Wed. Dec. 28, 2005. | Updated
at 11:23 AM

Home

GTA

Business

Waymoresports

A&E

Life

Blogs

Classifieds

New In Homes

Photos

Podcasts

Shopping

toronto.com

Travel

Wheels

Workopolis

More
Search
Options

Ticker Name

Members

Membership
Centre

News

Ontario

Canada

World

Opinion/Editorials

Letters

National Report

Obituaries

Editorial Cartoon

Corrections

Star Columnists

> Advertisement <

Most
Emailed

Today's
Paper

RSS
Feeds

News
Alerts

Special Reports

Election 2006

Holiday Guide

Avian flu

[More Specials]

Email
Newsletters

My
Scoreboard

My
Stock List

My
Subscription

Features

Contests/Events

Crosswords

Ellie

Horoscopes

Lottery Results

Traffic Cams

TV Listings

Initiatives

Classroom Connection

Fresh Air Fund

Santa Claus Fund

The Star

About Us

Media Kit

Affiliates

Archives

http://www.thestar.com/careers

Contact Us

FAQ

Internships

News Releases

Pages of the Past

Special Sections

Star Store

Subscribe

Search the Web

Print
Story

E-mail
Story

Sending troops into danger well worth debating

So far, only silence on Afghan mission

Dec. 24, 2005. 01:00 AM

THOMAS
WALKOM

It wasn't long ago that newspaper
editors would warn their reporters against Afghanistanism — that is, writing at
length about places that few of their readers knew or understood. Now, as a
country, Canada is engaging in the ultimate Afghanistanism. We're sleepwalking
our way into the middle of a complex civil war that has raged in that country
for 26 years.

Most Canadians would be hard-pressed to explain why 2,000 more Canadian
combat troops are heading to this Asian country in the new year.

In fact, beyond the usual bromides about helping fight terrorism in an
interconnected world, most in the federal cabinet would find it difficult to
come up with a coherent explanation.

Yet, Afghanistanism is taking on a new urgency here. As Canada expands
its combat role, other nations are pulling back.

The Dutch are hesitant about fighting Taliban rebels. Even the British
are reported to be cutting back their Afghan military commitments.

Other NATO members say they're willing to send soldiers to Afghanistan —
as long as they don't have to fight.

The U.S., desperate to bring troops home from somewhere, has announced
it's reducing its military forces in the country.

Already, Canadians are being warned by their own generals that we might
have to keep troops in Afghanistan for a long time and that there will be
casualties. They just don't explain why.

As a small piece in the web of Canada-U.S. relations, Canada's decision
to send combat troops to the Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan makes a
kind of morbid sense. It is an offering to U.S. President George W. Bush, a
blood sacrifice to atone for our refusal to support his Iraq invasion.

If this offering is accepted, then maybe the border crossing between
Windsor and Detroit will stay open and the wheels of Canadian industry will
continue to hum.

In that way, Afghanistan in 2005 harkens back to one of Canada's earliest
military adventures, Ottawa's 1884 decision to send 386 voyageurs, operating
under the command of a Toronto alderman, to Sudan to help wage war against
Islamic militants.

Ultimately, the Canadian Voyageur Contingent failed in its military
mission, which was to relieve a British garrison and help secure the Suez Canal.
But that was never the point. As then-prime minister John A. Macdonald noted:
"The Suez Canal is nothing to us."

Rather, the voyageurs were dispatched to demonstrate Canada's loyalty to
its imperial masters.

Sending more troops is an
offering to President Bush

So it is here. In fact, sending troops
to Kandahar might well win points in Washington. But what will it accomplish in
Afghanistan?

True, there is a real need to restore security in that country. That
stability which did exist was destroyed when the U.S., Canada and other invaders
drove out the Taliban government in 2001. The invaders have a moral
responsibility to help to fix what we disrupted.

To that end, Canadian efforts at reconstruction are useful.

However, the wider war against the Taliban and other insurgents requires
a political rather than a military solution. The Afghans understand this and
have already bought some ex-Taliban figures into their new government.

As for terror guru Osama bin Laden, whose presence in Afghanistan was the
ostensible reason for the 2001 invasion, not even the Americans talk about him
any more.

Yet, so far, the U.S. and Canada persist in thinking that they are
engaged in a war against what chief of the defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier calls
"scumbags" and that this war can be won — that while one set of soldiers defeats
the Taliban in the hills, another set can win civilian hearts and minds by
building schools.

It's the same strategy that the U.S. used with zero success in Vietnam.

I don't claim to have easy answers. But surely the first step would be to
recognize a fundamental political reality: that many Afghans support either the
Taliban or other hard-line Islamic conservatives.

Hillier may think they are scum but a lot of Afghans don't.

If Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government truly wanted to help
restore stability to Afghanistan, it would start by trying to build on this
political reality.

If it were democratic, it would try to engage the public in a discussion
of its Afghanistanism so that we might be able to express a view on whether our
soldiers should die there.

And if the opposition Conservative and New Democratic parties had any
guts, they'd talk seriously during this election campaign about Canada's role in
Afghanistan.

[email-masked]

Additional
articles by Thomas Walkom

Get great
home delivery subscription deals here!

Print
Story

E-mail
Story

> Advertisement <

FAQs|
Site
Map| Privacy
Policy| Webmaster|
Subscribe|
My
Subscription | RSS Feeds | Webmaking Blog

Home|
GTA|
Business|
Waymoresports|
A&E|
Life

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star
Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or
republication of any material from http://www.thestar.com/ is strictly
prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers
Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster
form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.