Ceasefire.ca

The Harper government has confirmed that it is extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan until 2014 (Jane Taber, “Conservatives bump Afghan withdrawal date back three years,” Globe and Mail, 16 November 2010).

Approximately 950 Canadian soldiers, to be based mostly in the Kabul area, will be assigned to training Afghan forces under the new plan:

Up to 950 soldiers who would normally have been facing combat in Kandahar will now be dispatched to walled-off bases around Kabul to lead Afghan soldiers in basic training exercises between 2011 and 2014.

Jogging, marching, push-ups and firing weapons will replace Taliban hunting in the Canadian playbook, under a plan rolled out Tuesday by the ministers of foreign affairs, defence and international development. They said the new task is crucial if Afghanistan is to take control of its own security in four years’ time, when NATO nations hope to begin withdrawing from the country en masse. (Allan Woods, “Jogging, marching, push-ups to replace Taliban hunting,” Toronto Star, 16 November 2010)

Unaddressed by the ministers is whether the government really believes in the training mission it has committed Canadian troops to fulfill.

No one seriously expects Afghanistan’s army and police forces to be ready to hold off the Taliban on their own in four years’ time. But it is still unclear whether NATO’s efforts to Vietnamize Afghanize the war are intended merely to provide a face-saving way for foreign forces to withdraw from a dead-end war or remain based on the illusory prospect of creating an ARVN ANA that can hold the field against the Taliban even in the south of Afghanistan.

If the government (and its NATO allies) are intent on pursuing the latter vision, we can expect the 2014 extension to eventually become the 2017 extension, and perhaps even the 2020 extension, before the final ignominious pull-out takes place.

If, on the other hand, the extension is merely an exercise in sacrificing lives in the cause of saving faces, the cynicism of the Prime Minister in choosing Remembrance Day to confirm the extension is breathtaking (Bill Curry, “PM acknowledges changing mind on continuing Afghan role,” Globe and Mail, 11 November 2010).

That the decision does not reflect confidence in the long-term prospects of the government of President Thiệu Karzai is suggested by the Harper government’s simultaneous decision to slash Canadian development assistance to South Vietnam Afghanistan (Campbell Clark, “Canada to pull civilian staff from Kandahar, base trainers in Kabul,” Globe and Mail, 16 November 2010).

A recent Canadian Press/Harris Decima poll, meanwhile, reports that Canadians are split over the planned extension, with 48% wanting all troops brought back to Canada in 2011, 42% supportive of the intended training role, and 6% in favour of extending the combat mission. The same poll also reports that 60% of Canadians oppose or strongly oppose “the government’s commitment to have troops in Afghanistan” (presumably relating to the existing mission in Kandahar).

U.S. Department of Defense photo

NATO heads of state and government will meet in Lisbon on the 19th to the 21st of November. On the agenda: approval of a new Strategic Concept document for the Alliance, including a rewrite of NATO nuclear policy; a decision on European NATO missile defence; discussion of the war in Afghanistan; relations with Russia; and other issues.

The new Strategic Concept is intended to outline the threats to NATO and the ways it should defend against them in the coming decade. Terrorism, cyber attacks, ballistic missiles, and nuclear proliferation are among the “threats” under consideration (Steven Pifer & Justin Vaisse, “Previewing Obama’s European Trip #1: The NATO Summit in Lisbon, November 19-20, 2010,” Brookings Institute, 10 November 2010).

It is expected that the document will remain stand-pat on the subject of NATO nuclear policy, incorporating a rhetorical commitment to nuclear disarmament but rejecting the recent push by Germany and several other NATO members to end the basing of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and get rid of NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements.

Also high on the agenda will be a decision on a proposed missile-defence plan “designed to protect Europe’s population from nuclear-armed missiles the West fears Iran may acquire in coming years. The plans involve radar stations that can detect ballistic missile launches, and advanced interceptor missiles which can shoot them down” (Praveen Swami, “Turkey’s relationship with west on the line in European missile defence negotiations,” Telegraph, 11 November 2010).

