Just A Thought...

Have you ever stepped back and considered if we've vilified the wrong war?

Political junkie as I am, I have been avidly reading the news/blog articles and television coverage of Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff (of whom I am a big fan) and his rise to the leadership of the Liberal Party. One major critique that has arose time and time again is his initial support of US intervention in Iraq, in 2003. His argument that Saddam Hussein' removal, as a threat to human rights, was different than the intentions of G.W. Bush but the means ended up being the same.

A number of recent events:

- the passage of the Status of Forces Agreement by the Iraqi Government, requiring the removal of US forces within a set timeline in the next year

- Canada's decision to withdraw from a combat role in Afghanistan in 2011

- Secretary of Defence Robert Gates' request that Canada remain committed to the Afghan mission beyond 2011

have made me start to think that Iraq may not have been as bad as completely terrible as it has been made out to be. (this is where I will become a pariah, lol)

Just look at the reality of the situations; Saddam Hussein was removed as a threat to the international order/security as well as to the human rights of Iraqi citizens. The new government has been able to solidify itself as a somewhat stable regime or at least enough that they could come together to democratically pass legislation to boot the US out of their lands.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the insurgency is by no means in decline, the US has had to recommit to sending a surge of troops into the theater, Canada has backed out, NATO support has been weak to take a real commitment to the mission (the decision by major NATO members... cough cough FRANCE, GERMANY... cough cough COWARDS... cough... to take up the missions in the more peaceful regions of Afghanistan rather than commit their greater resources to the mission in Kandahar), the weakness of infrastructure (Karzai's government, Afghan police and army) and the growing perception that the ISAF will be in Afghanistan for at least 10 more years.

Despite this, the mission in Afghanistan is seen as the more legitimate mission in international security!

Now don't get all tied up in knots, I'm just saying its kind of curious

- blenCOWe

We Knew This Was Coming!

Since winning the US Presidential election in November, many Canadians have been pondering the question of whether Obama's commitment to winning in Afghanistan would have any effect on Canada's withdrawal date in 2011.

It was pretty clear that the United States would ask Canada to recommit to the Afghan mission. Well today our expectations were met when Current and future Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, asked Canada to stay on past 2011. Gates has asked that Canadians stay on in the volatile region of Kandahar, praising that,

"Proportionally, none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians. They have been outstanding partners for us, and all I can tell you, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is."

Realistically, and I have said this before, Canada will not commit to a longer military presence in Afghanistan. Our body count is rising, our government is divided and the people are getting tired of politics as of late. We are suffering from battle fatigue and need a break. Canada needs to regroup, rest and refocus so that we can continue to push for a strong(er) position in the international community.

Now I'm not saying this because I believe that we should be in other theaters (like Darfur) but because I truly believe that Canada will be worse off if it decides to answer Gates' call. Canada's forces are not designed for this kind of mission. We neither have the strength, the equipment nor the political or public support for a long, drawn out occupation in Afghanistan.

This is one time that Canada must absolutely step up and firmly say no when the US calls.

- blenCOWe

See, I Told Ya!

I saw this coming from a mile away!

"Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said on Sunday that a stepped-up emphasis by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on fighting terrorism in Afghanistan won't change Canada's plans to pull its military out of that country in 2011" -- Reuters

- blenCOWe

He's Good But Not That Good

I was reading the Embassy magazine today and Jeff Davis has an article in it examining what effect Barack Obama's election will have on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan. One idea that comes up in his examination is that maybe President Obama will ask Canada to stay longer than the 2011 pull out date that was agreed upon in the last parliament.

Now I've read the articles and seen the showings of support for Canadians for Obama; the most surprising of all being the poll that claimed that as much as 80% of Canadians would vote for Obama if they could (a truly amazing idea considering that not even 60% of Canadians voted for their own politicians!). But even though the majority of Canadians like Obama, I don't know if this support would change Canadians minds about the Afghan mission.

For the past couple years, Canadian Forces have handled the dirty work of the mission, working in the places that no one else will. Other allies have greater numbers and better equipment, but it has been up to Canada to shoulder the brunt of the workload. Our nation did not shy away from this task either, we recognized the importance of the mission and got to work. This has, however, taken a toll on both the Canadians Forces and the political will of the nation.

I don't care how much Canadians like Obama or how close Canada is as an ally, the Canadian people have demanded that Canada be relieved of this terrible burden and it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon. In fact, Obama's commitment to re-deploy troops to Afghanistan will probably bolster Canadians' resolve that our forces need no longer be in Afghanistan.

