I wrote this column originally about three weeks ago, but never posted it, when the number of Canadian soldiers lost in Afghanistan was 88. As of a few days ago, it’s apparently at 90. It’s possible that before Christmas, we will break the 100 mark, not a national achievement that we will accept with pride. While it’s a statistic that pales in comparison to the world wars, it’s a statistic that is gradually eroding away the support of the Canadian public for that engagement, and no doubt number 100 will bring a louder call to “Do something about it!”
I think most of us support our military. When support rallies are held, they generally carefully phrase the purpose as being for the military, not for supporting the conflict in Afghanistan. People are more divided on that, and I would not be surprised if only a minority of Canadians support the rationale for that “war on terrorism”.
We’re “between a rock and a hard place”, as the old saying goes. There is a generally accepted belief that if we and others pull out of Afghanistan, there will be chaos, bloodshed, and many things they’ve accomplished over the last few years will be gone in a heartbeat. I have little doubt that will happen. That fact is the main reason we are there, and for the next year at least, staying there.
It’s a complex situation in this mid-east nation, certainly more complex than I can fully understand, and too complex to get deeply into here. People are confused when learning that some of the people we fight are the people that at least the USA previously supported. Confused when some of the weapons they use against western forces might well be the weapons that the US supplied them with a few years ago.
If you think back a while ago, you might recall that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late 1979 and attempted (unsuccessfully) to conquer it with one of the largest and most equipped armies of our time. Officially they were backing the existing Afghan government in repelling an attempt by the Mujahedeen rebels to take over the nation and return it to Islamic rule. This worried the Soviets, since much of the Soviet Union close to Afghanistan was strongly Islamic as well, and getting restless. The Soviet army spent almost a decade being harassed by rebels who attacked like ghosts in the night, before they finally pulled their army out. The stubborn Mujahedeen rebels were to a considerable extent supplied with weapons and trained by the American CIA, even before the Soviet invasion.
The “Mujahedeen” that western nations supported has basically evolved into the group called the Taliban (Students) who still seek a return to Islamic fundamentalism, while another group developed that western nations now fight as Al Queda. The two groups generally support each other, since they have common enemies. The Taliban had power in Afghanistan following the Soviet pull-out, and want it back, while Al Queda’s interests are larger in scope, seeking the promotion of Islamic government in the world, and an overthrow of western nations, particularly the USA.
As western people, by comparison pathetically weak in our religious beliefs, we see wars as situations based on ideals like representative government, freedom of people from oppression, and establishing or holding onto what we see as “peace, order, and good government”— to quote something from our own constitution. We can’t fully understand war based mainly on religious beliefs, or at least touted to be based solely on that (there are always power issues). In our concept of war, when a nation gets to a point where the tide seems against them, they humbly surrender. Things are worked out, reparations are paid, aid is given, and life goes on. We managed that with Germany and Japan, and we are all chums now.
This is not the way it works in the mind of rebel groups who base their fighting on religious beliefs held far more strongly than most of us hold ours. I’m no expert on the Arab mind, but I think we have heard enough about the people of Al Queda and the Taliban to realize that a good number of them will never surrender their intentions, will never stop their fight. To do so is not just a military option, to do so is to turn their back on what they believe is the purpose of God (Allah) himself.
The announcement of death number 90 for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan (far less than the American casualties in Afghanistan and now Iraq), brought the usual rhetoric that “peace in Afghanistan will not be accomplished over the short term, but only in the long term”. There is little doubt of that, but Canadian politicians and military leaders, and most of all the Canadian people, have to understand that the long term is very long— it’s my belief that if we stay in Afghanistan, in 20 years time we will be in almost the same situation that we are in now, and the results of pulling out then will be much the same as pulling out now.
