“This is Canada at its best, and Canadian people are proud to stand with Afghanistan,” said the Prime Minister. “As Canadians, we know that Afghanistan’s future will not be secured through military means alone.”
That's right, it'll take some good negotiating with the Taliban, eh CTV?
All kidding aside, folks, the Prime Minister's latest visit to Afghanistan is needed so that Canadians get an important reminder of why Canada is participating in this mission. It is about building schools so that young girls can get an education and take part in shaping the future of their society. It is about giving youngsters the tools needed to realize that they have a stake in their country's future, so that they can lean on their parents and get them to make the right decisions.
The military aspect of the mission is crucial because development cannot take place without it, but without a strong commitment to development the military/security mission will end up being a never-ending commitment because we haven't given the Afghans the tools, education, and skills needed to take the reins and secure their own development. The Prime Minister gets that, and it is imperative that he continues to shine that spotlight on the non-military features of our mission.
2 comments:
Richard, a few things:
...the Prime Minister's latest visit to Afghanistan is needed so that Canadians get an important reminder of why Canada is participating in this mission.
Unfortunately, the current leadership is doing an abysmal job of explaining anything, IMHO, much less responding to any criticism. I really wish the PMO would drop the "free world" liberalism platitudes, national security connections, yadda yadda, and simply explain that we've signed on to a UN-authorized, collective security mission that has a very clear goal: rebuild Afghanistan. And it's an experiment. And if we leave, Afghanistan will go to hell -- and defense, in this case, IS necessary BEFORE development (somewhat contrary to the seemingly non-linear 3D concept) for reasons X, Y, and W.
Probably most important, the PMO needs to address calls for alternatives — more allied involvement in the combat element of the mission, negotiations with warlords, etc. — and state their reasons for deciding that these strategies have less utility, are impossible, or whatever.
Point 2:
The general criticism of the the missions is that we're not doing this nearly enough:
It is about building schools so that young girls can get an education and take part in shaping the future of their society. It is about giving youngsters the tools needed to realize that they have a stake in their country's future, so that they can lean on their parents and get them to make the right decisions.
And we're doing this far too much:
The military aspect of the mission is crucial because development cannot take place without it..."
Critics would like to see Canada renegotiate its position within ISAF so that nation-building is emphasized in [i]Canada's[/i] mandate in favour of open combat.
This criticism doesn't necessarily stipulate that no one should be in Afghanistan, or that the mission isn't useful. Instead, it argues that that Canada can't, or shouldn't, be doing precisely what it's doing now.
If you take the NDP line, it also argues that the whole situation could be improved by taking a more multilateral approach to security (negotiating with allies; signing agreements with warlords, etc).
I think these are fair criticisms — perhaps not "right" criticisms, but fair in the least — and Harper's PMO is doing very little to address these concerns rationally or inspire much confidence in the alternative.
I do agree with you that the PMO, and really the entire government, is doing a poor job of explaining this mission's objectives and priorities. To me, Afghanistan really epitomizes what Canada sees its role as being in the 21st century. We're not a first-rate military power, nobody will confuse Canada with the U.S. leviathan force, but we can do a really good job of system administration, i.e. reconstruction, post-conflict stabilization, nation/state-building. We can do some of the heavy lifting on the front lines, too, in concert with our allies and partners. If the folks running the PMO would explain the mission's parameters and goals in basic terms, I think that support would increase just on having accurate information alone.
Re: Point 2 - ahh the search for balance. The "problem," if it can be characterized as such, is that we signed up for one of the more dangerous regions of the country, which means that somebody in Ottawa figured that we could walk and chew gum at the same time. I think that we can, but there has been more of a focus on the walking (military) as opposed to the chewing gum (reconstruction/development). Maybe that's why the mission leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. *ba-da-bing!* Seriously, though, building a school won't generate a headline, but the Taliban blowing up a school does. That's the nature of insurgency efforts, and part of what handicaps us in our efforts to defeat the Taliban *and* win hearts and minds.
At this point, we're locked into the current mission until 2009. The irresponsible Coderre resolution that was defeated recently left open a crack that could have allowed for us to re-jig the mission that would allow Canada to remain in Afghanistan under a different umbrella, one that may be more diplomatic/administrative in nature.
One thing is for certain, however, and that is the need to get a concerted effort from Ottawa to really push the message of this mission. It's unacceptable that a majority of Canadians oppose this mission, and they're relying on bad rhetoric to form their opinions.
Nice to see you back blogging again, btw.
Post a Comment