HELP! LOSING the fight in AFGHANISTAN?

[Quag]

Hey Guys,

I'm preparing for a debate in one of my university classes and am looking for input from people who have either been to Afghan. or have good knowledge on the subject.

I need stonger supporting arguments for why we should be in Afghanistan.  Questions that are going to be posed against my position (which obviously supports the mission in Afghanistan) are of the type that follows:

1.  On what moral ground should we be in Afghanistan?
2.  Why should we be intervening in Afghanistan as it is not our nation?
3.  Is this a war or a world police action?
4.  Why should our values and beliefs be imposed on the Afghans? (Think moral relativism here)
5.  Why are we imposing a western democracy on these people?
6.  To fight the Taliban and al Qaeda, do we have to understand their culture?
7.  Do they think they are terrorists?  What if they are the ones who feel oppressed?
8.  Is their style of fighting just part of their culture and we have no right to say that because of our culture, thier actions are wrong?
etc...

Heavy philosophy.  Anyway, RHFC Piper (sp?), I believe you had some good points regarding a presentation you gave to a university class, but I can't find the post after much seraching?

I have some good stuff to fight with in class, but I was hoping some of you might have some knowledge to pass on or some witty remarks that might add to my debate. 

With the impending protests demanding the removal of troops, I not only want to win this debate, I want to blow my opponents out of the water!

Thanks in advance

 

[Remius]

Well I for one have always liked the argument that we are living up to our commitments to NATO and the UN.  Remember that this is a NATO led UN sanctioned action.  As members of NATO we should be doing our part.  Ask your opponents if we should pull out of our agreements (NATO and the UN) and get them to justify that.  Put them on the defensive. 

And remember, most of the world did not recognise the Taliban as a legitimate government  well before 9/11.  Ask them how exactly democracy is being "forced" on them.  I don't remember seing NATO soldiers forcing people to vote.

Not sure if that all helps. 

One thing I encounter a bit with my job is people's ignorance.  Make them look uninformed by asking them to name one Canadian soldier that has been killed.  Ask them if they know the name of any of the operations and where they are taking place.  Ask them if they can locate where the Canadian AOR is.  Somebody once told me the government was made up of warlords.  Cool, name one.  Most can't.  Highlight their ignorance of the mission by using facts.

now I might be out to lunch.  And I haven't been there myself.  But I find myself defending the mission on a daily basis.

 

[Quag]

Thats a big help! Thanks! I like the approach you use, but I'm trying to keep this as academic as possible, without resorting to ad hominen arguments.  However some of that will definately be useful in the debate.  Thanks again!

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Here are my two cents (one cent per tour there):

1.   Moral Ground.  The Taliban regime had become intertwined with Al-Queda.  Al-Queda used Afghanistan as a base from which to train and plan terrorist attacks with 9/11 being the foremost.  The west was attacked by Al-Queda based out of Afghanistan and operating with the open support of the Taliban regime.  The coalition had moral ground based on the 9/11 attacks.  

2.   Why Intervene.  This is linked to the moral ground.  Having ejected the Taliban from power, the west needs to remain long enough to allow a stable government to form.  To leave would be to leave Afghanistan to a full-blown civil war as was seen in the 90s.

3.    War or World Police Action.  I figure it is a war (insurgency).  I'm not sure what a world police action is.

4.    Imposition of Values and Beliefs.  The Afghans have determined their own constitution (through a series of Loya Jirgas).  The west is not there to impose values or beliefs on the Afghans.

5.    Imposing a Western Democracy.  Linked to point 4.  The Afghans determined how they wanted to run their country and have had elections.  We are not trying to create a little Canada in Asia.

6.     Understand Culture.  This strikes me as a rhetorical question or a statement as opposed to a question.  To win the insurgency we must understand the Afghan culture and its intricacies.  Efforts are made to learn about the culture through training and experience.  The soldiers who are face to face with the Afghans do develop a relatively high level of cultural awareness over time.  We must always seek to improve this cultural knowledge and expand our linguistic abilities.  This takes time.

