We Made A Committment - Need More Be Said

Not IMHO!

Weighing the pros and cons
Have your say on Canada's mission in Afghanistan

JOHN BOILEAU
The Daily News

As I outlined last week, all Canadians have a unique opportunity to send their views on Afghanistan directly to the government, through the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. This group is seeking recommendations on our mission in Afghanistan post-February 2009, when our present commitment ends.

Here are some of what I believe are the main pros and cons of the mission as currently configured - each followed by an opposing point of view. (l: point; : counterpoint)

Pro

- We're fighting our sworn terrorist enemies, who threatened Canada and protected those who killed Canadians in the 9/11 attacks.

The direct threat against Canada is marginal; Canadians killed in 9/11 were not targeted as Canadians, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

- The democratically elected government of Afghanistan has requested our help in making the country secure.

Democracy is a misnomer in Afghanistan; warlords really run the country and President Karzai is only kept in power by ISAF troops.

- The mission in Afghanistan is UN-sponsored.

We've opted out of UN missions before, especially when they weren't central to Canada's interests.

- The situation is improving, with significant progress being made in the economy, health, education and the rights of women and children.

Any progress is both too slow and insufficient.

- We're training the national army and police so they can eventually provide security without outside assistance.

The army and police are under-paid, under-trained and under-equipped - and it's taking too long to train them.

- We need to show solidarity with our NATO allies.

We've already shown solidarity during the Cold War with stationed land and air forces in Europe, as well as in NATO missions in the Balkans.

- Rebuilding Afghanistan is a noble cause.

That may be so, but is it ours? What about all the other marginal states in the world that need similar help?

- Canada needs to stand up for what is right and just.

Before we do that internationally, how about eliminating injustices at home?

- We can't simply desert Afghanistan.

We'll have to leave at some stage; why not now before wasting more lives and money?

Con

- We're fighting Bush's war.

Afghanistan is separate from and not related to what the U.S. is doing in Iraq.

- We're killing innocent Afghanis.

The killing of any civilians is tragic, but sadly unavoidable in warfare. Civilian deaths caused by ISAF are usually innocent bystanders, while the Taliban deliberately target civilians.

- Our mission puts too much emphasis on defence, and not enough on development and diplomacy.

Security must be established before reconstruction can proceed; considerable developmental progress has been made.

- Others have been trying to conquer Afghanistan for centuries and have failed.

We're not trying to conquer Afghanistan; once the country is stable, foreign military forces will leave.

- Insurgency wars cannot be won.

Many insurgencies have been defeated around the world.

- Afghanistan is not worth Canadian deaths.

What is worth dying for? Should we stop using police and firefighters because some get killed?

- Afghanistan is costing Canada billions of dollars.

How much is too much if it means the creation of a stable democracy with an improved standard of living?

- The mission in Afghanistan is not in keeping with our long peacekeeping tradition.

Canada's peacekeeping "tradition" is a myth; war fighting is more predominant in our history.

- Other countries aren't doing their part - why should we?

Somebody has to step up to the plate; we should be judged by what we do, not by what others don't do.

- It's taking too long to bring stability to Afghanistan.

We've only been there since 2001; other crises have taken far longer to resolve.

- If the Taliban are defeated or driven out, they will only return.

Not if the army and police are sufficiently robust.

- Karzai only rules with the help of ISAF; corrupt warlords - who control the opium trade - really run the country.

Warlords did run large parts of the country, but their power is declining. The opium trade is a problem that must be resolved.

- The Taliban get help from other countries.

So one alliance is fighting another - which one has higher motives and purpose?

Submit your comments at www. independent-panel-independant.ca by Dec. 1.

John Boileau will be submitting his recommendations in support of a continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan.

21/11/07