Does history provide any kind of model or pattern for the present?
Robert Bothwell, in an excellent historical essay which appeared in this morning’s Globe and Mail, sketches the face of the Canadian Liberal tradition toward the perennial issues of war and peace. I read the article more than once.
Bothwell adds detail to the topic which I have been wondering about over the last week and planned to post about, although my attention was directed more towards the future not the past. I have been thinking about the potential unintended consequences of “peace-making,” and military interventions in “failed states.” These two terms are in scare quotes because, to me at least, their potential ambiguity represents a set of pitfalls whose presence may be covered over by seemingly noble though unrealistic intentions.
One danger originates in a darker aspect of the human mind which is the tendency to exaggerate the diabolical qualities and powers of external enemies. Military involvement so easily invites the simple perceptions of good and evil which the media, acting in its role as entertainment, propagates in bold patriotic terms. The linked article provides numerous examples of this from our history. We also have examples from the present debate over Afghanistan. "Support the troops" "Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" etc. But when does bluster start getting in the way of peace-making? I have been wondering about whether the perhaps enlightened intentions of intervening in failed states might always be undermined by other less innocent impulses.
I’ll post more about this some other time, but that is the general direction of my thinking at the moment.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Failed Afghan Policy
I had not given much thought to Afghanistan before September 11th 2001. Most Canadians would be lying if they said that they did pre 9/11 –lying to themselves. I suspect that the Al-Quaeda attack was not “about” the forced conversion of the world to Islam but rather a response, rightly or wrongly, to perceived abuses of Western influence in the Arab world.
Afghanistan.
The Taliban are a local Afghan phenomenon, largely allied to the Pashtun tribe. It seems the word Taliban means “student” in reference to the Koran and names a religious movement that, as a government, if not completely competent did provide some stability to the country after years of war fueled by foreign interests (Russians, Americans etc). The question I have is: can the Taliban/Pashtun be excluded from the government of Afghanistan? To put the question somewhat in a Canadian context: could we tell Alberta or any other province that they can participate in Confederation only through Liberal representatives? You can have your say but only if they are Conservatives?
Its hard to change the minds of a religious movement. It seems to me that a bad situation would be compounded by excluding the religious/tribal Taliban/Pashtun group from power especially when the exclusion is enforced by Western (colonial) military forces. As I said, I think the 9/11 attacks were in fact motivated by the perception, rightly or wrongly, of abusive Western influence in the Arab world. I would not like the Canadian military “cure” to cause more problems than it is intended to fix.
The counter-insurgency efforts seem to be failing. While I believe that the intentions of those who would have us continue throwing soldiers and money at the Afghan mission are good, I also think that they are wrong. I am not a coward. You are not a coward. I just think that you are wrong and perhaps a bit naive. The goals of the current mission are ineffective and wasteful and I would not have another brave Canadian soldier (or Afghan civilian) die for wishful thinking.
Make a habit of two things: to help or at least to do no harm.
Although Canada has more than done its fair share, it is feasible that our military continue to serve a limited security role in the region while negotiations amongst the different factions of Afghanistan proceed --they better get on with it. But the aggressive counter-insurgency tactics are a failed policy and need to stop.
Afghanistan.
The Taliban are a local Afghan phenomenon, largely allied to the Pashtun tribe. It seems the word Taliban means “student” in reference to the Koran and names a religious movement that, as a government, if not completely competent did provide some stability to the country after years of war fueled by foreign interests (Russians, Americans etc). The question I have is: can the Taliban/Pashtun be excluded from the government of Afghanistan? To put the question somewhat in a Canadian context: could we tell Alberta or any other province that they can participate in Confederation only through Liberal representatives? You can have your say but only if they are Conservatives?
Its hard to change the minds of a religious movement. It seems to me that a bad situation would be compounded by excluding the religious/tribal Taliban/Pashtun group from power especially when the exclusion is enforced by Western (colonial) military forces. As I said, I think the 9/11 attacks were in fact motivated by the perception, rightly or wrongly, of abusive Western influence in the Arab world. I would not like the Canadian military “cure” to cause more problems than it is intended to fix.
The counter-insurgency efforts seem to be failing. While I believe that the intentions of those who would have us continue throwing soldiers and money at the Afghan mission are good, I also think that they are wrong. I am not a coward. You are not a coward. I just think that you are wrong and perhaps a bit naive. The goals of the current mission are ineffective and wasteful and I would not have another brave Canadian soldier (or Afghan civilian) die for wishful thinking.
Make a habit of two things: to help or at least to do no harm.
Although Canada has more than done its fair share, it is feasible that our military continue to serve a limited security role in the region while negotiations amongst the different factions of Afghanistan proceed --they better get on with it. But the aggressive counter-insurgency tactics are a failed policy and need to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)