- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Hey Guys,
I'm just finishing up a paper for a War and Political Theory Class. I don't know if many of you have the time for this, but if you find something that could be useful to add to this paper, let me know. If not, I thought it might be a good read. I know that I will do poorly on the paper, because it is written pro-Afghanistan, which is against what academics believe in. However, any comments or suggestions are appreciated.
Please note that the footnotes and references did not carry over. If anyone wants references or footnotes, just leave a message. Also, the format did not cut and paste well either, so understand that the real paper is in better format (tabs, spacing, sectioning).
What are Canadian soldiers fighting and dying for in southern Afghanistan?
Is it "retribution" for the 9/11 terrorist attacks (24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center attack) as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently stated ?
Is it at the request of the Afghan government as stated on the official government website?
Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.
With mounting casualty rates, growing intensity of battles, and skyrocketing economic costs associated with war, many Canadians have begun to question Canada’s role in Afghanistan. What was the initial purpose in sending Canada’s military to Afghanistan? Has Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan changed? Is Canada’s role in Afghanistan just?
This paper will examine Canada’s role in Afghanistan in an effort to determine if in fact Canada is fighting a just war. To arrive at a conclusion, this paper must first define the term “just war” and then establish whether or not Canada’s mission in Afghanistan fulfills the criteria of being just.
A Brief Overview of Military Involvement in Afghanistan
When the Soviet Union withdrew its armed forces from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1989, the US government, who had backed guerilla fighters known as the Mujahideen for a number of years to counter the Soviet control in the oil-rich Middle East, did little to help stabilize or rebuild the war torn country. With no support or clear leadership, the country degenerated into a number of warlord states that continually battled against each other. The Taliban took control of Kabul in 1996. By the year 2000, they controlled 95% of the country and had begun to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law .
The Taliban ruled for about six years (1996 – 2002) during which time much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women in particular bore the brunt of Taliban rule and were banned from jobs and forbidden to attend schools or universities. Communists and anyone who dared to oppose the Taliban regime were punished instantly. Thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet as dictated by Sharia law. The Taliban initially destroyed the majority of the opium production but in more recent years have turned to opium to finance their terrorist efforts .
After September 11, 2001, the Taliban were implicated by the US as supporters of terrorists. The US believed that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was based in Afghanistan. They launched Operation Enduring Freedom, a military campaign aimed at destroy the Al-Qaeda network and eventually overthrew the Taliban government. An interim government was agreed upon by representatives of Afghanistan's various factions during talks held in Bonn, Germany. On December 22, 2001, Hamid Karzai, an Afghan tribal leader, was sworn in as interim chairman of the government. After nearly seven years as Afghanistan's leader, President Hamid Karzai has very little authority over large parts of his country. Warlords, militants, and drug smugglers continue to disrupt and destabilize most of the country. In 2006 Afghanistan's opium harvest reached record levels, increasing by 50% and representing 92% of the world's opium supply .
In 2003, when the United States shifted its military efforts to fighting the war in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda began to regroup. Despite the Taliban's threats to kill anyone who participated, Afghanistan's first democratic presidential elections in Oct. 2004 were a success. Ten million Afghans, including more than 40% of eligible women, registered to vote. The polls were reasonably peaceful and the elections deemed fair by international observers.
In 2005 and 2006, the Taliban continued its resurgence. Throughout the spring of 2006, Taliban militants focused their efforts on southern Afghanistan. Many villagers were killed and U.S. and Afghan troops were targeted. In August 2006, NATO troops took over military operations in southern Afghanistan from the U.S. led coalition.
Canada now has a contingent of approximately 2,300 troops attempting to bring security and stability to southern Afghanistan, where Canada has had complete command of the multinational brigade headquarters.
A Just War
Throughout history, many wars have been fought. Some of them have been declared just while others have been declared unjust. The question that has lingered, long after these declarations have been made, is what defines a just war. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, developed what has today become a cornerstone formulation of just war. It is known in modern times as the Just War Theory. Augustine thought that just war could be identified through a formulation of criteria, divided into jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This paper will focus on five main points of jus ad bellum (deciding if a war is just before declaring war).
Augustine proposed that to be a just war a war must, first, have a just cause. Second, the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, gain power and other selfish desires. Thirdly, the war must be waged by a legitimate authority. Fourth, war must be used solely as a last resort. Fifth and last, the war must have a reasonable probability of success.