The Harper government has already declared its support for this proposed system, a position that may well translate into the Canadian public helping to pay for it (Juliet O’Neill, “Canada to back European Missile Defence Program,” National Post, 20 October 2010).

Ostensibly, the Lisbon summit will spell out the purpose of NATO in the 21st century. But a wider question is not on the summit’s agenda. How meaningful is talk of a global role for NATO in the wake of its Afghanistan debacle?

Expect that question to be studiously ignored.

Photo from Flags - and  – Anthems.com

Join us in a live discussion with special guest Murray Dobbin, one of Canada’s most popular progressive political commentators and analysts.

Learn more about the need for new politics in Canada and how to be successful in framing the F-35, and peace, as election issues.

Canada-wide conference call and live webcast
with Steven Staples and special guest Murray Dobbin

Tuesday, November 16 2010
3:00 PM to 3:30 PM ET
(4:00 AT, 2:00 CT, 1:00 MT, 12:00 PT)

How can we make the F-35 stealth fighters, and peace, election issues?

• Submit your question or comment to Ceasefire.ca
• Email your questions or comments directly to Steve anytime – stevenstaples@ceasefire.ca

How to join the discussion:

Watch it live by video on Ceasefire.ca

OR

Listen to the discussion by conference call

Dial in number: 712 432-1001
Back-up number: 805-360-1075 (for use if your dial in number will not connect. Long distance fees may apply to both numbers)

Attendee Access Code: 411906452#
The conference call is listen-only, due to the large number of participants.

Add your comment below

Photo: Viamoi

Remembrance Day is changing as the veterans of the First and Second World Wars, and the Korean War, pass away. Today more attention is being paid to the veterans of recent conflicts, such as Afghanistan, and the speeches from Government officials freely connect the battles of the past, such as Vimy Ridge, with the current fighting in Kandahar.

This is leaving many to wonder why we gather together each November 11. Is it to mourn the dead, or to adulate them? Do we lament war, or commemorate it?

Remembrance Day was first marked within the British Commonwealth (which included Canada) on November 11, 1919, at 11 a.m. to commemorate the end of the First World War upon the German signing of the Armistice.

According to the Government of Canada, we continue to celebrate this date to

“… honour those who fought for Canada in the First World War (1914-1918), the Second World War (1939-1945), and the Korean War (1950-1953), as well as those who have served since then.”

Red poppies became a popular symbol of Remembrance Day due to John McCrae’s poem “In Flanders Fields” and their blood-red colour. His famous poem is hardly a call for peace. Instead, through McRae, the voices of the dead soldiers urge the reader to fight on, and “Take up our quarrel with the foe.”

Photo: Fernando Mattias Photography

However, this militarized focus on Remembrance Day is not shared by all. One of the most prominent examples of this is the white poppy campaign, which dates back to 1933. This poppy is meant to symbolize the need for peace and to commemorate the war-related deaths of both civilians and service men and women.

The white poppy campaign is not without controversy even today, as some peace groups seek to revise the anti-war symbol. The Royal Canadian Legion and other groups feel that it denigrates the symbol of those who have died while serving their country (as well as infringing on the Legion’s trademark of the red poppy symbol, used in their fundraising – page 41 of the Poppy Manual).

What is your opinion?

Do you feel that Remembrance Day has become a commemoration of war, or does it remain a time to think about peace?

Add your comment below

A week-long series in the Toronto Star reveals some of the true cost of Canada’s war in Afghanistan.

Friday’s article (Bruce Campion-Smith & Allan Woods, “Tories’ secret Afghan casualty list reveals intensity of combat,” Toronto Star, 5 November 2010) describes how the Conservative government and the Department of National Defence have refused to talk about the injuries of Canadian troops. The article also suggests that members of the military and the government have at times misled Canadians about their assessment of the situation in Afghanistan.

The policy of releasing the number of injured soldiers only once a year — on Dec. 31 — has obscured the intensity of fight facing Canadian soldiers, as well as the nature of the sometimes life-altering injuries. It has also given Canadians back home a mental buffer against the numbing realities of war — soldiers who fight hard also get hurt.

