Time to re-think war & peace in Afghanistan

The death of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan has renewed the vigour of both sides of the repair and restore foreign policy debate.

On one side, the Harper government and its supporters argue that Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is a necessary component to ensuring this region of the world does not fall into the hands of potential terrorists.

On the other side are the self-professed lefties who condemn our militaristic involvement and our assumption that we should send our citizens to die while imposing our way of life, liberty and freedom.

The reality is (as always) that the truth falls somewhere in between.

It is a fallacy to assume that peacebuilding does not involve some military aspect. As an avowed supporter of non-violence, even I must concede that situations can become so drastic (and the power balance so distorted) that only the gun can re-balance the void. The fact is, I would love to get to a place where the gun is no longer a component in peacebuilding, but, at present, this does not seem to be the case -- and not just in Afghanistan or Iraq.

As such, I must concede that there is validity to our presence in Afghanistan. Having spent time in Kandahar (after the fall of the Taliban and before the withdrawal of American soldiers - see http://www.romanaking.com/links1.html and link to the Kandahar article under Travel & Adventure) I know first hand that nothing changed with the simple retreat of Taliban forces. From the mouths of the very women that live in Kandahar came the reality that the culture of Afghanistan is still patriarchial and oppressive -- a culture where warlords decide the fate of towns and villages and women are considered chattel rather than community members.

This was the impetus for the arrival of those initial Canadian troops. To help a nation ravaged by decades of war to return to peace, while implementing progressive values that would enable all their citizens to participate in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. It was a noble reason and, given the current lawless state, appeared to be a synergistic with the use of the military force.

Now, almost five years later, these Canadian forces are targets rather than liberators.

The argument is that these forces are no longer wanted by the Afghani people, and thus, should withdraw.

Yet, the refusal to accept help comes from Afghan's militant minority - a minority that does not include women. In fact, the women I met in Kandahar WANTED liberation -- and not the simplistic liberation of choosing to wear the burka or not. They wanted a new government and a new set of laws that enabled them to pursue life, liberty and happiness without fear of reprisal (reprisal that could often mean dismemberment or death).

Hence, from this perspective, Canada has an obligation to remain and help in the rebuilding of Aghanistan. While we may not be the nation(s) directly responsible for the deterioration of Afghanistan's infrastructure and social network system, we are a nation noted for our peacebuilding inititiaves and we are nation of have's in a world of have-not's.

Yet, at what point do the wishes of another nation's people become more important than the safety of our own nation's people? At what point should Canadians die in order to liberate another land's people?

Rather than assume that our citizens are more important, I answer this question from the perspective of participation and willingness. If the use of the gun has become a symbol for resistence and terror, than perhaps the gun, itself, should be removed. While Canadian military forces continue to show a presence in that country, we will continue to be targets. And the fact is, military intervention is not the only method for establishing peace.

Yes, a top-down (leader-imposed) peace is preferable -- as it almost implies nation-wide buy-in -- but the fact is that it is not working in Afghanistan.

As such, my vote is to remove our Canadian troops and, instead, send our Canadian expertise.

The Germans are masters of this tactic. All over South Asia (where wars and bloody squirmishes persist) the Germans are a prevalent force as technicians, experts and guides. They concentrate on building the infrastructure that benefits the local population -- infrastructure that is one component in the peacebuilding process.

The rational is that if the local population becomes fed-up with the wars (and this is prompted by a better standard of living, as proferred through the use of German technology and knowledge) then the warlords will no longer find support for their cause.

And there is precedence for this tactic -- just look at Ireland or the Sudan or South Africa. While many factors are involved in the termination of violent conflict in these and other nations, one common component is the use of bottom-up/grassroots peacebuilding initiatives -- initiatives that include the rebuilding of educational facilities, infrastructure and economic communities.

The fact is there are factions within Afghanistan that are vehemently opposed to any intervention by foreign military -- even if this military brings aid and potential hope.

This opposition, then, must prompt us to rethink our role in the peacebuilding process in Afghanistan. Yes, we are obliged to help, but to continue down this militaristic course -- a course marred in blood and violence -- may not be the best tactic.

Instead a withdrawal of our troops and the interjection of Canadian knowledge and expertise may be the best tactic in helping to stablilize this region of the world and develop a long-term, lasting peace.

For a great editorial on rethinking intervention (from a US-Iraq perspective) check out Thomas L. Friedman's article in the New York Times: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/opinion/04friedman.html?th&emc=th