[Recollection] Oh yeah, we're still at war...

Last week the war on terror ended... didn't it? Israel ended its horrific bombing campaign in Gaza; Iraqi troops are slowly taking over control of the US operations in their country; In his second day in office; Obama closed down the illegal torture prison at Guantanamo. Indeed, with the passing of presidential power from Bush to Obama, the war on terror is now officially over. We can all take a big sigh of relief as hope and change washes over the Middle East, bringing peace to us all.

Oh wait... are we still in Afghanistan?
As it turns out, we are! There are over 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan conducting operations at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers of $1.3 million per day (Just imagine what that money could be doing for our crumbling infrastructure and cash-strapped municipalities back at home). Canada forms one of the largest contingents of the 31,000 troops from 37 countries currently there. Over 107 Canadians have died there, and of course there is no telling how many innocent civilians have died at the hands of our soldiers, our bombs, our guns (nobody seems to keep count of "collateral damage" like innocent civilians).

But it's not like we're at war there.. we're just providing security for development projects, right?
The fact is we're still hunting down militants and trying to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda... very similar to the way Israel recently tried to hunt down and destroy Hamas in the Gaza strip. Recall that during the Israeli incursion of Gaza some thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians were killed in the barrage of missiles and bombs and bullets aimed at the militants hiding amongst them. If you think the situation is any different in Afghanistan, you're wrong. As it turns out, Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission issued a report in December 2008 that accuses the Canadian and American forces of exacerbating the war because of air strikes and nighttime raids on civilian homes that often result in violence, destruction and death. The report notes "Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization." The UN notes that 25% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by air strikes. Of course, the Canadian commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier General Denis Thompson, denies that air strikes or home invasions - which undoubtedly terrorize the civilian population - are a problem and he claims that Canadian soldiers always follow "proper escalation of force procedures"... (just like the IDF soldiers in Gaza followed proper procedures there, right?).

But... don't we have a responsibility to NATO?
Our responsibility to NATO is to bring informed, intelligent debate to the table and explore all possible diplomatic options before making rash decisions like joining in a protracted war against an insurgent army. Like a good friend, we should be trying to convince our fellow NATO members that an invasion by a coalition like the ISAF is wrong-headed and will only strengthen the Taliban's resolve. If we were really interested in "development", we wouldn't be spending 5 times as much on our military mission as on our 'development' mission; we would have 2500 aid workers there, not 2500 soldiers. Besides, every NATO member has the reserved right to NOT declare war if another member of the alliance is attacked... but let's be clear, Afghanistan never attacked the United States (al Qaeda did), so why are we punishing innocent Afghan civilians?

If we're going to accept the hope and change rhetoric, then we're going to have to bring hope and change to Afghanistan. Let's pull our troops out and quadruple our efforts towards non-militaristic aid - genuine development aid. If we must provide such development projects with security, let's do it the right way, let's get the United Nations involved - particularly neighboring Muslim countries - to bring in and supply Peacekeepers to protect international aid organizations. The last thing we should be sending to Afghanistan is a malicious military force that invades civilian homes at night looking for suspected militants.

Amidst the economic woes and starspangled Obamamania that has taken over our full attention here in North America, we must not forget the fact that we are still at war, even though the warmongers have all been voted out of office.

[Misguided Logic] A Lacking Morality

In what appears to be a sick replay of previous events, and a frightening warning of events to come, three Canadian soldiers were killed yesterday in Kandahar when a roadside bomb detonated next to their vehicle. Two of them have left behind wives and daughters, and if that isn't sad enough, it is an immense pity that I can almost guarantee that this exact type of death will occur again soon, leaving yet more Canadian families in mourning. And yet, with its typical immoral flair, our government will continue to fund and promote this war. What's more, we Canadians will be asked to continue to support our "boys in Afghanistan", in order to keep up troop morale. Well I already do support our troops (at least in the sense that they are hard working and courageous individuals who selflessly volunteered to take part in something they believe in)... But if we support them, why don't we bring them home so that they don't continue dying?

This morning, CBC Edmonton's morning radio show interviewed Christian Leuprecht, Associate Professor at the Royal Military College in Kingston, regarding Canadian troop morale in the face of the recent deaths. I think he made some important points - many of which I agree with - but I believe his conclusions were somewhat misguided. At first Leuprecht explained how the Taliban resistance was becoming more recluse and resorting more and more to guerrilla tactics such as roadside bombs and surprise attacks installations rather than conventional armed attacks on the coalition-manned areas. He then stated that this is a sign that the Taliban is weaker than it was previously. Fair enough.