Augustine’s jus ad bellum when applied to the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, must be compared to both the standard government reports regarding Canada’s role as well as independent assessments of the situation regarding Canada’s decision to send armed forces to Afghanistan.
Officially, the Afghanistan deployment is not, nor has it ever been, a traditional peacekeeping mission. There are no cease-fire arrangements to enforce and no negotiated peace settlement to respect. Negotiation is not an option with insurgent groups who are not interested in the kind of peace that the Afghan people seek.
Approximately 2,500 members of the Canadian Forces are currently serving as part of Joint Task Force Afghanistan. They play a key role in the NATO-led ISAF mission whose goal is to help bring security and stability, and foster development in Afghanistan.
The Canadian government has made it clear that the military’s role in Afghanistan is not one of peace-keeping, however, they maintain that the underlying goal is to bring security and stability to the region. To that end, it would appear that there is a just cause to the deployment of troops to the region. Of course, the main purpose behind any military deployment in any country is to protect the safety and security of the country of military origin. September 11, 2001 changed everything in the world in terms of safety and security. For the first time in history, western nations were proven to be vulnerable to attack. Traditional aspects of war no longer applied. War had become subversive – hidden from plain view. Terrorist cells were now the new armies; attacks that targeted mass destruction and death in highly populated areas were now the new battlegrounds.
The chief concern of the Canadian government is to protect Canada, at all costs. There are continued threats and reports of terrorists who justify attacks on and from Canadian soil as part of their war against the western world and in particular the United States. For example, seventeen Muslim men were convicted in 2006 of terrorism related charges for their involvement in the plot to murder thousands of innocent Canadians .
There are people in this world who want to hurt Canada and Canadians. They want to do that in order to force us to bow to their will. We need to prevent those attacks and the best way to do that is to make it harder and harder for radical, barbaric, terrorist movements to find a secure base from which they can mount attacks on us. That is what a Taliban government in Afghanistan provided for al Qaeda: a secure base. That is what a Taliban government will do again – if we allow them to regain power. Helping the legitimate, elected Government of Afghanistan defeat the Taliban insurgency is the key. It is in our national interests to have a stable, free Afghanistan which can, at its own pace, work its way into the modern, connected world.
Taking a few key points from the preceding quote, one can see that al Qaeda provided a secure base for the terrorists to coordinate and plot deadly terrorist activity. Because it has already been proven that terrorists have plotted attacks against Canada, it is easy to infer from this that it is in Canada’s national interest to prevent these terrorists from establishing a secure base from which they can form networks and launch these attacks.
From these arguments, one can conclude that Augustine’s first condition of the Just War Theory has been satisfied.
The second condition of Augustine’s Just War Theory is that the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, and gain power. It is sufficient enough to use the aforementioned evidence of Canada’s role in Afghanistan to prove that it is not motivated by a desire to inflict harm or gain power. To further this, initiatives such as the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team and the Afghanistan Compact prove Canada’s determination to rebuild Afghanistan and attempt to minimize harm and destruction in the country.
This second condition of Augustine’s Just War Theory does not need any more evidence to prove that it is fulfilled.
This brings us to the third condition of Augustine’s War Theory. This condition states that the war must be waged by a legitimate authority. The main problem with this principle lies in identifying who, if anyone, qualifies as a legitimate authority. To date, there are over thirty-seven countries in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the UN mandated security force which is present in Afghanistan. Canada, therefore, has the full endorsement and backing of the United Nations to be in Afghanistan. Does this mean that the war in Afghanistan is waged by a legitimate authority? If one agrees that the United Nations is the legitimate authority that generally speaks for the majority of nations in the world, then one can conclude that the war in Afghanistan is being waged by a legitimate authority.
If all the conditions have been met so far, it is reasonable to analyze Augustine’s fourth condition. This condition states that war must only be used as a last resort. It is universally agreed that war is rarely considered as a first or even primary option when it comes to mediating disputes. This does not mean that it will not become at times a necessary option. Instead, it should be considered an option when all other options have been exhausted. And it should only be considered an option if the cause is just (bringing the argument back to the first condition).
