Canada is in the middle of an election campaign. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that Canadian troops will be pulled out of Afghanistan when the current mission is up in 2011. This is a change in policy since previously Harper had argued that setting a deadline for withdrawal was a bad idea.The announcement prompted a comment from Jim Davis, the father of a soldier killed in Kandahar two years ago. Here's what the father said according to CTV News [Tories suspend key aide over remarks on soldier's dad].
Earlier Thursday, Davis said it would be ideal to have Canadian soldiers home by 2011 but setting a deadline "undermines the work our soldiers are doing and it undermines the mission."I think we should cut and run right now. We are not going to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as long as we continue to occupy their country and bomb them.
He said the deadline makes it difficult for Canadian soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people if they know troops will be gone in two years.
"I would never want to see another soldier go in harm's way so I can justify my son's death," Davis told CTV's Canada AM.
"But at the same time if we pull up stakes and come home when we're not ready to -- when the mission is not complete -- if we did that then my son died in vain."
Does that mean that all of our Canadian soldiers died in vain in a failed mission? Yes, unfortunately, it does mean that. Should we continue the mission just because some soldiers have already lost their lives? No, that doesn't really make sense, does it? If we realize that we made a mistake and will have to withdraw sooner or later before winning hearts and minds, then what's the point of staying and sacrificing more Canadian lives?
I wish people would stop trying to justify continued involvement in Afghanistan by using the argument that our soldiers will have died in vain. Sometimes we make mistakes and soldiers pay the ultimate price for our errors. It's not their fault. They are doing their job and should be respected for that—perhaps they should be respected even more for doing their job in spite of the flawed policies of our politicians.
An interesting view, here's my take; and this is from someone who has 2 family members currently in Afghanistan, and three more awaiting deployment...
ReplyDeleteOur reasons for going to Afghanistan were sound - our allies were attacked, and several Canadians were killed.
The reasons for staying post-invasion were equally sound - repairing the damage of our invasion, and trying to provide the Afghans with a better life.
The last paragraph remains a reason to stay, but I think the reason to leave is much stronger - the lack of support from most of our "allies". Long story short, many of our allies are forbidden from combat roles, and have essentially left us unsupported in one of the most violent regions of Afghanistan.
Quite frankly, we've done enough and its time for our allies to do their bit. I would have no problem with our troops staying in a largely reconstruction role; but they've been on the front lines long enough.
I agree with everything you said Dr. Moran. Whenever I hear the "troops died in vain" argument, I think of a quote from Macbeth that goes something like: "I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er". What an awful reason to stay.
ReplyDeleteI think that the 'died in vain' argument doesn't work very well from a rational standpoint, although it is a powerful emotional one and one that I can respect. Like bryan said another argument, and quite powerful, is that essentially only a handful of countries, notable Canada, the US, and Britain have really committed to the front lines of Afghanistan with any significant number of troops. But I don't think that that is a compelling enough reason for us to leave.
ReplyDeleteI also think the 'hearts and minds' argument is a moot point. From what I have read and heard from people on the ground in Afghanistan (soldiers, non-soldiers, etc) the majority of people in Afghanistan are truly better off than they were under the Taliban, which stands in shar contrast to Iraq where most of the country is still in disarray. Yes the south is still unsettled and there is significant combat ongoing but without the NATO security force, Canadians among them, doing that job I fear that the violence would quickly spread back into other areas that are now largely peaceful.
Of course I think that we do also need to be doing (by we I mean NATO as a whole) a much better and positive reconstruction effort then we are currently doing, which sometimes appeares pretty half-assed. Does another approach in the South need to be considered? Probably but I'm not a General. I think that, unlike Iraq, the majority of Afghanistan is largely fine with the NATO presence. The Afghan national army is improving as are the police. We are doing a good job and there have been tremendous positive impacts in Afghanistan. This isn't Iraq and I think too frequently the Afghan mission gets tied up into the whole negative feelings about the 'War on Terror'