Should Canada be in Afghanistan?

[estee]

I ask this to all Canadian posters because the Globe and Mail has been running articles for the past couple of days proclaiming that the majority of Canadians think our Armed Forces should leave.

I have always been for the efforts in Afghanistan, as that poor nation needs all the help it can get. We can't let the people become slaves to the Warlords and the Taliban again.

Attached is a article by General Hillier, who is in charge NATO forces at the moment. He makes compelling arguments for the effort.

So discuss...

General Hillier's interview... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060302.whilliertrans0303/BNStory/Front)

[Michael P]

Why did I think you meant that literally?

[jimmyboy]

If Canada has a national interest (a necessary interest, not just for the sake of gaining a market place, or something like that) then they should be in Afghanistan. I'm mean if there's a situation affecting Canada's security, stability, or safety, then of course they should do whatever they have to do. Otherwise, they should not be there, or anywhere else.

Same goes for any nation being involved in another nation's affairs.

[Bloopinator]

I ask this to all Canadian posters because the Globe and Mail has been running articles for the past couple of days proclaiming that the majority of Canadians think our Armed Forces should leave.

I have always been for the efforts in Afghanistan, as that poor nation needs all the help it can get. We can't let the people become slaves to the Warlords and the Taliban again.

Attached is a article by General Hillier, who is in charge NATO forces at the moment. He makes compelling arguments for the effort.

So discuss...

General Hillier's interview... (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060302.whilliertrans0303/BNStory/Front)
What efforts in Afghanistan? I thought the only efforts were in Iraq, do you get countries mixed up or am I missing something?

[Charles RB]

We can't let the people become slaves to the Warlords and the Taliban again.

From what I hear, in a lot of areas in Afghanistan they still are.

[Grazzt]

What efforts in Afghanistan? I thought the only efforts were in Iraq, do you get countries mixed up or am I missing something?

Was that serious or sarcastic? I have such a hard time telling. I must be half Betelgeusian.

[Bloopinator]

Was that serious or sarcastic? I have such a hard time telling. I must be half Betelgeusian.
A mix a both.

[Spike-X]

Why did I think you meant that literally?
Heh. My first thought was, "I don't think it would fit."

[Emerald Ghost]

There is no right or wrong answer here, but I'll share my thoughts.

Ayn Rand would say, we have no responsibility over others, and they should tend to themselves. By exerting our energies over another country, we expend ourselves, putting our own people at risk. Is it "right" to help others? Some would argue that it is; then should we help every country that needs it? Should we give out every bit that we can to other countries until we're bad off ourselves? If we pick and choose, who in the hell gave us the right to choose anyway? What makes us special that we choose to help Afghanistan, and not another poor country?

She would say that, and she would have a point.

But I disagree with it. I know there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the general sense, but in my own personal beliefs, it is wrong to let injustice sit. Who gets to decide what's injust? I do. You do. We all decide and act on what we believe. If you believe something isn't right, you have a right to act upon it. Goes with the cliche, "What's right isn't always popular; what's popular isn't always right."

You may have believed bombing Afghanistan was wrong, but the cleanup afterwards can't possibly be seen as anything less than humanitarian aid. Those who wish to withdrawal should look at other programs designed to assist countries, such as donations to feed poor countries.

Being in a hostile land is dangerous for soldiers, and it's not right to let them die for nothing. But they die protecting other people who would die in their place; you would say that a Canadian soldier is less important than an Afghanistani (is that the right word?) person, and they know this.

*edit that I'm not Canadian, so probly you weren't looking for my opinion anyways...oh well.

[Forefinger]

Why did I think you meant that literally?
Yeah I know! Like, Canada is waay too big to fit in Afghanistan, right?

[Charles RB]

Ayn Rand would say, we have no responsibility over others, and they should tend to themselves.

There's a word for Ayn Rand, and it's "smeghead".

[Slam_Bradley]

Heh. My first thought was, "I don't think it would fit."


