Afstan: What our lack of stomach means

If, as I think, the mission has important purposes (preventing a return of the Taliban, with all that would mean for Afghan society and in terms of al Qaeda's again having a haven with full state support) it is distressing that most Canadians appear to have given up so easily.

I know the government has done a very poor job of explaining the mission. I know the Liberal Party is simply and irresponsibly playing politics with the mission (the NDP are sincere in their pacificism but fools; who cares about the Bloc?). I know that our media have: 1) an Oprah-like fixation on the death of troops; 2) a pattern of highlighting things that help discredit the mission (detainee abuse, civilian deaths); and, 3) a strong tendency to ignore either success in battle or in reconstruction.

It still is illuminating about Canada that the 52 fatalities we have suffered in sixteen months of the Kandahar deployment seem to have proven sufficient to prevent the extension of that combat mission past February, 2009. In other words those deaths are what it has taken for the Taliban to defeat Canada. Not militarily, but psychologically and politically. We are indeed a weak horse, to use bin Laden's image.

No doubt the Taliban will trumpet our cravenness to the Afghan people, thus weakening their stomach to resist the Islamic extremists and to have patience with the struggle in the hope that effective Afghan government military and security forces can be created over the next few years. We Canadians certainly have no patience.

Assuming we do withdraw from combat in 2009--and effectively from the Anglosphere--I'm pretty certain other members (US, UK, Australia) will take our place, especially as they will have much smaller commitments in Iraq. Maybe with an enlarged central and eastern European contribution. While Canada will lose a considerable part of the credit we have gained with our closest allies.

Two columnists in the Toronto Sun well demonstrate the attitudes that have led to our apparently giving up:

1) Lorrie Goldstein:

The reality Harper faces is that while Canadians are deeply divided on the Kandahar mission and most want us out of Afghanistan by 2009, military experts have repeatedly warned NATO's mission there will have to continue long after 2009 -- maybe for decades -- to be successful.

There is, understandably, no enthusiasm among Canadians for seeing increasing numbers of our soldiers coming home from Afghanistan in coffins indefinitely [so let's just fly away in 2009, regardless of the situation, Mr Goldstein].

Nor should there be. If NATO wants Canada to recommit to the Afghanistan mission beyond 2009, it must first do so itself.

2) Greg Weston:

...once again, public opinion has been shaken by the deaths of native sons in a war already bleeding support among Canadians of all ages and in all regions.

While the degree of progress being made by the Canadian forces and their NATO allies in Kandahar remains a matter of contention, there seems little question the Conservative government is losing ground on the public relations front here at home...

How public opinion turned south on Afghanistan is obviously a complex matrix of factors, not the least of which has been an abysmal failure of government communications. Think about it: What are the most enduring images of Afghanistan that come to mind? A picture of humanitarian aid? Of reconstruction projects? Of social development? Of happy Afghans going about their daily business in peace?

More likely, it is something like the well-worn loop of network tape that routinely punctuates nightly newscasts, a clip showing a handful of Canadian soldiers firing their guns over a dirt wall at an unseen enemy [we hardly ever see that these days, Mr Weston]...

...Rather than aggressively using the media to help frame the Afghan mission as a difficult humanitarian effort in a dangerous environment [what do you think the embed program is all about, Mr Weston?], Harper's failed spin machine has allowed the conflict to be framed by deaths, official snafus and other negative events [that's what the media have chosen to emphasize, Mr Weston].

Public relations disasters simply don't get much worse than the cock-up over Afghan detainees, or a fallen soldier's parents publicly begging the government for money to bury their son...

In a chilling interview with the BBC this week, Taliban spokesman Zabiyullah Mujahed said his forces have one main objective: Killing NATO soldiers [emphasis added].

"We are certain we will win, because for us independence is important. For the NATO forces, the lives of their soldiers are important. There will be a big fuss in the Western parliaments, asking that their sons should not be killed in Afghanistan.

"This means we will defeat them [emphasis added]."

Well, they seem to have beaten us already. That will simply encourage more deadly violence by Islamic extremists everywhere, while adding to their belief that they can defeat a decadent, kafir, West. And smug, peace-loving Canadians will bear a degree of responsibility for those deaths.

Update: Former external affairs minister, Flora MacDonald (now 81), spends some time in Afghanistan and illustrates why we should be there. Good on the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson for writing this column. Andrew Coyne, for his part, disagrees with the interpretation in this post but I think his argument is rather thin.

Upperdate: An excellent letter in the Globe from a CF member just returned from Afghanistan.