Why we're in Afghanistan, and who should answer the question

I've just come from a wonderful lunch at the Albany Club, where I was privileged to hear MGen Andrew Leslie speak (with thanks to my Irish Embassy Correspondent for inviting me).

We had a fairly good crowd for the luncheon - probably six dozen suits or so, a number of whom were current or former politicians, and an equal number of whom were current or former serving officers. So as you might imagine, there were some serious questions at the end of his presentation, and some serious grandstanding. Never give a politician the floor unless you're prepared to wrest it from their white-knuckled grip, was my lesson for today.

The general spoke clearly and passionately about Afghanistan and the Canadian mission there, much as you might expect. But a few times he stepped away from common wisdom, and I'd like to highlight those here.

MGen Leslie said that the single biggest problem facing Afghans is warlords. He placed this risk above terrorists, which he laid out as a class of enemy distinct from the warlords. He placed it above narcotics, about which he said the finest minds in the world were at a complete loss as to how to deal with effectively. He said they were almost entirely greedy and ruthless older men who wanted nothing more than to control wealth, land and women. Leslie was particularly disgusted with the treatment of women by fundamentalist elements in the country, and proud of Canadian work that allowed girls to attend school in some areas at long last.

Having said that, however, he also spoke about the need to deal with the warlords - and not just by making their heart stop beating, although that was always an option. He made thinly veiled reference to the de-Baathification of Iraq as a mistake, given his experience in Afghanistan where changing sides is as common as breathing, since loyalty is first to family, then clan, then village, valley, province and finally nation. Cutting out one warlord with the targeted application of deadly force simply gives rise to a number of junior warlords, since the system that breeds them is millenia old and highly refined. Sometimes it was worth creating the junior replacements, if the warlord was sufficiently dangerous, but most of the time, it was better to bring the warlord at least nominally onside. In fact, he showed a picture of two former warlords at a government ceremony - one was now the Afghan Defence Minister, and the other was his Chief of Staff or some such arrangement. One a Tajik, the other a Pashtun, they had been trying to kill each other for fifteen years prior to this, and were now working to pull the country together. Incremental progress, and seeing reality in its true shades.

The general was predictably circumspect when asked about the upcoming take-note debate on the Afghan mission in the House of Commons. But I found his non-answer original: "It's not me that should be telling you why we're in Afghanistan; you're the ones who sent me there to risk my life. You tell me why you sent me, and all the other Canadians you've put in harm's way with your vote" (or words to that effect - I'm not a stenographer). He's right of course.

But he left no doubt as to his own personal feelings about the mission - it's the sort of task that made him join the CF and make soldiering his career. Protecting the helpless and innocent in situations where no other group has the resources, the training, or the will to do so is what keeps him putting on the uniform every day. As he said, soldiers certainly don't do it just for the money.

After a question about the Canadian public's fixation on traditional peacekeeping ("I sat through 3000 shells hitting my town in the Balkans in a 'traditional peacekeeping' mission, and then took my troops out and killed a great many of those attacking the town - if Canadians think peacekeeping is anything different, they haven't been paying attention" - again paraphrased), I asked him whether he thought Canadian journalists were giving the public an accurate picture of our work in Afghanistan, and particularly for his opinion on embedded journalists. He said he really appreciated the embeds he'd met, even when they were a pain in the backside, because he said the vast majority of them called things as they saw them, and as such were an accurate reflection of how the average citizen would see the same events. To my mind, that's not a particularly strong point, since I'd expect journalists to expand their audience's knowledge rather than simply reflect its attitudes, prejudices and misconceptions. But Leslie was trying to be complimentary. In fact, he singled out Stephen Thorne and Chris Wattie as particularly good examples of professional journalism in Canada.

It was a pleasure and an honour to hear him speak, to shake his hand, and to learn from his first-hand experiences. I sincerely hope our government allows uniformed service personnel such as him to speak publicly more often, so that Canadians can get a more profound understanding of what our military does and why it does it.