Nation of peacekeepers
When Jack Layton, during the recent election campaign, called for an open debate on Canadian participation in Afghanistan, he came in for criticism from those on the right who take that participation as given. And he received the fervent support of those on the left who take it for granted that Canada should not be involved in any military venture more fraught with peril than, say, distributing pet bunny rabbits out of the backs of armoured personnel carriers to smiling children.
Layton's call for debate was motivated by his opposition to Canada's involvement -- after all, you don't call for debate on a fait accompli that you fully support. But setting asides his motives, he was right to a certain extent. Carl von Clausewitz made the point almost 200 years ago: warfare is a continuation of policy by other means. And in a democracy, policy should be the result of open debate and public consultation -- open debate that did not occur before the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan was changed. Fair enough.
At the time, I felt the point was somewhat moot. Canadians, after all, support the idea of building stable democracies in failed states. Canadians, by and large, have supported active intervention in numerous places where it did not occur: Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda, and so on. Canadians recognize that "peacekeeping" may, in the absence of a peace to keep, extend into peace enforcement.
Canadians, then, would be likely to support expanding the role of Canadian troops in Afghanistan to counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban, who are bent on reinstating their undeniably disastrous government and quashing any hope of stability in Afghanistan. Right?
Uh, wrong, apparently. The Grope & Flail today reports that a "robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue."
Allan Gregg, quoted in the article, suggests a reason:
This matter of our supposed "unwarlike nature" is interesting. We do like to view ourselves as a "nation of peacekeepers," but what exactly is peacekeeping? Many, probably most, Canadians would have supported killing people in Rwanda, to stabilize the country and stop a genocide. Canadians would have supported a more active role in Bosnia, particularly during the siege of Sarajevo. That would be okay for a nation of peacekeepers. But killing people in Afghanistan to prevent them from further destabilizing the country and provoking a new civil war ... well, apparently that's not something a nation of peacekeepers should do.
It's a branding problem, in marketing-speak: in this case, the mission is related to the American war on terror, and to oil. And that is the whole reason that many Canadians oppose it.
About ten years ago, I saw Lewis MacKenzie speak at UWO, and he said quite frankly that the west would have intervened in the siege of Sarajevo had the Bosnian Muslims only found reserves of oil under the city.
Because there was no oil, the problem was purely humanitarian. Had the Bosnians found that oil, you can bet that as official, government support for intervention rose, the support of "humanitarians" for intervention would have waned. The war would then, after all, have been all about oil, which presumably would make the lives of the actual humans involved somewhat less important.
For those opposed to our presence in Afghanistan, the question is quite simple. Which is more important: to stabilize the country and benefit the human beings who reside there, or to frustrate American interests? And if frustrating American interests is more important than human beings, what kind of a humanitarian are you?
x-posted from The Amazing Wonderdog
Layton's call for debate was motivated by his opposition to Canada's involvement -- after all, you don't call for debate on a fait accompli that you fully support. But setting asides his motives, he was right to a certain extent. Carl von Clausewitz made the point almost 200 years ago: warfare is a continuation of policy by other means. And in a democracy, policy should be the result of open debate and public consultation -- open debate that did not occur before the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan was changed. Fair enough.
At the time, I felt the point was somewhat moot. Canadians, after all, support the idea of building stable democracies in failed states. Canadians, by and large, have supported active intervention in numerous places where it did not occur: Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda, and so on. Canadians recognize that "peacekeeping" may, in the absence of a peace to keep, extend into peace enforcement.
Canadians, then, would be likely to support expanding the role of Canadian troops in Afghanistan to counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban, who are bent on reinstating their undeniably disastrous government and quashing any hope of stability in Afghanistan. Right?
Uh, wrong, apparently. The Grope & Flail today reports that a "robust majority of Canadians say they would opt against sending troops to Afghanistan and would like to see parliamentarians have the opportunity to vote on the issue."
Allan Gregg, quoted in the article, suggests a reason:
"I think you've got a knee-jerk against doing anything with the Americans, especially on the military front, but also part of this distinctiveness and difference with the United States is our unwarlike nature."
This matter of our supposed "unwarlike nature" is interesting. We do like to view ourselves as a "nation of peacekeepers," but what exactly is peacekeeping? Many, probably most, Canadians would have supported killing people in Rwanda, to stabilize the country and stop a genocide. Canadians would have supported a more active role in Bosnia, particularly during the siege of Sarajevo. That would be okay for a nation of peacekeepers. But killing people in Afghanistan to prevent them from further destabilizing the country and provoking a new civil war ... well, apparently that's not something a nation of peacekeepers should do.
It's a branding problem, in marketing-speak: in this case, the mission is related to the American war on terror, and to oil. And that is the whole reason that many Canadians oppose it.
About ten years ago, I saw Lewis MacKenzie speak at UWO, and he said quite frankly that the west would have intervened in the siege of Sarajevo had the Bosnian Muslims only found reserves of oil under the city.
