eee

ANDREW KURJATA

RABBLE-ROUSER/EDITOR

It is undoubtedly tragic that for yet another Remembrance
Day our thoughts of those who have lost their lives to war are
not focused solely on the past. Yet this is the case as casualties
among the armed forces, aid workers, diplomats, and civil-
ians currently situated in Afghanistan continue to be produced.
Few would argue against the fact that this ‘struggle has lasted
far too long, and nearly everyone can agree that the sooner it
ends, the better. The source of debate (here in Canada, at least)
is not so much whether the deaths should end, but how this
should be done.

To crudely paint it in black and white, there are two op-
posing camps: those who are for the war, and those who are
against it.

Those who are for the war see it as a “good” fight, one that
is struggling against ignorance and violence to secure a safe
and democratic future for the Afghan people. Those who are
against the war argue that fighting violence with violence
is self-defeating, and that the cause of peace would best be
served if all foreign troops were to withdraw today leaving
Afghanistan to manage its own affairs. If only.

In a recent perusal of antiwar commentary I have noticed a
disturbing trend.

The arguments made by the “bring our troops home now”
camp are, to put it bluntly, ignorant. They seem to ignore
or be unaware of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan and
how Canada wound up being involved there in the first
place.

Largely, the protesters seem to be of the opinion that
Canada was either tricked or dragged into Afghanistan by
the United States in part of its international “war on terror”
that resulted in the poorly judged and horribly misman-
aged assault on Iraq. The truth is that while the United States
did lead the initial assault on Afghanistan as a retaliation for
the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the current effort is one of the most
multilateral and internationally endorsed military operations
in history.

To start with, Canada is there under the auspices of NATO,
which itself contains such anti-Iraq war stalwarts as France,
Turkey, and Germany. The fact that these same countries are
directly supporting the Afghanistan effort should say some-
thing about the considerable differences between the two con-
flicts.

Additionally, the Afghanistan mission has received and con-
tinues to receive support from the United Nations Security
Council, no small feat considering the presence of Russia and
China, traditional opponents of U.S. foreign policy. Further,
the list of countries who have contributed to the Afghanistan
mission in some way is diverse enough to include Pakistan,
India, the Sudan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Egypt, none of
whom are exactly U.S. puppets when it comes to international
affairs.

It should also be noted that foreign forces are in Afghanistan
at the ongoing request of the democratically elected Afghani
government, a government free enough from foreign influence
that it attempted to engage in negotiations with the Taliban,
despite protests from its allies.

And perhaps most important is a recent poll of the Afghan
citizenry released by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
that came back with the following “surprising” results:

-79% of Afghans feel Afghanistan is going in the right direc-
tion

-73% believe women are better off than they were five year
ago

-60% believe they, personally, are better off than they were

five years ago (26% feel they are about the same)

-59% believe the government of Afghanistan represents their
interests (of those who said no, only 9% blamed foreigners for
the reason why)

-60% had a positive opinion of Canadian troops (48% of the
total felt Canadians were doing a better job than other foreign
troops)

-73% have a negative view of the Taliban

In light of these statistics, the argument that Canadian troops
are destabilizing the region is ludicrous.

It’s hard to gauge exactly what NDP leader Jack Layton
means when he says that Canada should be-focused on peace-
building rather than counterinsurgency, but surely he must
realize that in order for any sort of institution-building to take
place you need some form of security.

And this security, like it or not, sometimes requires violence.
Why do we require our police to be trained in combat if not?

“By being combative, it just causes lots of problems... We
know that people from both sides - Canadian and Afghan
people - are being killed.”

This is the opinion of an antiwar protester who took part
in a march against the Afghanistan mission in Ottawa last
week, While it is true, it’s hardly a persuasive argument for
withdrawing, unless you actually believe that the Canadians
themselves are the root cause of the killing. The formula of
“Afghanistan + Canadians = War” is akin to saying: “I eat ice

“In protesting the war you have to acknowledge
what you are really arguing against: Making any
effort on behalf of foreigners ever, unless it’s really,

really easy and takes less than three years.’

cream in the summer. It is hot in the summer. Therefore, eating
ice cream makes it hot.”

The sad part is that this leap of logic is genius compared to
this insight: ““We don’t see any evidence of progress in Af-
ghanistan... We see that women are still afraid to go to school,
to participate in social life.” Again, unless you believe Canad-
ian troops are the root cause of this (which would involve be-
lieving that the Taliban had an incredibly enlightened gender-
equity education program), this argument falls flat as a reason
for immediate withdrawal. By 1940 Jews in Germany were
still scared to run for public office. Probably should’ve called
it a day and hoped things worked themselves out.

