"So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver."

An e-mail by the Executive Director of the Conference of Defence Associations (no actual link):

Please circulate/Prière de circuler

The Conference of Defence Associations would like to draw your attention to an editorial by André Pratte, published in the July 24th edition of La Presse. The original French text may be found at this link.

In view of the importance we attach to Pratte’s powerful message, we have had this article translated into English (see below).

M Pratte raises some very key points about the perceptions of Canada’s mission to Afghanistan, including the need for clear communication regarding the future of the mission itself. In the same vein, the arguments now being made in the Netherlands about the future of the Dutch mission post-2008 will surely have an impact on the Canadian debate later on this year (see link below to an article by Bruce Campion-Smith that discusses the Dutch matter specifically)

There is also a need for the government to express its intentions regarding the Canadian Forces itself. For example, it is important to remember that even if Canada’s troops in Kandahar province are eventually to be held “in reserve” (as mentioned by Minister O’Connor earlier this week), they will still very much be a vital component of the battle. A strategic reserve that is mobile and carries a big punch can make a major difference between defeat and victory, particularly when an inexperienced army such as the ANA takes on the Taliban.

M Pratte’s piece is a true “cri de coeur” for Canada’s future role in the world, particularly where he states “Si nous rejetons toute mission militaire où la victoire n'est pas à la fois instantanée et sans victimes, quel rôle voyons-nous pour nos soldats? Et pour le Canada dans le monde?"

(If we reject any military mission in which victory is not both instantaneous and achieved without casualties, what role do we see for our soldiers? And for Canada in the world?)

His answer is particularly noteworthy:

“Si les Canadiens s'en tiennent à leur vision fleur bleue de la sécurité mondiale, ils choisiront de rester les bras croisés devant les génocides, les guerres civiles et les complots terroristes, tout en multipliant les voeux pieux, une tradition bien canadienne. Telle sera donc la nouvelle mission internationale du Canada: gérant d'estrade."

(If Canadians cling to their romantic vision of world security, they choose to put their hands in their pockets in the face of genocide, civil war and terrorist conspiracies, while spouting pious promises – a very Canadian tradition. So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver)

Although we strongly agree with M Pratte’s conclusion that a withdrawal from Afghanistan post-February 2009 will result in Canada becoming a backseat driver in international affairs, the CDA does not necessarily agree with M Pratte’s view that the mission to Afghanistan is finished. We are of the view that given the amount of time, talent, reputation and money that Canada has invested in the mission to Afghanistan, we should be focusing on recalibrating the mission in order to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Effectively communicating the whys and wherefores of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan to the Canadian public must be the highest priority of the Harper government in the months ahead.

Alain Pellerin
Colonel (ret’d)
Executive Director
613-236-1252

Bruce Campion-Smith. “Dutch pullout from Afghanistan would sway Canadian debate”.

PUBLICATION:

La Presse
DATE:
2007.07.24
SECTION:
Forum
PAGE:
A14
COLUMN:

Editorial

BYLINE:
André Pratte

Mission finished!

Canada’s soldiers have yet to reach the end of their ordeal. It’s almost certain that more of them will lose their lives, but we can already say that the Canadian Forces mission in southern Afghanistan is finished. Not accomplished; finished. That is to say, the die is cast.

The Harper government has abandoned any idea of extending it beyond February 2009. Its sole concern now is to limit the losses — political and human alike — between now and that deadline. This became obvious on Sunday during an interview the Defence Minister gave on CTV (Question Period). Gordon O’Connor predicted that in six months, the Afghan army will be responsible for most military operations in the Kandahar region with Canadian soldiers “in reserve”.

A year and a half ago, on the same program, Mr. O’Connor was asked about survey results indicating that a majority of Canadians opposed the Afghan mission. The newly appointed minister said, “This survey shows me that I have a great deal of work to do. I must begin explaining to Canadians why we are in Afghanistan and make them aware of the good work that we are doing.” Evidently Mr O’Connor’s explanations haven’t done the job, and he himself admitted his failure on Sunday: “I think in many cases, people do not understand what’s going on in Afghanistan, the needs there. And the successes that we’re having both in operations and in development.”

Misunderstanding, you think? More like incredulity. Canadians quite simply do not believe what the government says about this topic. They have the impression that the Canadian Armed Forces are fighting for nothing, that Ottawa is dancing to George Bush’s tune, that not enough resources are going to reconstruction. The facts do not support this perception, but the Harper government has not figured out how to convince people of this.

In the collapse of public support for the Afghan mission there is material to ponder. If Canadians refuse to allow their soldiers to fight alongside the Americans, under what circumstances will they ever be allowed to deploy on operations again? It’s a rare international mission in which the Americans do not play a leading role.

If UN caution is not good enough for us, from what authority will we seek a blessing to assure ourselves that an armed intervention is the right thing to do?

If we reject any military mission in which victory is not both instantaneous and achieved without casualties, what role do we see for our soldiers? And for Canada in the world?

As well as being pacifist, an attitude many consider noble, Canadian citizens seem to have become extraordinarily naïve. According to a recent survey, six of 10 Canadians want NATO to open negotiations with the Taliban to bring an end to confrontation. Negotiate with the Taliban? Mr Harper could also invite Omar bin Laden to tea at 24 Sussex Drive.

Canadian soldiers are, in a way, victims of a myth that they themselves helped build: the belief that Canada’s role in the world is that of peacekeeper. For years, we have promoted our soldiers’ participation in UN peacekeeping missions to the exclusion of all other operations. But the world changed and, with it, the missions we called peacekeeping; however, most Canadians remain content with a simplistic version of the Pearson philosophy.

It took decades to get the international community to accept that national sovereignty must not be used to cover up widespread massacres, that there is such a thing as a “responsibility to protect”. This advance was achieved in large part through the efforts of the Government of Canada (under Jean Chrétien and Lloyd Axworthy). If Canadians cling to their romantic vision of world security, they choose to put their hands in the pockets in the face of genocide, civil war and terrorist conspiracies, while spouting pious promises — a very Canadian tradition.

So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver.

apratte@lapresse.ca