I’ve decided to republish here some of my past columns, written for various outlets including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for which I have great love and respect.
I no longer write for CBC out of choice. I realize that it is no longer possible to participate in the mainstreeam media in this country because increasingly, journalists along with management have dumbed themselves down in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The following was first published on July 26, 2006:
CANADA IS CARRYING WATER FOR THE UNITED STATES
Many years ago, I flew over Afghanistan but never touched down there. The day of my flight was clear and sunny and I remember the magnificence of that rugged land with its ancient mountains and striking beauty. From the air that’s what you see.
The country’s history tells a much different story. It’s one of ugliness and cruelty, of vicious tribal warfare, drug trafficking, widespread corruption and historically unsuccessful foreign occupations. Its tribes and warlords live in a world of ongoing instability and social chaos. It’s an important history to us now, because many young Canadians are there risking their lives in an effort to bring order to a disordered land.
Like many of my fellow citizens, I have been following our country’s involvement with a combination of sadness and horror. Twenty Canadians have been killed, and the list of our wounded is growing.
Each death strikes at the heart of every caring Canadian, and that includes, I’m certain, the officials who decided to send these young people so easily into the heart of danger. More will die in this conflict, that’s a tragic certainty.
Many questions have been asked about what we euphemistically call "the mission." Most Canadians are unclear as to what that means, although we have the vague idea that we are fighting terrorism. But what we are truly fighting is a war that is an Afghan responsibility.
Looks and feels like a civil war
The United Nations expressed support for an action against Afghanistan in November 2001, right after the attacks of September 11. The aim was to replace the ruling Taliban. The initial attack was successful in unseating the ultra-religious rulers, who had harboured Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda training camps.
At that time, in the wake of the New York and Washington attacks, the world was solidly in sympathy with the United States — and all countries, regardless of religion, expressed sympathy and solidarity. NATO countries, which identified emotionally and culturally with the U.S., showed particularly strong support for engaging and punishing the forces of terror, which had trained in Afghanistan after the Russians had been driven out.
The UN mandate proceeded well at first. A leader was found, a traditional council deliberated on the country’s future and an interim government was formed. Later, elections were held and a form of democracy was established for the first time in many years.
But before the consolidation and rebuilding of the country could even be started, the two leading members of the UN coalition left the Afghans and their allies in the lurch. The United States and Britain, together, decided to turn away from the legal operation and embark on another course. Together they launched an invasion of Iraq, which most experts contend was, and is, illegal.
The hunt for bin Laden and his terrorist followers was relegated to the back burner. Now we and our NATO allies are trying to help pick up the pieces of a flawed and shattered strategy.
The mistake hit home when the Taliban resurrected itself from the grave and challenged the new government. To many on the outside, it often seems more as if we’re caught in the midst of a civil war, rather than a battle against international terror. In any case, most of the hardcore terrorists have moved on to Pakistan, Iraq and other places.
The Anglo-American "adventure" in Iraq left a thin force on the ground in Afghanistan. The Americans appealed to NATO for more soldiers to help fill the vacuum they had left behind. Canadians were called upon to increase our involvement, and we did, with several hundred soldiers and other personnel.
Under the UN umbrella
So we are there, legally, as a member of NATO, under the broader UN umbrella. We are part of what is called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). We now have a presence numbering more than 2,300.
The word "assistance" is the key to this "mission."
The original commitment was threefold: first we agreed to assist the government of Afghanistan with training its own army; second, to assist them with training police; and third, to assist with reconstruction following the devastation of the American bombing and previous destruction wrought by the old Soviet Union. Our people were never meant to be involved in day-to-day, hand-to-hand combat of the kind we now face.
The truth is that all of the work we ought to be doing on the ground can be done in the security of the Afghan capital city.
This mission, as it has been re-defined by persons unknown, is flawed, not because it’s not a noble cause — certainly the Afghans need all the help we can give them. It’s flawed because it’s not winnable under present circumstances — mainly for three reasons: the relatively small number of soldiers on the ground, the difficulty of moving supplies, and, more importantly, the nature of the conflict itself.
This is a guerilla war in a nation of experienced guerillas. It’s a mountainous country with often impassable roads — when roads exist. The Afghan rebels are experts at this kind of fighting and many of them are veterans of the long and successful war against a force of several hundred thousand Russians. The Russians were not trained for this kind of fighting in this kind of climate, and neither are we.
I seldom criticize our government, and given the mood these days in Ottawa, what I am saying here is tantamount to heresy. From an observer’s position, however, it’s not clear that our political leaders have grasped the reality of this assignment.
At present, we are merely carrying water for the United States, which ironically, boosted the Taliban to power by arming them against the Soviet occupation. The U.S. also boosted bin Laden by recruiting radical Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa to join the fight against the Soviets. Some of them are now the cornerstones of al-Qaeda cells in many countries; others are in Guantanamo Bay.
So what do we do about what clearly is a policy conundrum?
Perhaps the best course at this point — in order to avoid more Canadian and allied casualties — would be to re-examine the original NATO mandate and remember that it was to be one of assistance.
Our task ought to be to help the Afghan government become strong enough to fight its own civil war.
