Whether you like it or not, our presence in Afghanistan is fully justified.
Recent articles suggesting Canada should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan are disingenuously false at worst and rudely uninformed at best. Coming from a variety of sources arguments range from It's not peacekeeping, to We shouldn't be in Bush's illegal war, to We are the aggressors.
It's not peacekeeping: That is absolutely correct. It was never intended to be peacekeeping and no one with the authority to speak to this or previous deployments ever called it that. This is a military mission under NATO command with UN approval. It's time Canadians drop the "peacekeeping" facade. That is not and never has been the primary role of the Canadian Forces. Despite what people may think, Lester B. Pearson never intended that peacekeeping would be conducted by anything less than a fully combat capable warfighting force.1 In this situation the troops in Afghanistan are deployed to provide armed security for Afghanistan; search for and capture or destroy members of the Taliban and al Qaeda; and provide force protection for reconstruction teams.
We shouldn't be in Bush's illegal war: Wrong. It is not Bush's war. In fact, it's not the United States' war. It is NATO's war and that makes it Canada's war. It should be clearly noted that the UN approved NATO's response in Security Council Resolution 1368. Too many people believe the US invasion of Iraq is the same action as Afghanistan, and that is simply not the case. Whatever George Bush or his administration say in attempts at linking the two in the Global War on Terrorism, the actions are distinct and separate in the eyes of every other participating country and NATO, and particularly the UN.
We are the aggressors: Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, the invasion of Afghanistan came about as a direct result of the 11 September 2001 attacks by al Qaeda on New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania. The evidence against the perpetrators of the attack was overwhelmingly clear particularly in light of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden taking direct credit. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was given ample opportunity to turn over Osama and his followers. They were also informed that failure to comply with orders to turn over al Qaeda would result in overwhelming military action and the removal of the Taliban regime. The Taliban refused to comply and continued to provide safe haven to Osama bin Laden resulting in a combined force of nations taking military action. Despite what some people choose to believe, there was nothing pre-emptory about the Afghanistan campaign. The attack on and the invasion of Afghanistan was an act of self-defence. To suggest that Canada is an aggressor in that campaign, which has not yet ended, is to suggest that Canada was an aggressor when in World War II we invaded Italy and later, Germany. Such a suggestion also insinuates, by blaming the victim, that the attack by al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was somehow justified.
.........................
Canada was the first country to respond to the US call for support in more ways than one. Aside from opening our airspace and airports to all incoming US air traffic on 11 Sept. 2001, the military response was immediate. The Canadian navy ordered all ships at sea to a heightened state of combat readiness and reassigned a ship preparing to join the Standing Naval Force Atlantic (SNFL) to "future employment" while maintaining a state of high readiness. A destroyer, a frigate and a supply ship were brought to immediate notice to sail to any US port from Halifax.
On 12 Sept. 2001, NATO, for the first time in history, invoked article 5 of the Washington Treaty stating that the attacks on the United States constituted an attack on all member nations. Alliance aircraft and ships were issued orders in response and SNFL, with its Canadian contingent, proceeded to a new operating area as a naval task group at war. On the same day the United Nations Security Council issued resolution 1368 which reaffirmed UN Charter article 51 providing the right of a nation attacked to collective and individual self-defence. On 4 Oct. 2001, NATO secretary general Lord Robertson re-stated Article 5 after having received unanimous support from the members of the North Atlantic Council, including Canada.
On 7 Oct. 2001, Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed the Canadian Armed Forces to an international force to combat terrorism, including the removal of Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Warning orders were issued to several CAF units. HMCS Halifax was withdrawn from UN enforcement in the Persian Gulf and reassigned to Task Force 151, making it the first non-US combat unit assigned to the Afghan campaign. On 17 Oct. 2001, a destroyer, a frigate and an operational support ship sailed for Afghan operations. Two more ships were soon deployed. Canada was still the only active participant in multinational operations until other nations sent units near the end of October.
In Nov. 2001, Canada's JTF2 was operationally active on the ground in Afghanistan. Canada had agreed to send the 1000 member Immediate Reaction Force (Land) in response to a request for a stabilization force. That was adjusted to 750 members and in January the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group (with an armoured reconaissance squadron) was dispatched to Kandahar and within weeks of their arrival was engaged in full combat.
