Tuesday, April 24, 2007

A battle lost

Well, the Globe & Mail's "war-sized headline" detainee abuse story (a Globe employee's descriptor, not mine) is back on the front pages. I said months ago that this was all about the detainee transfer agreement, and while that wasn't a particularly bold prediction, it turned out to be a correct one:

Let me be perfectly clear: I believe that Attaran's entire motivation in pushing this story into the press was to get the CF on the ropes so he could hammer them over detainee transfer policy. That was the impetus for his initial Access to Information requests. I doubt that he particularly cares that the reputation of the CF is being unceremoniously dragged through the mud in order to facilitate his attack on a Government of Canada policy implemented by the CF. I don't know that it would even occur to him that he doesn't really want the military picking and choosing which government directives it will or will not follow.

What all this means is that even if the abuse by Canadian soldiers story is still-born after the investigations conclude there was no wrongdoing by CF members, he can still push the 'but you're turning prisoners over to known torturers' angle and keep the story above the fold on page one of the newspapers. It's a classic 'bait and switch': hook the public on the idea of soldiers abusing detainees, and even if that's proven false, feed them the completely separate issue of detainee transfers to the Afghan government.


Attaran is still indiscriminately smearing Canadian soldiers with little or no evidence, just to fuel the publicity storm around his pet issue:

Attaran told CTV that Canada is to blame for the situation.

He said Hillier essentially set up a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" situation with the Afghan authorities.

"We knew the Afghans were torturing people but we wanted to hand the detainees to the Afghans so that they could be tortured and intelligence could be wrung out of them. ... we're outsourcing it."


It's comments like that, all too common from Attaran, that leave me with no respect for the man. He should take a lesson from Dr. Byers, who has pursued this issue far more honourably.

Margaret Wente, also in the Globe & Mail, has commented on the ongoing drama. With the exception of her overly pessimistic final two paragraphs, I find myself in broad agreement with her:

I have deep sympathy for our military leaders, who genuinely want to do the right thing. But they're trapped in a lose-lose situation. They can fight a war. Or they can babysit "our" detainees to ensure that our allies don't abuse their human rights. I don't think they have the resources to do both.


In fact, I addressed that same problem over a month ago in a post entitled "Choices." It reads better today than when I first put it up.

At this point, we can't fix everything. We need to focus our efforts on a limited spread of achievable goals. Protecting detainees better than we do is certainly achievable if we want it to be - but what other goals will be sacrificed to make it so?

Right now, this mission is about choices for Canada. It's about the difficult process of triage for an entire nation. Civilized countries are meticulous about human rights, even those of detainees. Has Afghanistan progressed to the point where this is the highest priority?

Dr. Byers hit the nail on the head when he said "the question is what value we put on our adherence to human rights." I'm just not sure he understands the opportunity cost of putting a higher value on it than we already do.


If you disagree with that conclusion, I'd encourage you to wade through the rest of the piece to see how I arrive at it. Let me know where my reasoning is wrong.

At this point, I think the Canadian government has bungled this issue to the extent that they have precisely one option left: to build a prison in Afghanistan for Canadian-captured detainees, and operate it in conjunction with the Afghan government. It's not my idea - Dr. Michael Byers came up with it, as far as I know.

It will be a monstrous headache. The Afghan government, struggling for credibility with its own people, will be embarrassed that Canada is encroaching on this aspect of their sovereignty, and furious that it will have no option other than to accept our diktat. We will need to pour money and effort, time and focus into the project. It will distract from the rest of the mission. It will remain under a human-rights microscope lit by a media spotlight.

And every dollar and man-hour spent on this prison will reduce the amount of aid we will deliver elsewhere, I have no doubt. Canada's mission is already forced every day to make difficult decisions about where to employ our scarce resources for maximum results.

I'm fairly certain the human-rights lawyers and activists have won this battle. I'm far less certain that the Afghan people will see it as much of a victory for anyone other than Canadian lawyers and activists.

