Afstan and Canadian public discourse
A most depressing, and revealing, aspect of our Afghan involvement is the way it has become framed. It is presented, by both politicians and the major media, in essentially two ways:
1) What's the political spin? What party points are being won or lost?
2) Is the military mission a failure--or succeeding--at this moment? When should Canada bug out?
How puerile can a country get? These are the questions that should be considered:
1) What are Canada's national interests that justify a major effort, military and development, in Afstan?
2) Is there a realistic chance that an ongoing and increased international commitment, military and otherwise, will eventually result in a situation favourable to our national interests?
3) If the answer to 2) is yes, what could be the extent of Canada's ongoing efforts, military and otherwise, taking into account this country's capabilities and resources?
4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afstan after 2011, perhaps a changed one (see the end of this post)?
5) What will be the consequences, if we effectively end our military mission in 2011, on: a) Afghanistan; b) the international military effort; c) Canada's foreign relations; and, d) Canadians' views, and those of our politicians especially, about our future military role abroad?
Responses to those five points invited.
1) What's the political spin? What party points are being won or lost?
2) Is the military mission a failure--or succeeding--at this moment? When should Canada bug out?
How puerile can a country get? These are the questions that should be considered:
1) What are Canada's national interests that justify a major effort, military and development, in Afstan?
2) Is there a realistic chance that an ongoing and increased international commitment, military and otherwise, will eventually result in a situation favourable to our national interests?
3) If the answer to 2) is yes, what could be the extent of Canada's ongoing efforts, military and otherwise, taking into account this country's capabilities and resources?
4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afstan after 2011, perhaps a changed one (see the end of this post)?
5) What will be the consequences, if we effectively end our military mission in 2011, on: a) Afghanistan; b) the international military effort; c) Canada's foreign relations; and, d) Canadians' views, and those of our politicians especially, about our future military role abroad?
Responses to those five points invited.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 7:13 p.m.
1 Comments:
Good framework... Some quick responces take them with a grain of salt.
1) What are Canada's national interests that justify a major effort, military and development, in Afghanistan?
• Humanitarian assistance: With a history of active involvement in the key humanitarian missions in the world Canada should provide assistance to those who have been subjugated by a despotic regime such that there could be an effective transition to a more stable political/economic model. These political/economic models should be geared to the needs and capabilities of the recipient. I think Canada has been meeting these needs in Kandahar.
• Political/Judicial incubation: In a country like Afghanistan an effective Canadian contribution needs to force all partners to ensure that a suitable level of democratization and justice is being achieved. The political situation in Afghanistan is a mess and lack of trust and confidence in the government is significant and growing. Many of the political actors are war/drug lords who are popular in their own regions who can and do subvert legitimate democracy and justice. It is unclear that democracy and justice in Afghansitan are at at (ot approaching) critical mass for success. There continues do be serious issues with corruption, uneven justice, torture, etc… I have said it before it’s a deck of cards. If the Taliban was gone tomorrow there would be a whole host of new issues to deal with that could thwart all progress done to date.
2) Is there a realistic chance that an ongoing and increased international commitment, military and otherwise, will eventually result in a situation favourable to our national interests?
• Yes. Need a cost/benefit analysis and rethinking of the approach being taken. PRTs have effectively compartmentalized activity ineffectively such that we have a patchwork of solutions on a province by province basis. There needs to be a more significant national focus (IMHO). I think other allies need to step in.
3) If the answer to 2) is yes, what could be the extent of Canada's ongoing efforts, military and otherwise, taking into account this country's capabilities and resources?
• Security: I think we should plan to cease all our active operations and focus on training and oversight. Monitor corruption.
• Justice: Force the rule of law uniformly across the country. Including ensuring the human rights of accused and convicted. Includes providing training and guidance to the police. Monitor corruption.
• Human rights: select areas of human rights to champion and provide support. Monitor corruption.
4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afghanistan after 2011, perhaps a changed one (see the end of this post)?
• Generally no. If there was a truly unified command, a common cause and the removal or ROEs from our allies I think it would be easier to get support. As it stands now Canada (along with US & UK) are stepping up to accept a disproportionate amount of responsibility in Afghanistan. If NATO and ISAF are to regain credibility this needs to change. Until such a time I do not see a significant possibility of change.
5) What will be the consequences, if we effectively end our military mission in 2011, on: a) Afghanistan; b) the international military effort; c) Canada's foreign relations; and, d) Canadians' views, and those of our politicians especially, about our future military role abroad?
• (a) If someone steps up to fill the void (US?) ending our mission will not have an impact. In no one steps in there will be a vacuum and bad things will happen. If NATO & ISAF are to be taken seriously one of the other patterns need to be stepped in. I firmly believe that Canada should not be held hostage by weak allies.
• (b) as above.
• ( c ) I think Canada has been more than patient and that has been recognized.
• (d) This, to date, has been an effective showing of the Canadian Military and it’s ability to conduct operations under very difficult circumstances. In the future, if required, the Canadian forces could/should be called to do the similar. I would recommend significant scrutiny and seek guarantees that Canadians will be part of an effective alliance and partnership (this is a black eye for NATO and ISAF as far as I am concerned). Never again should we enter into harm with a coalition so unwilling to provide assistance.
Post a Comment
<< Home