7.     Do the Enemy Think they are Terrorists?   This again strikes me as a comment disguised as a question.  I am interested in getting inside the head of the enemy.  That being said, the enemy beheads local officials and school teachers who cross him.

8.     Style of Fighting.   The enemy is not a homogenous block.  Many employ classic insurgent tactics (hit and run, ambush, etc) and I do not blame them for doing so.  I do not like that the suicide bombers seem to have no regard for causing civilian casualties.

The bottom line is that we are there because of 9/11 and are staying to help ensure a safe and stable Afghanistan is left when we leave.  The war is not about imposing western values, it is about supporting the efforts of the elected government of Afghanistan.  We are there to give the Government and people of Afghanistan some breathing space to build their institutions after some thirty years of war.  

 

[Quag]

Red-Five..very good info, thanks for taking the time to help me out.

I'm interested to hear different opinions on this question:

Why is it our responsibility to be in Afghanistan to help them rebuild and promote peace?  ( I know its obvious, but you would be surprised the counter-arguments some ignorant people can dream up)

 

[Loachman]

On what moral ground should we leave? An ex-PPCLI friend of mine said recently that if we pull out before the situation is fully stabilized, then the best thing that we could do would be to shoot as many Afghan police, military, politicians, teachers, government employees, and anybody working for the CF etcetera as possible on our way out as that would be far more humane than the fate that would await them under a new Taliban regime. Those people are going to be killed and brutalized, and their blood will be on the hands of those who support premature withdrawal.

We are not "imposing" anything on Afghans, but protecting them from a vicious regime that took and held power through violence, while they establish their own government in accordance with their wishes. If they didn't want some semblance of freedom, why did they have a higher turnout in their election than we had in our last one, despite the risks? How much lower would our turnout have been if Canadians were threatened with death or dismemberment on their way to and from the polls?

It was the Tailban who imposed things - burqas and beards, poverty, bans on sport, television, music, kites, and education, employment, and medical treatment for women - not us. On what moral ground did they do that? How would the average Canadian appreciate living like that?

Freedom is not a notion limited to Westerners. It is a basic human desire, and cannot be "imposed". Any notion that Afghans want that less than us because their culture is different is insulting to them, wrong, and stupid.

Linking this to our treaty obligations, while valid, is not going to sway the average person. Neither, really, is linking this to the benefits to our own national security of disrupting al Qaida and depriving them of a secure haven. The attacks on Canadian soil that haven't occurred as a result are meaningless by their very failure to happen. Humanizing the Afghan situation past, present, and future(s) (plural as there are several possible outcomes at this point) is the only thing that will. Our actions there will not guarantee a better life for the average Afghan - success is not assured - but premature withdrawal will certainly cast them into a misery far worse than what they endured before we went in.

Anybody advocating pulling out before that country is reasonably secure is advocating mass murder, mass torture, and mass misery and they need to be woken up to that.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Quag,

Afghanistan's history since the late 70s is indeed very tragic.  Their elite in Kabul fell under the influence of the Soviets and a civil war was the result.  Canada's involvement in that period of history was negligable.  After 9/11, the world's attention was drawn to Afghanistan.  Having removed the Taliban and Al-Queda, I feel that we have a moral obligation to stick around to help the people of Afghanistan build a stable country.  Loachman's point about the results of our leaving is very valid.  The civil war of the 90s occured without Western interference, and we saw where that led. 

Canada has an opportunity to help in Afghanistan.  We have little baggage there, and we have struck up a good relationship with the government of Afghanistan.  Our Strategic Advisory Team does great work in Kabul, while our Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar Province has built up the connections and experience to get things done.  Our Embedded Training Team in Kabul puts its stamp on every unit of the Afghan National Army while our Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team provides advice to ANA units on operations in Kandahar Province.  My point is that we not just fighting.  Fighting the enemy is necessary at times, but we do more that just that.

