mission ourselves instead of following a strategy designed by others (notably, the Americans).
I am uncomfortable with American leadership for three main reasons. First, Iraq has shown them to be utterly incompetent. In many respects, Iraq should have been far easier for the Americans to pacify than, say, France was for Nazi Germany, but the US has failed to maintain control there anyway.
Second, American motivations in the ‘war on terror’ are not what the Americans make them out to be, as should be evident by the fact that an Iraq without oil would almost certainly not have been invaded.
Third, the conduct of the United States in the ‘war on terror’ has been absolutely deplorable. From war crimes to torture to suppression of domestic civil rights and the marginalization of dissent, this United States administration has shown its true colours, colours which should shame every American, and by extension, America’s allies: us. It’s no wonder that fear and distrust of the United States is at an all-time high across the world, including right here at home.
If Canada behaves in Afghanistan the way the American military typically behaves – with mass destruction and killings – then we will lose in Afghanistan. The fact is, the Taliban, as reprehensible as they are, have more of a right to be in Afghanistan than we do. They are Afghans too. A resurgent Taliban means they have increased support among Afghans.
Behaving like the United States in Afghanistan will have only one conclusion: ordinary Afghans will come to see us as killers, and they will look to the Taliban – or to the warlords, or both – for protection. We will spark a broad-based nationalist resistance there, just as the Americans have created one in Iraq. And we will leave in defeat the same way countless other conquerors have left that country.
Speaking about George Washington, a character in Terrorist by John Updike speaks about nationalist resistance:
Our success in Afghanistan hinges on whether we are there on behalf of Afghans, or on behalf of the American empire.