Canada keeping the U$ warlords happy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Canada keeping the U$ warlords happy

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

sent by MichaelP (activ-l)

Toronto Star - May 20, 2006
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1148077814543&call_pageid--0599109774&col=Columnist969907626796

Canada at War

Extending the Afghanistan mission for two more years may have had
more to do with keeping the U.S. happy than fighting terror

As a declaration of support for war, it was hesitant, as a commitment
reluctant. Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a victory this week when a
slim majority of MPs agreed to support his government's decision to keep
Canadian troops in Afghanistan until at least 2009. But it is a victory
that may quickly sour.

Not since the conscription crisis of 1944 has the country been so divided
over war. Polls show that 55 per cent of Canadians now oppose keeping
troops in Afghanistan. In Quebec, roughly three-quarters of those polled
oppose the war.

It's this, rather than the stated reasons given by MPs (short notice,
political posturing, lack of detail), that explains the results of
Wednesday night's Commons vote, when 149 opted to extend the Afghan
deployment and 145 voted against.

It was a stunning turnaround. Just six weeks earlier, at the last Commons
debate on Afghanistan, MPs from all parties fell over one another
explaining how they supported the troops.

The Bloc Quebecois and Liberals were fully on side with the Conservatives;
the New Democrats were dodgy but accepting.

But in that exercise, MPs did not have to vote publicly, one by one, on
the substantive question of whether the troops should stay on.

This time they did, in the certain knowledge that their constituents would
eventually discover how they voted.

Domestic opposition to the war has been rising steadily, ever since 2,300
Canadian troops went into Kandahar earlier this year as part of the
Americans' Operation Enduring Freedom. With combat deaths now almost
routine and no apparent victory in sight, that opposition seems fated to
grow.

For Canada, this is unprecedented. The norm for this country is that most
people stand behind a decision to wage war once it is made.

It's not always remembered that in the years leading up to World War II, a
good many Canadians inside and outside of Quebec were hesitant about
involving themselves in another European conflict. But once war was
declared in 1939, most of the public quickly came on side.

So, too, in 1950 when Canadian troops were dispatched to take sides in
what was effectively a Korean civil war. Initial hesitation was followed
by public acceptance.

That happened again in 1991 when Canada signed onto the first U.S.-led war
against Iraq. Before the conflict started, most Canadians were opposed.
Once it began, they fell into line. If dissension flares, as it did during
the two world wars, it is usually over specific issues like conscription
rather than the fact of the war.

But in this case, the war itself is unpopular this in spite of the fact
that for most Canadians, it is painless. Save for the families of the
troops, no one at home is paying a price. There is no rationing, no
curfew, no conscription; there are no blackouts or air raids. The troops
in Afghanistan appear enthusiastic.

Yet, more than half of the public still doesn't buy in. Every death, like
that of Capt. Nichola Goddard this week, underlines how fragile political
support for the war is at home.

The reasons for this are complex. In part, they stem from the widespread
distaste in Canada for U.S. President George W. Bush. New Democratic Party
defence critic Dawn Black alluded to that on Wednesday night when she
complained that Canadian troops in Afghanistan were under U.S., rather
than UN or NATO, command.

Supporters of the war hope that this kind of mistrust will dissipate when
NATO formally takes over control of Canadian and other forces in southern
Afghanistan later this summer.

But the Bush factor is only one reason. The Afghan war has also made it
clear that something has changed in the way this country approaches the
world.

Many Canadians are not sure they like it.

The official government explanation for the war is that it is a necessary
pre-emptive strike against terrorists.

"Our safety begins far from our border," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor
told the Commons last month. "This means going to Afghanistan to counter
terrorists there ... An effective strategy to counter an opponent is to
carry the struggle to his own territory."

The problem with this reasoning is that it is based on a fallacy. The main
terrorist threat is no longer foreign. As Canadian Security Intelligence
Service head Jim Judd noted recently, Western countries are less in danger
from wild-eyed tribesmen in Kandahar then they are from home-grown
terrorists like the soccer-playing, British-born suicide bombers who
attacked London subways and buses last year and who, according to United
Kingdom authorities, had had no contact with Al Qaeda or Afghanistan.

As for Osama bin Laden, he is believed to be in Pakistan. His erstwhile
Taliban allies are certainly based there. Meanwhile, his Al Qaeda
organization has moved on to Iraq to exploit the chaos created there by
the 2003 U.S. invasion.

If O'Connor truly wanted to take the fight to bin Laden and the Taliban,
he would have his troops invade Pakistan. But, of course, he doesn't. The
Pakistanis are allies. Also, they have nuclear weapons.

