elisheva

I considered putting this in the thread about the Americans in Iraq, but I don't want the two missions to get confused. Many people I know think the mission in Afhanistan is legitimate but disagree with the mission in Iraq, so support for one isn't necessarily support for both. For the record, I think both are valid, but that the mission in Afghanistan has been handled far better and shouldn't be ignored next to the "higher-profile" problems of Iraq.

So now, at the New Democratic Party convention this weekend in Quebec City, NDP delegates have voted to support Jack Layton's statements that we need to get out of Iraq. Yesterday, an article (in the same paper) reported that Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy to Africa for AIDS (I think that's his title...), made some remarks supporting this as well. I find that very disappointing. The NDP has cemented its loss of my vote, that's for sure.

I personally believe that Canada needs to stay in Afghanistan. It's a lot more dangerous than the average canadian expected, yes. It isn't the traditional, nostalgic "peacekeeping" ideal - I would characterize it more as "peacebuilding." We have a lot of real work to do out there, and some of it involves real combat, and some of it also involves less traditional aspects of war - we need to help create a strong civil society out there, because without civil society, there's no real democracy. We (and the many other countries that are there) are doing a lot of good. The NDP is supposed to be progressive and support feminism; doesn't it rrealize that if we leave and the Taliban takes back any sort of power at all, any progress that's been made towards schooling for girls will be lost?

I think a lot of people have very oddly skewed perceptions of this. My mother is Dutch, and was in the Netherlands recently and happened to be watching the news there one night. The anchor reported that the Dutch soldiers had sensed that there was a group of Taliban fighters near them, and found out that there actually was a "nest" right above their base. So they went and fought; 18 Taliban fighters were killed but not Dutch soldiers were killed. And the news anchor says "Well..18 to 0..that's just not fair!" The thing is, you can't always do what's "sporting" in a war...Taliban fighters are, AFAIK, trained to not let themselves be captured, so there is no viable alternative to killing them. I can't understand how that news anchor thinks: should the Dutch soldiers have killed a few of their own in order to make the outcome more equal?

I'm by no means saying that the mission in Afghanistan is all sunshine and daisies. Our soldiers are dying, civilians in Afghanistan are still dying, opium is still being grown. But if we leave, nothing will ever get better. There are a lot of things I dislike about PM Harper, but he's right when he says we're in this for the long haul. We need to combine combat with major reconstruction efforts, we need specific training for those kinds of things for our soldiers, we need serious constructive aid coming in, we need to build goodwill among the people there and not alienate them. But we can't just abandon Afghanistan.

What does everyone else think? (after my very long rant up there )

xeny

As a personal opinion I have always considered the Afghan mission a valid one. However Canadians have a history of sending troops into the worst of worst situations when almost no one else will (Rwanda , Kosovo etc) It has come to the point when we are now sending troops from the reserves because we simply don't have enough regular forces to keep up with commitments. I think that's when it's time to put a stop to it and pay attention to our own needs. I don't think it's selfish. I think it's simply time for others to step up.

I say this because I live close to a forces base and am really tired of seeing dead soldiers come home for wars that are never ours. Sorry if that offends.

Lexis

That Dutch news anchor sounds odd - what, was he dissapointed that no Dutch soldiers died?

I supported the war in Afghanistan because as was clearly demonstrated on 9/11, the country was a nest for bin Laden and his organisation. They had to be destroyed. But I am angry - really, really angry - at the way the country has slid backwards in the time since.

A journalist critcises the practice of stoning women and says that people should be not be forced to be Muslims should they disgree with the faith - he's put in jail, prosecution lawyers say he should be put to death and the judge admits he sentenced him based on the reccomendations of a religious council.

Children aren't safe at school because Taliban fighters go into them, killing teachers in front of their eyes.

Aid workers cannot reach some of the most needy people in the country because the security situation is a mess. Women are still oppressed and the standard of life is poor.

In cities like Kabul, there seems to be progress but a country needs to be more than a capital.

And while my blood boils at the fact that troops are dying at the hands of Taliban fighters when Bush and British politicans like John Reid were making out the Taliban were eradicated, I think we need to stay there and sort things out. There has been talk of more NATO forces I think, maybe it would help. We can't let the country go back to the way it was before.

elisheva, I ranted too so don't worry!

Moderate Bill

I can see that this is a personal matter for you, xeny, but the question is, who's supposed to step up? I mean, why should others clean up our messes? Govts. like the Taliban don't like Westerners, as the events on sept. 11 showed us, not to mention more recent acts of extremist violence. As a westerner, the Afgan mission serves one's interests, but I would argue that it's beneficial for the Afgani people: women's rights are a little farther along, the people can make more descisions about how to dress, or what to beleive. The country is certainly in a better state than Iraq: less civilians are dying, and they're not on the brink of civil war.