However, Leuprecht concluded that this fact positively affects Canadian troop morale, and negatively affects Taliban resolve (because the Taliban know they are fighting a more powerful enemy and vice versa). I think this conclusion is overspeculative and simplistic, if not misguided. As Christine Fair, an expert with the Rand Corporation said today - the Taliban is getting much bolder with their insurgent tactics: "They are getting better. They are getting more effective. They are learning by doing." This is the nature of guerrilla warfare. The Taliban see this as a long and protracted unconventional war. They've got all the time in the world to fulfill their prophecy (yet again) of ridding the foreign invaders from their homeland, while the coalition forces are on bureacratic timelines based on budgets and dependent on "democratic support". The more coalition soldiers killed, the closer the insurgents are to getting the coalition members to withdraw from the war effort. Militarily speaking, the Taliban is outmanned and outgunned, but they are fighting for ideological reasons that are unwaveringly powerful. The Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, are fighting in a foreign land, away from their families, for reasons that are not entirely clear to anyone. The notion that they are fighting to "protect Canada" requires a massive mental leap that I, for one, am not willing to make. They are unable to engage the enemy in the type of warfare they are trained for, and instead, they are always wondering if this is the day that a roadside bomb will blow up next to their patrol vehicle. This is not good for morale!

The fact that the coalition forces are stronger militarily is a mute point when they are fighting against a hidden insurgency using dirty senseless tactics. Think Vietnam: The Viet Cong were nowhere near a military match for the combined American and South Vietnamese armies. Yet their resolve to remove foreigners and imperialists from their home country was so powerful, that they were willing to live in sweltering jungles infested with snakes and poisonous insects and tigers, eating meager rations of rice for years on end - all for a powerful nationalistic resolve similar to that felt by Afghan insurgents today. And let's remember who eventually won the Vietnam war? That's right, the army that was outnumbered and outgunned managed to inflict enough physical and financial damage upon the United States, that the latter had no option left but to withdraw.

Secondly, Leuprecht stated that the Canadian troops will maintain high morale when they know that they are "supported" back home. Although he didn't directly say it, he implied that this is good enough reason for us Canadians to support our troops, "whether or not we support the mission". Again, a logical assumption to start off with - you feel better when you know there are others thinking of you and wishing you the best- but I think the overall picture is more complex, particularly when we are addressing the psychology of those engaged in a foreign military battle.

We already know from numerous historical examples that troops who are sent abroad to fight begin to feel a detachment from their community back home. Day after day their new lives depend entirely on their fellow soldiers. This is their new community. These are the guys who they eat, sleep and shit with. These are the guys who really know what they've been through and who have shared the near-death experiences with them. Further, the war becomes personalized: It's not about "making my fellow countrymen proud" so much as it's about survival. It's about "beating these sons of bitches and rocket-launching them back to the stone age". It's about covering Pete while he runs from turret to turret. It's about avenging Pete's death when he gets killed in battle. It's about doing "whatever I need to do to make sure I get out of this hell hole alive". Fighting for the nation is an afterthought. I admit that I can't say this from personal experience, but we have been given countless testimonials of soldiers from wars past who have expressed such sentiments. Thus is borne the feeling of alienation that soldiers face when they return "home", greeted by some as heroes and others as cold blooded killers - all the while trying to reconcile what they saw, heard and felt during their few months in that other world. Again, knowing that your fellow countrymen back home support you is only one factor affecting your morale. You also know that many other fellow countrymen don't support you or even care about you. But most importantly - neither does the enemy who has you within the scope of his gun.

Finally, Leuprecht refuted a common assumption that a soldier's resolve is weakened when their comrades are killed. It's not so simple, he explained, because when their comrades die the remaining soldiers become determined to avenge their friends' deaths. Again, I agree with this statement, but what kind of implications does this have for the purpose of our Canadian involvement in Afghanistan? Does this mean that our soldiers are more concerned about schoolyard revenge than the original goal of developing a poor country? This is exactly why we should never have gotten involved in this war in the first place. It has become an endless game of cat and mouse, the original purpose of which has been lost amid the intensity of hurt feelings and pride. Is Canada's war effort really about protecting this country? Is it really about "helping and developing the Afghans"? No. It's about Stephen Harper and his neorealist cronies' little fantasy of becoming a world power. It's about letting the world know that Canada is not a small defenseless nation with a crapload of oil ("so don't mess with us!") You can bet your gun that Stephen would NEVER offer his life for this country, and yet he has asked thousands of Canadian soldiers to pay the ultimate sacrifice so he can pursue his twisted designs - likely devised during a childhood game of Risk. There should be a law that requires any politician who votes in favor of deploying troops to join those soldiers on the frontlines for an entire tour of duty. Ironically, such legislation would likely outlaw warfare, because no politician in this country's Conservative caucus (with their law and business degrees in pocket) would be willing to forego their bright and wealthy retirement plans.

