Among the sharper points General Hillier made in his recent Globe & Mail interview was that in the context of Afghanistan, words such as "peacekeeping" and "war" are not particularly helpful. Canadians will be involved in a wide range of tasks, ranging from simple delivery of aid to combat operations against insurgents. "Peacekeeping" it ain't, for "peacekeeping" has a narrow definition. "War" is a more flexible word, but "war" it ain't, either. Not quite. It's something in between.
"War" is a loaded word. It carries all kinds of connotations and moral baggage, and because of those connotations, many want to call what our soldiers are doing in Afghanistan a "war."
One side
calls it a war because they see it as self-evident that war is wrong. Therefore, whatever we are doing in Afghanistan must be wrong -- and as an added bonus, they get to call anyone who disagrees with them "
pro-war," as if those people must agree with war in general. By calling it a war, they get to take the moral high ground.
The other side calls it a war because they see it as self-evident that we
should be fighting a war, specifically, the War on Terror, the Long War, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, or whatever it happens to be called this week. Not only should we be in that war, in their minds, but we should be
fighting it. None of this namby-pamby intelligence gathering and police work, in other words. The bad guys want to kill us and this is a struggle for survival. We can fight in "Afstan" or in the streets of Toronto. We are defending our way of life. Get off the moral high ground, you moonbats, it belongs to us.
"War," the word, is being enlisted here for purely rhetorical purposes. That is to say, the actual meaning of the word and how that meaning relates to what is actually going on in Afghanistan is much less important than how the connotations effect the argument. To put it more simply, the truth is less important than the emotional impact of "war" on the people you hope to convince.
The trampling of all those feet on the moral high ground are fast turning it into a swamp. And the truth left town long ago.
"War" may mean many things, ranging from an exchange of nuclear weapons that wipes out all life save cockroaches and politicians, down to "wars" on things like poverty, drugs, or the mess in the laundry room. But we normally understand "war" to mean an armed conflict between organized forces that occupy terrain, in which one defeats the enemy through battlefield maneuver and the application of fire. This was the case in WWI, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, and Korea. It was also the case, more often than not, in Vietnam.
This is not really the case in Afghanistan. The enemy Canadian soldiers face -- or do not face, in fact -- is not organized in any military sense, does not occupy terrain, and cannot be defeated through firepower alone. Calling this a "war" is an attempt to manipulate perception by emphasising combat operations.
Does it matter what we call it? Yes, it matters a great deal, at least as far as public opinion is concerned. Canadians seem happy to support "peacekeeping," but they aren't so keen on seeing Canadian troops deployed in a "combat role." But what does that really mean?
There was plenty of support for a "combat role" in the Balkans, where one side of the civil war had been demonized. Nobody seemed to notice at first that our operation in Somalia was not "peacekeeping," and Canadians initially supported that ill-fated deployment. There would have been little objection to sending troops into Rwanda to stop the genocide by force.
There would be, on the other hand, a strong objection to deploying Canadian troops in a "combat role" to overthrow a government -- in other words, to "war" as we usually understand it.
Some "combat roles" are okay, then, while others are not. It depends what is understood by "combat role." It's the specifics that matter, not the label we apply to them.
So what do I intend to call this thing, if I do not call it a "war?"
Well, nothing, really. There is no point in trying to apply some neutral label to this thing. That's just as manipulative as calling it a war.
Better to focus on specifics. Whether our role in Afghanistan is supportable depends not on whether it is a "war" or whether our troops have a "combat role," nor indeed on whether our intentions are noble. Even the delivery of aid can be done in counter-productive ways. It depends on the specific tasks they are performing, which tasks are taking priority, and how those tasks are performed.
It depends, in other words, not on how ideologues manipulate the argument, but on the truth of what is happening on the ground.
X-posted from The Amazing Wonderdog