Because there was no oil, the problem was purely humanitarian. Had the Bosnians found that oil, you can bet that as official, government support for intervention rose, the support of "humanitarians" for intervention would have waned. The war would then, after all, have been all about oil, which presumably would make the lives of the actual humans involved somewhat less important.
For those opposed to our presence in Afghanistan, the question is quite simple. Which is more important: to stabilize the country and benefit the human beings who reside there, or to frustrate American interests? And if frustrating American interests is more important than human beings, what kind of a humanitarian are you?
x-posted from The Amazing Wonderdog
posted by AJSomerset at 12:14 p.m.
9 Comments:
Not to mention the fact that the NATO ISAF mission, of which our troops at Kandahar will become part, is not "American" and was approved unanimously by the UN Security Council.
See my post below for UN details:
"Afstan: one of the usual suspects opposes Canada's military mission"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/02/afstan-one-of-usual-suspects-opposes.html
It is truly odd that neither the previous govenment nor this one has highlighted the UN approval of the mission, given the Canadian public's apparent willingness to go along with almost anything UN-mandated.
Mark
Ottawa
This is utter rubbish and I'm surprised you of all people would raise the anti-American canard.
The simple fact is that the mission we signed onto is not the mission we're now engaged in. Afghanistan should have been a 5-10 year mission where we accomplished 3 goals in that time frame; remove the Taliban from power, eradicate AQ's presence and rebuild the country so it could stand on its own feet.
These could have been done in the that timeframe but after objective 1 was accomplished Bush scuttled off to Iraq leaving the Afghan mission short of resources and goodwill from the community. Now the remaining two objectives are going to take decades to complete.
Canadians were willing to sign on to the 5-10 year mission but we've not had a chance to say if we're willing to sign onto the 20 year plus mission. And that is simply unacceptable in a democracy.
As an additional note, this poll is worthless considering the source. Strategic Counsel is a well known push poller and I wouldn't be surprised if the poll was designed to elicit this result to stir the pot.
Blah, blah, blah, Robert.
Fact is, we are still within that 5-10 year timeframe, yet Canadians are calling for withdrawal now.
And I have not raise an anti-American canard. Opposition to Bush (which I do not label anti-Americanism) and opposition to American oil interests are the reasons that opponents of our role themselves cite.
Note that in your own comment, the rationale for withdrawal seems to be related to the US, not to the mission itself. If the mission was worth a 10-year commitment, why would it not be worth a longer commitment? Because the Americans scuttled off to Afghanistan? Please.
I agree that there should be public debate and consultation. However, we need to call a spade a spade here. The mission is the same, really. Only the situation on the ground has changed.
And before we get all excited about how long it's going to take, how long were we in Cyprus?
Fact is, we are still within that 5-10 year timeframe,
No we aren't, Dog. We're in an open-ended, blank cheque, escalation timeframe.
Canadians are calling for withdrawal now
I seriously doubt that. I think it's more of a case of we want a clear statement of what our mission and objectives are and if we don't get that then we'll scream for a pullout. So the Conservatives need to make a clear case for what we're doing. And the fact that O'Connor is already raising the spectre of 9/11 tells me the Conservatives don't have a clue.
Note that in your own comment, the rationale for withdrawal seems to be related to the US, not to the mission itself.
I haven't laid out any rational for withdrawel. I've only laid out a rational for why this needs to be discussed and sent to Parliament for approval.
Only the situation on the ground has changed.
And that's part of the problem. The situation on the ground is clearly painting a picture of stagnation. There's been no amount of reasonable progress toward accomplishing the remaining two goals and there's no reason to expect that staying on indefinitely will accomplish them. The mission is fubar and this needs to be addressed. Otherwise we'll most likely be spilling blood and treasure for nothing.
And before we get all excited about how long it's going to take, how long were we in Cyprus?
Not even remotely comparable. And if Afghanistan was like Cyprus then there wouldn't be a problem.
Most of the UN-run peacekeeping missons are extremely open-ended, and that is very much the nature of the beast.
When you intervene in someone else's fight, and the opposing factions do not get a chance to resolve their problems in the way they think they ought to, there's going to be a lot of unfinished business. And it will take literally generations for the popular mindset to change.
Hell, it's been 60-odd years since WW2 and NATO still has forces all over Germany. None of our commitments are five-to-ten year deals; the problem is, no politician has been honest enough to say it.
Robert, where to begin?
First of all, we are within the 5 to 10 year timeframe, unless it is 2012 and I have been asleep for some time.
Secondly, Canadians are calling for withdrawal now. That's a factual statement. Go read some blogs.
Third, I haven't written, anywhere, that this should not go to Parliament for approval. Quite the opposite, in fact, and if you missed that, you're a complete illiterate. It's in the first link.
I'm arguing against withdrawal, not against debate. In pretending that I'm arguing against debate, what are you trying to achieve?
"...and if you missed that, you're a complete illiterate."
Geez - I'd take that bet in a second!
And I'm arguing, Dog, that the calls for withdrawel are nothing more than a desire to pressure the government to reveal a substantial plan and allow for a debate on it.
Well, Robert, I don't believe that you speak for all in that regard.
Post a Comment
<< Home