President-elect Barack Obama may be the latest and greatest in international politics but when all is said and done, the dover principle takes over and the people of this nation will see the Canadians coming home in body bags and forget all about how much they like Obama.

- blenCOWe

Taliban bombs Afghan government

During the recent election and in the short period after, we have heard repeated calls from sources within the Canadian government as well as the international community to begin talks with the Taliban leadership in order to find an end to the conflict in Afghanistan.

My personal thoughts on this have pretty much bordered on the concept of "yeah right, like the Taliban will negotiate in earnest!" Well it seems like I wasn't too far off the mark with this one.

"Taliban militants stormed a government building in the centre of the Afghan capital on Thursday and one of them blew himself up inside, killing five people, officials and witnesses said" -- Globe and Mail

Clearly the Taliban is not interested in negotiating with the Afghan government if it is attempting to bomb it. The reality is, the Taliban do not recognize the authority of Hamid Karzai's government and will not cooperate with it in finding a peaceful solution. The Taliban want their rule restored, simple as that!

- blenCOWe

Some Good News for the Afghan Mission

In the debates between John McCain and Barack Obama in the lead up to this November's presidential election we have heard how the United States must re-commit to the mission in Afghanistan. Typically, this has involved a surge of US troops that is supposed to help combat the ongoing insurgency, especially in the troublesome Kandahar region.

I have commented in the past how I believe that the last thing the Afghan mission needs is more US troops involved. The tactics and mentality of the United States is hampering the good work that the other contingents' troops are doing. Dropping bombs on innocent Afghan people and the other slopping tactics employed by the US forces create enemies from those people who lose family members and loved ones from these tactics. Battling the insurgency requires, to use the popular phrase, winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. The US and their tactics are killing the people whose minds we're trying to win over and/or turning them against the work that NATO forces are trying to do.

With this in mind, I was happy to see that the US Department of Defense has determined that the desired three additional brigade combat teams will not be deployed any time soon. Apparently the United States does not have the manpower to fulfill this further commitment without changing soldiers' deployment or lengths of tours.

Finally some good news for the Afghan mission!

Of late, the Afghan mission has suffered in its support from recent announcements from the Canadian government that their forces will be withdrawn from the mission in 2011. Then there is the current debate going on in the French government on the future of their deployed troops.

Despite this trouble in support for the mission, I truely believe that the more that the United States can be limited in its role and influence in the Afghan mission, the greater the chance for success. Therefore, this revelation that the US will not be sending the proposed 3 brigades is a good thing.

- blenCOWe

Bad Tactics

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has come out and proposed recently that the tactics that the United States has employed in Iraq should be applied to battle the insurgency in Afghanistan. These tactics would include increasing the number of deployments of US forces in Afghanistan.

In addition, on Monday Democratic candidate Barack Obama has said that "as president he would send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers face rising violence and endured their deadliest attacks in three years on Sunday."

Statements like these really worry me about the future of Afghanistan and the success of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. Not to diminish the value of the U.S. soldiers that recently gave the greatest sacrifice a person can, but the response that has ensued from American leaders is not in the best interests of the Afghan people or the mission.

Right now, a lot of the problems in Afghanistan are being created by the United States' presence and tactics. U.S. led air strikes are making the situation much more worse than whatever strategic gains are made. These air strikes are inaccurate, killing many civilians and undoing the positive effects of the efforts to win the hearts and minds. Increasing the presence of the U.S. forces that so many Afghans identify with the bombings that are killing their loved ones will increase the resistance to foreign involvement. This means that the efforts of the other nations working, alongside the Afghans, to build up the country will be impeded by a greater resistance effort.

"McCain added: 'I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected president, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory'. "

If Mr. McCain really knows how to win wars then he should know that by provoking the resistance to foreign involvement will only exacerbate the problems facing the mission and jeopardize the development that is crucial in this rebuilding process. U.S. tactics are creating more and more enemies and this is not favourable in the growing trend of asymetric warfare.

If the U.S. leaders really want to increase their nation's assistance to the Afghan mission then they should use their ample supplies of both money and equipment to increase the availability of these precious resources. This would benefit all involved, especially the Afghans, and would provide a greater emphasis on the non-combat aspects of this mission.

Afghanistan is not Iraq and another controversial surge is not the remedy to the Afghan insurgency.

- blenCOWe

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