CP
Skip navigation.

Canada in Afghanistan

By Dana R. Brown

On August 31st, New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton called for troop withdraws from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. He stated that “This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping.”

I agree with Layton, and so do the majority of Canadians, according to a recent Angus-Reid poll. The August 2006 poll maintains that a clear majority of Canadians feel that our “troops should not be deployed in Afghanistan and they should be brought home as soon as possible.”[1]

Combat operations in Afghanistan will only create the type of people in which “the war on terror” seeks to eliminate. The facts have become clear over the past few months. Combat operations have taken too much precedence over construction and rebuilding. Destruction through counter insurgency efforts only increases the popularity of insurgents. Our leaders are not being honest in that they fail to explain the real reasons why Canada is in Afghanistan.

If peacekeeping is dead or dying today, as right wing pundits like to say, it is because the Liberals and Conservatives over the past 10 years have been hacking and slashing it to death. Overall, our military spending has been increasing. We now spend more than 15 billion tax payer dollars per year.

Canadians have not seen this level of spending since the menace of Nazi Germany. This new spending is meant to make Canada a junior partner in George Bush’s hardcore militarism. At the same time, our level of funding towards United Nations missions has dropped to an unprecedented low.

Right now we can fit the number of blue-helmets on a single bus, yet we have thousands of combat troops in Afghanistan. This new level of military spending by Ottawa signifies a shift in Canada’s foreign policy. This dangerous shift towards supporting unrestrained U.S. military force will only further destabilize the world.

According to a recent report by an international think tank, The Senlis Council, insurgents are in control of a significant part of southern Afghanistan.[2]

Why would remnants of the Taliban still have support?

It may have something to do with brutal aerial bombardment campaigns put on by the U.S. Air Force. According to the United Nations Human Rights Watch, entire villages have been raised, and their inhabitants murdered for sympathizing with the Taliban.[3]

The failed counter-narcotics and counter insurgency missions have proved to be inflammatory, heightening levels of poverty and outright starvation of the Afghanis people. According to the Senlis Council report, there are "makeshift, unregistered refugee camps of starving children and civilians displaced by counter narcotics eradication and bombing campaign.”[4]

American military planners have placed such a low value on the lives of Afghanis that Canadian troops are paying the price for being viable targets on the ground. It’s unfair to ask our troops to take punishment for war crimes perpetrated by the U.S. military.

It’s true, the Canadian press is constantly reporting Canadian casualties, but they can only estimate the far larger number of civilian deaths as Coalition forces refuse to count the bodies of dead Afghanis men, women and children.

The truth is that peace making, not peacekeeping in Afghanistan means that compliance is ordered through the barrel of a gun. Stephen Harper insists we are there to create a "democratic, prosperous and modern country."[5] History has taught us that very few wars are fought for such altruistic reasons.

There are more compelling, less honourable, economic and military motivations behind Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. According to Canada’s Economic Development Corporation, Canadian foreign investment is concentrated in two areas:
1. Oil, gas and energy markets in Asia
2. Financial institutions in the United States.

The economic reasons for Canadian involvement is perfectly clear, considering that Afghanistan is the gateway to oil markets in central Asia and the Caspian Sea; and investment in American banks means that elite business people in Canada profit off of new markets created by imperialist forays.

Just follow the money.

On a military strategic level, putting military bases in Afghanistan makes it easier for the United States to contain and challenge hostile and potentially hostile countries in the Persian Gulf region. These are the real reasons we are in Afghanistan.

To take my position on the war is not to support terrorism or the Taliban. Canada should not abandon the Afghanis people; however, the current mission is causing more harm than good. Calling for troops out of Afghanistan means we support our troops by getting them out of there and back home to their families.

Most Canadians support our traditional role as a peacekeeper nation. Most Canadians want to see Afghanis supported through humanitarian assistance and development through aid programs, not through destructive combat operations.

The nature of the US lead mission in Afghanistan is not working; we therefore must pull out and reorient our foreign policy to support a multinational peacekeeping force that truly emphasizes peace and rebuilding.

Troops out NOW!

-30-

Notes:

[1]A synopsis of the recent Angus Reid Poll: http://www.angusreid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12756

[2]See Z Mag Article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=10956

[3]See Human Rights Watch report: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/10/30/afghan3125.htm
See also http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1029-13.htm

[4]Ibid http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=49&ItemID=10956

[5]CBC Report: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/13/harper_afghanistan060313.html

You are correct Annon.

You are correct Annon. Stating the self-evident facts about a given subject is not particularly creative. It is however, of some value, when these facts are not openly discussed in the major media, to have an alternate venue, where local individuals can share what are standard dissident opinions.

Got any real criticisms?

Creative? Maybe it's creative, maybe it's not. Perhaps you should read this little article and attack the ideas, not me for my lack of creativity. The purpose of the article is not to be creative, but to deconstruct the military and government's reasoning behind why we are in Afghanistan. The purpose of the article was to show that we are not winning, and our best men and women in uniform are risking their lives for money and oil; not freedom or hope.

There really is not too much room for creativity when you are navigating the options for Canada's foreign policy. Unfortunately for Canada, it's either stay in the NATO mission, or get out. I'm sure I could ask our troops to do some sort of interpretive dancing, or performance art to persuade NATO commanders that Canadian troops are mentally unsound and therfore unfit for military service. That'd be more than an "ounce of creativity" on my part. Not very realistic though.

Sure my position is typical of the left. The left just seems to have the right ideas you know? The left doesn't agree that it's right to kill people for oil. The left is not blind to official rhetoric and ill conceived foreign policy. The left believes that all people are to be free in the economic and social sense of the word.

The angus reid report, the zmag article, and the human rights watch report are simply strong pieces of evidence supporting my thesis statement. Evidence is probably the most essential ingredient to any good argument.

I encourage you to actually read my article.

Anonymous

The ideas were already there, you just stole them and snuggled them into one article. Again, it would have been better to just post the articles one by one and give the real 'workers' here their 'fair earnings'.

I won't attack the idea's in the articles -- because this article is claimed to be an original piece, or else your name wouldn't be on it. It's charlatanism at its worst. Derrida, the creator of the word 'deconstruction', a word which you claim to have used (but used wrong) has often been claimed as such, and even he could have done better.

Either way, your 'thesis' is typical -- and anybody coming to 'citizenspress' would already know the arguments.

Interpretive dance would have been more impressive and intriguing.

Got Creativity?

I am under the impression that not one ounce of creativity went into this article. Instead it appears to be a reprint of the popular left opinion. The entire article revolves around its sources, it would have been much easier to just post them.