20 Comments:

Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Babbling: Excellent post.

Mark
Ottawa

4:01 p.m., April 24, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Babbling: But a thought--how how do we determine when detainees will be released?

Mark
Ottawa

7:32 p.m., April 24, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

I refer you to my previous quote: "It will be a monstrous headache."

That is to say, I have no idea. Can you imagine an Afghan or joint court (I won't even entertain the whole "military tribunal" option, lest the cries of "Guantanamo" start springing up prematurely) sentencing a Taliban bomber to life imprisonment?

In whose prisons? What the hell does the law say about that?

9:32 p.m., April 24, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Under which penal code? What happens if the Afghan judiciary decides to have the death penalty (can we not have a discussion of the pros and cons of the death penalty, please?)

I agree with BB, it would be a mess.

Then again, assuming that they are being abused once they leave CF/Canadian custody, I'm not too keen on that either.

(and military tribunals suck as an answer as well)

8:16 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Dr.Dawg said...

What I find interestting is that we're allegedly over there to, er, fight for human rights and such. But RAWA has been scathingly critical of Karzai (for example), and now the Globe today has torn the rest of the scab off--our higher-ups knew very well that they were turning people over to be abused and tortured.

Karzai and his cohorts differ from the Taliban--how, exactly? I would argue only in degree, and not by much.

So, BB, you can keep on character-assassinating the messenger (Attaran) all you want, but a certain moral vacuum is starting to make itself visible, here and at places like Small Dead Animals, where a rising chorus of pro-torture voices may be heard.

If we build the prison, whom, precisely, should we put into it? Their tortureres--or ours?

9:14 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

"pro-torture" I dunno about SDA (I try and stay out of toxic environments) but I don't think anyone here is pro-torture.

9:46 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Their tortureres--or ours?

And with that unsubstantiated slur, you're officially PNG around here, Dawg. Go sell CF soldiers as torturers somewhere else.

9:47 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

I think he was trying to suggest that "ours" would be Karzai backed Afghans.

But it could also be read the way you read it.

A bit of clarification would be nice.

9:58 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Dr.Dawg said...

I was of course referring to "our" Afghans vs. "their" Afghans. There is no evidence whatsoever that our troops are doing any torturing, and I didn't mean to leave that impression. But they are, under orders, having to turn prisoners over to torturers, with all of O'Connor's reassurances turning out to be bogus.

11:22 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

There is no evidence whatsoever that our troops are doing any torturing, and I didn't mean to leave that impression.

In that case, I apologize for having misread your intent. I tend to be fairly sensitive on this point, especially since folks like Amir Attaran have no compunction about levelling spurious accusations against CF troops in this regard.

There is no pro-torture chorus at The Torch, Dawg. There is simply a recognition of the fact that this entire controversy will detract from the rest of the mission. It is currently overshadowing much of the other work being done, and will only suck more time and resources as it gains steam domestically.

That will undoubtedly have an effect on the overall mission balance. I'm not sure it will be a net positive effect.

We're still performing life-saving first aid on the body of Afghanistan. Should ensuring prisoner-rights in Afghan custody be at the top of the triage list? I don't think the answer is as clear cut as some would make it out to be.

11:40 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

I think it's interlocking, one can't say "be democratic, get rid of the bad guys, but oh, torture is ok as long as you don't do it in front of us" .

But yeah, it's not clear cut

11:44 a.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Dr.Dawg said...

I'm glad I cleared up the misunderstanding, BB. My point all along has been that we've inserted ourselves into what is, effectively, a war between rival groups of bastards. We're not exporting ideas or alternatives--merely force on behalf of one of the sides.

That's why I would have thought that all of the danger signs--the increase in human rights violations, the denunciations by RAWA (a group that had been fearless in its exposure to the world of the barbarities of the Taliban), the appointment of fundamentalists to the Supreme Court, the presence of Northern Alliance murderers in the legislature, and, of course, the routine torturing of prisoners--would make some of the more gung-ho maybe reflect a little. We're not doing ourselves or the Afghans any favours.