On 20 Dec. 2001, the United Nations Security Council agreed to the NATO constituted and British-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It should be fully understood that ISAF is not a peacekeeping operation. It is a stabilization force intended to provide protection for reconstruction teams and assist the new government of Afghanistan in defending against Taliban resistance. ISAF has full combat capability and has robust rules of engagement (ROE). Unlike the horrible ROE that come with UN Chapter 6 peacekeeping operations, one doesn't have to wait until one of his unit members is killed before shooting back. ISAF has full authority to gather intelligence, seek out the enemy and conduct combat patrols. Canada shifted from Kandahar to Kabul and ISAF in August 2003 and have had troop levels of up to 1,900 since then.
Where there has been a gap in Canadian troops committed to Afghanistan it has not been because Canada had changed its resolve. Troop reductions had more to do with the fact that our armed forces no longer have the ability to maintain sustained operations indefinitely. The committment to see the transformation of Afghanistan into a full member of the world community and not a haven for terrorists has never changed.
The latest deployment comes at the request of NATO to have Canada command a brigade of multinational troops. It is a part of the initial committment to rid Afghanistan of the terrorist cadre that has occupied it for so long and to reconstitute that country with a government which is able to survive and provide for its own self-defence. Until they are able to do that, and until the necessary reconstruction is completed, Canada is committed. Calls for a parliamentary debate on this particular deployment are little more than political posturing. Those demanding such a debate, Jack Layton in particular, knew full well what this operation involved because it was announced by the previous government and has been planned for over 6 months.
The media, with their sudden faux shock at the fact that Canadian troops are in a shooting war, is little more than sensationalizing at the expense of their readers. The horror they express from their desks at the fact that troops are being wounded and killed belies the fact that all the information about the type of mission and its inherent risks were laid before them long ago.
I would wish that no Canadian is hurt or killed on a mission like this. However, reality is somewhat different. The men and women deployed to Afghanistan are fully aware of the hazards associated with this mission and know they will be fighting. Some will possibly be wounded or killed. Each person only hopes it won't be him or her.
Conflating the Canadian Afghanistan mission with Bush's adventure in Iraq serves only to deflect attention from the facts. I will support anybody who is critical of the current Iraq situation. Afghanistan is a different campaign.
If Canada were to suddenly withdraw because Canadians at home are getting squeamish, those who would have us do that should be aware that Canada would be forever viewed as an unreliable ally; not by the US, but by NATO. Canada relies on collective defence treaties to keep defence affordable. Withdrawl would result in no treaties, no collective defence and a huge price to pay in going it alone.
No matter how comfortable people are inside our borders at the moment, they should realize that the world has become a much more dangerous place, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can stick your head in the sand and just not look at the problem, but you'll probably get your ass shot off.
1. The Worldly Years: The Life of Lester Pearson. Volume 2, 1949-1972. by John English
Cross posted to The Galloping Beaver
It's not peacekeeping: That is absolutely correct. It was never intended to be peacekeeping and no one with the authority to speak to this or previous deployments ever called it that. This is a military mission under NATO command with UN approval. It's time Canadians drop the "peacekeeping" facade. That is not and never has been the primary role of the Canadian Forces. Despite what people may think, Lester B. Pearson never intended that peacekeeping would be conducted by anything less than a fully combat capable warfighting force.1 In this situation the troops in Afghanistan are deployed to provide armed security for Afghanistan; search for and capture or destroy members of the Taliban and al Qaeda; and provide force protection for reconstruction teams.
We shouldn't be in Bush's illegal war: Wrong. It is not Bush's war. In fact, it's not the United States' war. It is NATO's war and that makes it Canada's war. It should be clearly noted that the UN approved NATO's response in Security Council Resolution 1368. Too many people believe the US invasion of Iraq is the same action as Afghanistan, and that is simply not the case. Whatever George Bush or his administration say in attempts at linking the two in the Global War on Terrorism, the actions are distinct and separate in the eyes of every other participating country and NATO, and particularly the UN.
We are the aggressors: Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is, the invasion of Afghanistan came about as a direct result of the 11 September 2001 attacks by al Qaeda on New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania. The evidence against the perpetrators of the attack was overwhelmingly clear particularly in light of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden taking direct credit. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was given ample opportunity to turn over Osama and his followers. They were also informed that failure to comply with orders to turn over al Qaeda would result in overwhelming military action and the removal of the Taliban regime. The Taliban refused to comply and continued to provide safe haven to Osama bin Laden resulting in a combined force of nations taking military action. Despite what some people choose to believe, there was nothing pre-emptory about the Afghanistan campaign. The attack on and the invasion of Afghanistan was an act of self-defence. To suggest that Canada is an aggressor in that campaign, which has not yet ended, is to suggest that Canada was an aggressor when in World War II we invaded Italy and later, Germany. Such a suggestion also insinuates, by blaming the victim, that the attack by al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was somehow justified.
