What Taylor said, and a bit more
Chris Taylor puts it oh-so-well:
I've but one quibble with his piece. When he says "I will admit that every child in Afghanistan may grow up a sworn jihadi, and every female within its borders may never enjoy equal rights, and neither of these things will affect one's quality of life in Etobicoke, nor will it solve the problems of urban poverty and decay" I understand the point he's digging for, but I disagree with the words he's chosen to make it with, all the same.
One of the reasons we should be in Afghanistan is precisely because it will affect one's quality of life in Etobicoke. We are a prosperous nation in large part because of our profound participation in international commerce. And as that economy depends upon more than just a dollop of international security, we all have a vested interest in keeping failed states like Afghanistan from becoming terrorist nurseries.
We reap the benefits of an interconnected world. On a moral level, we should be willing to contribute to the collective security essential to maintaining that interconnectivity. But if that moral imperative is not enough, we should also be willing to do what is required because it is in our practical self-interest as well.
If 1,000 troops is the dividing line between victory and defeat, then I suggest it is incumbent upon Canada to ante up the remainder and see the job completed.
A former President of our southern neighbour once exhorted his countrymen to to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. The Canadian version would be to pay any price, bear any burden and meet any hardship—as long as we're not paying greater prices, burdens and hardships than anyone else. If the ROI isn't measurable in political capital during the current mandate of Her Majesty's Dominion Government, then forget it. Better to pump that money into a national childcare scheme or a make-work project.
I've but one quibble with his piece. When he says "I will admit that every child in Afghanistan may grow up a sworn jihadi, and every female within its borders may never enjoy equal rights, and neither of these things will affect one's quality of life in Etobicoke, nor will it solve the problems of urban poverty and decay" I understand the point he's digging for, but I disagree with the words he's chosen to make it with, all the same.
One of the reasons we should be in Afghanistan is precisely because it will affect one's quality of life in Etobicoke. We are a prosperous nation in large part because of our profound participation in international commerce. And as that economy depends upon more than just a dollop of international security, we all have a vested interest in keeping failed states like Afghanistan from becoming terrorist nurseries.
We reap the benefits of an interconnected world. On a moral level, we should be willing to contribute to the collective security essential to maintaining that interconnectivity. But if that moral imperative is not enough, we should also be willing to do what is required because it is in our practical self-interest as well.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:25 p.m.
3 Comments:
Yes, we reap the benefits of an interconnected world, and our quality of life is derived in no small part from our international trade. Not too much of that trade heads to (or from) Afstan, though.
We were pretty content to let Afstan rot from 1996 to 2001. We would still be letting them rot today -- if they hadn't recruited 19 non-Afghans to slam planes into Manhattan and Washington. Yes, this certainly had wide-ranging effects this had on the stock market and insurance industries (not to mention airlines!), but it didn't completely destroy the North American economy.
In a macro sense you're absolutely correct, but this isn't an existential fight for us. The OPFOR's ability to affect our quality of life is (more or less) inherently limited. That doesn't mean they aren't worth defeating, though.
Limited, perhaps. But very real, Chris.
Well said, Babbling Brook! Candid, direct and plain-spoken clarity.
As I see it, Canada is in Af-stan for the same reasons all the Western powers, who share the same cultural and political heritage of Liberty, are in Af-stan are there.
Some honest, honorable people have come to different conclusion. However, I can't agree with their thinking. What it would say about the Western Democracies if we weren't fighting Islamofascist tyranny in Af-stan? It would say we don't believe in our Western Civilization, we don't cherish and believe in our own liberty under the rule of democratic law.
What happens "over there" ultimately does affect us all "over here" in th West. Looking at our ever more interconnected world, Ronald Reagan summed it up pretty well, “All of us denounce war—all of us consider it man’s greatest stupidity. And yet wars happen and they involve the most passionate lovers of peace because there are still barbarians in the world who set the price for peace at death or enslavement and that price is too high.”
Post a Comment
<< Home