The article cites previously secret military documents to describe some of the many injuries in 2009.

The policy of withholding information about Canada’s injured soldiers is of concern because it hides the true face of the war.  More than 450 Canadian soldiers were injured in Afghanistan in 2009. These soldiers often face long recoveries, and sometimes mental health issues.

Some soldiers complain that hiding the wounded prevents them from being recognized and celebrated for their physical sacrifices on behalf of Canada. In hospitals across the country, they are suffering and recovering alone and in silence, something that can contribute to their frustration, breed resentment and lead to mental health problems.

US Defence Department photo

Possibly hoping to extend its record of foreign policy blunders, the Harper government is considering continuing Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan past the scheduled mid-2011 end of the mission.

According to the Toronto Star (Bruce Campion-Smith, “Troops may stay in Afghanistan as ‘trainers’,” 6 November 2010), “a senior government official” has confirmed that a military training mission is one of three options under active consideration by the government:

While the Conservative government is holding firm that the combat mission will end in 2011, one of three options emerging is that some soldiers could remain in the troubled nation, well away from combat zones, as trainers.

The other two potential roles on the table are aid and development, a senior government official told the Star.

There are roughly 3,000 soldiers involved in Canada’s Afghan mission. The size of the training contingent would be “much smaller” and would be away from Kandahar, a hotbed of the insurgency, the official said.

Canada’s future presence in Afghanistan will likely involve all three elements as it looks to put renewed emphasis on rebuilding the country’s institutions and assisting its impoverished population.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae declared themselves in favour of establishing such a mission earlier this year, as did a farcical Senate “report” that was based on hearings that invited only supporters of the war.

In January, Prime Minister Harper pledged that “we will not be undertaking any activities [post 2011] that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy.”

The Liberal party’s support for extending the military mission opened the door for the Prime Minister to break that pledge, however, by effectively removing the possibility of losing a parliamentary vote over mission extension.

In contrast to the Liberal and Conservative parties, the Canadian public continues to oppose any extension of the military mission in Afghanistan. An Angus Reid poll taken in mid-October found that Canadian support for the Afghanistan mission has hit a new low, with just 35% supporting the Canadian military presence in the country, and an August Ipsos-Reid poll showed that almost 80% of Canadians want Canadian troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2011.

Update:
Campbell Clark & Doug Saunders, “Canada ponders plan to keep nearly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan,” Globe and Mail, 8 November 2010

After being detained for eight years, Omar Khadr was sentenced last week to a symbolic forty years in prison after pleading guilty to murder, attempted murder, supporting terrorism, spying, and conspiracy. The sentence was symbolic, however, as a pre-trial deal had already capped Khadr’s sentence at eight years, most of which are likely to be served in Canada (“The Trial of Omar Khadr,” CBC News, 1 November 2010).

The Khadr case was a landmark for the Guantanamo war-crimes tribunal created in 2002. Although Khadr is the fifth person convicted at Guantanamo, he was the first charged with murder in violation of the laws of war. He was also the first convicted for crimes committed as a juvenile (Andrew Mayeda, “Khadr Given Symbolic 40 Years,” National Post, 31 October 2010).

Senator Romeo Dallaire has spoken out against the verdict, stating, “It’s going dead against the [Geneva] Conventions we have agreed to, the conventions that call for child soldiers to be handled differently and that those who use child soldiers to be seen as conducting crimes against humanity. We have pushed that internationally. We’ve been tested with one of our own, and we have failed flagrantly” (Sarah Hampson, “Romeo Dallaire rages against Canada,” Globe and Mail, 3 November 2010).

The Khadr case has divided Canadian public opinion, and the Harper government (and the Martin government before it) has appeared throughout the case to be more interested in deriving domestic political benefit from the case than in protecting the rights of a Canadian citizen to a fair trial and to the protections of international law.

Photo by Zaynab Khadr