Should Canada Be In Afghanistan?

[Moonlight_Graham]

Bringing back this arguement. State your points why is is or isn't a good idea for us sending the 2000+ troops into Afghanistan.

 

Right now i'm sorta on the fence, though leaning a bit toward us being there. Would like to hear some arguments both ways.

[ecnarf]

If you were to ask me, I'd say that there's merit in supporting a democratic government in Afghanistan and keeping the Taliban out.

 

But Stephen Harper's only argument for our presence in Afghanistan has been that

 

a) We're already in there, so we need to extend out commitment

b) The killing of four Canadian soldiers justifies our presence.

 

He can't defend the action on his own merits. And that really makes me wonder.

 

I also have to wonder just how "democratic" this government is, and whether it can sustain itself or not. To be entirely realistic about it, is it even possible for ISAF to leave within five years and not have the Afghan government fall apart? It might even make sense to abandon the romantic sentiment of keeping Afghanistan the way the British created it over a hundred years ago and grant autonomy to separate regions.

[supercanuk]

If you were to ask me, I'd say that there's merit in supporting a democratic government in Afghanistan and keeping the Taliban out.

 

But Stephen Harper's only argument for our presence in Afghanistan has been that

 

a) We're already in there, so we need to extend out commitment

b) The killing of four Canadian soldiers justifies our presence.

 

He can't defend the action on his own merits. And that really makes me wonder.

 

I also have to wonder just how "democratic" this government is, and whether it can sustain itself or not. To be entirely realistic about it, is it even possible for ISAF to leave within five years and not have the Afghan government fall apart? It might even make sense to abandon the romantic sentiment of keeping Afghanistan the way the British created it over a hundred years ago and grant autonomy to separate regions.

Great comments, i definitely agree with some but not all of what you said, but that's what makes great discourse.

 

I'm quite sure I've been flogging a dead horse here on NF from my "wild" positions on varied social issues, to this current repugnant imperialist war, and I don't plan on slowing down.

 

Moonlight_Graham, I think you're smart to open up this debate again, I don't think people have gotten the whole picture in Afghanistan.

 

Troops in Afghanistan, in my opinion, is not inherently wrong. It's the way we are going about doing it. For one, and this is going to be quite general since the nitty gritty can and will go on for pages of discourse, but for one, despite popular belief, we are not fighting the Taliban. We are fighting people we perceive as the enemies of Hamid Karzai's government, and whether they are competing war lords of Karzai's warlords, neither are worth supporting. Prime example, a recent Human Rights Watch report indicates that 60% of Karzai's government were war-lords, drug lords, and continue to have ties to both war lords, and drug lords. These people are basically the Taliban itself, under the guise of a democratic party ( which btw, was a dubious election at best).

 

Karzai himself is an ex-employee of Unical... A petroleum company.. need I say more ?

In 2001, Jean Chr

[adora]

He can't defend the action on his own merits. And that really makes me wonder.

 

I also have to wonder just how "democratic" this government is, and whether it can sustain itself or not.

I think all Canadians should be asking themselves the same question.

Harper would kiss Bush's behind any day, so I think that explains pretty much everything.

[Some Random]

i am admittedly uninformed, but considering the trouble the russians had in afghanistan, i don't know what the hell 2,000 canadian troops are supposed to accomplish (though the u.s. was backing the taliban back then, as i understand it).

[cringleman]

i am admittedly uninformed, but considering the trouble the russians had in afghanistan, i don't know what the hell 2,000 canadian troops are supposed to accomplish (though the u.s. was backing the taliban back then, as i understand it).

For one thing, the 2000 Canadian troops aren't trying to take control of the country for a foreign power (despite rampant claims of mysterious committees pulling strings in darkened back rooms), so there's that.

 

Should we have gone? That's an unanswerable question, at this point, because while hindsight may be 20/20, it's impossible to say what would have happened, had things been different.

