Wells: In Kandahar, they actually poll the residents quite frequently about how they feel. Kandahar residents feel substantially less safe than they did a couple of years ago. They have a lot less confidence in the government than they used to. No wonder, after the lurid spectacle of the elections this summer.
Until 2009, the deadliest month for coalition forces in Afghanistan was July 2008: 46 soldiers died. We are now four months in a row with a substantially higher—nearly double—death toll than in July 2008. These rates could be sustainable if there was some kind of light at the end of the tunnel, but what we keep seeing is more tunnel. Afghanistan is the smaller of a sort of duplex of international terrorism, which is Afghanistan and Pakistan. When we concentrate on Pakistan, the bad guys just move across the mountains into Afghanistan and vice versa.
Coyne: Afghanistan has to be seen in the context of the situation in Pakistan—where we have an insurgency that would take enormous heart from a defeat for NATO in Afghanistan—and in the broader fight against “jihad international,” where the best slogan for recruiting al-Qaeda fighters is, “We’re winning.” Everybody wants Pakistan to get serious about going after its own Taliban. Why are the Pakistanis going to do that if they think we’re going to leave Afghanistan, if they’re going to have a Taliban government on their doorstep? It’s true that we have not defeated the Taliban. But the Taliban haven’t defeated us either; they cannot seize power as long as we’re there. As long as NATO remains we can train up the Afghan army.
If we were proposing no change in strategy that would be one thing, but we are on the verge right now of bringing in 40,000 more troops from the U.S., of changing fundamentally the strategy toward counter-insurgency. That’s an odd time to pull out.
Wells: I’ll just note that what we’ve already seen this year is 17,000 supplemental U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and that has led pretty much directly to a near doubling of the casualty rate.
Alexander: It’s certainly a noble cause. We’re celebrating 20 years since the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989. Afghanistan after that period experienced 12 years of neglect that allowed terrorism to take root, that allowed a civil war to wreak havoc on that population. The process of overcoming the ills of that period only began in 2001. Building institutions takes a long time, especially institutions like police. Canada has made a difference as lead investor in many areas of development. But the job’s not finished.
Stephenson: It is a very challenging and difficult fight, but when in Canada’s history have we given up simply because something was difficult? I think this is the fight that will define our generation. So much of the Canadian debate, when we talk about whether we should stay or go, has evolved around domestic politics rather than what’s going to happen to that region, the emboldening of global jihad, what that means for Western security in the long run, as well as Canada’s international reputation.
Taylor: It was originally a noble cause, but we never took this on as a fight. When we first went in the Taliban were already defeated. It was going to be a two-year mission. The original budget was some $250 million. The idea was to get the elections up and running, have a government established, provide some support to the Afghan army to get it self-sufficient, and by 2005 we were to come home.
That’s what we were sold on as Canadians, and now look at the numbers they’re talking about, up to $18 billion, 133 fatalities, 800 wounded and a lot of those guys permanently disabled. We stepped into this quagmire. The election this summer has proven that democracy is dead. That part of the experiment’s gone. We need to seriously rethink what we’re doing there to make this worth what we’ve invested in it so far. It’s taken eight years to train an Afghan army. History has shown Afghans can fight, but they simply choose not to exert that same level of enthusiasm when they’re fighting for something as ineffective as the Karzai government.
Print
Comment
To watch the 2-hour debate on CPAC go, to http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&a...
Words without feet mean nothing. It is admirable that Macleans and CPAC are undertaking this initiative to hold public debates on issues affecting our democracy. It is disappointing, however, that Macleans and Mr. Coyne in particular have nothing more than words to offer.
It is easy to chant courage from the sidelines. I know of at least one serious threat to our democracy in which they have declined to take action. Perhaps Mr. Coyne will be less critical now of the politicians he so frequently accuses of failing to live up to their principles. But in any event, I think it will be difficult for them to try to engage Canadians in discussions on democracy when they themselves are not willing to defend it when called to do so.
This is the type of debate that our country's politicians should have.
Politicians have to come out and identify clearly why we are there. Only then can we measure the "true" level of support for the Mission among Canadians. Once we know why we're there, it will be possible to decide to "stay the course" or pull out. Our troops, who I support, deserve no less.
Pulling out arbitrarily in 2011 regardless of the consequences will be to dishonour the sacrifices made by our service men and women who have served in Afghanistan.
This is interesting. However, I have to conclude that one salient point of discussion was missing: The strategy of the Obama Administration has yet to be announced, and won't be for weeks. Not knowing (and being suspicious of) his plan is disconcerting, and should have been lent more discussion. I disagree about the argument that "We're building schools, though!", as I really don't care. Our Troops should be fighting terrorists outright, and not be handing out candy to future jihadists. In my opinion, Scott Taylor won this debate.
This is a good debate, and I like a lot I've heard, but Mr. Taylor's comments are counter-productive, as he seems to have already adopted a defeatist attitude, like the rest of Canada.
