Categories: Canada

Noble fight or lost cause?

What to do in Afghanistan was the subject of a Maclean’s panel debate last week in Halifax, broadcast live by CPAC.

by macleans.ca on Friday, November 20, 2009 2:35pm - 16 Comments

Alexander: North America was attacked by al-Qaeda—which partnered with the Taliban—on the basis of a plan forged in Afghanistan. They’re now trying to regain their beachheads there, from neighbouring Pakistan. They have failed, so far. But security forces in Pakistan have not even raised a finger against them in many of the places where they do their most important training. North Waziristan has not had military operations in years, and even before that they were glancing blows. If the stability’s going to come, and this insurgency’s going to be tamed, we’re going to have to talk cross-border.

Coyne: Mercedes, is there any kind of end point? How long is too long, how much cost in lives and money is too much?

Stephenson: There has to be an end point. If there’s not, then you’re not going to be driving your strategy properly, and you’re not going to be putting pressure on the Afghan institutions to grow the way they need to, or, for example, calling Karzai on the fraud. Are we going to see Afghanistan morph into a democratic Western state? Absolutely not, and that shouldn’t be our goal. A secure and stable Afghanistan should be. It has to be a country that is capable of looking after its own security, that is not harbouring terrorists.

Before, when we went into Afghanistan, there were zero girls in school, and now we have millions. It’s very real change, but we can’t have this Aspirin culture of expecting it to change overnight. We were in the former Yugoslavia for over a decade. That was an established European state, and we’re looking at a country coming out of the stone age.

Coyne: There was a lot of talk about Canada “rotating out,” but you can’t just decide that unilaterally. I think we have to be at the table with NATO, I think we have to set a good example notwithstanding our frustrations with the other partners. I certainly think we’re going to come under a lot of pressure from the Americans if Obama goes ahead with putting 40,000 more troops in, and I think we have to take that seriously.

Wells: I greatly fear that we’re not going to begin to have a serious debate about Canada’s small part in that whole Western strategy until after the Canadian election of 2000-whenever. This is not a country that handles serious debates well before elections.

Stephenson: There’s not a political appetite in this country to discuss Afghanistan. It hasn’t been an honest discussion, it’s been driven completely by discussions about casualties. I don’t think any of those soldiers want that to be driving this debate, and not to have all of the options put on the table in advance of 2011. And that’s not just the government, it’s all of the parties, it’s the punditocracy, it’s everybody who’s involved in this who needs to pull back on the egos, and have an honest discussion about what this means for Canada and for international security.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Tags: Afghanistan, Andrew coyne, Canadian Forces, Chris Anderson, CPAC, paul wells, scott taylor

Immanuel

To watch the 2-hour debate on CPAC go, to http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&a…
Katie Smith

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.
Ron Mac Donald

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.
Lost Cause

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.
Stewart

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.
ahm

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.
janicemaerose

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.
http://imnodhimmi.com Anti-Ummah

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.
janicemaerose

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.
janicemaerose

…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.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Bernie37 Bernie37

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.
Jim

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.
wunjo

'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.
cleargreen

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… ?
Robert Johnston

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
http://intensedebate.com/people/wiskers55 wiskers55

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.