That was my thought as well. Buncha wise-guys around here.

[Emerald Ghost]

There's a word for Ayn Rand, and it's "smeghead".

Yup, it's an insane philosophy - but unfortunately, it's a legitimate one. Selfish though it may be, it does have the point that you can't help everyone, and so everyone should look after themselves.

[Iangould]

I We can't let the people become slaves to the Warlords and the Taliban again.
[/URL]

So you prefer the current situation where they're slaves to the ex-Taliban warlords?

[berk]

I thought the bombing of Afghanistan was wrong for many of the same reasons the invasion of Iraq was wrong: it was done under false pretences and inflicted unacceptable violence and suffering on civilians. Losing he Taliban was a good thing, but then we're now seeing that they never really left, aren't we? And the forces that have filled the vacuum left by the Taliban's retreat are not much better, if at all. I'm afraid that the Canadian presence in Afghanistan serves only to lend an underserved air of legitimacy to this exercise in American imperialism. Whatever good Canadian - or American, for that matter - troops might be doing there is far outweighed by the ill effects that follow from this.

[Adam Crocker]

Being in a hostile land is dangerous for soldiers, and it's not right to let them die for nothing. But they die protecting other people who would die in their place; you would say that a Canadian soldier is less important than an Afghanistani (is that the right word?) person, and they know this.

You? Who's this 'you' that you are referring to here in your post?

[Adam Crocker]

I thought the bombing of Afghanistan was wrong for many of the same reasons the invasion of Iraq was wrong: it was done under false pretences and inflicted unacceptable violence and suffering on civilians.

I suppose whether bombing Afghanistan was actually a wise strategy is up for debate, but false pretences? Wasn't initiated as a part of the effort to overthrow the Taliban, who had supported a terrorist group that had launched an attack on American soil?

[berk]

I suppose whether bombing Afghanistan was actually a wise strategy is up for debate, but false pretences? Wasn't initiated as a part of the effort to overthrow the Taliban, who had supported a terrorist group that had launched an attack on American soil?People forget this, but the reasons initially alleged by the US for their attack had nothing to do with "regime change" - i.e. getting rid of the Taliban. The entire motivation was to force them to give up Bin Laden to them. Before 9/11 the US had had little to say about the Taliban, pretty much ignoring from the same marginalised voices who later condemned the US attack. AFTER 9/11 - no, more precisely, after the Bush regiime declared its intention to attack Afghanistan if they didn't hand over Bin Laden - THEN, all of a sudden, the US govt began talking about the iniquity of the Taliban - ignoring their own role in the origins of that entity - and the media chimed in, just as if they had been their leading critics all along.

But even if you ignore all that, I would assert that the US did not attack the Taliban; they attacked Afghanistan, that is, the country, the people. Another thing people don't like to remember is how even the more liberal, left-leaning Americans were so traumatised by 9/11 that they were willing to support anything that presented itself as an act of revenge and/or self-defense. I saw Al Franken - AL FRANKEN - on the Conan O'Brien show making jokes about how the US air force was going to bomb Afghanistan "up to" the Stone Age, simultaneously sneering at their poverty and laughing at the murder and mayhem they were about to suffer. Such was the degree of irrationality - I would even say hysteria - engendered by 9/11 and engineered by the Bush administration. All such a very short time ago, and yet it seems we've washed it from our memory.

No, the attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with getting rid of the Taliban, no more than the Iraq invasion was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, It was all about displaying American might and power and their ability to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime they chose.

But, one might object, isn't it at least a good thingh that they toppled the Taliban from power? I hope in the long run the answer to this question will be a yes, in spite of the misguided conclusions a lot of p[eople might draw from that outcome; but so far, I don't think we can say so. The only reason the Taliban were ever able to gain power was that, as bad as they were - and they were horrible - the chaos they displaced had been even worse. And my impression is that that chaos - the ex-Northern-Alliance warlords and druglords - is what has now returned, apart from a weak and besieged "federal" govt in Kabul.

