The Crawl to War

Bill Hicks once said about the US rush to war in Iraq, 1991:

"We're goin' in at nine for God and country and he's a Hitler and -- hey, look, a fetus! Whatever you need, let's go!"

Of course, Hicks was describing Bush's PR campaign against the US people. Today, we've seen the spectacle of a Parliamentary debate to legalize a war we've already been in for almost five years. (Yes, Canada participated in the opening days of Operation Enduring Freedom in late 2001. Deal with it.)

If there's a polar opposite to a "rush to war", this may be it.

Nevertheless, we've seen Prime Minister Harper employ many Republican tricks to try and demonize the opposition by saying that either you support the government, or you hate freedom. And probably like Nazis, or something. I'm glad that Jack Layton pointed out that the budget the Conservatives voted against had more money for the CF than the Conservatives have presented.

One MP (I didn't catch the name) lamented the Conservative use of "supporting the troops" to try and browbeat Parliament in to submission. He asked that all parties refrain from such jingoism. Silly MP, if the Conservatives didn't use jingoism, they'd have to rely on reason and facts.

This isn't to say that I don't believe there's a factual, reasonable argument for Canada's role in Afghanistan, even if it means supporting the dreaded Operation Enduring Freedom. If Canada is serious about humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, then it's reasonable to ensure that the previous regime is destroyed thoroughly. Yes, this means counter-insurgency warfare. (When did that become the NDP's favourite dirty word?)

The question Canada - and the Parliament - needs to ask is simply whether that objective is realistically achievable. I have plenty of doubts on that score, but am willing to be convinced.

So, the questions I ask, and have asked before:

1) Do we wish to help protect the government of Afghanistan by assisting in the destruction of the Taliban? (This, it seems to me, is the most succinct definition of the mission we're debating.)
2) Can we accomplish that goal?

Obviously, if we don't answer yes to #1, then the discussion is moot. If we can't actually achieve the mission, then our motives are worthless. If the answer to both is yes, then I really don't see the objection to Canada's participation in Afghanistan. Neither, I imagine, would most Canadians if the question were presented to them honestly. Frankly, I don't think there's a need to complicate the debate beyond that with questions of aid, or NGOs, or schools. I support all those things, and believe Canada can support both sides of the equation. But the first condition of building a state is establishing sovereignty - that means destroying armed forces not loyal to the government.

I'm rather dissapointed to hear the NDP, the Bloc, and some Liberals talk about how we need to "drain the swamp" through aid instead of a military solution. I totally agree that the only long-term solution is exactly that. But the problem is that in the shortest term - now - we have a modest population of well-armed people devoted to destroying the existing government of Afghanistan. Some might be willing to be bought, but I'd wager good money - and we've already wagered our soldiers lives - that the majority of the remaining Taliban are, to quote George Bush, dead-enders.

(God, I just heard Lloyd Axworthy say that attacking the Taliban isn't the same thing as protecting the Afghan people. What does he think killed the most people in Afghanistan in the last decade and a half? Bad Ambien prescriptions?)

There's obviously some reticence in supporting George W. Bush in anything - a reticence I share - but Canada doesn't get to pick our fights like that. ISAF is a small, limited force, and the experience of Kosovo showed how difficult working through NATO could be. The US has tens of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan, and they get to call the tune. Obviously, I don't believe we should be at the American's side, right or wrong. I would prefer we stop providing America the meager help we already have in Iraq, for reasons that should be obvious. But the US is doing good in Afghanistan, in so far as any military force can be. If we're serious about helping Afghanistan, why wouldn't we be at their side?

Like I've said before, as much as I would like to see Afghanistan turn out well, I lack a deep, unshakeable position on this matter. I'm willing to be convinced that everything I've said above is wrong. Oh, but if anybody tries anything like Stephen Harper did today - using the death of Capt. Goddard to bully Parliament, while her husband is still numb with shock - then don't bother. And Mr. Harper can shut the hell up any day now.