Debate over Afghanistan

[eyeball]

I stand corrected....I went by the UN forces instead of the UN/NATO mission (Kfor) .

There are 13,523 NATO troops in Kosovo who stand as a deterent against the Serbs.

And we have what, 40 odd thousand in all of Afghanistan and most of these are in areas where there's no fighting or are support staff for the handful that actually do any fighting.

Like I said in another thread where is the can-do...WILL-do... Starship Trooper attitude that is so apparent amongst you supporters but completely absent in the various Parliaments of NATO countries? It just doesn't exist. The West just does not have the stomach for the pagan ethos that Robert Kaplan writes about.

Either shit or get off the pot. There really is nothing more pathetic than a reluctant empire. We risk the same sort of danger that provoking a cornered animal with sharp sticks does. Either stop or finish it off. As it stands right now we're only prolonging the agony.

[scribblet]

The following is penned by a young Army Reserve Sergeant currently in Afghanistan, his mother has given permission to post this here for you all to read. And no, it is not an email chain letter.

It's been a long while since my last update. I've started writing three times, and stopped myself three times.

I did some reviewing and realized that I generally write in three veins; the personal, the political, and the philosophic.

Unfortunately, for those who were expecting a personal update, telling folks how I'm doing and what's going on, well, all I can say is that there have been so many changes that I can't keep up. This isn't going to be a breezy, nor short update, sorry.

Plus, there's an elephant in the room I absolutely must address...Three suicide bombs in three days. Over a hundred civilians dead. Some in Canada have again sounded a call to retreat. What are we doing here in Afghanistan?

This is a valid question, and one that I've devoted a lot of time to considering. Most of the guys here think about this a lot, too. There is a common misconception amongst some civilians that NATO soldiers (particularly American, but Canadian and European as well) are either mindless robots who don't question their orders, naïve jingoists, unfortunate dupes, right-wing ideologues, religious nuts or money-grubbing opportunists. That's not the case at all.

While I can't speak for Iraq, the general consensus amongst the soldiers I know from various nationalities is that we came to Afghanistan for one reason, but are staying for another. Ultimately, the rationale in both cases are argued both for and against in two dimensions; the pragmatic versus the principled. So, let's break this down…

We came here to oust the Taliban and rout Al Qaeda; what were our reasons? Well, as far as the principled / moral reasons go, the Taliban were a thoroughly shit regime that treated the Afghans like dogs (and their women and girls as worse than dogs). It was incumbent on us to do something, and some believe that it was a critical failing on our part that we did not act sooner.

With this in mind, critics may lament that if we actually cared about the morality of the issue, we would have acted sooner, or we would also engage in morally based intervention elsewhere. However, there are tens of thousands of moral outrages unaddressed on our planet, and we cannot rectify them all; there are limits to the power of the Western states. The way we can pare these crises and injustices down is to try to address issues that present a pragmatic benefit to us, but prioritize them and address only the ones that pass a moral filter

(commonly defined in Thomas Aquinas' conception of Jus Ad Bellum).

So our pragmatic reasons? Of these there are many, but I consider one to be of primordial importance; after 9/11 we were compelled to prove the terrible consequences of attacking a NATO nation. To fail to do so would have encouraged future attacks. This was a fundamental threat to future deterrence. Thus, this overwhelming pragmatic compulsion to act brought a long-simmering moral issue to the fore.

There were legitimate moral arguments against our intervention, but the question is whether our pragmatic and principled justifications to intervene overrode the moral arguments against acting. What right did we have to invade the sovereignty of another nation when it was non-state actors that provoked our action? What would be the human cost of our invasion in terms of collateral damage? Ultimately, I think that by deterring future attacks on the West and disrupting the organization that blew up embassies in Africa as well as office buildings in the United States, we saved more lives in the long run.

So, that's the invasion in a nutshell. We could have sat back and exclaimed that we were done, that we had met our requirements, but now we have another kettle of fish; once we have removed a regime from power, what is our moral responsibility to shepherd that society through the chaos that will inevitably follow?