[Emerald Ghost]

You? Who's this 'you' that you are referring to here in your post?

"you" as in everyone else. We all have the right to do what we feel is best. You should always do what you feel as best, just as I should.

[FBHthelizardmage]

No, the attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with getting rid of the Taliban, no more than the Iraq invasion was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, It was all about displaying American might and power and their ability to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime they chose.



I'd dispute this, though I partly agree with most of the rest of your argument. America did go after Iraqi to get rid of Sadam, he'd been a thorn in their side since 1991, and 9/11 gave them an opportunity to get rid of him. So they took it. The real reason for going into Iraqi was the possibility of a future threat by Sadam... which they justified by lying about the present threat.

As for Afghanistan... just because the reasons for invading aren't entirely pure, does that mean we should just let the country collapse into another civil war? Another 20 years of bloodshed?

Don't we have some kind of duty to the people there?

Plus of course, their was no pretence, you can talk about the methods, but the Taliban were sheltering Al Queda, and everyone knew this. America and the varies allied forces went in to destroy the Taliban and remove the Al Queda presence. You can argue maybe that they did it wrong, or ineptly, but they did live up to their war aims.

[Iangould]

People forget this, but the reasons initially alleged by the US for their attack had nothing to do with "regime change" - i.e. getting rid of the Taliban. The entire motivation was to force them to give up Bin Laden to them....

No, the attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with getting rid of the Taliban, no more than the Iraq invasion was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, It was all about displaying American might and power and their ability to attack anyone, anywhere, anytime they chose.


Yes, but the Taliban and Al Qaeda had effectively ceased to be two separate organisations. Bin Laden was effectively running Afghanistan.

I tend to agree with your analysis of the post-invasion failure of US policy in Afghanistan.

See, when I supported the invasion, I assumed the US and NATO would put sufficient troops on the ground to let them dispense with the Taliban and the other former Mujahadeen factions and that they'd put enough aid money into the country to restart the local economy.

For a fraction of the money and manpower that have been squandered in Iraq, the Afganis could have been given a real chance to retake their country from the Mujahadeen and rebuild.

Unfortunately, I bought the rhetoric about "The long War" and assumed planning for that war would be done on a longer horizon than the US political cycle.

[Adam Crocker]

People forget this, but the reasons initially alleged by the US for their attack had nothing to do with "regime change" - i.e. getting rid of the Taliban. The entire motivation was to force them to give up Bin Laden to them.

Yes, but the fact is that the Taliban refused to give up the guy behind an attack on American soil that left about 3,000 dead. From what I remembered there was never any ambiguity over why the U.S. sought to overthrow the Taliban in that sense, even if the rhetoric of its perfidity was opportunistic. It was clearly stated that because they refused to handover Bin Laden they would have to oust the Taliban.

(And as Ian said there wasn't that much difference between the two at that point. There were even Al-Qaeda fighters in the Taliban's army and one of Bin Laden's sons married Omar's daughter as a symbol of their relationship.)

[Adam Crocker]

"you" as in everyone else. We all have the right to do what we feel is best. You should always do what you feel as best, just as I should.

The problem I have here though is that you said "you would say that a Canadian soldier is less important than an Afghanistani (is that the right word?) person, and they know this." Beyond the problem of proving this claim, your statement comes off as insulting to those that support keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan by claiming cold-heartedness on their part, even though I seriously doubt that was your intention. Speaking for myself, no I don't.

I support keeping troops in Afghanistan because unlike Iraq the invasion and subsequent military force there was justified and necessary. The Taliban rose to power due to the chaos that befell the country after the Soviets were ousted and the U.S. finished with its business there. Unfortunately it looks like it could easily go there again given the failure of handling the post-war reconstruction properly and the diversion of resources to the pointless fiasco that was Iraq. That doesn't mean I value Canadian troops' lives less than Afghanis. However, I have to recognize that the vocation of soldier, whatever their nationality, is by definition a dangerous one. And the unfortunate cost of having an army engaged in military action or peace-keeping efforts is that some of my country men will most likely die in the line of duty.