 

Can we leave? Almost certainly not, if we don't want civil war to occur. If we don't mind that, then hell, get the troops out. Why care about building hospitals and schools and stuff some time this decade? (And it will be at least that long; to not repeat the mistakes of the past, we're going to have to commit to a serious, longterm undertaking, involving a tangible commitment to helping rebuild the country and bring it onto the road to some kind of economic growth. That can't happen in five years' time.)

 

Since we're already stuck, and since we can't be permanently quagmired in war (the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare aside, it's generally most effective when you have the full support of the majority of the populace, and as the large, settled safe havens for those angry guys that shoot us dwindle, the eventual bringing of amenities to the populace ought to sway them), we might as well do good things. Let's rebuild the hospitals and schools and roads and wells that we unfortunately helped destroy, and let's help some farmers grow something useful, like cereal grains instead of poppies.

 

I can also understand the argument that the current government are shills, but continued progress toward political mobilisation of the population would benefit them greatly.

 

I have yet to see any evidence cited to convince me that the situation in the country as a whole has deteriorated for women since the foreign occupation began.

 

Then again, perhaps we're simply meddling, and should've left the Taliban alone.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Just one thing reading through the pdf on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan.

 

It makes it seem as if Chretien was always with Big Oil, which he wasn't until he was out of office (and probably out of influence in the Liberal party), so I'm not too sure if the connection being made there is all that strong.

 

I like to bitch. Don't mind me.

 

Note: next, this isn't a criticism of anything said here so far, just in general.

 

One thing about negotiating with the Taliban: can it accomplish anything? Opponents like to cite occurances such as militants tossing grenades into the homes of Afghans who allow their daughters to go to school and other fun shit like that. What can dampen that kind of extremism? Certainly lifting the country out of poverty can happen. Most of al Qaida's and the Taliban's new recruits come from impoverished families who know that they can be fed and looked after relatively well if they join the Taliban, so more than just an "arms for amnesty" deal is needed. It just isn't enough. Grand, sweeping plans to eradicate poverty aren't the answer. Cringleman hit it dead on when he said:

 

and let's help some farmers grow something useful, like cereal grains instead of poppies.

 

Find out what works. True, a first-world society won't spring up over night, but it's a start. As an aside, the Taliban were ruthless in cutting down on the drug trade and opium growing. I wouldn't imagine that they're too happy about what it's like now, so doing something along the lines of what Cringleman suggested may help to stem the Taliban insurgency somewhat. The power of the drug lords starts from the ground up. Without the loyalty of their personal armies, they have no power. Following this, the schools being built will be safer and female students shouldn't have to worry about hand grenades being lobbed through their windows, and then those who actually favour full committment in Afghanistan will actually have a point when they point to new infrastructure being built.

 

Mind you, at the moment it's still incredibly dangerous for aid workers, so I doubt that military involvement in one form or another is unnessecary. It's a vicious cycle. We're training their troops and police, while at the same time those troops and police are deserting or being killed and threatened and thus unable to protect said aid workers adequately. It's really complicated, and I doubt "arms for amnesty" will cut it.

 

PS: The White Man's Burden by William Easterly. Amazing book.

[supercanuk]

It's really complicated, and I doubt "arms for amnesty" will cut it.

I'd just like to say that for one, i think this discussion has been more thought out then some MP's in Parliament for this Afghan mission!

We definetely all have our own opinions on this, and all of them are totally legitamate.

I just want to link you guys to

Malalai Joya she is an Afghani MP and quite outspoken about the warlords and drug lords in the current Karzai government.

I've said it before i think, but i'll say it again, I just don't know how we can support a mission that supports warlords and druglords? Women certainly should not have to worry about dieing just for going to school, I dont think anyone would even dream of making that argument. However I can't see any long term benefit for the people of Afghanistan if these types of individuals are in office. Will Canada be in the country for ten, fifteen years? I'm not sure if there is the political support for a mission of that length. Already we are seeing low numbers of support, usually in constant state of flux, but generally around 55% support for the mission.. That's not really a huge amount of support, and that could dwindle as it did in the summer when the support for the mission was as low as 45%..