.........................
Canada was the first country to respond to the US call for support in more ways than one. Aside from opening our airspace and airports to all incoming US air traffic on 11 Sept. 2001, the military response was immediate. The Canadian navy ordered all ships at sea to a heightened state of combat readiness and reassigned a ship preparing to join the Standing Naval Force Atlantic (SNFL) to "future employment" while maintaining a state of high readiness. A destroyer, a frigate and a supply ship were brought to immediate notice to sail to any US port from Halifax.
On 12 Sept. 2001, NATO, for the first time in history, invoked article 5 of the Washington Treaty stating that the attacks on the United States constituted an attack on all member nations. Alliance aircraft and ships were issued orders in response and SNFL, with its Canadian contingent, proceeded to a new operating area as a naval task group at war. On the same day the United Nations Security Council issued resolution 1368 which reaffirmed UN Charter article 51 providing the right of a nation attacked to collective and individual self-defence. On 4 Oct. 2001, NATO secretary general Lord Robertson re-stated Article 5 after having received unanimous support from the members of the North Atlantic Council, including Canada.
On 7 Oct. 2001, Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed the Canadian Armed Forces to an international force to combat terrorism, including the removal of Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Warning orders were issued to several CAF units. HMCS Halifax was withdrawn from UN enforcement in the Persian Gulf and reassigned to Task Force 151, making it the first non-US combat unit assigned to the Afghan campaign. On 17 Oct. 2001, a destroyer, a frigate and an operational support ship sailed for Afghan operations. Two more ships were soon deployed. Canada was still the only active participant in multinational operations until other nations sent units near the end of October.
In Nov. 2001, Canada's JTF2 was operationally active on the ground in Afghanistan. Canada had agreed to send the 1000 member Immediate Reaction Force (Land) in response to a request for a stabilization force. That was adjusted to 750 members and in January the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group (with an armoured reconaissance squadron) was dispatched to Kandahar and within weeks of their arrival was engaged in full combat.
On 20 Dec. 2001, the United Nations Security Council agreed to the NATO constituted and British-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It should be fully understood that ISAF is not a peacekeeping operation. It is a stabilization force intended to provide protection for reconstruction teams and assist the new government of Afghanistan in defending against Taliban resistance. ISAF has full combat capability and has robust rules of engagement (ROE). Unlike the horrible ROE that come with UN Chapter 6 peacekeeping operations, one doesn't have to wait until one of his unit members is killed before shooting back. ISAF has full authority to gather intelligence, seek out the enemy and conduct combat patrols. Canada shifted from Kandahar to Kabul and ISAF in August 2003 and have had troop levels of up to 1,900 since then.
Where there has been a gap in Canadian troops committed to Afghanistan it has not been because Canada had changed its resolve. Troop reductions had more to do with the fact that our armed forces no longer have the ability to maintain sustained operations indefinitely. The committment to see the transformation of Afghanistan into a full member of the world community and not a haven for terrorists has never changed.
The latest deployment comes at the request of NATO to have Canada command a brigade of multinational troops. It is a part of the initial committment to rid Afghanistan of the terrorist cadre that has occupied it for so long and to reconstitute that country with a government which is able to survive and provide for its own self-defence. Until they are able to do that, and until the necessary reconstruction is completed, Canada is committed. Calls for a parliamentary debate on this particular deployment are little more than political posturing. Those demanding such a debate, Jack Layton in particular, knew full well what this operation involved because it was announced by the previous government and has been planned for over 6 months.
The media, with their sudden faux shock at the fact that Canadian troops are in a shooting war, is little more than sensationalizing at the expense of their readers. The horror they express from their desks at the fact that troops are being wounded and killed belies the fact that all the information about the type of mission and its inherent risks were laid before them long ago.
I would wish that no Canadian is hurt or killed on a mission like this. However, reality is somewhat different. The men and women deployed to Afghanistan are fully aware of the hazards associated with this mission and know they will be fighting. Some will possibly be wounded or killed. Each person only hopes it won't be him or her.
Conflating the Canadian Afghanistan mission with Bush's adventure in Iraq serves only to deflect attention from the facts. I will support anybody who is critical of the current Iraq situation. Afghanistan is a different campaign.