However, if it makes the world a little safer, particularly in a country whose instability already produced one authoritarian regime that heavily backed a terrorist organisation, and saves even more lives than are lost in the process maybe it will be worth it.

[Emerald Ghost]

The problem I have here though is that you said "you would say that a Canadian soldier is less important than an Afghanistani (is that the right word?) person, and they know this." Beyond the problem of proving this claim,

Proving that one life is worth the same as another life? Are you suggesting a Canadian life is more important than that of an Afghanistani? Or if you're saying that I can't prove that the Canadian soldiers know what they're there for, that's what they signed up for. Not many sign up for military service thinking, "Gee, this ought to be fun and safe."

your statement comes off as insulting to those that support keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan by claiming cold-heartedness on their part, even though I seriously doubt that was your intention. Speaking for myself, no I don't.

Why is it insulting? One of the reasons for withdrawing troops is so the soldiers aren't killed. Same in America with the movement to withdrawal our troops. That logic is saying we should let those in Afghanistan go back to the Taliban rule, and many would die in rebellions, so that American/Canadian soldiers wouldn't be put at risk, i.e. their lives are more important.

I support keeping troops in Afghanistan because unlike Iraq the invasion and subsequent military force there was justified and necessary. The Taliban rose to power due to the chaos that befell the country after the Soviets were ousted and the U.S. finished with its business there. Unfortunately it looks like it could easily go there again given the failure of handling the post-war reconstruction properly and the diversion of resources to the pointless fiasco that was Iraq. That doesn't mean I value Canadian troops' lives less than Afghanis. However, I have to recognize that the vocation of soldier, whatever their nationality, is by definition a dangerous one. And the unfortunate cost of having an army engaged in military action or peace-keeping efforts is that some of my country men will most likely die in the line of duty.

I support it because the people there need help, and without it they'll be in trouble. That is all I need to know.

However, if it makes the world a little safer, particularly in a country whose instability already produced one authoritarian regime that heavily backed a terrorist organisation, and saves even more lives than are lost in the process maybe it will be worth it.

And see, this is great, and like you said, if it benefits us in the future because of a less chance of terrorism, that's a great thing. But my main concern is helping a people that needs it. The same as I'd help anyone else.

[Adam Crocker]

Proving that one life is worth the same as another life? Are you suggesting a Canadian life is more important than that of an Afghanistani? Or if you're saying that I can't prove that the Canadian soldiers know what they're there for, that's what they signed up for.

Not that. I didn't see how you could prove (barring statements that show otherwise) that those who support keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan regard the lives of Candian soldiers as less than Afghanis.

Why is it insulting? One of the reasons for withdrawing troops is so the soldiers aren't killed. Same in America with the movement to withdrawal our troops. That logic is saying we should let those in Afghanistan go back to the Taliban rule, and many would die in rebellions, so that American/Canadian soldiers wouldn't be put at risk, i.e. their lives are more important.

Because it claims that those supporting a continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan would calculate lives in such a completely cold, detached fashion. At least I find it insulting, if unintentionally, in what it implies about those who support this position.

Moreover, I don't consider your assessment of the logic accurate. In the case of the move for American withdrawal from Iraq, its supporters not only cite the deaths of American troops, but overall lack progress in Iraq and seeming worsening of the situation. So there's also the matter of whether military involvement, and the consequent risk for soldiers that entails, in a particular situation has a decent chance of improving the situation.

[Emerald Ghost]

Not that. I didn't see how you could prove (barring statements that show otherwise) that those who support keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan regard the lives of Candian soldiers as less than Afghanis.

If you want to bring back troops at the expense of the lives of those living in Afghanistan, yes, I'd say that shows less regard for their lives.