Pacifists may argue that diplomacy is always the preferred option while war is never justified, which completely dismisses this principle, or, more broadly, the whole Just War Theory. To argue this matter specifically would take much space and would stray from the thesis of this paper. It would be accurate to state that diplomacy is an excellent and preferred first option in an effort to prevent war. However, there comes a time when even the best diplomatic efforts fail, and such a threat ensues in one’s motherland that makes it necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s interests and ensure the safety and security of the nation.
The fifth and last condition that must be satisfied to declare Canada’s war just is that it must have a reasonable likeliness of success. This is where many Canadians are confused. Many Canadians are constantly seeking an answer to the question, “Is this mission winnable?”. The answer to this is not a known one for sure. The Ruxted Group argues that the answer is yes, however, they assume that the mission will be an extended one. An analogy the Ruxted Group uses sums up why the mission in Afghanistan is going to take time to achieve success:
Afghanistan is like a boat that is badly damaged after a storm - 30 years of civil strife, brutal occupation, and fundamentalist oppression have damaged what was once a stable and peaceful country under a constitutional monarchy. Like a damaged ship, Afghanistan is in danger of sinking back into the failed state it once was unless it gets the help it needs. This is where Canada and its NATO allies come in. There are big holes in the boat down below that are letting the water in. Our military forces are bailing water. The Canadian public, media and some politicians are watching this and wondering why we don't just plug the holes. We are, but if we stop bailing the boat will sink. The military have to keep bailing long enough for some other folks to get to the business of patching the holes. Those other people are other government departments, non-governmental agencies and the elected Government of Afghanistan, including the Afghan National Security Forces. They need time, and the military are buying that time.
Conclusion
Based on the arguments presented in this paper one can conclude that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is “just”. The issue, however, is complex. In Augustine’s view, war is just if it meets five criteria. Canada’s “war” in Afghanistan does meet all five of the criteria of the Just War Theory but Canada’s involvement is much more than military might and the concept of winning or losing a war. Canada is involved to protect their own interests in terms of a global threat directed at the western world. But, Canada recognizes that to effect change there needs to be an infrastructure that will allow the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their country and establish their own governmental structure. This is a highly complex and improbable task. Given the warlord factions within the country and the fragile state of the economy, the probable chances of success are limited without a major influx of cash to help build a sustainable economy and educate people to manage the affairs of the nation. This cash influx will be limited as Afghanistan is not one of the oil rich nations and therefore has little to offer foreign venture capitalists.
So, while the war in Afghanistan and Canada’s involvement in providing the military support to prevent the Taliban from regaining control of the country can be said to be just, the long term prognosis for success is not good. Should Canada withdraw its troops and cut its losses? To do so would certainly be morally wrong and “unjust” as the rationale for entering the country in the first place was to provide peace and stability in the country which would hopefully lead to less of a worldwide threat from terrorists acting from within Afghanistan. Canada and the UN forces have removed that threat for the time being but the second aspect of their mission is far from complete. Canada must stay the course.
The Afghan people are relying on the international community to help them rebuild their lives and their country after having suffered through decades of instability, oppression and insurgency. The biggest threat to rebuilding is continued violence and threats from insurgents whose principal tactics are meant to disrupt and to prohibit Afghan men, women and children from going about their daily lives.
If Canada was to withdraw its troops before the Afghan government and military was in a position to act independently to defend the interests of their country, it would send the country spirally back to where it was after the Soviet Union withdrew its troops in 1989. More than likely, the Taliban would reemerge as the dominant group, no doubt because it has links to, and is backed by, the Al-Qaeda terrorist network which now seems to be based in Pakistan.
Is Afghanistan to Canada, what Iraq is to the United States? Are they both no win situations? It would appear that while the situations certainly have their similarities, the approach of the outside forces is somewhat different. Canada recently handed over close to one million dollars to over fifty families whose land was expropriated by the building of a highway by Canadian forces. The actual payments were negotiated through tribal elders as land ownership records were virtually non-existent. This kind of commitment shown by Canada to “do the right thing” is indicative of the focus and intent of the entire project. It is a humanitarian mission on a large scale that also requires the use of extreme force to remove a very real threat to the country’s stability – the Taliban. Canada may need to stay as a military presence for a number of years to come but to leave now, when so much has been accomplished, would certainly be unjust.