But why do we put so much emphasis on troop morale, anyway? Do we honestly believe that morale is going to affect the outcome of this war? This is a war with no reasonable end in sight. The Taliban is a guerrilla insurgent force which will not be defeated by a conventional military. The only way to beat the Taliban is to make them unpopular and unwanted in their own home, and the only way to do that is to offer a better alternative. Create a world so good for the Afghans, so wonderful, that they begin to despise the insurgents and see them as a barrier to their bright future. But this is what we are NOT doing in Afghanistan. Instead, we are fueling the Afghans' historic hatred of foreign and imperialist presence when we drive around in armored vehicles, and hide behind our explosion-proof concrete barriers, and tell them "no, you can't make a livelihood growing poppies as you have for decades". We can continue to support our soldiers, and feed them rum, and protect them with helicopters, and maybe their morale will lift for an evening or two. But no amount of support or rum or helicopters will turn this war into a just war - and ultimately that's what keeps morale low - a lack of morality.

[Desperation] A Case for Withdrawal

Recently, a government-mandated commission led by John Manley was asked to prepare a report on Canada's role in Afghanistan and proposals for Canada's future role there. Canada has now effectively been engaged in a war there for six years, and the Manley report has called for an extension of Canada's mission until 2011 (provided NATO kicks in more support for the mission).

As a result, a vote was passed in the House of Commons, in which the Conservatives and the Liberals colluded to extend the mission in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the WAR VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW - as carefully explained by Linda McQuaig in Holding the Bully's Coat.

This war is a travesty, and we Canadians are responsible. We have the death of our own soldiers and 40,000 Afghans on our hands. Since the Canadian mission in Canada plays a huge relief role for the American military, we are implicitly contributing to the Iraq war as well.

The whole idea of our commitment to "international development" there is a total farce. Further, the war is simply being lost, as the Taliban acquires more support against the NATO forces who are seen as foreign invaders.

We have to stop this. I've been meaning to write about Afghanistan, but it takes time to put all the important points together - so I'm still working on it. In the meantime, many others have done an excellent job, so I am posting two good articles on Afghanistan here, below.

I dare anyone to read through this and still claim that Canada has any legitimate purpose there! There's just nothing good about this war, nothing to be gained by it, and all of the arguments in favour of staying there are exposed as pure lies.

*************

WHY WE MUST MARCH AGAINST THE WAR THIS SATURDAY
by Joel Harden

"Courage, my friends, we can still make a better world"

The above quotation comes from Tommy Douglas, former CCF/NDP leader and
longtime peace activist.

It reminds us why we must march, rally, and educate ourselves about
Canada's mission impossible in Afghanistan.

It reminds us why this Saturday marks an important moment in stopping
this war, and truly helping the people of Afghanistan.

We need courage to challenge the bluster of Canada's warmongers, and the
politicians who support them.

Let's face it: Canada's war in Afghanistan is already over. This war
will end in 2009, but not due to any wisdom from the federal government.
It is already a failure and a majority of Canadians know it.

Western reconstruction operations in Afghanistan are a farce. Following
a time-honoured pattern, most of this money leaves in the briefcases of
foreign contractors.

As an aide to Hamid Karzai recently told a Quebec reporter, "the
international community has injected $19 billion into Afghanistan. About
95% of that leaves the country... non-governmental organizations employ
540 foreigners who earn from $5000 ton $35,000 per month. The last
elections cost $395 million. It was the foreigners who organized them,
and the kept the money for themselves."

The balance of "reconstruction" money goes to drug-running warlords who
call the shots in the current Afghan government. These thugs – many of
whom terrorized Afghans in the early 1990s – build mansions for
themselves and their friends, and get NATO to guard their compounds.

Poverty in Afghanistan is at record levels. As foreign contractors
clinked beers in Kabul, a thousand people froze to death this winter.

A million pounds in bombs were dropped on Afghanistan in 2007, and
40,000 Afghans have died since 2001. Not surprisingly, Afghan resistance
to the occupation is growing. Hamid Karzai, in reality, is the Mayor of
East Kabul. No doctored poll by U.S.-government funded agencies can
honestly say otherwise.

Still, after yesterday's vote on the Afghan mission, Stephen Harper will
likely crow about "staying the course." He'll go to NATO with a fistful
of political nerve, claiming widespread support for Canada's so-called
"war on terror."

No doubt, some will throw up their hands and insist that protest doesn't
matter. Polls indicate 61 percent of Canadians are opposed to extending
Canada's war in Afghanistan, but that wasn't reflected in yesterday's
House of Commons vote.

