Letters from the Editor in Chief

Our troops are woefully under-equipped and under-manned to accomplish the task laid out before them. Nothing less than rebuild and stabilize a country torn apart by decades of war, and neutralize the jihadist geurrilla's who pore freely over the mountain borders to hector the coalition forces. If victory is defined as the creation of a stable, secure Afghanistan with a functioning democratic government I don't see how a handful of troops can achieve this. The Americans excel at blowing the hell out of places and then are absent for the long hard work of rebuilding. Now, we've got Canadian troops holding their fingers in the dike against a tidal wave of tribalism and jihadism determined to sink them. We either need to pull out altogether or create a large coalition of overwhelming force to achieve our goals. Leaving a small force vulnerable on the ground like they are now is a disgrace.

J. Scott writes:
The Americans excel at blowing the hell out of places and then are absent for the long hard work of rebuilding.

Really? I guess you've never heard of the Marshall Plan?
Perhaps you should pick up a history book.

Byron - The Marshall Plan occurred 60 yrs ago. Where are the similar "plans" from the past 60 yrs of US involvement (overt & covert) in other nations?

Congrats CBC. Keep up the heat. This Government has fallen right in line with the Bush Government. They are only too quick to send our young people into battle, for their political glory but have lead feet when it comes to showing face to face support. Our Canadian Forces were sent to Afganistan as peace-keepers, not to be murdered. We would be wise to reread our history rediscover Lester Pearson among our Canadian heroes.

Mr. Scott, I would only add to your sentiment's that if the U.S. hadn't pursued their "war of choice" in Iraq, that there would have been the large coalition force necessary to possibly make a positive difference in the situation in Afghanistan. Regardless of the politics involved, our troops deserve our undivided support as long as they are in harm's way, for we have put them there.
The public outcry about our troops fighting and dying in foreign lands is a very recent phenomena. That is because our own leaders purposely kept us in the dark about these things, since, and during the war in Korea, until their deployment in 2002. The globalization of information has changed things dramatically, and it is very much more difficult to hide events, than it previously was.
Byron, get your head out of the sand. The Marshall plan. Really now?

It appears on the face of it that Bell Globemedia has chosen to don the mantle of official information organ of Canada's New Government.

The Globe regularly declines or neglects to cover relevant stories about the Afghanistan conflict from home media in NATO ally countries. Various CTV program hosts belittle or dismiss dissenting opinions as to the achievability or worth of the mission.

I never thought I would see the day when I would turn to CanWest Global papers for more thorough coverage but that day has come.

The CBC, I think, tries to achieve some objectivity but the job is complicated by the blanket of uncertainty Harper's philosophy regarding government ownership. To my mind it would not be out of character for Harper to take such personal umbrage at the coverage "his" war receives that he slashes funding to a degree that makes a continuing overseas mandate for the CBC impossible. He would, of course, be cheered by his sycophantic swarm.

What continues to strike fear in me regarding our commitment in Afghanistan is the cavalier lack of serious attention paid by the national media to the history of western military adventurism in the place.

There have been some occasional references made to the Soviet's disastrous decade and the role the US played therein.

Very little attention has been given to Great Britain's 3 defeats at the hands of exactly the kind of native Afghani insurgency NATO troops are now facing.

Unless NATO itself falls apart as an alliance we are now committed until at least 2009. Should the Harper government be elected to a majority I am quite certain the commitment will become open ended.

Where was this so-called "enormous affection and respect Canadians have for their military" in the 1990s when the military was being sliced and diced? Or at any other time of the year other than 11 Nov or when casualties come home? The CBC survey doesn't say that Canadians are "watching over their soldiers, and worrying, knowing that our own Afghan story is far from over" despite how proud they may say they are. It says that they're woefully ignorant of the mission, its people and its goal. Over 50% of Canadians polled think the mission is doomed to fail and that we should pull out by 2009. That doesn't speak of confidence to me. It speaks of a nation that would rather hide its head in the global sand rather than stand up and fight.

