Globe: Rick Salutin, At the ready, but where's the war?
Post
Friday July 7 2006, Globe and Mail
Canadian Forces are getting lots of new transport to ship them to conflict zones. But what will they do when they get there: peacekeep or warmake? I'd say both are traditionally Canadian, like Tim Hortons and Swiss Chalet, but which makes sense now? I'll argue for peacekeeping.
Why? Because there are no real wars available in which to participate. It's true Afghanistan and Iraq were both invaded in the usual military way. But they were basket cases by then, after decades of bloodletting fed by outside forces (Afghanistan) or pounding in the 1991 Gulf war followed by sanctions (Iraq). Their actual armies pretty much melted away. In neither case could a new government establish control. They don't even rule their capitals, Kabul and Baghdad. They are stuck in the Palace and the Green Zone. Furthermore, no unified opposition force is moving against them. It is all more a bloody, factionalized mess (Mess O' Potamia, The Daily Show says). It's violent, but it's not war. In many ways, it's worse.
You know it doesn't count as war because the occupying armies talk about an "exit strategy." That's a business investment term, not a war term.
Wars end with victory, surrender or truce, not an exit strategy.
In this inchoate state, outside armies, like Canada or the U.S., tend to become further uncontrolled elements, similar to militias, as U.S. units have in Iraq. They claim to support the government and fight the "insurgents." But even the regimes installed and maintained by them are unpredictable. Former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, a CIA asset, said insurgents were "justified" in attacking Americans because the U.S. had "occupied" Iraq. And he was a virtual puppet! Recently Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced civilian deaths caused by the "coalition" forces that prop him up.
The U.S. first attacked Afghanistan because it "sheltered" Osama bin Laden. This week the CIA abolished its bin Laden unit because he's not key any more, and al-Qaeda operations have been decentralized. So why are they (we) still there? Because of the Taliban? They were a primitive group that established a modicum of stability and had no international terror pretensions. They'd probably have dealt Osama to the U.S. for some aid and security. Yet "we" stay on to fight them, and not just them. There are warlords who shift sides, drug dealers, desperate poppy growers. There's bordering Iran, which has Afghan interests at least as legitimate as Canada's, and Pakistan, Russia -- it's not a war, it's a lethal, political carousel.
George Bush has pretty much acknowledged that his country is not at war. He now says the problem is, there are "people who want to harm the U.S." You don't go to war against people, you go to war against armies. If people are a problem, you send in the police or assassins like James Bond. The U.S. Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged this by saying the current "war" doesn't justify massive, arbitrary presidential powers. If it did, you could declare war on tooth decay and use that to curtail everyone's rights.
This may be frustrating for military men such as General Rick Hillier, who seems to yearn for a war against "scumbags" like the Nazis. But that won't turn Afghanistan or Iraq into occupied Europe 60 years ago. Maybe he should go for a paintball weekend.
This doesn't mean if you can't fight a good old war, you can't do anything with your army. On the contrary. You could step back from choosing sides in so messy a situation, and use your relative impartiality to help broker a deal among the widest possible grouping (including the Taliban, if they want to play) which might achieve stability and ground further progress. Then you could use your soldiers to enforce and guarantee the agreements that were reached. They would have the credibility of a broad national accord behind them. That is what peacemaking and peacekeeping could mean. In Afghanistan, with our bellicose, one-sided record, it may be too late. But we'll have all that shiny transport. Maybe we could pack up and go somewhere that we could still do some good, rather than roil things further.
Canadian Forces are getting lots of new transport to ship them to conflict zones. But what will they do when they get there: peacekeep or warmake? I'd say both are traditionally Canadian, like Tim Hortons and Swiss Chalet, but which makes sense now? I'll argue for peacekeeping.
Why? Because there are no real wars available in which to participate. It's true Afghanistan and Iraq were both invaded in the usual military way. But they were basket cases by then, after decades of bloodletting fed by outside forces (Afghanistan) or pounding in the 1991 Gulf war followed by sanctions (Iraq). Their actual armies pretty much melted away. In neither case could a new government establish control. They don't even rule their capitals, Kabul and Baghdad. They are stuck in the Palace and the Green Zone. Furthermore, no unified opposition force is moving against them. It is all more a bloody, factionalized mess (Mess O' Potamia, The Daily Show says). It's violent, but it's not war. In many ways, it's worse.
You know it doesn't count as war because the occupying armies talk about an "exit strategy." That's a business investment term, not a war term.
Wars end with victory, surrender or truce, not an exit strategy.
In this inchoate state, outside armies, like Canada or the U.S., tend to become further uncontrolled elements, similar to militias, as U.S. units have in Iraq. They claim to support the government and fight the "insurgents." But even the regimes installed and maintained by them are unpredictable. Former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, a CIA asset, said insurgents were "justified" in attacking Americans because the U.S. had "occupied" Iraq. And he was a virtual puppet! Recently Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced civilian deaths caused by the "coalition" forces that prop him up.
The U.S. first attacked Afghanistan because it "sheltered" Osama bin Laden. This week the CIA abolished its bin Laden unit because he's not key any more, and al-Qaeda operations have been decentralized. So why are they (we) still there? Because of the Taliban? They were a primitive group that established a modicum of stability and had no international terror pretensions. They'd probably have dealt Osama to the U.S. for some aid and security. Yet "we" stay on to fight them, and not just them. There are warlords who shift sides, drug dealers, desperate poppy growers. There's bordering Iran, which has Afghan interests at least as legitimate as Canada's, and Pakistan, Russia -- it's not a war, it's a lethal, political carousel.
George Bush has pretty much acknowledged that his country is not at war. He now says the problem is, there are "people who want to harm the U.S." You don't go to war against people, you go to war against armies. If people are a problem, you send in the police or assassins like James Bond. The U.S. Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged this by saying the current "war" doesn't justify massive, arbitrary presidential powers. If it did, you could declare war on tooth decay and use that to curtail everyone's rights.
This may be frustrating for military men such as General Rick Hillier, who seems to yearn for a war against "scumbags" like the Nazis. But that won't turn Afghanistan or Iraq into occupied Europe 60 years ago. Maybe he should go for a paintball weekend.
This doesn't mean if you can't fight a good old war, you can't do anything with your army. On the contrary. You could step back from choosing sides in so messy a situation, and use your relative impartiality to help broker a deal among the widest possible grouping (including the Taliban, if they want to play) which might achieve stability and ground further progress. Then you could use your soldiers to enforce and guarantee the agreements that were reached. They would have the credibility of a broad national accord behind them. That is what peacemaking and peacekeeping could mean. In Afghanistan, with our bellicose, one-sided record, it may be too late. But we'll have all that shiny transport. Maybe we could pack up and go somewhere that we could still do some good, rather than roil things further.
Home