But this deviates from the point, SHOULD we be in their.. Well obviously you all know my stance on this, but i would be willing to see Canada involved, but I want to know the scope of the mission, the perceived length, it's goals, any characteristics which would define a mission, something neither Martin, Chritien, or Harper has done. At this point, what i've heard is basically we are "search and destroying" Taliban onsight, which is pretty insane, because we even gave the Nazi's a trial for their crimes, but these people, whether Taliban or not are summarily killed. Sure if they are fighting we consider them Taliban, no question, but was every German a Nazi? No. They were forced into a situation where if they didn't participate, they were killed. The situation is the same for the Afghani people, so like you said, it's really complicated, and "arms for amnesty" will not cut it. I had recently heard that a mile beside a Canadian forces base people were starving, like literally starving, for want of food. So how do we win the hearts and minds when the Taliban can waltz into the room and be like "hey we'll feed you, just come and fight with us, we're your brothers".

Not to mention, that in Afghanistan, i believe it's in Kabul, people get five hours of electricity every second day i believe it is (don't quote me but i can get the exact amount for you) yet, their is a brand new shopping mall, which no Afghani can really afford to shop in, that is run, 24hours a day, 7 days a week. Presumably it's for our troops whenever they have a little off time in Kabul. But still. I mean, i'm sorry, but to win the hearts and minds there cannot be these HUGE contradictions.

Probably every battle in the last century has been fought for liberation and freedom. But I can think of only one of these that actually was about freedom, obviously WW2. And even then, commercial, corporate interests made a killing, which they always seem to do in war.

Was there a pandora's box opened here? The world is no more safer now with our presence in Afghanistan, in fact, some people think it's far worse. Would it continue to slide if we left Afghanistan? Probably. I am not denying that for one second, but can we live in absolute safety? No. Of course not. Humanity never has and it never will, and if the argument comes down to OUR safety, then we should take a sober look at ourselves and see whose safety for the past century has been disregarded for our own means. Look at the first Gulf War, even the war in Iraq with Britain at the beginning of the century where they were trying to secure oil feilds, how about the cou' done to Iran's democratically elected president in the 70's, how about the U.S. funding and training the Taliban to fight the soviet's in the 80's, how about the Palestine Israel issue, how about our support and continued support of places like Turkey who have a long list of human right's violations to Muslims, these are all actions taken by Western countries who other Western countries supported in doing.

I know this is getting beyond the scope of the Afghanistant isue so i will stop here, but it's my belief that these all have a connection. Our actions in the past have definetely effected our current situation and im not totally sold on whether our continued military actions will make this situation any safer, or better, for us, or the middle east. But i think diplomacy can work, and it must, because eventually one side will give in, and I can't see it being the middle east.

Edited October 30, 2006 by supercanuk

[cringleman]

"Was every German a Nazi?" No; nor is every Afghani citizen a member of the Taliban. Moreover, the fact that MPs are criticizing the government -- which by wide admission suffers a fair level of corruption -- and not being killed for it is, I think, a sign that we've and the Afghanis have made at least some progress.

 

I also don't have any illusions that by being in Afghanistan we're making the world safer for ourselves; our motives for entering there were dubious to be sure. However, now that we're there, I also believe that we should be making the world safer for Afghanis, and while there are lots of problems right now, the path to improvement has been laid open. They won't have their ideal government in the next ten days. They won't be growing or trading for enough food to feed themselves in the next year, but they're getting better. That's why this is, and has to be, a long-term solution.