If Canada were to suddenly withdraw because Canadians at home are getting squeamish, those who would have us do that should be aware that Canada would be forever viewed as an unreliable ally; not by the US, but by NATO. Canada relies on collective defence treaties to keep defence affordable. Withdrawl would result in no treaties, no collective defence and a huge price to pay in going it alone.
No matter how comfortable people are inside our borders at the moment, they should realize that the world has become a much more dangerous place, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can stick your head in the sand and just not look at the problem, but you'll probably get your ass shot off.
1. The Worldly Years: The Life of Lester Pearson. Volume 2, 1949-1972. by John English
Cross posted to The Galloping Beaver
posted by Dave at 12:02 a.m.
15 Comments:
Meaningless tripe. Here's what I want to know.
What is going to be done to fix this fubar mission? Why do I think it's fubar? Because after 4 years the Afghans still can't even police their own borders but must rely on coalition soldiers to do it for them.
How long is that going to remain the case; another year, another 4 years, another decade?
Unless the planners of this reconstruction effort address this problem, I for one don't feel comfortable being involved in a war without an end in sight. Because that's EXACTLY what happened in Vietnam. Various foreign governments fought their war for them and each in turn slunk out of there with their tail between their legs.
I for one don't feel comfortable being involved in a war without an end in sight
So, tell me Robert. What was the scheduled end date of WWII?
Because that's EXACTLY what happened in Vietnam
Another version of Godwin's law.
Dave, I agree entirely with your post, but I think we need to cut some slack for those who do not support this mission.
If they do so out of ignorance, then it falls to those of us who support the mission to try to educate them about the facts, as you have very effectively with this post.
If they do so out of sincere opposition to war, I think we should respect that too. War is as ugly as human interaction gets, and we should be against it in theory, while recognizing it is sometimes a necessary evil.
The prospect of a potentially multi-decade deployment is a daunting one for a country that has seen relatively little conflict since the end of the Korean War. I'm inclined to give Canadians some time to come to grips with the fact that many of their cherished myths are not operative in today's world, and in some cases never were.
In any case, great post.
Dave who is not Dave posting above: Robert is an NDP supporter, not a Liberal.
A great post. I wish we were hearing this sort of thing from the government instead of "Support the troops, can't waver now, harrumph, blah blah blah, alrighty then, on your way".
OC
Great outline. Even if someone disagrees with you at least they have a decent basis for discussion.
Re the length of the deployment, allow me to ask again: how long were we in Cyprus?
Afghanistan is not Cyprus, of course, but open-ended commitments are the nature of the beast.
As is the risk of failure.
"It's going to take a long time, and we might fail" is not, to me, a legitimate line of argument here.
btw, Robert, you were just recently arguing that the people pretending to be opposed to this mission are just trying to force a debate on it, and don't sincerely oppose it. Yet here, you seem sincerely opposed to it.
I am beginning to think that you'll adopt and defend whatever position Jack Layton takes, using whatever argument happens to be convenient at the time.
Just a point.
As is mentioned on another site, this mission was not really an invasion. NATO troops, primarily US Special Forces with air support, assisted the Northern Alliance forces in overthrowing the Taliban, whom they had been waging a civil war against for some time.
A more correct categorization would be military support to one side in a civil war.
Our soldiers (3 PPCLI) did not arrive on the ground until the war was over. By then the mission was to deal with the insurgency.
Nitpicking perhaps, but I think it is a significant difference to support one side in a civil war vs invade a country.
Canadian special forces were there from the start. Task Force K-Bar included JTF2.
Robert McClelland wrote:
" ... Vietnam ... "
HAHAHA!!!
Afghanistan is not Cyprus, of course, but open-ended commitments are the nature of the beast.
Of course they are, Dog. But open ended wars of this sort lead to dependence by the nation that's being aided. Look what happened in Vietnam. They relied on foreign troops to fight their war for so long that when, after 30 years of it happening, the US pulled out they fell to the communists before the last US ship had cleared the horizon.
That's what is happening in Afghanistan now. There has been no progress on building an Afghan army that can stand up to the forces arrayed against it and when foreign troops finally cut and run, as they inevitably will as their home populations tire of open ended warfare, Afghanistan will be over-run once again.
This needs to be addressed in Parliament along with other serious issues about the mission in Afghanistan.
I think you explain why Canada is there right now, but you forget why this all started-Pushtu's. When the USA and CIA put in place their puppet regime in Pakistan and put the CIA in charge of Pakistan's intelligence, they wanted to control Russia, which they thought was going to invade Afghanistan. They trained the Taliban in Pakistan and took control of Afghanistan from the Warlords, who at the time, were in control. The Warlords agreed to having the Taliban in so that they could fight Russia. As a result the boarder was moved so that Pakistan got more land (pat on the back), but this forced the Pushtu's into living in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban fought off the Russia invasion with the help and intelligence of the CIA, and then later turned against the CIA because of concerns over the drug trade and boarder disputes.
