Quote:
|
Originally Posted by icarus
Bush really has little to do with the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.
We, along with other NATO nations, are there at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghani government and with Security Council approval to help implement the ISAF in fulfillment of the 2001 Bonn Agreement. We are there to rehabilitate a failed state (the cause of that failure is irrelevant). What's past is prologue. After speaking with the Afghani ambassador to Canada a couple months ago, I have little question that an international force is wanted there, should be there, and is there for the right reasons.
Personally, I lament the cause-and-effect approach to reconstruction that many tend to take. I believe that whether from use of force by a sovereign state, civil war, natural disaster, or otherwise, the reconstruction of any country is a concern to all and an obligation erga omnes. I agree with Romeo Dallaire, whose take is that we shouldn't have acted in Iraq (and we didn't) but we should take a role in helping it to rebuild. The fact that Canada did support the ousting of the Taliban may add a moral rationale to the current ISAF mission, but even without that consideration it is noble if not dutiful to be there in promotion of rule of law and regional stability.
It is shame the international community doesn't do more reconstruction and even if there are willing nations, there aren't enough of them to be deployed everywhere they are needed. Hopefully the new UN Peacebuilding Commission will help with this.
|
Despite the straw man arguments being directed towards me, I never said that Bush is the reason Canada is in Afghanistan.
I understand what out NATO obligation is in Afghanistan. The issue I have is with the decisions Bush has made since the invasion of Afghanistan, and how it has prolonged the conflict there, and how it has actually undermined what Canada, and the rest of the NATO alliance is trying to accomplish there.
Could you imagine if Bush actually chose to put the same effort and resources into Afghanistan as he has Iraq? The conflict would be over by now - the mission would be accomplished! But instead, Canadians are still there chasing the exact same people who ruled the country 5 years ago! It's not at all about propping up an elected government or rebuilding... it's about hunting down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. If the U.S. was not attacked in 9-11, then we wouldn't be there... no reasonable person can deny that. That is the reality of Afghanistan no matter what the spin masters are saying. Right now, as we speak, Canada and other NATO allies are preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan so the U.S. can pull out thousands of theirs. If Canada were ever attacked, thereby invoking NATO allies to arms, I'm sure our allies would start wondering what they were still doing there 5 years later if we were in the process of pulling out like the U.S. is now.
Flashback to 2003. Canada made the decision to take a larger role in Afghanistan in order to allow the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. Since then, Bush and his supporters have ignored that, and have focused on simply our absence from Iraq - and we get punished for it in our trade disputes. All I am hoping is that these recent sacrifices of Canadian soldiers receives some appreciation from Bush - and that it is indicated in their policies towards us.
I'm not holding my breath though.