I'm just finishing up a paper for a War and Political Theory Class. I don't know if many of you have the time for this, but if you find something that could be useful to add to this paper, let me know. If not, I thought it might be a good read. I know that I will do poorly on the paper, because it is written pro-Afghanistan, which is against what academics believe in. However, any comments or suggestions are appreciated.
Please note that the footnotes and references did not carry over. If anyone wants references or footnotes, just leave a message. Also, the format did not cut and paste well either, so understand that the real paper is in better format (tabs, spacing, sectioning).
What are Canadian soldiers fighting and dying for in southern Afghanistan?
Is it "retribution" for the 9/11 terrorist attacks (24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center attack) as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently stated ?
Is it at the request of the Afghan government as stated on the official government website?
Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.
With mounting casualty rates, growing intensity of battles, and skyrocketing economic costs associated with war, many Canadians have begun to question Canada’s role in Afghanistan. What was the initial purpose in sending Canada’s military to Afghanistan? Has Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan changed? Is Canada’s role in Afghanistan just?
This paper will examine Canada’s role in Afghanistan in an effort to determine if in fact Canada is fighting a just war. To arrive at a conclusion, this paper must first define the term “just war” and then establish whether or not Canada’s mission in Afghanistan fulfills the criteria of being just.
A Brief Overview of Military Involvement in Afghanistan
When the Soviet Union withdrew its armed forces from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1989, the US government, who had backed guerilla fighters known as the Mujahideen for a number of years to counter the Soviet control in the oil-rich Middle East, did little to help stabilize or rebuild the war torn country. With no support or clear leadership, the country degenerated into a number of warlord states that continually battled against each other. The Taliban took control of Kabul in 1996. By the year 2000, they controlled 95% of the country and had begun to impose a strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law .
The Taliban ruled for about six years (1996 – 2002) during which time much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women in particular bore the brunt of Taliban rule and were banned from jobs and forbidden to attend schools or universities. Communists and anyone who dared to oppose the Taliban regime were punished instantly. Thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet as dictated by Sharia law. The Taliban initially destroyed the majority of the opium production but in more recent years have turned to opium to finance their terrorist efforts .
After September 11, 2001, the Taliban were implicated by the US as supporters of terrorists. The US believed that Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network was based in Afghanistan. They launched Operation Enduring Freedom, a military campaign aimed at destroy the Al-Qaeda network and eventually overthrew the Taliban government. An interim government was agreed upon by representatives of Afghanistan's various factions during talks held in Bonn, Germany. On December 22, 2001, Hamid Karzai, an Afghan tribal leader, was sworn in as interim chairman of the government. After nearly seven years as Afghanistan's leader, President Hamid Karzai has very little authority over large parts of his country. Warlords, militants, and drug smugglers continue to disrupt and destabilize most of the country. In 2006 Afghanistan's opium harvest reached record levels, increasing by 50% and representing 92% of the world's opium supply .
In 2003, when the United States shifted its military efforts to fighting the war in Iraq, the Taliban and al-Qaeda began to regroup. Despite the Taliban's threats to kill anyone who participated, Afghanistan's first democratic presidential elections in Oct. 2004 were a success. Ten million Afghans, including more than 40% of eligible women, registered to vote. The polls were reasonably peaceful and the elections deemed fair by international observers.
In 2005 and 2006, the Taliban continued its resurgence. Throughout the spring of 2006, Taliban militants focused their efforts on southern Afghanistan. Many villagers were killed and U.S. and Afghan troops were targeted. In August 2006, NATO troops took over military operations in southern Afghanistan from the U.S. led coalition.
Canada now has a contingent of approximately 2,300 troops attempting to bring security and stability to southern Afghanistan, where Canada has had complete command of the multinational brigade headquarters.
A Just War
Throughout history, many wars have been fought. Some of them have been declared just while others have been declared unjust. The question that has lingered, long after these declarations have been made, is what defines a just war. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, developed what has today become a cornerstone formulation of just war. It is known in modern times as the Just War Theory. Augustine thought that just war could be identified through a formulation of criteria, divided into jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This paper will focus on five main points of jus ad bellum (deciding if a war is just before declaring war).
Augustine proposed that to be a just war a war must, first, have a just cause. Second, the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, gain power and other selfish desires. Thirdly, the war must be waged by a legitimate authority. Fourth, war must be used solely as a last resort. Fifth and last, the war must have a reasonable probability of success.