Well, I think this issue is a little more clear in terms of morality, but less so in terms of pragmatism. The clear moral reason is twofold; not only did we prevent future violence on a greater scale through reinforcing the deterrent value of attacking a NATO nation, we also removed a truly vile regime from the backs of these poor people here.

OK, but why are we still here then? Simple; we shattered the institutions of government in this country, and to do nothing to avert complete chaos in a power vacuum would be the height of immorality.

(As an aside, for most opposed to our mission, their criticism of our initial invasion was that it was wrong to attack; a moral argument.

Despite this, their opposition to our current mission is that it is futile, that it is impossible to succeed; a pragmatic argument. This is some impressive intellectual gymnastics to twist one's position so thoroughly.)

Our pragmatic reasons however, are at this point generally not brought up in any debate that I have seen back in Canada; and this is the crux of what I see as the problem in the dialog that we see amongst our parliamentarians and pundits; nobody is debating the rational, clinically cold benefits versus the costs of staying here and fighting

on. The debate is fraught with morality-based arguments (and accusations). But nobody is really debating the realpolitik of what we're doing here, and it's greater strategic impact on the globe.

Most of the anti-war crowd have currently attached themselves to a limited pragmatic argument; that no matter how moral our continuing presence may or may not be, they claim that it is not practical to stay here as we have no chance of success and that the expense in terms of money or Canadian lives is not worth any possible benefit.

Most soldiers I know feel that we have a realistic chance of success, even when constrained to fight in a moral manner (in general accordance with Aquinas' conception of Jus In Bello), even though our enemies are under no such constraints. As I've written extensively on that subject before, I won't get into it again. However, we as a

society have have not investigated that benefit of our action in practical terms, and less so the heavy costs of not continuing to support the people of Afghanistan.

We are at a turning point in History. There is a fundamental development underway that is larger than the growth of Islamic radicalism. Right now, the West has what is probably our absolute last chance to prove decisively that insurgency can be defeated. This again speaks to deterrence, and our actions in the next couple of years will

determine the future trends of world conflict.

There are examples of successful counter-insurgency; The British successes in Malaysia and Oman stand out as some examples, but they are fading in memory. Today, insurgency and terrorism is seen as a very viable tactic; one that with enough patience will inevitably win against any technically or numerically superior foe. Afghanistan is probably the closest we have come since Malaysia or Oman to a successful counter-insurgency campaign, rooted in development of governance, infrastructure, education, reconstruction and combat. To

put it bluntly, the Taliban are broken and barely hanging on, fractured with infighting and lashing out in desperate attacks against civilians, further separating them from any potential base of popular support.

Today, we are at the cusp of deterring insurgencies across the globe; And it's not just Islamic radicalism that is watching us… The FARC in Columbia, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and other non-muslim insurgencies

are paying close attention to the strategy, tactics, and fortunes of our action in Afghanistan. Doing likewse are the tribal militias in Kenya, the Janjaweed in Sudan, and any number of villains with an AK-47, some explosives and a nihilistic ideology. Further, they are looking closely at the people's and government's resolve within all NATO nations.

Ultimately, what will be the course of history from this point? Will we validate insurgency as a viable tactic by quitting now, despite the fact that the insurgency here in Afghanistan is virtually crippled and sustained only on the hope that we in the West lose interest? Or will we be able to deter insurgencies across the globe in the future,

preventing even more bloodshed in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa? What about the growing radicalism (both of the right wing fascist and jihadist varities) in Europe; what will they think of our

failure to show resolve in the face of such a test? Do they smell an opportunity? What will they think about the validity of using violence to achieve their political objectives? What about the few violent or lawless aboriginal bands or groups in Canada and the United States?

Will they graduate to a higher form of "resistance" than roadblocks and land occupation?

Are we willing to run from Afghanistan only to encourage an insurgency in Canada?

The West has made mistakes in our history. I am very quick to admit that. We have caused a great deal of suffering in the world, but honestly no less than any other great civilization... But we have much more to be proud of. We created the concepts of personal liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the free market. We facilitated the return of democracy to the modern age, dramatically lengthened the human lifespan across the globe, pushed the boundaries of science, and created mass communication. Of all civilizations

across the globe, we best demonstrate meritocracy and have the least corrupt governance. Our society was the first of the great civilizations to concieve of and implement female emancipation, abolition of slavery, and the notion that all races are equal.