12:15 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

We're not doing ourselves or the Afghans any favours.

I would disagree. There's a stack of evidence to the contrary, from economic indicators to medical access to education to women's rights to ending state-sponsored international terrorism in the country to respect for democracy - just off the top of my head. While the Karzai government is far from perfect, I think your characterization of them as nothing but a "rival group of bastards" is unfair.

The current Afghan government is a great leap ahead of the Taliban alternative. One of the great difficulties inherent in our western perspective is that we seem to have lost the ability to gauge incremental progress when there's such a huge gap between their standards and ours.

5:02 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

It will take time to lift Kandahar ever up until it is just like Saskatoon (end of first para a link).
http://www.globaljournalist.org/web-content/stories/2006_12/02missourichina/page1.html

Mark
Ottawa

5:18 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

TinyURL:
http://tinyurl.com/2r8x9u

Mark
Ottawa

5:19 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Dr.Dawg said...

I don't want to give the impression that I'm trolling, BB, but I'd like to pursue this if I might. This seems to be the place where the best counter-arguments will be offered, which is why I'm here.

I argued that there's not a heap of difference between Karzai and the Taliban. I'll defend that proposition, but to your response first:

There's a stack of evidence to the contrary, from economic indicators to medical access to education to women's rights to ending state-sponsored international terrorism in the country to respect for democracy

How much of any of this will remain when the mission is over, assuming that it ever will be?

Economic indicators? Do you mean that they're planting poppies again?

Medical access? Where will the supplies and infrastructure come from when the troops leave?

Education? I'll grant you that one for now, but it will be interesting to look at the curriculum a few years down the line.

Women's rights? Women aren't having their legs broken for showing an ankle, that much is true, but outside Kabul things (according to RAWA) haven't really changed that much.

Ending state-sponsored international terrorism? Well, that's a long discussion. The US should perhaps put a number of countries on its list well ahead of impoverished, tribalized little Afstan. Saudi Arabia, perhaps. Pakistan, busy turning a blind eye.

Respect for democracy? Here my cynicism threatens to burst into full bloom. The Karzai folks are busy learning the jigs and reels that will please their masters, but I don't really believe that people like Abdul Rashid Dostum are Jeffersonian democrats. Do you? How long will the facade of parliamentary democracy endure when the last foreign troops quit the place?

The current Afghan government is a great leap ahead of the Taliban alternative. One of the great difficulties inherent in our western perspective is that we seem to have lost the ability to gauge incremental progress when there's such a huge gap between their standards and ours.

That's a fair point, but I've been quoting an Afghan source--and there are others.

My concern is that some believe all we have to do to turn countries democratic is to march in and make them. Doesn't work. Never has.

6:08 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Dr. Dawg: See my Saskatoon comment. The fact remains that by any indicator that I think you would accept there has been an improvement since the Northern Alliance, with US air and US and UK special forces help, overthrew the Taliban.

Surely better is better than best, which seems to be all that you will accept. As for al Qaeda, Afstan under the Taliban is the only government/government as far as I know that gave them essentially free rein. Moreover, there are only so many countries against which (mainly) the anglosphere can take military action :).

May I refer you to this guest-post for clear demonstration of the difference between the current Afghan government and the Taliban (do check the links and let us know what you think about the public execution of women in a soccer stadium and the destruction of historic Buddha statues by cannon fire):
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009297.html

Plus the (Pathan, Sunni Salafist) Taliban treatment of the (Mongol, Shia) Hazaras:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/11/01/afghan1424.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/bamian.htm

There is considerable difference between a fanatical Islamist regime and traditional Afghan tribal Muslim (minimal central) governance. Should we not at least try to help that traditional society move forward, even if not to the Saskatoon level?

I think your equivalence wicket is sticky with blood. And I'm coming to conclude that you believe the West should just give up because we are the true evil ones who should just let the lesser breeds without the law slaughter each other. We can't stop it everywhere but trying to it in one place is not in itself hypocritical.