Augustine’s jus ad bellum when applied to the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, must be compared to both the standard government reports regarding Canada’s role as well as independent assessments of the situation regarding Canada’s decision to send armed forces to Afghanistan.
Officially, the Afghanistan deployment is not, nor has it ever been, a traditional peacekeeping mission. There are no cease-fire arrangements to enforce and no negotiated peace settlement to respect. Negotiation is not an option with insurgent groups who are not interested in the kind of peace that the Afghan people seek.
Approximately 2,500 members of the Canadian Forces are currently serving as part of Joint Task Force Afghanistan. They play a key role in the NATO-led ISAF mission whose goal is to help bring security and stability, and foster development in Afghanistan.
The Canadian government has made it clear that the military’s role in Afghanistan is not one of peace-keeping, however, they maintain that the underlying goal is to bring security and stability to the region. To that end, it would appear that there is a just cause to the deployment of troops to the region. Of course, the main purpose behind any military deployment in any country is to protect the safety and security of the country of military origin. September 11, 2001 changed everything in the world in terms of safety and security. For the first time in history, western nations were proven to be vulnerable to attack. Traditional aspects of war no longer applied. War had become subversive – hidden from plain view. Terrorist cells were now the new armies; attacks that targeted mass destruction and death in highly populated areas were now the new battlegrounds.
The chief concern of the Canadian government is to protect Canada, at all costs. There are continued threats and reports of terrorists who justify attacks on and from Canadian soil as part of their war against the western world and in particular the United States. For example, seventeen Muslim men were convicted in 2006 of terrorism related charges for their involvement in the plot to murder thousands of innocent Canadians .
There are people in this world who want to hurt Canada and Canadians. They want to do that in order to force us to bow to their will. We need to prevent those attacks and the best way to do that is to make it harder and harder for radical, barbaric, terrorist movements to find a secure base from which they can mount attacks on us. That is what a Taliban government in Afghanistan provided for al Qaeda: a secure base. That is what a Taliban government will do again – if we allow them to regain power. Helping the legitimate, elected Government of Afghanistan defeat the Taliban insurgency is the key. It is in our national interests to have a stable, free Afghanistan which can, at its own pace, work its way into the modern, connected world.
Taking a few key points from the preceding quote, one can see that al Qaeda provided a secure base for the terrorists to coordinate and plot deadly terrorist activity. Because it has already been proven that terrorists have plotted attacks against Canada, it is easy to infer from this that it is in Canada’s national interest to prevent these terrorists from establishing a secure base from which they can form networks and launch these attacks.
From these arguments, one can conclude that Augustine’s first condition of the Just War Theory has been satisfied.
The second condition of Augustine’s Just War Theory is that the war must be motivated by the cause of justice rather than a desire to inflict harm, wreak vengeance, and gain power. It is sufficient enough to use the aforementioned evidence of Canada’s role in Afghanistan to prove that it is not motivated by a desire to inflict harm or gain power. To further this, initiatives such as the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team and the Afghanistan Compact prove Canada’s determination to rebuild Afghanistan and attempt to minimize harm and destruction in the country.
This second condition of Augustine’s Just War Theory does not need any more evidence to prove that it is fulfilled.
This brings us to the third condition of Augustine’s War Theory. This condition states that the war must be waged by a legitimate authority. The main problem with this principle lies in identifying who, if anyone, qualifies as a legitimate authority. To date, there are over thirty-seven countries in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the UN mandated security force which is present in Afghanistan. Canada, therefore, has the full endorsement and backing of the United Nations to be in Afghanistan. Does this mean that the war in Afghanistan is waged by a legitimate authority? If one agrees that the United Nations is the legitimate authority that generally speaks for the majority of nations in the world, then one can conclude that the war in Afghanistan is being waged by a legitimate authority.
If all the conditions have been met so far, it is reasonable to analyze Augustine’s fourth condition. This condition states that war must only be used as a last resort. It is universally agreed that war is rarely considered as a first or even primary option when it comes to mediating disputes. This does not mean that it will not become at times a necessary option. Instead, it should be considered an option when all other options have been exhausted. And it should only be considered an option if the cause is just (bringing the argument back to the first condition).