Of course we have a long way to go, but at least we are on that journey; The civilizations with which we compete are not even there yet. Only where we can exert a positive influence can conditions improve.

Unfortunately, Western influence on global affairs is fragile. If we cannot demonstrate capability and resolve, even when we have both the moral high-ground and the pragmatic motivation to succeed, we invalidate our entire value system... And we will not only lose Afghanistan, we will also lose the 21st century to global chaos.

So, back to Kandahar; most of the soldiers I know understand what's at stake in our fight. Maybe they all haven't verbalized it to the same degree as I just have, but there is a general perception that Canadians don't quite realize just how much is at stake. We fear that they will throw away our gains and sacrifice our future security for

immediate comfort and smug self-righteousness. To be honest, that fickleness scares the hell out of us more than the Taliban do.

[Wild Bill]

This soldier's letter should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada! When his hitch is up I hope he could find a job teaching young folks about History & Moral Philosophy!

For the first time in years I'm moved to pride in being a Canadian. Clear thinking and clear values, as opposed to the fuzzy illogic of so many yammerheads.

Perhaps there's some hope after all.

[Wilber]

Awesome

[MontyBurns]

This soldier's letter should be on the front page of every newspaper in Canada! When his hitch is up I hope he could find a job teaching young folks about History & Moral Philosophy!

For the first time in years I'm moved to pride in being a Canadian. Clear thinking and clear values, as opposed to the fuzzy illogic of so many yammerheads.

Perhaps there's some hope after all.

We're finally moving in the right direction.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Clear thinking and clear values, as opposed to the fuzzy illogic of so many yammerheads.

Indeed...this Canadian's clarity of purpose is remarkable.

[Peter F]

Indeed...this Canadian's clarity of purpose is remarkable.

Sadly, I disagree. I am sure, however, that the good Sgt finds it all rock solid and justifies his commitment to the cause.

Nevertheless, as one of those who scares the hell out of him more than the Taliban do, I feel compelled to answer this essay in an attempt to show that he need not fear my wishes and wants. His fear should be directed towards those that committed him to a 'must win' cause (as he see's it) and yet won't, or more probably, can't provide the means to win it.

he Sgt says:

there are tens of thousands of moral outrages unaddressed on our planet, and we cannot rectify them all; there are limits to the power of the Western states. The way we can pare these crises and injustices down is to try to address issues that present a pragmatic benefit to us, but prioritize them and address only the ones that pass a moral filter

then, conversly, says:

We are at a turning point in History. There is a fundamental development underway that is larger than the growth of Islamic radicalism. Right now, the West has what is probably our absolute last chance to prove decisively that insurgency can be defeated. This again speaks to deterrence, and our actions in the next couple of years will determine the future trends of world conflict.

and

Ultimately, what will be the course of history from this point? Will we validate insurgency as a viable tactic by quitting now, despite the fact that the insurgency here in Afghanistan is virtually crippled and sustained only on the hope that we in the West lose interest? Or will we be able to deter insurgencies across the globe in the future,

preventing even more bloodshed in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa? What about the growing radicalism (both of the right wing fascist and jihadist varities) in Europe; what will they think of our

failure to show resolve in the face of such a test? Do they smell an opportunity? What will they think about the validity of using violence to achieve their political objectives? What about the few violent or lawless aboriginal bands or groups in Canada and the United States?

Will they graduate to a higher form of "resistance" than roadblocks and land occupation?

Are we willing to run from Afghanistan only to encourage an insurgency in Canada?

The Sgt has ignored the dilema. Niether Canada nor the West in general can commit to defeat all insurgencies - in fact we need to pragmatically pick and choose which insurgencies need defeating; Yet no insurgency can be allowed to succeed because...

If we cannot demonstrate capability and resolve, even when we have both the moral high-ground and the pragmatic motivation to succeed, we invalidate our entire value system... And we will not only lose Afghanistan, we will also lose the 21st century to global chaos.