Because it claims that those supporting a continued Canadian presence in Afghanistan would calculate lives in such a completely cold, detached fashion. At least I find it insulting, if unintentionally, in what it implies about those who support this position.

I think it's more common than you think. I think many really do feel that their people should come first, and if they come home, and let others tend to themselves, all will be well. You may not feel that way, but many do.

Moreover, I don't consider your assessment of the logic accurate. In the case of the move for American withdrawal from Iraq, its supporters not only cite the deaths of American troops, but overall lack progress in Iraq and seeming worsening of the situation. So there's also the matter of whether military involvement, and the consequent risk for soldiers that entails, in a particular situation has a decent chance of improving the situation.

That does not make any sense either. You're saying Iraq/Afghanistan is getting worse, and there's no progress...so let's just leave? That's ridiculous. If it's getting worse, then it's sure to cause deaths to Iraqis and Afghani's, and it's getting even more certain you're willing to give up their lives for those of American/Canadian soldiers.

[Iangould]

"If you want to bring back troops at the expense of the lives of those living in Afghanistan, yes, I'd say that shows less regard for their lives."

So you think the lives of the 30,000 NATO troops POTENTIALLY in danger in Afghanistan are more valuable than the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Afghanis who'd almost definitely die in a resumed civil war if they withdrew?

[Emerald Ghost]

"If you want to bring back troops at the expense of the lives of those living in Afghanistan, yes, I'd say that shows less regard for their lives."

So you think the lives of the 30,000 NATO troops POTENTIALLY in danger in Afghanistan are more valuable than the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Afghanis who'd almost definitely die in a resumed civil war if they withdrew?

I think all lives are equal, your life is no less important than mine, and a troops is no less than an Afghani's, or vice versa. I'm saying they should stay to aid where they can.

[PatrickG]

Yup, it's an insane philosophy - but unfortunately, it's a legitimate one. Selfish though it may be, it does have the point that you can't help everyone, and so everyone should look after themselves.

Keeping in mind the Randian thoughts on "selfishness" I'm not sure if she would be opposed to, say, groups of people trying to fight in Afghanistan.

But they should be doing it for the thrill of action, the admiration of the Afghan people, rewards which justify their action, SOMETHING.

And let me add that I think war outside of a system which permits plundering is even MORE pointless than war in general, which is itself pretty pointless.

[Adam Crocker]

If you want to bring back troops at the expense of the lives of those living in Afghanistan, yes, I'd say that shows less regard for their lives.

So then is it safe to assume that you regard the lives of NATO troops in Afghanistan as having less value than Afghanis since you argued for them staying, thus putting their lives at risk?

I think it's more common than you think. I think many really do feel that their people should come first, and if they come home, and let others tend to themselves, all will be well. You may not feel that way, but many do.

Such as...?

That does not make any sense either. You're saying Iraq/Afghanistan is getting worse, and there's no progress...so let's just leave? That's ridiculous. If it's getting worse, then it's sure to cause deaths to Iraqis and Afghani's, and it's getting even more certain you're willing to give up their lives for those of American/Canadian soldiers.

No I am not. I stated my position was the exact opposite in regards to Afgahnistan and I never staked a position either way on Iraq. I was pointing out that the logic of withdrawal is not simply predicated on troops' lives as you claimed, but also the situation on the ground and the likelihood of success of the mission.

[Emerald Ghost]

So then is it safe to assume that you regard the lives of NATO troops in Afghanistan as having less value than Afghanis since you argued for them staying, thus putting their lives at risk?

No, as I've said, at least three time already, all life is equal.

But what you're missing for some reason are several points here.

One, they have training and can prevent more bloodshed than would otherwise happen.

Two, they chose the occupation, and can always leave (dishonorable discharge if nothing else). It's their job to protect others. I don't like it when an officer dies trying to bring in a suspect, but it's his job, and he accepts the risk.

No I am not. I stated my position was the exact opposite in regards to Afgahnistan and I never staked a position either way on Iraq. I was pointing out that the logic of withdrawal is not simply predicated on troops' lives as you claimed, but also the situation on the ground and the likelihood of success of the mission.