I eagerly await your posts at your own site on Chinese policy concerning Darfur; there is much relevant information at "Daimnation!". Just do a search.

Mark
Ottawa

7:23 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

The Taliban might better be described as Deobandist.
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/osama_wahhabi.htm

Although, oddly, quite a few Muslims appear to accuse the Deobandis of being Sufis:
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/deobandism/index.htm

"As Deoband have been looked upon as the good Guys and the Barelwis as the Bad Guys, However after reading the writings of the revered scholars and Founder of Deoband one Realizes that the difference between the Barelwis and the Deobandis is Miniscule and they both Share the Same Sufistic Beliefs of PIRS, FAKIRS, MIRACULOUS POWERS OF SAINTS, APPROVAL OF GRAVE WORSHIP, ZIKR, MEDITATIONS, MOKSHA, TAWASSUL, LOOKING DOWN UPON JANNAH, DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH ALLAAH and many other same beliefs. One is forced to conclude that this dangerous misinterpretation and twisting of Islaamic beliefs and practices has been deliberate, oft repeated and has been purposely concealed from the common man, This can in no way be attributed to ignorance on the part of the Deoband Leaders"

Where it will all end knows Allah.

Mark
Ottawa

7:51 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Dr.Dawg said...

let us know what you think about the public execution of women in a soccer stadium and the destruction of historic Buddha statues by cannon fire)

Good grief. What do you imagine I think of those things? Or of the mass murders that took place in Kabul when the Northern Alliance entered? Or of Chinese policy re Darfur? (The latter, of course, is not defended by anyone I know of, so why post what everyone else already thinks?)

My point remains, your clever Kipling reference notwithstanding--you can't force people to adopt Western models of democracy. And if it's slaughter you want to discuss, how many thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have been killed in this effort? And how many Iraqi civilians?

Sufism is a noble tradition within Islam. But I'm sure there's lots of squabbling over it among the faithful. But what does that have to do with the price of opium in Kabul?

8:29 p.m., April 25, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Dawg, doctoral theses could be written in answer to your questions. Obviously I'm not going to get into that kind of detail, especially as each step in this exchange has broadened the questions posed significantly.

Canada's (not just the CF's) mission priorities are security, governance, and development.

These areas overlap considerably. So, for example, our troops help provide immediate security by going out and putting bullets into bad guys. But they also push security capacity-building (which starts pushing into governance) with the Operational Mentor Liason Teams (OMLT - pron. "omlette") that train Afghan security forces.

You mention a number of times that you don't think any ground gained in any of the areas I mentioned will be held once we leave. But that's what capacity-building is all about: helping Afghans develop the ability to manage their own affairs without our direct intervention. See also the SAT-A for a great example of long-term capacity-building.

In this, a bit of pessimism is prudent, but too much is unhelpful. I think you've strayed into the latter, by assuming the Afghan people are unwilling or unable to change.

As far as the inability of western observers to gauge progress, the economic front is a fine example. Since 2001, the Afghan economy has more than doubled, and growth of 12% is expected in the upcoming year. This is improvement in leaps and bounds. But because Afghanistan started off at such a brutally low level, the perception is that there's been no progress at all; it's difficult for the western eye to see the progress because all we can glean is poverty so far beyond our imagination and experience that it's like asking us to judge the relative distances of two stars in the sky from our planet.

Regarding your questions about the solidity of progress "once the troops leave," I'd suggest the troops won't be leaving anytime soon. Our Balkan presence is just winding down now, for heaven's sake. But what you will see is a change in the role of our troops as Afghan security forces become more competent, and as the need for kinetic ops diminishes as development and governance continue to gain ground.

At a quarter to midnight, that's the best answer you're going to get from me. I'm not sure how long you've been reading around here, but do a site search for development pieces, and you'll see that we're moving forward in ways most people don't know about. The recent Kandahar 10K road race is one such example of significant good news that never hit the MSM.

11:46 p.m., April 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home