[R-G] Ottawa gets advice on prolonging the war

[Anthony Fenton]

Ottawa gets advice on prolonging the war

http://rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml? 
sh_itm=4169621e94ed9717ab7483f81daebbe7&rXn=1&
   	  	
 >by Roger Annis
February 5, 2008

Troubled by the failures of the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan, the  
Canadian government commissioned, in October of last year, a review  
of the war and Canada's participation. A panel of five corporate and  
political figures was cobbled together in an effort to reach broader  
consensus among the war's proponents.

Canada is an enthusiastic partner in the war, but there are growing  
concerns among its advocates about the seeming inability to defeat  
the resistance in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a slim but stubborn  
majority of the Canadian population remains opposed to what  
increasingly appears as a futile and criminal war.

The review panel delivered its report on January 22, and it has  
sparked an intense and ongoing political debate in the country.

What the report says

The governing Conservative Party chose a prominent figure in the  
opposition Liberal Party, John Manley, to head the review panel. In  
2005, the Liberals took Canada into a more aggressive combat role in  
the southern Afghan province of Kandahar. But some Liberals are  
getting cold feet, and others are tempted to use the failure of the  
mission for short-term political gain at home.

The mandate of the mission is due for renewal in 2009. The  
Conservatives hold only a minority of seats in the federal parliament  
and require support from the Liberals if ever the parliament were to  
vote an extension.

The government gave the review panel four options for the future of  
Canada's role, all of which involved some variant of a continued  
intervention. Manley was already on the record as a proponent of a  
continued military mission in Afghanistan. Two other panel members –  
Derrick Burney and Paul Tellier – have served on the boards of  
directors of two of Canada's largest arms manufacturers, the  
aerospace companies CAE and Bombardier. So it was no surprise that  
the panel is recommending that participation in the war continue.

Among the proposals contained in the report are:

       • A continued commitment to the combat role in Kandahar, until  
at least 2009.

       • More support from other NATO countries as a condition for  
Canada to extend its combat mission beyond 2009. The report says a  
minimum of 1,000 more troops is expected. With such increased  
support, Manley says the war can be won "in less than ten years."

       • Purchasing helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles, costing  
hundreds of millions of additional dollars. Currently, Canada relies  
on NATO allies for air support to its ground troops.

Gloomy outlook

The report has been welcomed enthusiastically by those in favour of  
the war. An editorial in the January 23 National Post urges Harper to  
use the report as a basis to launch a "reinvigorated mission" in  
Afghanistan. But many supporters are less than enthused with the  
war's accomplishments to date.

Paraphrasing the report, National Post columnist Don Martin says the  
mission is, "too-few by half, ill-equipped, poorly coordinated and  
losing the battle to the enemy while failing to deliver adequate  
humanitarian aid or reconstruction help to average Afghans." Martin  
has travelled extensively in Afghanistan and he says the failure of  
the U.S./NATO war is a "sad reality."

Roland Paris, Director of the Center for International Policy Issues  
at the University of Ottawa, called the overall situation  
"distressing" in a January 23 commentary in the Globe and Mail.

The most vocal critic among backers of the war has been the Senlis  
Council, a European-based think tank that conducts extensive  
surveying as well as charitable work in Afghanistan. In a series of  
detailed studies of the Canadian role in Afghanistan issued in 2006  
and 2007, it flatly states that the war will be lost unless new  
approaches are made to win friends among ordinary Afghans.

"The fact stands that Canada is losing its war in Afghanistan,"  
writes Martin. "It's high time other nations measured up as worthy  
allies against global terrorism – without being blackmailed by our  
bluff."

A game of diplomatic chicken with NATO

The "other nations" referred to by Martin are Canada's European  
allies in NATO. Their role in Afghanistan is a central focus of  
Manley's recommendation, and a controversial one. The report says  
Canada should vigorously pressure and shame its allies in Europe to  
commit more troops to Afghanistan and engage more actively in combat.

In a January 23 editorial, the Globe and Mail writes, "What Mr.  
Manley proposes is a game of diplomatic chicken, but it is one that  
Mr. Harper cannot avoid."

The editorial continues, "…it is a pitiful abdication of  
responsibility for larger countries such as France and Germany to  
refuse to assign another 1,000 [soldiers]…"

But what if the "allies" are not persuaded, or if they don't take  
kindly to being blamed for the war's failings? It's a dilemma of  
which Manley and the government are acutely aware. They are careful  
to avoid describing their demands on NATO as blackmail or threats.  
Manley says the preferred term is "applying leverage."

The failure of Canadian "aid"

The issue of the failure of Canadian "aid" in Afghanistan  
particularly troubled the review panel. The report makes some frank  
criticism on this front.

Commenting on the report, a January 24 article in the Globe and Mail  
states, "Talk to CIDA and you will hear all manner of good things  
about the work it is contributing to in Afghanistan…But those who  
seek a clearer idea of what it can actually put its name to from the  
$1.2 billion Canada has pledged in Afghan aid between 2002 and 2011  
are left exasperated."

The newspaper echoes what the Senlis Council has reported for several  
years, which is that Canada has nothing to show for the more-than one  
billion dollars in "aid" money it has spent in Afghanistan since  
2002. Ordinary Afghans remained mired in a terrible poverty, and they  
are frequent victims of indiscriminate bombings and military  
offensives by Canada and other NATO forces.

By all accounts, humanitarian conditions are deteriorating. Malalai  
Joya, the suspended Afghan MP, gave a grim picture of ordinary life  
in her country to The Independent: "The economic situation is also  
terrible – official figures put unemployment at around 60 percent but  
in reality it is much closer to 90 percent. Hundreds died in the  
winter from hypothermia, and women were so poor that they tried to  
sell their babies because they could not feed them."

Senator Colin Kenny, chairperson of the Standing Senate Committee on  
National Security and Defence, says getting explanations from CIDA is  
like grasping at air. He told CBC Radio's The Current on January 22,  
"We haven't been able to find out what they [CIDA] are doing,"  
despite extensive research by his committee. When members of his  
committee went to Afghanistan to examine aid projects firsthand, they  
were prevented from doing so by the Canadian military, who said it  
was "too dangerous" to venture outside the barbed wire military  
compound where they were housed.

Kenny said that when his committee met the government minister for  
CIDA, Beverley Oda, last year, they heard nothing but "gobbledegook"  
and "didn't get a straight answer from her in an hour and half."

Manley's report proposes that CIDA create a "signature project" such  
as a school or hospital that could be used to showcase Canadian "aid"  
to the Afghan people.
Part II of this article will be posted on rabble.ca this Wednesday.

Roger Annis is a trade union activist in Vancouver and a member of  
the Stopwar.ca coalition in that city.