The ramifications of NATO failure in Afghanistan...
...are profound. Salim Mansur outlines them:
The debate over Canada's role in Afghanistan is the type in which democracies engage, and Canadian soldiers on a mission in harm's way need to know they have the government, Parliament and the people of Canada behind them.Quite.
This debate, however, will be heard beyond Canada and it will indicate, despite spin doctoring, that a parliamentary majority is lacking for Ottawa to meet its obligation to the UN-mandated and NATO-led mission to support the Afghan people and the elected government in Kabul.
It will send a message that Canadians are unwilling to see their soldiers engaged in combat missions, and that among the NATO members there is insufficient commitment to sending the minimum number of troops requested for deployment alongside Canadian soldiers in the Kandahar region, where the Taliban insurgency remains robust.
And the message will be unmistakable.
It will tell the enemies of the Afghan people -- Taliban insurgents and al Qaida terrorists -- that while the West is not about to cut and run from fighting, it does not have the stomach to stay in the fight for the length of time needed to eliminate them.
This is what Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar have been telling al Qaida and Taliban fighters from their hideouts in the mountainous caves of the Hindu Kush on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
This is also what the Afghan people fear, given their past experience of being abandoned by the West after the former Soviet Union withdrew its communist army of occupation in 1989. At stake are the hard-won gains made since 2002 by a society liberated from the cruel grips of savage fighters and foreign terrorists.
But there will be others -- Iranian clerics, Hezbollah and Hamas leaders, Syrian and North Korean dictators, Chinese leaders and African tyrants who have made wastelands of their countries -- hearing the message that the West, except for the United States, is reluctant militarily to secure interests beyond its immediate frontier.
The debate in Ottawa and in the European capitals is revealing about where the world's richest democracies stand in confronting Islamists -- the contemporary enemies of freedom and democracy -- and those who might well be the future enemies in a century that is barely a decade old.
Canada is a member of the original G-7 and a founding member of NATO together with Britain, France, Germany and Italy.
The economy of these allies taken together exceeds $12 trillion. Their combined population is close to 300 million.
Yet the message over the Afghan mission is that these rich democracies are reluctant to send soldiers into combat against an enemy possessing neither an economy nor holding territory -- an enemy that is more or less a pack of medieval-minded brigands. Also an enemy that can well be eliminated with the required resolve, as the American soldiers have succeeded in doing in Iraq...
2 Comments:
It pains me to say this, as an American who considers himself a firm friend and admirer of Canada. I must fault Prime Minister Harper, his past and present Defense Ministers, and top Conservative leadership for not repeatedly making a strong, articulate case for Af-stan combat involvement to the Canadian public.
(Not that President Bush has done any better with the Iraq War, an equally moral and necessary undertaking, IMO.)
We all know the NDP and Grits are making as much anti-Conservative spin points on Af-stan combat as possible. We also know that their allies at the CBC and elsewhere in the MSM have been very effective in their efforts to undercut the Government and public support for the mission.
Nevertheless, in politics, "'truth' is a perception". Opportunities to educate and persuade the Canadian public have been squandered. The factual perception is barely on offer in "the public square marketplace of ideas".
1. The Af-stan combat campaign was and is authorized by the UN;
2 This is a MULTILATERAL operation with numerous allies taking part;
3. it is being done under the aegis of NATO.
4. it was the previous, Liberal Government who made the combat commitment in Canada's name.
5. AND, we, the good guys are winning but need to persevere so as not to squander our hard won gains.
All these facts are supposedly benchmarks for obtaining "progressive" approval for war.
No less an advocate than the new UN Secretary General of the UN wrote only last week a powerful articulate letter arguing for continuation and perseverance in the mission. He also described the consequences of failure.
The Government should have been talking and writing about this at every opportunity. Conservative Ministers and MPs should be sending out letters to every registered voter in their ridings. One of those letters should quote in full the UN Secretary General's recent statement.
Additionally, the PM and the Defense Minister should be speaking regularly about this in Parliament. Conservative MPs should be regularly speaking directly to people, singly and to organizations of all kinds, in their ridings whenever they are back home.
There is much that the Conservative Government can readily do to educate the people on the justification and necessity of a military victory in Af-stan. That the Government isn't doing so is frankly, a mystery to me.
If anyone has any comments or observations on this, I'd really like to read them.
dave: Fully concur. Well put.
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home