As for the Environics poll, which by the way dealt with more than just the Afghanistan issue; I would respectfully suggest to the 50 percentile who disagree with Canada being in Afghanistan that they get used to the idea until 2009 at the very least. The Canadian government has already made the commitment to NATO, the UN and to the Afghan government, and if you object then exercise your franchise during the next federal election, but we must always honour our commitments, full stop end of story. As for the 58% of Canadian who believe the reconstruction efforts will fail, I can understand their concerns; this sort of initiative and on this scale has never been attempted in the history of the United Nations. There are 30+ nations involved in the reconstruction effort and I would rather be optimistic about the outcome and seeks ways to support the prospects of success than the alternative. Clearly we are not well informed about the Afghan mission and the government along with the media should redouble efforts to engage the population in a better understanding of what is at stake if we collectively fail.

Today the BBC reported that 36 cases of female self immolation in Kabul have been recorded this year. Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission chief Sima Simar suggests: "It [self-immolation] is the final decision for women who don't have any other way to solve their problems," many such women believe they have no protection from their abusers or the cultural practices that makes their lives unbearable.

As to the reference to Remembrance Day and past wars I would suggest that a poll conducted by the Dominion Institute give us cause for concern. 30% of people asked correctly answered four questions about our history and then I learn that Canadian history is not a compulsory subject in our high schools. “It's been said that those who ignore history, are condemned to repeat it,” perhaps suitable motivation for us to succeed in Afghanistan?

(but I am Canadian) Sadly, one of the reasons people wonder about our role in Afghanistan is the constant equating of that war with Iraq by the CBC, thereby inciting the normal distrust with "so-called" American issues. You even did it in this letter. But there are two separate issues. Issue one: Is there a need for intervention. Recalling the stoning of women and the outright cruelness of the Taleban and I would say yes. So we have intervened. Issue Two: Is the leadership and equippage and actions appropriate? This is the area I feel you should question? Hold the leaders accountable for these things. Make sure that schools and hospitals are built and report on the successes. Make sure that soldiers don't go into combat in Iltis jeeps but don't say quit because a soldier dies. That dishonours him and his sacrifice. They deserve better coverage.

Randall, the reason the US war in Iraq is connected in the press with the Afghanistan conflict is that there is a very real connection between the two.

NATO, and therefore we too, elected to intervene in Afghanistan because there was a clear self-defense imperative involving a NATO ally. Namely the United States.

NATO didn't get involved there to make women's lives better or to build schools and hospitals. NATO got involved there directly because of 9/11. The rebuilding and the betterment of lives is a necessary component of the attempt to prevent Afghanistan from simply becoming a failed state once again thus allowing any militia or strong man to turn it once again into a state supporter of terrorists. What we know from past experience is that the strong man or militia would be The Taliban.

That NATO isn't part of the US war of choice in Iraq should be telling don't you think? NATO recognized the treaty obligation of the Afghanistan mission but not the Iraq war. The distinction is important.

The US elected to include Saddam Hussein's Iraq as one of the 9/11 agressors, a possessor of WMD and state supporter of terrorism. NATO did not recognize the legitimacy of the claims and declined to become involved.

But NATO's presence in Afghanistan allowed the US to draw most of their military out of Afghanistan and send them into Iraq.

Canadians are dying, to protect the oil pipeline
of Bush& Co.and the opium crops for the C.I.A &
British M.I.6.and nothing else.Bring them home
now.

I would keep the Committe far away from Harpers current Agenda of War. for their own safety sake. Harper has attracted way too much danger to Canada by betraying Canadians, forcing a vote to extend Canada into a war zone when Canadians are adament about maintaining our peacekeeping roles and responsibilties.

The Committe does need to visit , but realisitically can we afford to send more people into harms way by a Government that won't listen to the people of Canada .. for example the Environment as a Prioritiy. War affects the Environment so why not focus on that as a way to get through to the other side? Enough of the war and terror fear and warmongering already. the people are tired of it all. and they want something done that doesn't involved acts of War and terror as a response .

Don

Until NATO faces the fact that a much larger force is required in Afghanistan to pacify the warlords, al Qaeda and the Taliban, our efforts there are doomed to failure just as the American effort in Iraq will fail due to their unwillingness to increase troop levels to a level (double or triple present numbers) sufficient to prevent civil war in that country.