Our advisors do not tell the Afghans what to do.  They simply offer suggestions.  The Afghans are the ones how choose how they want their country to be run.

Cheers

 

[aesop081]

3.  Is this a war or a world police action?

"police action" is a term that was once used by politicians because they couldnt call it "war" because of domestic politics.......War is war by any other name

 

[Quag]

"police action" is a term that was once used by politicians because they couldnt call it "war" because of domestic politics.......War is war by any other name

True, the terms can be confused and interchangable.  I guess what I was getting at is the growing distinction of the war in Afghanistan from the classical trinitarian type of war.

 

[aesop081]

True, the terms can be confused and interchangable.  I guess what I was getting at is the growing distinction of the war in Afghanistan from the classical trinitarian type of war.

War takes on many forms, it does not change the fact that it is indeed "war".  I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Yrys]

the classical trinitarian type of war.

Could you define that, please, because Wikipedia ain't very helping there...
(civy here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

 

[HItorMiss]

1.  On what moral ground should we be in Afghanistan?

Morally the imperativerest is with all nations to make failed nations better for it's future citizens. Regardless of the cost to said nations on both material wealth and even blood.  Given that we were complicit in removing the failed governing body (who were human rights violators to a degree almost unheard of) if we the good nations stand and do nothing how then can we call ourselves civilised and the good people of the world.

2.  Why should we be intervening in Afghanistan as it is not our nation?

The real question here is why should we not? Are we so scared of loss and so wrapped up in our issues that we cannot look past them to see a world and a nation in need of our help? We have achieved by virtue of our environment and our hard work a measure of wealth both economically and in strength of people that few nations will ever attain. With this comes the responsibility to try and make this world better for those who did not our have convince and luck in geographical positioning. If we do not help those nations and remain an isolationist nation we are no better then those people and nations who actively try and move the world community backward then we become accomplices in the act's of terror or violence.

3.  Is this a war or a world police action?

The real question is what is a police action? How would you deffine a Police action then the question ca be answered. But war in and of itself has stages of escalation.

4.  Why should our values and beliefs be imposed on the Afghans? (Think moral relativism here)

We have indeed not unless you talk about how we view the reckless and inhuman attacks against the local population by their own people. We do not impose anything on their population or the government we simply retain the line of what are and are not an inalienable human rights. All children have the right to an education be they male or female. All people have the right to leave their house to persue freedom and commerce. People can choose to worship or not worship whomever they choose. These are the beliefs we so call impose on the people of Afghanistan and these are the beliefs that the Afghan people have chosen for themselves when they elected their own governing body.

5.  Why are we imposing a western democracy on these people?

We did not make the Afghan people choose anything, In fact the governmental system in Afghanistan is a religious constitution based on Muslim law. In terms of a purely western view this is a potentially dangerous system of government that could lead to issues in the future. However because we are there simply to help the people we did not and will chose the system of government to which the people of Afghanistan will be lead. We just set the condition for that system to have a chance to be successful.

6.  To fight the Taliban and al Qaeda, do we have to understand their culture?

Understanding the culture is key but he mind set of our opponents is not that of the culture it is the mind set of an extremist and that is a mind set I do not think the soldiers and people of Canada wish to understand to closely. However if the question is should we understand the culture of the citizens of Afghanistan the answer is that it is an absolute imperative to set the conditions for everyones success. I believe that the attempt to understand the culture is well on the way and as we get more soldiers returning to the nation of Afghanistan the understanding of the people and their culture increases exponentially

7.  Do they think they are terrorists?  What if they are the ones who feel oppressed?

They are indeed terrorist, they target not only soldiers but their own people trying to use the emotion of fear to control the population what other definition can there be?

8.  Is their style of fighting just part of their culture and we have no right to say that because of our culture, their actions are wrong?
etc...