Vietnam should have been a lesson to the Americans, but it seems it never was. At the start of that war, on paper it would be short and decisive in favor of the American forces supporting the south. It wasn’t, and years and many thousand of deaths later the US pulled out, basically, for all intents and purposes, losing that war. All the B-52’s, Huey helicopters, and the best armament of the time could not defeat forces that would go to any length to remain hidden, remain troublesome, and never surrender. The western mind has difficulty comprehending this type of warfare, really this type of devotion to a cause (and religion had little to do with it there, just a single-minded belief that they were right). The Americans are in the same situation in Iraq, and we and others are in the same situation in Afghanistan. Winning, where all meet around a table and sign gentlemen’s agreements, is not an option in these kinds of wars.
So what do we do? Not an easy matter for our politicians, far more troublesome than cutting one percent off the GST. I see the choices as stay there relatively forever– as much a police force as anything, with the numbers of killed Canadian soldiers steadily creeping upward as just a fact of life for a military role– or pull out and watch the Taliban take control of the country, enforcing severe Islamic Sharia law that will cause trouble, cruelty, and bloodshed, particularly for women, and no doubt also watch a purge of all who supported the present attempt at government.
The Americans are in a similar no-win situation in Iraq, and the possibility of their pulling out of there after a change of presidential leadership will give us a picture of what that kind of move provokes. Iran sits between the two nations, and certainly their attitude doesn’t give any assurances of support from there for peace in either place, quite the contrary.
And all of them sit on top of that magic substance…..oil.
I guess whether we like it or not, we’ll all be watching, from a distance that at one time we thought was safe.
—
A good commentary on a complex situation. As for wars based on religion – perhaps the worst example was the endless Crusades. A recent visit to the Middle East gave me a different outlook on these.
Interesting- my nephew who spent a voluntary 6 mths, (seconded from London Ambulance S where he is a paramedic), attached to a British patrol in Afghanistan, in his letters mentioned the ubiquitous Russian debris. He also was shaken by the appearance “like ghosts” of silent Afghans over the sand of the desert.
Complex as it is, two things are at the bottom of it all-fundamentalism and greed.
A friend who fought with the French army in Algeria told me with great assurance that this was a war — Afganistan — that simply could not be won. I think he was right.
We (the US and Canada) are fighting against a movement, not an army, in a culturally strange country that — through thick and thin — has managed to keep its economy (heroin) intact.
If we can’t beat the “drug dealers,” why should we think we can defeat a nationalist/religious movement which has far broader support than the values we claim to be trying to impose on this society. (Colin Powell once said — in effect — that we only go to war with countries in order to impose democratic values.)
We did learn a lesson from Vietnam. The lesson was (1) don’t allow press access to a war (no phototographers, journalists, TV crews allowed to see what’s happening), and (2) don’t impose a draft on young people — it turns them into anti-war protesters. The military and pro-war factions have learned well.
Nations (so I’ve read somewhere) allow themselves to be dragged into war when three conditions prevail: First, they believe that THEY are on the side of the angels, Second, they believe the war in necessary to defend THEIR homeland and values, and third, the believe they will WIN. This is how the Iraq and Afganistan have been “sold” to the American people and why it has been so important for supporters of these wars to tell us that victory is just around the corner … when “victory” no longer has a concrete definition but (in future years) will have absolute opposite meanings for the hawks and the doves. (The doves claiming victory, the hawks blaming the doves for “losing” the war.)
Yes, in twenty years not much will change in Afganistan unless the Taliban discover oil and suddenly we court them as friends.
I didn’t go into the Opium trade issue, since things are complex enough, but it’s a factor becoming more and more important in Afghanistan… at this point the country is producing about 75% of the world’s opium for heroin, and money from that trade is about double foreign aid in the country and is helping the rebuilding. In another of those strange juxtapositions in that country, the Taliban is the only group that initially opposed the drug trade. The newly formed government has taken a stand against it, making it unpopular, but now candidates for election and money for campaigns is coming from the drug lords, so some wonder how long before they control the government as well. The US and allied forces turned a blind eye to the trade when they first occupied, knowing that the Taliban was against drugs— wanting to garner support, but the last few years they have realized that things are badly out of hand and getting worse.
Another “what to do?”— stamp out the drug trade by spraying poppy fields, and throw the nation into worse poverty?