 

The lessons of the past with Afghanistan are, "Don't attempt to conquer this country outright in a short period of time." Thankfully, that's not even remotely near what we're trying to do, or at least what I'm advocating.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Well obviously you all know my stance on this, but i would be willing to see Canada involved, but I want to know the scope of the mission, the perceived length, it's goals, any characteristics which would define a mission, something neither Martin, Chritien, or Harper has done. At this point, what i've heard is basically we are "search and destroying" Taliban onsight, which is pretty insane, because we even gave the Nazi's a trial for their crimes, but these people, whether Taliban or not are summarily killed. Sure if they are fighting we consider them Taliban, no question, but was every German a Nazi? No. They were forced into a situation where if they didn't participate, they were killed.

I saw an interview with Harper on the news about a month ago about Afghanistan. You want to know about missions, goals etc.? Well, Harper said to the effect that his government is committed to staying in Afghanistan until the rebuilding process if complete, ie: when majorority of violence in the country has ended & schools, hospitals etc. have been rebuilt.

 

Harper admitted that this isn't something attainable by the time their current mission timeline expires (2009 i believe?) so he basically iterated that the Conservatives would extend the current mission in Afghanistan until the job there was completed.

 

What was interesting but not suprising is that Harper also said he has a vision for Canada & its military to grow & have a bigger voice in the world. (After WWII we had a large, powerful military & had an influencial voice on international matters. Since the Trudeau Liberals that military has dwindled to near-nothing w/ money since gone to social programs).

 

So thats what i've heard from Harper's mouth. If its up to him, we are in Afghanistan until the rebuilding is done, which could take up to 10 years or more. But this isn't something unprecidented. How long have Canadian troops been stationed Cyprus to keep the Turkish/Greek ceasefire? Since 1964. How long has the U.S. had troops along the North/South Korean border? Since the end of the Korean War.

 

Right now i'm on the side of being in Afghanistan. But like others have said, i would like things done differently there & see changes in their drug-dependant economy.

[supercanuk]

So thats what i've heard from Harper's mouth.  If its up to him, we are in Afghanistan until the rebuilding is done, which could take up to 10 years or more.  But this isn't something unprecidented.  How long have Canadian troops been stationed Cyprus to keep the Turkish/Greek ceasefire?  Since 1964.  How long has the U.S. had troops along the North/South a few links Korean border? Since the end of the Korean War.

This is what I

Edited November 6, 2006 by supercanuk

[cringleman]

The simple way to answer your questions, supercanuk, is to say that there really is no answer. The military won't be shifting into predominantly reconstruction mode until it feels it won't be doing more defending against belligerent aggressors than actual peace-time work. This is what they're sticking with the search and destroy plan, for the moment, for. I can understand your ideological disagreement with their methodology, but I hesitate to put faith in the viability of alternatives.

 

If you accept that premise -- that the military won't start training and rebuilding in that country until they feel it is feasible to do so -- then it's easy to see that there are two timelines that would need to be estimated to provide your answers: firstly, and both most important and difficult, is the estimated completion of their searching out and destroying of aggressive remnants of the former regime. Putting a timeline on the duration of reconstruction and training would be comparatively easy, and I think the lack of an easily-available goal for completion of the overall Afghan mission is a reflection of the uncertainty the military has as to when they'll be able to switch over to peace-keeping again.

[Moonlight_Graham]

How can you put a timetable on a war? Too many variables out of Canada's (& U.S.'s) control to do that.

[supercanuk]

If you accept that premise -- that the military won't start training and rebuilding in that country until they feel it is feasible to do so -- then it's easy to see that there are two timelines that would need to be estimated to provide your answers: firstly, and both most important and difficult, is the estimated completion of their searching out and destroying of aggressive remnants of the former regime. Putting a timeline on the duration of reconstruction and training would be comparatively easy, and I think the lack of an easily-available goal for completion of the overall Afghan mission is a reflection of the uncertainty the military has as to when they'll be able to switch over to peace-keeping again.

So essentially, have you guys accepted a war without an end? If Afghanistan turns into another quagmire scenario and we

Edited November 15, 2006 by supercanuk

[supercanuk]

Sorry i keep doing this, but I really think this link might interest people a well, its a video with Chalmers Johnson - ostensibly about his book The Sorrows Of Empire, but it's got a lot of relevent info about the US, the war on terror, and i think it's worth a watch.