But a funny thing happened yesterday in Harper's pre-fabricated
democracy. Regular people, like you and me, showed up to serve notice
that we will stop this war. We demonstrated that an ounce of bottom-up
activism can challenge the mightiest of bullies.

The Commons galleries erupted in anti-war chanting. Soon after the
Tories voted, "End it, don't extend it!" was heard throughout the
building. Our chanting could even be heard as we were shepherded into
the halls by security.

Dion and Harper were stunned. They didn't expect this intrusion of
democracy. They didn't think us plebes would storm into their "palace,"
and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

My friends, this Emperor's been naked for years, and their "palace"
belongs to all of us. Let's get on with the task of telling others. This
Saturday, we'll rally, we'll march, and we'll educate ourselves. We'll
build the support and capacity needed for our message of peace.

As veterans from the Vietnam War will attest, peace activism is about
persistence, and appealing to the hearts and minds of Canadians.

Courage my friends: we can, and we will, stop this war.

See you on the streets tomorrow!

There are over 20 cities and towns holding anti-war rallies this weekend
as part of the World Against War days of action. rabbletv will be
bringing you coverage, include a live webcast of the Toronto rally,
right here at rabble.ca from 1:00p.m. to 6:00p.m. EST on Saturday, March
15.

Joel Harden is a member of the Ottawa Peace Assembly.

*********************


WE'RE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE THERE

by Rick Salutin

February 22, 2008
Here are some thoughts for the coming parliamentary debate on
Afghanistan. Consider it the unManley report.

Why are we there? Tom Axworthy, summing up the Manley panel's reasons
for Canada's military mission, says: "The Taliban's return would
threaten regional peace and security; the UN has sanctified the mission;
NATO is committed; and Canada should help failed states." Those are
sentences, not reasons. Here's panel member Derek Burney: "Canada is a
G8 member and, as such, is expected to engage internationally, serving
global organizations to which we belong in a manner befitting our
responsibility ..."

It's sheer pomposity: "sanctified," "befitting." Why are we there? We're
there because we're there. That's it. We went for various reasons. Now
the heavy hitters want us to stay. Because we're already there.

But won't NATO come apart if it doesn't pull this off? So what? Why
shouldn't NATO go back to the North Atlantic, where it's from, and be a
defence alliance, which it was? If that no longer makes sense, let it
disband. Why look for work in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan? What
about saving failed states? This is one of those phrases (like civil
society) that entered public discourse suddenly, and has made mischief
ever since.

All states fail to some degree. Why is it our task to grade this one and
get its marks up? If there's a specific problem, like incubating terror
cells, then take some useful half-measures. Pursue and isolate the
terrorists, cordon off the hot spots and don't think you can solve
everything. There's an arrogance in "nation-building," another dicey
phrase. Send the NATO forces home and let them nation-build there. Life
is mostly half-measures.

"Without security, there can be no development": Wrong, but I know it
sounds right. The problem is, security in this case means occupation by
foreign troops, which doesn't work well anywhere, especially
Afghanistan. First "we" invade and depose their government, which had at
least provided security. Then we impose a government that "invites" us
in (where we already are) and survives only with our support. Our
presence inspires resistance and recruitment to the Taliban or al-Qaeda,
which revive. (Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist till the U.S. invasion; now
it exports to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.) The more resistance, the more we
the occupiers have to fight, and opposition grows.

This week, bombs killed many civilians in the "Canadian" area. A
district leader said it was the worst day of his life: "What was secure
has now become insecure." This kind of security creates insecurity. Aid,
in turn, is stymied. A recent UN report says general indicators such as
human development and poverty have worsened since 2004.

What about helping women? Isn't that a good idea? Well, the situation
for women was astronomically better under the Soviet-backed government
in the 1980s before "our side" created the mujahedeen, who threw out the
Soviets, assailed women and were, in turn, ousted by the Taliban, who we
then defeated, installing warlords and clerics in their place. No
lasting developmental good has come from foreign occupation; people
there have learned this. They aren't irrational, they're observant.

Can anything be done? Possibly. But it would take a local political
peace, brokered by regional powers such as Pakistan, India and Iran —
not Lithuanians and Canadians. Then the well-meaning Canadians,
including the military, could do their good works, rather than inspire
rebellion.

Those dumb voters: Despite the Harper taunt that Canadians don't cut and
run, and the Manley plea not to shirk our noble international blah blah,
61 per cent still think our troops should leave. Why lecture them about
why they're wrong, instead of assuming they know what they want?
Stéphane Dion says nobody wants an election on Afghanistan. Count me
out. I'd love it.

Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column
"The best progressive ideas are those that include a strong enough dose
of provocation to make its supporters feel proud of being original, but
at the same time, altered so many adherents that the risk of being an
isolated exception is immediately averted by the noisy approval of a
triumphant crowd".