The real reason why Canada is in Afghanistan is that America wants us
there. If we end up sending more military forces into the Darfur region
of Sudan (and Harper has hinted that we might), it will be because America
wants us there, too.

This is the new reality. The U.S. has more potential military
obligations than it can handle. It needs its troops for other wars. So, it
is handing off most of its military operations in Afghanistan to NATO.

While not planning to bring home all of the 20,000 troops it currently has
stationed there, Washington certainly expects to reduce this number over
time.

In return, Canada, Britain, Holland and other NATO countries have agreed
to take up the slack.

This is all part of a fundamental rethinking of the old Atlantic
alliance. Once a U.S.-dominated defensive organization centred on
Europe, it is being transformed into a U.S.-dominated proxy force that can
be dispatched to anywhere in the world.

Every death underlines how fragile political support for the war is at
home

Those countries that participate expect preferential economic treatment
from Washington. This is what politicians mean when they talk of using the
military in order to win influence internationally: We serve up our
troops, you let in our softwood lumber.

Behind this new NATO is a confluence of events. Driven in part by the
terror attacks of 9/11, Washington is developing global military
strategies even more ambitious than those of the Cold War.

Yet, American voters are increasingly unwilling to provide the manpower
for these ambitions. A return to the draft is politically impossible. At
the same time, the Iraq war has demonstrated the limits of the
all-volunteer, professional army.

The only option left is to create a mercenary force. In effect, that's
what NATO is becoming a kind of latter-day Swiss Guard. Some NATO
countries, France and Germany in particular, are resisting this
development, which is why their role in Afghanistan is more limited.

Others, like Poland, Bulgaria and Lithuania are more gung-ho. They need
the money.

Canada is somewhere in between.

Historically, it is accustomed to taking its lead from whatever imperial
power happens to be in charge.

It stuck with Britain until World War II demonstrated the limits of Royal
Navy protection. Then it switched allegiance to the U.S.

The Korean War, in which 516 Canadians died, underlined the cost of
adhering too closely to Washington's line. So, Canada developed a slightly
more independent foreign policy in the mid-'50s, one centred on the United
Nations and peacekeeping.

In particular, Canada avoided Vietnam, a conflict that Ottawa feared would
be a reprise of the bloody Korean War.

That worked largely because the U.S. allowed it to work. America had built
its Cold War military strategy around a series of regional alliances, each
with its own obligations.

Canada was expected to do its bit in Europe but was allowed a pass on
Vietnam. For Australia and South Korea, the reverse held.

Modern U.S. strategy is different. The aim, outlined in both official and
semi-official documents, is to create U.S. military hubs around the world
backed up by flexible forces that are capable of intervening quickly
anywhere.

This strategy does not depend as much on a worldwide array of formal
alliances. Rather, it requires a smaller set of favoured allies who are
willing to send troops anywhere to do anything that the U.S. requires.

This, in turn, requires these allies to have access to sufficient airlift
capacity as well as flexible combat units capable of operating seamlessly
with American troops.

It's a strategy favoured by the Canadian military (which calls it
interoperability) and particularly by Gen. Rick Hiller, the chief of the
defence staff.

But it is not necessarily favoured by the Canadian public which, insofar
as it pays attention, resists military integration with the U.S. and
maintains a nostalgic affection for old-style internationalism.

When Harper first announced his surprise motion on Afghanistan earlier
this week, it seemed a masterful political stroke.

By forcing a vote on the Afghan mission, he would be able to expose the
raw divisions within the Liberal party as well as the hypocrisy of the
Bloc Quebecois and the shallowness of the NDP.

An early vote on Afghanistan, it was thought, would defang the issue,
thereby ensuring that the war did not dominate the next election campaign.

That was the initial thinking.

But that happy scenario works only if the public agrees. It assumes that
most Canadians will eventually buy into Afghanistan.

There is an alternate scenario, one that may be more plausible.

Suppose that Canadian soldiers are still dying in Kandahar a year from
now. Suppose, too, that visible signs of success a decline in the opium
trade, a reduction in insurgent attacks are still lacking.

Suppose that support for the war continues to slip.

In that scenario, Harper would not seem so clever. He as well as other war
supporters like Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff would be on
the wrong side of public opinion.

In that scenario, Canadians might well forget that this was a mission
instituted by the Liberals and initially supported by both the New
Democrats and the Bloc.

Thanks to this week's vote, it would be remembered as Stephen Harper's war
one that the NDP, the Bloc and most Liberals voted to oppose.


*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Search Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/htdig/search.html
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEc842HwEfpL2U00kRAgk9AJ9vep0k09p/vs8tQaeUJM5M+bJO8gCglKws
1rKODT+ojLWmcysu8SUearw=
=K/iZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

.

Relevant Pages
Loading