Now, I would never argue against the right to protest any-
thing, no matter how strongly I disagreed with you. However,
may I politely request one thing from all those in the antiwar
movement? In the future, when taking to the streets to protest
war, argue from a sound philosophical arena. Saying that lives
are being lost or there are still threats on women do not im-
mediately justify withdrawal - odds are that these and other
human rights abuses would continue to a greater degree if it
weren’t for the current presence of foreign troops. As the say-
ing goes, sometimes it has to rain before it shines. In light
of the widespread support for the Afghan mission from the
international community, the United Nations, and the Afghan
government and people, in protesting the war you have to ac-
knowledge what you are really arguing against:

Making any effort on behalf of foreigners ever, unless it’s
really, really easy and takes less than three years.

If the Afghanistan mission isn’t justified, then what inter-
national military operation is, or conceivably ever could be?

Darfur, where there is significant blockage from the states
involved in conflict, not to mention the international power
brokers?

OVER THE EDGE
November 7 - 21, 2007

Would stability in Rwanda have been worth fighting for?
After all, while the United Nations was stationed there, people
were being killed.

Good thing the peacekeepers were ordered to do nothing
except protect Europeans and North Americans, because any-
thing more would have just escalated the violence to a level
beyond genocide.

Opposing Germany and Italy back in the day wasn’t such
a good idea either, given the fact that there was a. killing and
b. protests from their national governments, whom were later
unjustly deposed.

If you think that poor strategic decisions are being made,
fine, I’d probably agree with you. If you think we could spend
more on adding medical care and garbage collection to the
streets of Kabul, I’d be all for it, so long as there was acknow-
ledgement of the need for a security perimeter as well. And if
you think that it’s just not worth it to expend military power
on anything other than the self-defence of Canada, well then
at least have the good graces to just come out and say it rather
than pretend you have the best interests of the Afghan people
at heart. And lastly, don’t patronize the men and women in the
Canadian military by saying you support them but not the mis-
sion. They support the mission. If you support them then you,
too, support the mission.

On that note, if one insists on drawing comparisons between
Afghanistan and Iraq, you might pay attention to what the mil-

itary personnel themselves have to say. It is by no means a
scientific survey, but there seems to be a fairly vocal group of
U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq disillusioned with what they
view as a fundamentally unjust war, some going so far as to
desert their country and claim refugee status here in Canada.
By the same stroke, an overwhelming number of Canadian
soldiers involved in Afghanistan seem to think their mission
is for the greater good of the people living there.

For all the high-profile antiwar bluster in the Canadian
media, there is a notable lack of military personnel joining in
their opposition. Either the American military complex allows
significantly more freedom when it comes to letting soldiers
voice their opinion on military operations, or the Canadians
actually don’t have much bad to say, and may actually believe
in what they’re doing.

It is supremely disrespectful to call for an immediate with-
drawal of troops in order to save soldiers’ lives when the sol-
diers themselves want to stay and help. What these soldiers
seem to realize that the antiwar machine doesn’t is that part of
having a military is acknowledging that sometimes in order to
get what you want, even if what you want is peace, you have
to put up a fight,

Signing up for the army displays a willingness to lay down
your life for what you feel is a worthy cause. Family after
family of fallen soldier has stated that their loved one believed
in what they were doing and would want the fight to continue
until Afghans were free to enjoy their full human rights. A pre-
mature end to the mission would virtually assure that this goal
would be indefinitely abandoned.

That there are Canadians raised on the doctrines of peace,
democracy, and human rights who are willing to undertake
this mission, despite the risks to themselves, speaks volumes.

We have Remembrance Day to reflect on the horrors of war
and those we have lost to it. But we also have it to remember a
time when people from a variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and
countries were willing to lay their lives down on foreign soil
in a struggle for justice. The price of acting was high, but the
price of not acting at all would have been higher yet.

Lest we forget.

“In a recent perusal of antiwar commentary I have noticed a disturbing trend. The arguments made by the “bring our troops home now”
camp are, to put it bluntly, ignorant. They seem to ignore or be unaware of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan and how Canada wound
up being involved there in the first place. Largely, the protesters seem to be of the opinion that Canada was either tricked or dragged into
Afghanistan by the United States in part of its international “war on terror” that resulted in the poorly judged and horribly mismanaged as-

sault on Iraq.”