It's a Tough One
"If you leave prematurely, Afghanistan will fall back into anarchy", warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Speaking to the Canadian people, using the presence of Afghan-based Canadian reporters to alert Canadians to the need of Afghanistan to ensure that foreign troops continue to commit to assisting his country in keeping the Taliban out. As well as in reconstruction. That's a lot to ask for, and Mr. Karzai is well aware, it would appear, of the turmoil in public opinion in this country with respect to maintaining Canadian troops in his country.As part of the NATO presence in Afghanistan, Canada has committed itself to the dangerous and arduous work of fighting back the Taliban advance. Of maintaining contact of a friendly and helpful nature with tribal chiefs, of assisting in the development of social and government services, of lending assistance in reconstruction of municipal, legal, policing, social, health and education facilities, when possible. But the Canadian troop presence of some 2,500 personnel is heavily engaged in the military aspect of challenging and ousting the Taliban, for the most part.
And it is the loss of some 70 armed forces personnel and a diplomat that is uppermost in Canadians' minds. That, and the unwillingness of many Canadians to be and remain involved in a foreign war which seems to have no good news emanating from the front. Which, allied with the perception that the Afghan government at every level sustains a high level of corruption, also seen in the local police forces, is a sobering assessment of what foreign troops cannot on their own alleviate.
Mr. Karzai warns that the date of 2009 as a potential for the withdrawal of Canadian troops in the hopes that the Afghan Army will itself be by then prepared to pursue its country's enemies and protect their own geography, will leave the country unprepared to protect itself. "It will be a weak body prone to attack", he cautioned. "The presence of Canada is needed until Afghanistan is able to defend itself, and that day is not going to be in 2009."
Why, one wonders, just in passing, does President Karzai, good man that he undoubtedly is, not approach a neighbouring country with whom he professes to have good relations, and ask them to assist in the manner that NATO countries are doing? Why is a neighbour like Iran, whose president Mr. Karzai has stated a good opinion of, not ready to step in and be helpful? Why must it be an entirely foreign presence, so far removed from the geography whose responsibility it has become to stabilize this geography?
Cannot he see the reality of Iran actively finding common cause with the Taliban and assisting them surreptitiously? Is that possibility so extremely far-fetched from Afghan reality for Mr. Karzai to recognize?
Canada's position in the volatile south of the country leaves its troops vulnerable to constant attack, to threats from IEDs. British, US and Dutch forces share in large part, the pressures placed upon Canadian troops, while other NATO-affiliated countries have a more muted, non-involved presence in quieter, safer parts of the country. They are unwilling to share the burden of being up-front and responsible, partly because they are aware of the reserved judgement of their own citizens, in their country's involvement in Afghanistan.
President Karzai's argument is persuasive: "Anarchy will bring back safe havens to terrorists, among other things, and terrorists will then hurt you back there in Canada and the United States. Simple as that," said he. "That happened before, because of international neglect." True, it doesn't take much to embolden Islamists, intent on establishing their own indelible version of religious lifestyle on a helpless country. Nor to reach out beyond their territory to visit destruction elsewhere.
Political opposition in Canada would have our troops withdraw from the direct danger zones. Have them engage more directly in reconstruction, with a continued diplomatic and helping presence. Putting them in direct agreement with other countries steadfastly refusing to lend their troops to those violent areas of continued terrorist attack. Allowing them to adhere to the quaint notion of Canadian troops as peacekeepers, not warriors.
Canadian troops, on the other hand, believe in their mission. They are proud of what it is they are doing. They empathize with the local population, and try to understand their social system, realizing that we are all similarly endowed with similar emotional needs waiting to be fulfilled by our various destinies. Canadian military personnel remain committed to their mission, they are obdurately inclined to continue, to feel they are adding positive value by their presence.
That President Karzai is differentiating between the al-Qaeda-affiliated hardcore Taliban, and the local residents pressed into service by the Taliban, and being prepared to accept the latter back into normal Afghan society is a credit to him as a leader. That he adamantly refuses to accommodate his government to the demands of the hard-core Taliban who demand a withdrawal of NATO forces before meaningful talks take place, is a credit to him as a realist.
This is a hard one. We have international obligations to other countries of the world, requiring our help. We most certainly are obliged by compassion and humanitarianism to ensure that women are no longer enslaved by a rigidly demeaning religion-centered view that degrades women and denies educational opportunities to girl children. Yet that too, to a certain extent was a part and portion of the historical, prevailing culture.
We do have an obligation to assist other people to attain to a higher standard of living where freedoms and equality are possible attainments. We can dream of a better world.
Labels: Troublespots, World Crises
posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, September 19, 2007
<< Home