So, there the good Sgt and his comrades are doing thier damdest and expending thier blood to win the 'must-win' war....and at the same

the Sgt says:

nobody is debating the rational, clinically cold benefits versus the costs of staying here and fighting

on. The debate is fraught with morality-based arguments (and accusations). But nobody is really debating the realpolitik of what we're doing here, and it's greater strategic impact on the globe.

I, the great terror, would like to point out the following 'realpolitik'

Canada needs 1000 more soldiers to successfully carry out its mission.

Canada will not/cannot commit 1000 more soldiers to successfully carry out its mission.

Canada committed the Canadian Forces to a combat role in Afghanistan and the responsibility for the security of Kandahar. Canada did so without the troops, the tanks, the heavy lift, the tactical helicopters and without the firm support of the Canadian citizenry behind them.

I suggest he need fear the people who made the operational appreciation prior to advising the PM that this job was not only do-able but do-able indefinately.

That would necessarily include the people responsible for such things, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Hillier and the Defence Minister's of P.Martin's Liberal government, and the present MoD in Harpers government.

The Sgt may very well think that the outcome of the Battle for Afghanistan as a turning point in world history. If he is right (and I do not believe he is) then it is criminal for Canada and Nato (the USofA excepted) to be farting around as we are, have been doing and will be doing. If the Sgt is correct his and his comrades terror of me and my ilk is sadly misdirected. He should perhaps consider the intelligence and strategic failures of the present and past governments. Terrible me and my ilk have said we should not have gone in thier and taken on the responsiblility in the first place. (well...to be honest more 'my ilk' than 'me' since I have dithered about on the matter).

So, in light of the Sgt's contention that Afghanistan must be won, what would be the preferred course of action? Under committing to a decisive cause or no committment at all and picking our battles more carefully? The true issue here, as the Sgt has pointed out, is not the morality of who is right and who is wrong, but showing insurgencies our resolve.

On the other hand...We are stuck with it now. In my opinion, the committment to Afghanistan was the most idiotic thing the Canadian government could have done, and the man largely responsible for this idiocy General Hillier, is a prime example of the 'Peter Principle' at work.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

...The Sgt may very well think that the outcome of the Battle for Afghanistan as a turning point in world history. If he is right (and I do not believe he is) then it is criminal for Canada and Nato (the USofA excepted) to be farting around as we are, have been doing and will be doing.

Why would the USofA be excepted?

If the Sgt is correct his and his comrades terror of me and my ilk is sadly misdirected. He should perhaps consider the intelligence and strategic failures of the present and past governments.

I think he has...time to make up for lost opportunities.

Terrible me and my ilk have said we should not have gone in thier and taken on the responsiblility in the first place. (well...to be honest more 'my ilk' than 'me' since I have dithered about on the matter).

Indeed....you had the luxury to dither.

So, in light of the Sgt's contention that Afghanistan must be won, what would be the preferred course of action? Under committing to a decisive cause or no committment at all and picking our battles more carefully? The true issue here, as the Sgt has pointed out, is not the morality of who is right and who is wrong, but showing insurgencies our resolve.

Correct....this is not a moral struggle.

On the other hand...We are stuck with it now. In my opinion, the committment to Afghanistan was the most idiotic thing the Canadian government could have done, and the man largely responsible for this idiocy General Hillier, is a prime example of the 'Peter Principle' at work.

Yet, a crisp "No!" came so easily for Iraq. Would that have been "smarter"? If it always takes Nazis crossing the Rhine to get more of a commitment, sell it all on eBay and bow out forever.

Edited March 16, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

In my opinion, the committment to Afghanistan was the most idiotic thing the Canadian government could have done, and the man largely responsible for this idiocy General Hillier, is a prime example of the 'Peter Principle' at work.

The way I look at it, the consolation prize for not joining the war in Iraq was to deploy our military to Afghanistan. Wasn't that Jean Chretien's brainchild? I have a feeling many Canadians were blind sided by this abrupt decision. But hey, Chretien was in a majority and had carte blanche did he not?

I never heard of a Canadian Chief of Defence Staff committing this country to a war. Incompetent or not, Hillier is marching to Parliament's orders and apparently our soldiers are totally devoted to him. At this point, whatever makes our military in Afghanistan happy, I'm all for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

The way I look at it, the consolation prize for not joining the war in Iraq was to deploy our military to Afghanistan. Wasn't that Jean Chretien's brainchild? I have a feeling many Canadians were blind sided by this abrupt decision. But hey, Chretien was in a majority and had carte blanche did he not?

