Canada, Obama and Afghanistan

Now that Barrack Obama has secured the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, I like many Canadians are starting to think more and more about how Canada would be affected if he were to be elected. This being a blog with a focus on international politics, the foreign policy aspects of an Obama presidency are what interest me the most.

I'm currently reading a compilation of essays by Noam Chomsky and an interesting thought struck me. In his essay titled, On Resistance, Chomsky reflects on the Vietnam War stating that,

"there is no basis for supposing that those who will make the major policy decisions are open to reason on the fundamental issues, in particular the issue of whether we, alone among the nations of the world, have the authority and the competence to determine the social and political institutions of Vietnam. What is more, there is little likelihood that the electoral process will bear on the major decisions."

I read this and see striking similarities between Chomsky's Vietnam and the current US presence in Iraq. Moving right past the overstated similarities in the US performance in these wars, both topics were contentious issues during electoral races. A major issue of debate during the primary season has been whether or not to pull out of Iraq. Obama has made it clear that he intends to remove the troops from Iraq and move some of them into Afghanistan.

"Some of the troops now in Iraq should be sent to Afghanistan, where he said the Iraq war has has 'disastrous consequences' for the battle against the al Qaeda terrorist network."

Chomsky believed that major issues like this are unlikely to be solved in elections but seeing as Obama has made this a staple of his platform, I would hazard a guess that the US involvement in Iraq is more likely to be affected by the upcoming presidential election than US involvement in Vietnam was. As such, Canada must begin to look forward and see how a candidate's election would affect our policies.

Obama's proposed plan of action would have a serious impact on Canada's foreign policy and the mission in Afghanistan. Already 1,000 US troops are moving from the eastern areas to Kandahar thanks to a new French contingent moving in. So this, in addition to US troops redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, is going to dramatically increase the number of US forces working in close proximity to Canadian Forces. Personally, I would prefer if there would be as little escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan as possible. Now normally I am in favour of increased interaction with our neighbour to the South but not this time.

US tactics in Afghanistan have been brutally inefficient. US policy has been to "bomb away" at things that both move and don't move. In terms of winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghan people, using tactics that produce unacceptable levels of collateral damage is not the way to go. Bombing the poppy fields and/or suspected al Qaeda strongholds further pushes the the Afghan people back towards the Taliban and al Qaeda and away from the peaceful re-construction that Canadians want from the Afghanistan mission. By taking away the poppies, the Afghan people are left without their major economic resource. This is in no way meant to be support for the illegal drug trade because poppies have many other uses which include producing vital, and legal, medicines that are need around the world. Also, bombing creates a high risk of injuring non-combatants. When this happens the enemy no longer is the insurgency but the people that are injuring (and killing) their family members, e.g. the people bombing them.

Despite what many Opposition MP's might claim (or used to claim), Canada has been enormously effective in making headway to a proper rebuilding of Afghanistan. Canadian Forces are working with the people to build a stable and legal economy while battling the corruption and insurgency that threatens to drag the Afghan people back into oppression. It would be unfortunate for both the Afghan people and the Canadian people working in country (Forces and Aid workers) to have US tactics become more prominent because for this to happen would greatly hamper or even undo the positive work that has been accomplished so far.

If Barrack Obama truly wants to pull out of Iraq, all the power to him but don't screw up a "good" (I know this isn't necessarily the most accurate word to use but it conveys the right message) thing in Afghanistan. Rotate the troops that are in Afghanistan but don't increase their numbers. If the desire to send troops abroad remains, try rebuilding the US foreign image a bit by helping the UN backed missions in Congo or Darfur. But remember, I said "help" not take over.

- blenCOWe