Style of fighting is not a cultural thing it's a choice of tactics and what you believe is your best chance of success, They know they cannot engage us head on so they try the ambush and the terror device attacks to try and make us leave the country. Oppression is not an issue as in many of the areas to which we move into they are the ones doing the oppression and are always given the choice of leaving the area before we arrive. It is they who choose to fight and often when not able to win that fight they make the conscious choice to kill innocents in randomly targeted attacks simply trying to inflict pain on anyone they can.

 

[Roy Harding]

Could you define that, please, because Wikipedia ain't very helping there...
(civy here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Yrys:

Try here:  http://hometown.aol.com/trinitine/esay3.htm

 

[Quag]

Could you define that, please, because Wikipedia ain't very helping there...
(civy here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

I'm sorry Yrys, I should have clarified that.

Trinitarian war is introduced by Clausewitz but is in my opionion best defined by van Creveld as being a war fought with three key components: the military, the government, and the people.  

This is best applied to be seen as instead of fighting a government or a state, we are instead fighting individuals and ideologies.  My brain is a bit jumbled right now because I'm trying to piece together this debate, so if this doesn't make any sense, just ask and I'll try again.

 

[Yrys]

Thanks, so it's an holistic war .

 

[Roy Harding]

Thanks, so it's an holistic war .

YES - spot on - you've an amazing grasp of the essentials!

 

[Quag]

HOM - Thank you very much for your comments.  You guys have added lots of ammunition to enable me to win this fight.  It's hard when you go up against a class full of hot heads that will argue simply for the sake of arguing (isn't that what debates are all about haha).  The thing is, the topic is something that I feel strongly about and am passionate for. 

Regardless, if anybody else has anything that they would like to add or to furthur arguments posted here please let me know.  And if there's a random tidbit you would like mentioned, please let me know.

The debate is on Monday, and I have been preparing for two weeks.  I just thought I'd try here for some help, and once again I'm amazed at the support I receive from these forums.

 

[HItorMiss]

No problem Quag


Now my head hurts, time for this lowly grunt to watch some adult entertainment and stop pretending I am smarter then I really am.  ;D

 

[Roy Harding]

HOM - Thank you very much for your comments.  You guys have added lots of ammunition to enable me to win this fight.  It's hard when you go up against a class full of hot heads that will argue simply for the sake of arguing (isn't that what debates are all about haha).  The thing is, the topic is something that I feel strongly about and am passionate for. 

Regardless, if anybody else has anything that they would like to add or to furthur arguments posted here please let me know.  And if there's a random tidbit you would like mentioned, please let me know.

The debate is on Monday, and I have been preparing for two weeks.  I just thought I'd try here for some help, and once again I'm amazed at the support I receive from these forums.

This is a "formal" debate?  IE - according to Parliamentary Debate Rules, etcetera?

If so, who're the judges??  You can win the debate and still lose the competition, depending upon the impartiality of the judges.

Regardless you win or lose - good luck with it.  I hope you at least drive a few "home truths" home to those disconnected academics that I suspect will be your judges and opponents.

Roy

 

[observor 69]

Excellent comments, this should be a great help in any argument on why we are in Afghanistan.
My only contribution would be an approach to Canada's military/foreign policy is one driven by the narrow value of national self interest.
An unstable Afghanistan, unable to freely chose the direction it wants to go, vice a government totally controlled by the Taliban is not in Canada's best self interest.
Gen Hillier has said this in so many words. Our role is to develop stability via a strong Afghan army and police and help develop through our Strategic Advisory Team an effective modern government structure.

Pakistan is home to a virulent form of Islam which provides a continues source of extremist members for the Taliban/Al Queda.  It is in Canada's best self interest to have a strong army and government in Afghanistan capable of maintaining the independence of the Afghan people from a dominating force, ie. the Taliban. A parallel could be drawn to the Bush post victory screw up in Iraq. The big fear of sourounding countries Arabia, Jordan, Israel etc is a quick American withdrawl will led to unstability,chaos and civil war between the many internal factions which may spread to these countries.