Absolutely...it was as if anything else would do just to avoid Iraq. Afghanistan was the perfect cause (and expedient excuse).

I never heard of a Canadian Chief of Defence Staff committing this country to a war. Incompetent or not, Hillier is marching to Parliament's orders and apparently our soldiers are totally devoted to him. At this point, whatever makes our military in Afghanistan happy, I'm all for it.

Poor General Hillier.....he spilled the beans about "peacekilling".

[Peter F]

Why would the USofA be excepted?

Half the ground forces and almost all the airforces committed to Afghanistan are American, not to mention the huge amount of 'other' support for those nations lacking such things. Considering the American committments elsewhere, it appears that the USA is doing its utmost

with troops and treasure to defeat the counterinsurgency. If not, then the Sgt's view that Afghanistan is the decisive battle for the safety of the west is not shared by the US.

Yet, a crisp "No!" came so easily for Iraq. Would that have been "smarter"? If it always takes Nazis crossing the Rhine to get more of a commitment, sell it all on eBay and bow out forever.

Was a crisp 'no' to Iraq smarter? If not then Afghanistan isnt the decisive battle the Sgt suggests it is - Iraq is. In which case Canada isn't fighting the decisive battle. If 'yes' to Iraq was smarter than 'no' would we then have had the troops, tanks, heavy lift and popular support? No. Those things would not have changed and we would still be in the decisive campaign with inadequate resources, thus increasing the risk of the Sgt's worst possible outcome: Failure to defeat the insurgency no matter where we committed our troops.

Of course, the Sgt beleives we do have adequate resources to do the job, contrary to the Manly report and the present governments acceptance of that report...and this present government are not a bunch of peacniks searching for a way out

There appears to be a contradiction between what the Sgt thinks is going on and what the government thinks is going on.

As for selling it all on Ebay...I'm agreable to that. I don't think Canada should be attempting to be a major power-player in the world so's we can have seats at other peoples tables. We are a minor power at best, and we aint fooling anyone by talking big.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Peter F

[Peter F]

The way I look at it, the consolation prize for not joining the war in Iraq was to deploy our military to Afghanistan. Wasn't that Jean Chretien's brainchild? I have a feeling many Canadians were blind sided by this abrupt decision. But hey, Chretien was in a majority and had carte blanche did he not?

I never heard of a Canadian Chief of Defence Staff committing this country to a war. Incompetent or not, Hillier is marching to Parliament's orders and apparently our soldiers are totally devoted to him. At this point, whatever makes our military in Afghanistan happy, I'm all for it.

The CDS has a responsibility to advise the government on military matters. The Manley report made it pretty clear that what Canada intended to do and what we can do are not the same things.

Chretien, if I remember correctly, committed some ships and the JTF to Afghanistan - but that was all he committed. It was Paul Martin wich committed our troops to the task of securing Kandahar province with the assurance from the CDS that not only was such a task within the means of the CAF but we'd be able to commit adequate resources to Darfur to boot

Of course, its all hindsight...but nevertheless somebody fuckedup somewhere...

[bush_cheney2004]

....Those things would not have changed and we would still be in the decisive campaign with inadequate resources, thus increasing the risk of the Sgt's worst possible outcome: Failure to defeat the insurgency no matter where we committed our troops.

It was precisely because Canada lacked the requisite resources to have any meaningful impact in Iraq that made collective commitment under UN/NATO sanction in Afghanistan the imperative. As to the possibility of failure, one need only recount Canada's limited role and resources for WW2's Pacific theatre.....hardly an indicator of eventual "failure" or reason to abandon all effort. It's not all about Canada, and our committed Sgt. understands this.

Of course, the Sgt beleives we do have adequate resources to do the job, contrary to the Manly report and the present governments acceptance of that report...and this present government are not a bunch of peacniks searching for a way out

There appears to be a contradiction between what the Sgt thinks is going on and what the government thinks is going on.