If it wouldn't be successful with the troops there, then it sure wouldn't be successful without them, and I'd hate to see the country, and the people, without any aid whatsoever.

I will compromise with you, and say that the value of the soldiers lives isn't the only thing, if you will admit that it is a factor, and a major one, in the majority of those who are for withdrawal's decisions.

*edit Wow, I shot the hell out of that last sentence, didn't I? Let's try that again, without drug induced hallucinogens...

I will compromise with you. The value of the lives of the soldiers isn't the only factor, if you'll admit that it's a major one when people decide for the withdrawal.

[lonewolf23k]

Yup, it's an insane philosophy - but unfortunately, it's a legitimate one. Selfish though it may be, it does have the point that you can't help everyone, and so everyone should look after themselves.

Yeah, try to keep that philosophy in mind next time you ask for help.

...personally, I see our presence in Afghanistan as a vital piece of humanitarian work, in helping the Afghani people build a free, democratic country.

...And the alternative? Warlords and Taliban fighting ove who gets to rule a wartorn plain of dirt.

[Charles RB]

And the alternative? Warlords and Taliban fighting ove who gets to rule a wartorn plain of dirt.

They're already doing so though.

[Adam Crocker]

No, as I've said, at least three time already, all life is equal.

But what you're missing for some reason are several points here.

How can you argue that everyone else who supports keeping troops in Afghanistan values the lives of Canadian soldiers less than Afghanis and then state you value all life equally? Your two positions are contradictory. Moreover, following the arguments you presented below, the first one is based on questionable logic.

[Emerald Ghost]

How can you argue that everyone else who supports keeping troops in Afghanistan values the lives of Canadian soldiers less than Afghanis and then state you value all life equally? Your two positions are contradictory. Moreover, following the arguments you presented below, the first one is based on questionable logic.

I didn't say those who wanted to keep troops there valued them less, I said those who wanted to withdrawal valued them more. Don't twist my words. :)

[Adam Crocker]

I didn't say those who wanted to keep troops there valued them less, I said those who wanted to withdrawal valued them more. Don't twist my words. :)

I'm hardly twisting your words:


Being in a hostile land is dangerous for soldiers, and it's not right to let them die for nothing. But they die protecting other people who would die in their place; you would say that a Canadian soldier is less important than an Afghanistani (is that the right word?) person, and they know this.

[Emerald Ghost]

You are twisting my words. Or just misunderstanding them.

That sentence you put in bold meant that the people wanting the soldiers to withdrawal wanted it, at least in part, because they believe the lives of their soldiers is more important. I disagree, I see them as equal.

"You would say that a Canadian soldiers life is more important than an Afghani's"...if you say you want the soldiers to withdrawal, letting Afghani's die rather than Canadian soldiers.

Does that make sense now? I know I am not the best at speaking/typing, english isn't my first language, and it gives me a headache.

[nubly]

questions for those of you that are for afghanistan. are you against iraq? if so, why?

[Emerald Ghost]

questions for those of you that are for afghanistan. are you against iraq? if so, why?

Iraq is complicated.

I don't think the U.S. necessarily did the attack correctly, though it did better than when we hit Afghanistan. (We didn't carpet bomb Iraq.)

Was it right to get rid of Saddam and Uday? Hell yes. Was it right to try to place a Democracy and let the people decide their government? Yes again.

But we should have made sure the reasons for going in were clear - if it's to free the people, say so. Don't use WoMD as a catch-all unless you're sure you have proof. I'm not saying Saddam didn't have WoMD, or that he wouldn't in the future, but if you don't have proof, it makes us look bad.

We also should have had a clear exit plan in mind. A way of setting Iraq up and then getting the hell out of dodge with a minimal presence.

I support freedom, and getting rid of tyrrany. I believe in the American ideal, even when politicians don't. There isn't a politicial alive I trust.