Afghanistan

There has been a lot said about the situation in Afghanistan, but I think Scott Brison said it best:

I am fortunate to live in a country that has allowed me to become an elected Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. In the Taliban-led Afghanistan, I would be thrown in prison or executed for being gay. The same fundamental human rights that we enjoy in Canada are no less important than the rights of the people of Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to defend those rights, at home and abroad. Those rights should be the basis of a values-based, principled Canadian foreign policy. Our country must be willing to stand up for the values that we espouse. I don't take these rights for granted. (Link)

Yesterday, and for the last couple of years we have been a witness to the price that has to be paid when you stand up and stand for something. The price of believing in equality, is understanding that everyone is equal, not just our countrymen. Human rights and freedom is about equality.

The Taliban is probably one of the most despicable governments we've seen in a long time. It has no inclination towards rights, equality or freedom let alone any idea of an equal right to basic liberty. So, since we are engaged in combating the scourge of the Taliban any talk of disengagement will involve, in all likelihood, strengthening the Taliban's position. Ipso facto one is strengthening the hand of inequality and repression.

So, my question is: Why would the NDP, whose leader has said:

I do not subscribe to the view that human rights are a buffet from which one can selectively choose. (Link)

Urge the Government of Canada to do the following:

1. Take the necessary measures to ensure the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan; (Link) [I'm lazy and didn't search the NDP site for its version... I trust this guy... he's a philosopher]

Clearly it is not out of pacifism because in the same resolution they want to send our troops to Darfur:

2. Increase significantly our resource and financial commitments to United Nations led multilateral Peacekeeping and humanitarian initiatives such as Darfur; (Link)

So why commit to Darfur and not to Afghanistan? This looks like picking and choosing from the smorgasbord of failed states and human rights catastrophes.

I will not debate the relative merits of these tragedies. The criticisms that seem to most often be made against staying in Afghanistan is a) Americans are involved and b) the casualties in Afghanistan are too high.

The first argument is absolutely ridiculous (from principles). The fact that you have Americans helping you in your goal does not make your null or void.

The second argument needs to be argued. The fact that the rates are high or higher than others is not a reason in itself for disengagement (See Tart Cider, Wonder Dog and Wrangler). The argument has to made with respect to the objective that high casualties are interfering with or making the objective unattainable. Understand that a commitment to use military force is a commitment to take casualties however unfortunate or tragic. When the armed forces are deployed in operations there is always a risk of casualties. The fact of casualties is not an argument against ceasing an operation. One may argue that the operation was never worth anyone's life in the first place, but I haven't heard that, yet.

This leads to the last point in the NDP resolution:

Support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building in that country so that reconstruction efforts and good governance are achieved;(Link)

I am a bit confused about this point given that point 1 would pull all of our troops out of the country. That being said a UN force would have to face the same problem, namely, the Taliban grip on the South. How do you do point 3 when the Taliban can field fighters in a pitched battle in certain areas? Unless you ride on the coat tails of NATO - expecting them to continue to fight and die while you get the accolades at home for saying "look I'm reconstructing and not fighting". My point is that an argument for democracy building cannot be made without a plan for security. Remember the NATO mission does have UN blessing and that as a member nation it is entirely within the rights of the US to contribute troops.

Lastly, Dinner Table makes this point:

It calls for a continuation of development assistance for Afghanistan and democratic peace building so that good governance is achieved, not merely a fake democracy where the interests of human rights abusers and war lords are best served.(Link)

This is a legitimate concern. However, neither the drug nor the imperfect democracy point necessitate disengagement on the scale envisioned by the NDP. The drug issue was faced early on in the operation and was, to my recollection, a conscious decision. [Commanders, I believe, thought that it would be better to fight just the Taliban and not the poppy growers and the Taliban... I know the Taliban dislikes opium... but my enemy's enemy is my friend]. As far as Democracy and Human Rights are concerned, remember, it takes a long time to get them right. Remember the Florida recounts and Residential Schools? Perfect democracies and Human Rights regimes don't happen over night they require people with the courage to stand up with conviction and the strength to remain standing.

powered by performancing firefox