The Sgt. is correct....the resources certainly exist amongst NATO members....it's just a matter of a political commitment strong enough to match his. The Manley Report was a domestic exercise in gamesmanship that PM Harper just won (Parliament vote).

Stopping the flow of Pashtun fighters is a bigger challenge that must include Pakistan, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

As for selling it all on Ebay...I'm agreable to that. I don't think Canada should be attempting to be a major power-player in the world so's we can have seats at other peoples tables. We are a minor power at best, and we aint fooling anyone by talking big.

Abandoning all such capabilities is problematic internationally (e.g. NATO & UN) and domestically (e.g sovereignty and national emergency). If Canada wishes to benefit from collective security arrangements and capabilities, then it has to bring something to the party.

Edited March 16, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Peter F]

It was precisely because Canada lacked the requisite resources to have any meaningful impact in Iraq that made collective commitment under UN/NATO sanction in Afghanistan the imperative. As to the possibility of failure, one need only recount Canada's limited role and resources for WW2's Pacific theatre.....hardly an indicator of eventual "failure" or reason to abandon all effort. It's not all about Canada, and our committed Sgt. understands this.

The Sgt. is correct....the resources certainly exist amongst NATO members....it's just a matter of a political commitment strong enough to match his. The Manley Report was a domestic exercise in gamesmanship that PM Harper just won (Parliament vote).

Abandoning all such capabilities is problematic internationally (e.g. NATO & UN) and domestically (e.g sovereignty and national emergency). If Canada wishes to benefit from collective security arrangements and capabilities, then it has to bring something to the party.

True, If we want to benefit from collective security it is necessary to bring something to the party. To that end Canada did: 2500 troops.

No tanks, no helicopters, no air force, no MP's for detainees but lots of money. Nor, apparently, did we need all that ancillary stuff to do the job in Kandahar. In 3 or 4 more years, when the Afghan army will be deemed ready, we will declare victory and leave - wether the Taliban are defeated or not. Unfortunatly, it won't save any of us from another terrorist attack.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unfortunatly, it won't save any of us from another terrorist attack.

Well that's good to know....now we can stop all that silly security screening at airports too!

[Peter F]

Well that's good to know....now we can stop all that silly security screening at airports too!

Membership in Nato had zilch to do with 9/11, the london bombings nor the Madrid bombings. All our collective security amounted to dick in each of those cases. Confronting the Warsaw Pact - now there was some collective security.

[jbg]

Membership in Nato had zilch to do with 9/11, the london bombings nor the Madrid bombings. All our collective security amounted to dick in each of those cases. Confronting the Warsaw Pact - now there was some collective security.

The difference is that the Warsaw Pace was traditional state-to-state conflict. The London, Madrid and New York attacks are "non-state" events.

[Topaz]

I just wonder how the next election will affect the Cons and the Libs since a greater % of Canadians don't think we should be there. The Cons are saying we are there for the freedom of the women and children from the Taliban but, some of the citizens aren't that safe with the present government either especially if you are Christian. The government says we are building schools especially for the girls but this past weekend the Taliban or someone burned down two schools. What happens when our Canadian troops numbers fall, are we going to NATO again and beg for troops? The Taliban has said they are going to go after Canadian troops until we pull out or they are all dead then they will go after the US and the Dutch. They won't talk peace until the NATO and the US pulls out. So I guess we are there until we have no troops to fight. Just like the US was helping the Afghans against the Russia I bet the Russians and other are helping the Taliban.

[Wild Bill]

The Taliban has said they are going to go after Canadian troops until we pull out or they are all dead then they will go after the US and the Dutch. They won't talk peace until the NATO and the US pulls out.

They won't talk peace until NATO and the US pulls out? That sounds kinda funny...

First off, the US is part of Nato. Second, explain to us how that is different from saying "We won't talk peace until we've won!".

After all, as soon as NATO leaves the Taliban moves back in, stuffs all the women into burkhas, takes all female children out of school, kills all the female teachers for going against their fundamentalist teachings and congratulates themselves on successfully defeating their opponents!

Or are you implying that after NATO pulls out the Taliban will stay out of those areas presently in NATO hands and negotiate about returning?

Or am I missing something?