Tom Masters, when you say "...a much larger force is required in Afghanistan to pacify the warlords, al Qaeda and the Taliban..." are you being serious or facetious?

The Soviet Union spent 9 years trying to do that. All in all they sent over 650,000 soldiers there. Anywhere between 80,000 and 104,000 were in the country at any given time.

That the kind of numbers you mean?

Incidentally 14,500 of them didn't return.

Is there a difference between that military operation and this one you'd like to explain?

Other than the moral superiority of capitalist ideology and christianity?

Bravo to CBC for exposing the hypocrisy of the war merchants in our own governement. The Conservatives and the Liberals before them have allowed our troops to be misused as a surrogate American force in Afghanistan while they flail away at Iraq. Canada is not an imperialist nation. Canadians are not warmongers. We should be showing the world that war is not a solution.

By the way it is disingenuous and manipulative to claim that we are in Afghanistan to save oppressed women. If we were genuinely concerned about this we would have gone there before the Septembre 11 attacks. Do not be fooled by people who wrap war in a pretty ribbon of humanitarianism.

To the person who said "It speaks of a nation that would rather hide its head in the global sand rather than stand up and fight" Canada has a long and honorable history of fighting when the cause is worthy. Mature nations avoid war when diplomacy is an option. When there is no valid reason to risk Canadian lives it "speaks" of an adolescent bully mentality to start needless wars.

Mr. Still asks what I mean by 'much larger force' to succeed in Afghanistan. What I am getting at here is that, if we are to succeed with the present security assignment, we must have adequate forces to deal with the existing threat. Is NATO truly committed to the task or is it not? A comparison with the Soviet Union's attempt to conquer the country is hardly relevant. We are simply trying to support the existing democratically elected government, a very different matter.

Mr. Masters, given the blood and guts nature of the insurgency NATO forces are facing on the ground the philosophical distinction you make is of diminishing significance.

In September the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, British army Lt. Gen. David Richards, commented that in polls nearly 70% of Afghanis won't declare their loyalty. They want to get a better idea of which side is going to win. He figured they had about another 6 months to get something sufficiently positive accomplished to convince the people that this government could survive and have some kind of tangible presence beyond Kabul. It has none whatever right now.

We're now at nearly 5 years since the invasion to oust the Talibs.

The Talibs now have drug warlord financing and pay ordinary Afghani citizens more money to fight for them than the government can pay either the police or the army. The presence of NATO and US troops has accomplished something almost unimaginable. The ultra-religious Taliban who once had nearly eradicated the poppy fields and the drug warlords have now joined forces with the resurgent drug warlords to defeat the foreigners. Reminds me of a story I read from a soldier a couple of weeks ago. An old Afghani farmer was asked by a NATO soldier if he'd seen any foreign fighters. He said "Yes. You."

Kissinger said today that Iraq can no longer be won militarily. The same is true of Afghanistan.

Mr. Still, I understand your position, but I am not sure we are on different sides in this issue. I think NATO, of which Canada is a part, has to make up its mind whether it is committed to succeeding in Afghanistan or not. The present course of half-hearted efforts (by politicians, not the soldiers on the ground) in my opinion is doomed to failure due to lack of manpower. No doubt the Afghanis are wondering the same thing.

Mr. Masters, I suspect that most of the NATO signatories have long awakened from their hot blooded 9/11 outrage to discover that their decision to invoke Article 5 was precipitous.

Bush and the Neo-conservatives subsequent willingness to use the events of that day for both unilateral bellicosity and crass political gain probably make the leaders of many NATO countries wonder if they've been bamboozled into giving him cover. Add to that the profound levels of distrust if not explicit animosity among the populations of virtually all European nations toward Bush's deviant evolution of the American ethos and "courting disaster" is a mild term for what would befall a European leader perceived to be too accomodating to the White House.

I am quite sure that no one member of NATO is actively working toward having the alliance crumble.

I am equally sure that no one member is willing to cede control of their military to a command structure they perceive as overly dominated by the US.

As a post WW2 symmetrical defense mechanism NATO was very succesful.

As a 21st century deployable offensive force in a non-symmetrical context I think it has over reached itself.