Link

[Moonlight_Graham]

Supercanuk i read every word u wrote, i will have to watch the link you posted later as its an hour in length but looks very interesting.

 

I do not accept a war without an end. I accept the possibility that the war against terrorism may never end, but i don't concede that as a fact. But we're talking about Afghanistan so i say that no again i don't accept that war without an end. I don't demand a strict timeline on its ending, but i agree with the 2 phase-approach of the war (military vs recontruction) and a general timeline (a goal for our military to strive toward) would be healthy to keep pressure on the mlitary & gov't to finish the job ASAP & get out of there.

 

I'm not so concerned with the amount of time this war takes, i'm much more concerned about the # of Canadian casualties (& innocent Afghan casualties) compared to progress happening in Afghanistan. If a not-so alarming # of soldiers are dying but we're making good progress in the war then i'm ok with that. Thats much different than Vietnam, where a disgusting # of soldiers were dying, a draft put in, and a horrendous # of Vietnamese also dying but the war became cleary un-winable & probably was from the outset since it was a fierce civil war to the Vietnamese (who were actually doing most of the fighting) compared to a piece of the Cold War as the West & Russians/China etc. treated it. Personally i think Iraq is an unwinnable war for the U.S., since there will be terrorists flooding into that country after being trained & supplied by Iran, that is unless the U.S. can somehow get rid of the Iran/Syria problem (not likely). Iran will not accept U.S. led peace in Iraq, period, so i see that war as more Iran vs U.S. than Iraq militants vs U.S. Syria & Iran border Iraq so how in the world can U.S. expect to win that war? Afghanistan is the same deal only on the other side of Aghanistan border so it may indeed become (or already be) the same thing.

 

I totally agree with you about staying out of Muslim states as much as possible. They view occupation very much differently than we would if we were occupies/invladed by another country since eveything to them is based deeply in religion, even war. But there's obviously a line to be drawn where its becomes neccessary to go into a Muslim country despite the political whiplash we'd get from the Muslim world. I'm not sure where that line is drawn since i'm not an expert at Muslim culture/relgion or mid-east politics.

 

U.S./West negotiating with the Taliban very likely wouldn't have done shit. Now, maybe if the we went to the middle-eastern countries that weren't koo-koo-bananas & got them at the table with the Taliban then something might have been done, again not likely but worth a shot.

 

One thing i don't understand about the West (and the U.S. mostly) is why they bother with the ground-forces. They are so much more technologically advanced that this pests we're fighting its ridiculas. The West has 100% air-superiority over most of the countries in the world, yet we still send in the ground-troops to get the final dirty kills & get bogged down. Why doesn't the U.S. develop some kind of technology thats unstoppable by anyone other than other technologically advanced militaries. I'm talking some kind of nano-technology or very small un-manned flying machines that could fly down a street undecected by the naked eye, fly under a door or inside a vent & blow itself up inside a room next to its intended target. Or have some sort of nanotechnology fly up Saddam's nose & blow itself up inside Saddam's brain LOL. Not really joking here, with technology we have i can't see why we need to occupy these countries with tens of thousands of groundtroops. How can we transfer our power in air-superiority into street-level, house-to-house superiority?

 

Anyways, i have to do more research of the war going on over in Afghanistan. I try to pick out good pieces from the paper & read them but i just have a hard time finding the time to read all the things i want to read. I don't know how Matt Good does it. Info on Iraq is everywhere & on TV which is much quicker to digest, but Afghanistan seems buried in TV media & documentaries, especially i the U.S.

 

p.s. i also recently read about the U.S. how they desposed of the democratically elected leader in the 50's & their ironic goal to spread democracy in the region. Think i read it in the Citizen maybe you did too since u also live in Ottawa. Or maybe it was on MG's site? Seems that sort of thing always bites the U.S. in the ass.