This was an awesome panel discussion. The debate seemed over pretty quickly: this is not a lost fight, was the consensus, but a lost cause that needs serious reassessment.
I just finished listening to this debate. I think if we pull out and Nato eventually does, the people we so wanted to help in Afghanistan will be in serious harm for years and years to come. The country will take ten huge steps back and get as ugly as its ever been.
Going into Afghan and Iraq the purpose (unstated of course) was to replace Muslim extremist regimes with moderate ones giving the people a hope and chance to get on their feet with some semblance of democracy, and have them cull their own herd of fundamentalists. In both cases Iraq and Afghan immediately after their first elections enshrined Shari'ah Law into the constitution. Since that moment we have been supporting those governments that may offer fascial form of human rights to their benefacttors, but in essence will be beholden to the wretched brutaland despicable Shari'ah Laws. These countries cannot be trusted to come around to Westernization with that yoke, nor in my opinion were they intending to from the beginning.
So here we are losing valuable Western civilized lives supporting Shari'ah. Completely insane and counterproductive to the end goals. We should have said a firm "NO!", when they implemented the laws and I would be in much fuller support of our efforts. As it is now, we are fighting for oppression. No wonder we haven't achieved much of anything.
MACLEANS: Tch, tch: You missed an important female contributor – Mercedes Stephenson in the pictured ad for the article. It doesn't reflect positively on you. I wouldn't blame her for feeling slighted.
…continued – to clarify: I received an email ad of the current MacLeans issue with the same title and a picture of a soldier in combat; it listed all the men in the debate, but not Stephenson for some reason.
I believe these kinds of programs are very useful. especially true for those who are not up to scratch on our involvment there. I opposed our involvment from the beginning and everything since has convinced me further that I was right.
Taylor was spot on, also Wells mostly. The other three were wrong, mostly because what they were saying was not on the reality of the situation.
The war in that desolate fly blown turd hole is both a nobe fight and a lost cause. As long as liberal pacifists and defeatists like Hillier have a say in the operation, it can't succeed.
Even the opening comment has no proof, North America was attacked by Al-Qadea. Just because some people in position say so "it is true". Why do the goverments want to hide behind the national security curtain? The governments are supposed to be serving the people not the other way arround. How come people have such short memories who is the creator of Al-Qadea and what is there to say the same Master does not pull the string of the same pupet still? how come the Master of Al-Qadea is not even on the most wanted list where as Sadam Hussain was? Interesting even the inteligesta can be herded like sheep and brain washed in this part of the world.
'Noble Fight or Lost Cause"? The preamble should define for whom? The Afghanistan mission is a NATO and UN mission and any assessment of the NATO response to the attack of 9/11 on the United States would conclude that the response of many NATO countries has been anything but noble. To place the question in context, consider the statement issued by the North Atlantic Council, 12 September 2001 that stressed that in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty; "an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Canada responded admirably, but many other NATO allies, including the US, provided only half hearted or no response. The US turned their attention to Iraq which truly "suckered" Canada. Our politicians have let down our service men and woman by not confirming that all allies would meet their international obligations under Chapter 5. This was only made worse by historic underfunding, drastic cuts to personnel levels and a refusal to provide adequate equipment for the CF. If Obama does not commit to the additional US troops and if NATO continues to shirk their responsibilities then it is time to bring our troops home. Furthermore, it is time to reassess the viability of NATO.
Noble fight? Canada has aided and abetted the USA in yet another invasion of a country without a declaration of war. Agreed it was intended to stop human rights abuse, not just like say the suspension of human rights under the patriot act as an example, but real torture… no wait I mean… ummm, never mind.
It is notable that no mainstream journalist has noticed that just prior to that invasion it was reported that there was no evidence on satellite imagery of poppy production in Afghanistan (the USA disapproved of the government then in place for another reason), since the USA arrived however Afghanistan is once again the world leader in the production of opium (now that the government the USA wants in power is in place). You don't suppose Air America has opened a branch office… ?
I think we should get our troops out of Afghanistan, but whether we do or not, here is an idea that could help the people there, and further Canada's aims without combat.
It is simply to air drop or otherwise distribute crystal radios and leaflets, both easy to hide, and thereby supply educational material.
Crystal radios require no batteries and are very small. They were one of the earliest forms of radio and have also been sold as a child's toy, and used in Nazi controlled areas in europe. They run off the power of the transmitter. and use an earphone. See "crystal radio" in wikipedia and google "foxhole radio"
In this age of chip technology they could be extremely small (easily hidden from the Taliban) and probably made for about a dollar. Accompanying leaflets should be designed for low visibility, and support the radio program material.
It is said that educating the women transforms a society, since they in turn educate their children. The transmitted content should be educational, not propaganda. While this strategy would be slow to effect change, the war strategy does not promise to be any faster- we have already been there 8 years, there is no end in sight, and we are making enemies.
Radio has been used in Canada for educational purposes. CBC programs were broadcast to the schools.
Yours Truly
Duncan Johnston