I'm a huge supporter of the Afganistan conflict (the Taliban made me want to devour people...rawr!), but I personally have qualms the the mission in Iraq, both in how it worked out and why it happened. Thank you for the distiction, elisheva!

Now that I think about it, there are other advantages to the afgan mission: if the canadian poppy-trading initiative goes through, there'll be less opium on the market. Also, I feel worse for the middle eastern civilians that have to die than our own soldiers. The soldiers had a choice, and knew the risks when they enlisted. All the civilians ever did was they were born in an unstable area.

AlexEvans

The soldiers did have a choice. They chose to risk their lives to defend their country and, in this specific case were not only doing so but also making things better for Afghan civilians. I'm not sure how that helps someone feel better about their deaths.

I think the distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq is highly artificial. If not for Iraq, the people who are attacking Bush and the United States over Iraq would be saying the same things about Afghanistan - just as some of them did from the start. Just as the Canadian left is doing now. Afghanistan was not the only harborer of terrorists, just as Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization that has been waging war against the West (along with India, Thailand, the Philippines, etc, as well as the people they claim to represent).

Rwanda and Kosovo were not our conflicts, although that doesn't mean we were wrong to get involved. The War on Terror is our conflict, and I'm proud that Canada is playing an active and important role in a crucial theatre.

The NDP position, no surprise, is appalling. More surprising is the split within the Liberal party over a mission that they originated.

Raonaild

I disagree, I think there's a world of difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, and I completely support the mission in Afghanistan in the same way that I completely disagreed with the attack on Iraq.

I consider myself centre-left, and I believe in Canada as a middle power and peacekeeper, but in order for us to be taken seriously in the world we have to be prepared to occassionally back up our words with military strength for important causes. One thing that does bother me is that our commitment in Afghanistan is that it is basically all our military can support. I don't agree with the Conservatives on much, but I do agree with spending more money on our military. I don't want to turn Canada into the US, but I do think we should have a properly equiped and robust military that's capable of meeting our international commitments.

elisheva

Good points, Lexis. There have been some disappointments But still, far better than what was. I think a big thing is that many soldiers perhaps are not trained so much in reconstruction, as this is kind of a new thing - so we need to direct some military expenditure into things like that.

Brian, I think the two (Afghanistan & Iraq) are definitely connected, but there are a lot of factors that people like about the Afghanistan mission that bug them about Iraq, so I can understand people supporting one but not the other, or supporting one but having reservations about the other (as I do). I'd kinda rather stick to discussion of Afghanistan here though, as much as possible, when Iraq is brought in people get more emotionally charged and the debate gets much more heated.

Raonaild: It is upsetting that because we're committed to Afghanistan, our ability to help elsewhere is limited. It forces us to choose between which areas need us most, kind of. That doesn't mean that the Afghanistan mission is invalid...it's just frustrating. (Like when countries were speculating over who would send troops to Lebanon, Canada said we probably couldn't..and then others said, well, what about Darfur, which also needs our help?)

I'm seriously disappointed with the NDP. One possibility is that this is partially the result of them trying to play for votes in Quebec (since they have no seats here, and there is a far lower level of support for our commitment to Afghanistan here than in the ROC. Quebec frustrates me sometimes, I have to say.)

Moderate Bill

When one beleives in a cause, it makes some things worthwhile, no? One sees trajedy, but thinks of the benefits that are coming out of the conflict that make it worth doing. In my case, I look at the death tolls in the two conflicts and say "Yikes...at least someone is there to defend the civilians." I know it's odd that

Recruitment is up in Montreal, and at least one solider in Afganistan was quoted in the Globe and Mail saying that the conflict was "the closest to conventional warfare [he's] ever been...it's the defining moment of [his] career."

Soldiers make the choices to head into combat, knowing the risks and having the training and equipment to minimize their risk. Civilans don't have those advantages; they were simply born and don't want to die quite yet. Thats why I feel worse about the civilian deaths...when your spouse/relative is in the army, you can sort of brace yourself for the worst, and you feel secure beause they've outlined for you just how safe they are. With civilains, you go out for milk and don't come back, your family was relying on you to support them...scary.

Some points about the mission are debateable...are we doing enough to work for development? Is all the figthing of terrorists effectively fighting terrorism? What are the mission parameters, etc. I can understand a little war-weariness that develops when there's so much uncertainty. I'm all for more debates, despite my support of the mission. If we don't have a solid plan, won't we just be making things worse? I think a greater emphasis on reconstruction would be ideal.

I would still argue that the two conflicts are very different, but i think thats an argument for the Iraq thread, like elisheva says.