Pacifists may argue that diplomacy is always the preferred option while war is never justified, which completely dismisses this principle, or, more broadly, the whole Just War Theory. To argue this matter specifically would take much space and would stray from the thesis of this paper. It would be accurate to state that diplomacy is an excellent and preferred first option in an effort to prevent war. However, there comes a time when even the best diplomatic efforts fail, and such a threat ensues in one’s motherland that makes it necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s interests and ensure the safety and security of the nation.
The fifth and last condition that must be satisfied to declare Canada’s war just is that it must have a reasonable likeliness of success. This is where many Canadians are confused. Many Canadians are constantly seeking an answer to the question, “Is this mission winnable?”. The answer to this is not a known one for sure. The Ruxted Group argues that the answer is yes, however, they assume that the mission will be an extended one. An analogy the Ruxted Group uses sums up why the mission in Afghanistan is going to take time to achieve success:
Afghanistan is like a boat that is badly damaged after a storm - 30 years of civil strife, brutal occupation, and fundamentalist oppression have damaged what was once a stable and peaceful country under a constitutional monarchy. Like a damaged ship, Afghanistan is in danger of sinking back into the failed state it once was unless it gets the help it needs. This is where Canada and its NATO allies come in. There are big holes in the boat down below that are letting the water in. Our military forces are bailing water. The Canadian public, media and some politicians are watching this and wondering why we don't just plug the holes. We are, but if we stop bailing the boat will sink. The military have to keep bailing long enough for some other folks to get to the business of patching the holes. Those other people are other government departments, non-governmental agencies and the elected Government of Afghanistan, including the Afghan National Security Forces. They need time, and the military are buying that time.
Conclusion
Based on the arguments presented in this paper one can conclude that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is “just”. The issue, however, is complex. In Augustine’s view, war is just if it meets five criteria. Canada’s “war” in Afghanistan does meet all five of the criteria of the Just War Theory but Canada’s involvement is much more than military might and the concept of winning or losing a war. Canada is involved to protect their own interests in terms of a global threat directed at the western world. But, Canada recognizes that to effect change there needs to be an infrastructure that will allow the people of Afghanistan to rebuild their country and establish their own governmental structure. This is a highly complex and improbable task. Given the warlord factions within the country and the fragile state of the economy, the probable chances of success are limited without a major influx of cash to help build a sustainable economy and educate people to manage the affairs of the nation. This cash influx will be limited as Afghanistan is not one of the oil rich nations and therefore has little to offer foreign venture capitalists.
So, while the war in Afghanistan and Canada’s involvement in providing the military support to prevent the Taliban from regaining control of the country can be said to be just, the long term prognosis for success is not good. Should Canada withdraw its troops and cut its losses? To do so would certainly be morally wrong and “unjust” as the rationale for entering the country in the first place was to provide peace and stability in the country which would hopefully lead to less of a worldwide threat from terrorists acting from within Afghanistan. Canada and the UN forces have removed that threat for the time being but the second aspect of their mission is far from complete. Canada must stay the course.
The Afghan people are relying on the international community to help them rebuild their lives and their country after having suffered through decades of instability, oppression and insurgency. The biggest threat to rebuilding is continued violence and threats from insurgents whose principal tactics are meant to disrupt and to prohibit Afghan men, women and children from going about their daily lives.
If Canada was to withdraw its troops before the Afghan government and military was in a position to act independently to defend the interests of their country, it would send the country spirally back to where it was after the Soviet Union withdrew its troops in 1989. More than likely, the Taliban would reemerge as the dominant group, no doubt because it has links to, and is backed by, the Al-Qaeda terrorist network which now seems to be based in Pakistan.
Is Afghanistan to Canada, what Iraq is to the United States? Are they both no win situations? It would appear that while the situations certainly have their similarities, the approach of the outside forces is somewhat different. Canada recently handed over close to one million dollars to over fifty families whose land was expropriated by the building of a highway by Canadian forces. The actual payments were negotiated through tribal elders as land ownership records were virtually non-existent. This kind of commitment shown by Canada to “do the right thing” is indicative of the focus and intent of the entire project. It is a humanitarian mission on a large scale that also requires the use of extreme force to remove a very real threat to the country’s stability – the Taliban. Canada may need to stay as a military presence for a number of years to come but to leave now, when so much has been accomplished, would certainly be unjust.