September 4, 2006

Of course Jack Layton is right - precisely in order to support our troops we should announce we are withdrawing them from this ill-conceived, suicidal mission, undertaken to support George Bush and so Stephen Harper can prove he's tough. This should be the position of every progressive in Canada and the fact that the NDP has finally come out with this position gives us an opportunity to show that there is public support for such a move.

There are so many things fundamentally wrong with this “mission” it’s hard to know where to start. The dramatic shift from nation-building (itself a dubious, if well-intentioned, mission given that Afghanis never asked for foreign countries to build its nation) to war-fighting, guarantees more Canadian soldiers will die, a totally corrupt government (elected or not) will be supported by Canadians, Muslim anger at the West will increasingly be focused not just on the US but Canada, and Afghanis will continue to die as “collateral damage,” just as thousands of Iraqis are dying every month.

It is an absolute certainty that this proud, determined and tribal people will continue to reject foreign intervention as they have in the past with the British and the Soviets - and that we will eventually leave, having failed completely in any of our lofty goals. The only question is how many people - Afghans and Canadians - will have to die before we do.

Here are some facts and arguments you can use to show support for withdrawing our troops as soon as is practical and responsible. You can frame this as explicit support for Layton and the NDP or, if you feel this is too partisan, simply express your support for the withdrawal.

* We should reframe the argument put forward by Harper. His constant refrain is that criticizing the mission is denying support to our troops. We should reframe this argument by saying supporting our troops requires that we withdraw them - because we have misled them about their mission, have given them a virtually impossible task, and lied to them about the prospects for a successful humanitarian mission and about the true nature of the Afghan government.

We should also point out that Harper’s arguments are identical to George Bush’s attacks on US critics of the Iraq war - that to engage in democratic debate about what our government is doing is “unpatriotic” and a “betrayal” of our troops.

* As part of your letter, demand that the Harper government answer the following questions (pick a couple to keep it short):

• What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives?
• What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?
• What are the criteria to measure progress?
• What is the definition of success?
• And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

Harper refuses to answer any of these questions - and this, more than anything the critics might say, is the true betrayal of Canadian soldiers. Harper is asking soldiers to die for a mission the government cannot even explain.

* Harper is betraying Canadian soldiers and their families by insisting they engage in a vicious counter-insurgency against a determined and motivated enemy. This is a fight that results in more and more civilian casualties, traumatizes children, forces people to leave their homes, destroys their orchards and livelihoods - all of which leads ordinary Afghanis to increasingly resent Canadian soldiers who then must try to “win their hearts and minds”. An impossible and dishonest assignment.

* How can Canadians possibly help a country whose government is, according to many, the most corrupt it has ever seen? While Canadians are dying and being wounded for ordinary Afghanis, the elected government has war lords in its cabinet, profits from opium, and has a Supreme Court that is completely corrupt. Ironically the one thing the Taliban was popular for was ending corruption. Now it is back with a vengeance.

New York Times story from August 23rd [ ] documents the corruption and incompetence of the government Canada is explicitly supporting:

“Corruption is so widespread, the government apparently so lethargic and the divide between rich and poor so gaping that Mr. Karzai is losing public support, warn officials like Ahmad Fahim Hakim, deputy chairman of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. “Nothing that he promised has materialized,” Mr. Hakim said, echoing the comments of diplomats and others in Kabul, the capital. “Beneath the surface, it is boiling.”

* an American Press story today [ ] reports that the country produced a record amount of opium this year - supplying 90% of the world’s supply.; “poppy cultivation in Afghanistan reached a record 407,700 acres in 2006, up from 257,000 acres in 2005.” The Taliban (who now benefit from opium sales to fund their resistance) had virtually eliminated opium production by 2001 as part of their religious fundamentalism.

“The news is very bad. On the opium front today in some of the provinces of Afghanistan, we face a state of emergency,” Antonio Maria Costa, chief of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, said at a news conference. “In the southern provinces, the situation is out of control.”

Much of the opium is actually produced by the government: “In an indication of the alarming extent of official complicity in the trade, a Western counter narcotics official said about 25,000 to 30,000 acres of government land in Helmand [province] was used to cultivate opium poppies this year.

* The drug situation is especially critical in the southern provinces where our soldiers are fighting the Taliban. Until the opium growing is dealt with, any hope of reconstruction or democracy building is doomed - yet Canadian troops have no mandate to deal with the drug lords who currently run the southern provinces, and who co-operate with the Taliban.

* Another story reports that humanitarian aid is virtually useless because of corruption and sky-high administrative costs so that little of the money gets to where it is needed.

* Our commitment to fight an ill-considered war means we have no resources at all to help in countries where the mission would receive widespread support from Canadians. For example, Harper says we can’t send troops as peacekeepers to southern Lebanon - an honourable mission we can’t undertake because we are spending billions ($4 billion since the start of the Afghan involvement) and stretching our troops to the limit in Afghanistan.

Click here to SEND YOUR LETTER NOW!