So today Canadian troops are at war with not one, but Three enemies: The Taliban, the Pushtu's and the Warlords-who control the poppy trade.
Now the current government in Afghanistan supports (turns a bllind eye) the drug trade and Canada and NATO have said that they would not enter a war with the Warlords. Um...so your not going to fight the ones who are suppressing the people? The Taliban and the Pushtu's have always been against the drug trade because of religious convictions.
So here is Canada, leading a campaign against a war that was started by the Americans and Pakistan, which can never be resolved unless the boarder is re-drawn so that the Pushtu's are happy who currently live in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. And the Pushtu's fight with Canadian and American troops, then run over the boarder into Pakistan, where they are protected, because Canada and the US would not invade Pakistan.
And that the Americans promised to re-build Afghanistan and what have they done? well nothing really, the Warlords take the money and are re- enslaving the population into the drug trade and the growing of poppies. So most of the rebuilding consisted of 3 brand new American airbases-the main reason for this campaign. A war with Iran means airbases in Afganistan, Iraq, and Georgia, thus surrounding Iran...hum...do you think they want to invade Iran before they get the nuclear bomb? which isn;t that far away. Interesting...
There was an international law conference at TRU on Wed, put on by international law Lawyers, and to summarize, the Canadian troops can and will be called to court for war crimes. This is because we detain Pushtu's and Taliban insurgents and under NATO, we hand them over to the Americans, where they go to Guantanamo Bay or Syria and get tortured. under international law, that then means Canada and the troops can be tried for War crimes, which the American military and the troops are being investigated for right now.
Regardless of any obligations to NATO, Canada can withdraw without penalities, and should. If this war continues to include Iran, Canada could be drawn into a war that we cannot fight nor should. And I personally don't want Canada's global reputation smeared because Stephen harper doesn't want Afghanistan talked about in the House.
Stevezopf: "The Taliban fought off the Russia invasion with the help and intelligence of the CIA, and then later turned against the CIA because of concerns over the drug trade and boarder disputes."
You know no history. The Russians invaded in 1979 and left in 1989--before there was a Taliban force.
The various anti-Communist insurgent factions eventually ousted the Afghan Communinist government in 1992. These factions then fell into civil war amongst themeselves.
The Taliban--at last they appear--took Kandahar in 1994 and Kabul in 1996, and then most of the rest of the country though not all. Civil war continued until the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance in 2001.
Read "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" by Steve Coll:
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/books/1594200076/customer-reviews/702-9831321-3933608
There has been no change in the border between Pakistan and Afstan.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark said: You know no history. The Russians invaded in 1979 and left in 1989--before there was a Taliban force.
Sure, yeah I don't disagree, i'm no expert on the history of that area, and I thank you for the information. I was mis-informed.
I do know that in 1907. the border was drawn up and the Pushtu's were separated into to two groups, one in Pakistan, the other in Afghanistan.
But my main point about International law and that the Americans have not made good on any promises in that region are very correct and just. Do you not agree?
stevezopf: The border is the Durand line dating from 1893, not 1907:
http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/History/Durandline.htm
The Pathans were already divided between Afstan and British India and had been since the British took control of what became (1901) the North-West Frontier Province of India in 1849:
http://www.geocities.com/maakhan/pathan.html
The demarcation of the Durand Line simply formalized the border.
Subsequent Afghan governements have not been happy with the frontier and in 1947 Afghanistan was the only country to vote against Pakistan's (which got the NWFP) admission to the UN as a protest against the border (vote later withdrawn).
http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/pashtunistanissue.htm
Given your inaccuracies, I would welcome your specifying exact US promises, with their details, to be considered. Some research please.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark:
Afghanistan-The Mirage of Peace
av Leslie, Jolyon Johnson, Chris is a great start and good book.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4310863.stm
This si a link to a current BBC story on how the rebuilding is not happening.
I have done many searches on google and found many articles on how the US is not get the money to Afghanistan fast enough and the private companies are not keeping their end of the deal.
This is just a blog Mark, it is great to let me know about mistakes I have made in my comments. That is why I read blogs-to learn. But to do it in such a rude way is poor judgement on your part.
Post a Comment
<< Home