The question is, how can parliamentarians vote on extending the mission for two years when this mission lacks clarity? In fact, instead of signing up for two more years of a mission that lacks clarity, we should be urging the UN and NATO to look at a plan for real peace in the south, a plan that abandons the search and kill. That has failed.Robert says that "in every modern war there are peace talks", but that's not strictly true. The demands of the Allies in WWII was total, unconditional surrender. The Japanese got to negotiate only after they had already lost the war. There were some attempts at negotiation on both sides, but nothing really serious.
We should be supporting the peace strengthening commission, which needs international support and has been championed by an Afghan Canadian. In fact, there will be no peace in Afghanistan unless a peace process is put together.
I would question whether the military has really failed, as Dewar puts it. I think that's quite a statement, but I honestly don't have the expertise to judge.
More problematic, however, is that Canada is in no position to bring the parties to the negotiating table. After all, we're talking about a trilateral conflict - the US, the Afghan government, and the remains of the Taliban. Even assuming we could bring all three to the table, what possible settlement could there be? Allow the Taliban to participate in the political process again? Maybe win an election in a few years, a la Hamas? Even if Canadians thought that was acceptable, I'm willing to bet that Washington and Kabul wouldn't.
Not incidentally, a peace settlement would almost necessarily include a demand by the Americans that Mullah Omar and any Al Qaeda leadership surrender to the US. This is unlikely to be accepted, to say the least. And finally, all of this presupposes an American government that was predisposed to negotiate.
Now, none of the above means that Canada should be fighting with the Americans. But I don't think it means we shouldn't be fighting with them, either.
3 comments:
Robert says that "in every modern war there are peace talks", but that's not strictly true. The demands of the Allies in WWII was total, unconditional surrender.
By modern I meant post WWII. And I agree the US wouldn't be open to such a concept right now, but in a couple of years under President Clinton or Gore they might very well be. So Canada should be laying the groundwork for it to happen when the adults are back in charge of the US.
And the British are also proposing such an idea, as they had that experience in Northern Ireland.
You're forgetting the drug lords, who by most accounts are a significant fourth power.
Post a Comment