In late May, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where a Canadian military presence has been steadily increasing since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Canada has deployed over 2,500 troops to fight Taliban resurgences in southern Afghanistan since NATO took over command of the region in July of last year. It is also involved in redevelopment and humanitarian efforts such as heavy weapons decommissioning, de-mining, micro-lending, and training of police forces.

Mr. Harper’s May visit included a tour of a Canadian-funded school in Kabul, a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a visit with Canadian troops near Kandahar. The Prime Minister stated in his speech to soldiers that he sees Canada “at its best” in Afghanistan, calling his country’s work there “Canada’s most important foreign policy endeavor.”

Yet the trip stirred controversy back at home. While Canada has “historically” been in the minority among NATO countries by having a public strongly in favor of military efforts in Afghanistan, the war is now losing support among Canadians.

First, the Canadian national newspaper Globe and Mail brought controversy to the mission earlier this year when an investigative report revealed that Canadian troops have been turning over detainees to Afghan police, under whom detainees are brutally tortured:

Afghans detained by Canadian soldiers and sent to Kandahar’s notorious jails say they were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and subjected to electric shocks during interrogation.

In 30 face-to-face interviews with men recently captured in Kandahar province, a Globe and Mail investigation has uncovered a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops, despite Canada’s assurances that the rights of detainees are protected.

Mr. Karzai took measures during his recent meetings with Mr. Harper to strongly deny these allegations, stating that he could personally guarantee the Canadian people his government was not involved in torturing detainees. (The Globe and Mail cites numerous other, independent sources that uphold its accusations.)

But in addition to the torture scandal, the number of Canadian soldiers killed continues to rise, reaching 57 since 2002 at the very end of May. (This may seem small compared to the near 3,500 American soldiers killed to date in the Iraq conflict, but consider that Canada’s military is a much smaller, more closely-knit, and rarely deployed operation, having only about 62,000 active personnel, compared the US’s 1.4 million, and a budget roughly 3% that of the US’s military budget.)

Fatalities aside, arguably the greatest challenge to public morale is the growing sentiment that NATO is losing the war in Afghanistan. There are growing indications that Taliban resurgences are suceeding in southern Afghanistan, as the Karzai government exercises little authority beyond Kabul city limits and an abundance of opium revenues keep Taliban rebels better funded and organized than their NATO opponents.

Nevertheless, in his recent visit Mr. Harper reiterated Canada’s commitments to the long haul in Afghanistan: “Yes, there remain enormous challenges,” he stated. “But our determination is strong.”

Such hard-line rhetoric has led more than a few in Canada to call Afghanistan “Canada’s Iraq:” troops committed amongst initial public support; counterinsurgency efforts failing; body count rising; evidence of gross (and desperate) misconduct by troops; spiraling spending; and public support plummeting. The gung-ho head of state remains committed just the same.

Meanwhile, Canadians remain proud of their early decision to abstain from any role in the Iraq conflict. (Few can forget this unfortunate interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in which Ann Coulter incorrectly insists that Canada sent troops to Vietnam, as they should have in the case of Iraq.) At the outset of the Iraq war, then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien chose to stick with France and Germany in not joining President Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing,” and publicly criticized Mr. Bush’s decision to go to war without UN approval.

In 2003 the Bush administration made clear that those countries that refused to participate in the Iraq invasion would not be allowed to bid for reconstruction contracts. Mr. Chrétien, that same year, admitted there might be Canadian soldiers deployed alongside British and American troops in Iraq, though he wouldn’t be specific. (The CBC reported over 30 troops were deployed, some of whom, despite Ottawa’s denial, were engaged in combat.)

Then. in 2004, after talks with Canada’s newly elected Prime Minister Paul Martin, Mr. Bush changed this exclusive bidding policy to make a highly visible exception for Canada, suggesting that other dissenting “allies” (such as France, Germany, and Russia) might also be able to join in during later rounds. He cited Canada’s pledge of $240 million to help rebuild Iraq as the reason for allowing Canadian companies to bid, although many speculate it was because Canada did discreetly send troops to Iraq, in addition to acting as an important ally in Afghanistan.

Because Canada is not officially part of the Coalition it is virtually impossible to determine how many Canadian troops have been killed in Iraq. (I was able to find no news sources, blogs, or watchdogs, Canadian or otherwise, with an updated number, and the Canadian Defense Ministry’s website provides no information whatsoever about its personnel in Iraq.)

Following on the heels of his predecessors, Mr. Harper’s strategy toward Iraq and Afghanistan appears to be to stick beside his neighbor to the south, regardless of how the Canadian public feels about it. In spite of Canada’s image of restraint with respect to Iraq, it seems the only real difference between the Canadian and British or American government’s approach to the Iraq conflict is that the former is more careful to keep the public unaware of its involvement. Canadians have been left to guess whether Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin, and Harper committed Canadian troops and military assistance to Iraq in spite of the publicly-approved decision to keep Canada out of the war, thus bypassing any opportunity for public debate concerning the withdrawal of troops.

Moreover, with its ongoing insistence on increasing aid and military assistance to NATO efforts around Kandahar, Ottawa seems unfazed by the country’s distrust and disapproval of the war in Afghanistan. Despite the well-attended March protests throughout Canada calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan (organized in conjunction with anti-war protests in the US), Mr. Harper continues to pursue an all-too-familiar strategy of rosy support for a local government incapable of quelling violence throughout its viciously divided country, while continuing to spend taxpayer money and soldiers’ lives on a losing battle. Indeed, he publicly refuses to consider a parliamentary vote on ending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, vowing instead that Canada will never “cut and run” from commitments already made.

Illustration by jackrascal

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: