Progressives (e.g., our NDP) have been mostly against the war for quite some time. Sadly a lot of conservatives, now that the going has got tough, want out too. Some very pertinent points in an excellent, and wider, article this July by Sebastian Junger (via Lauryn Oates):
…Afghanistan was my concern, and as the situation deteriorated, I went back again and again. In the spring of 2007, I began a yearlong project of following one platoon of American soldiers—about 35 men—at a remote outpost in the Korengal Valley, the eastern part of the country. The outpost was named Restrepo, after the platoon medic who was killed early in the deployment, and while I was there, nearly one-fifth of the combat in all of Afghanistan was happening around our little base. I wrote a book about it, called War, and shot and directed a film—called Restrepo—with British photographer Tim Hetherington. As longtime war reporters, Tim and I were both well-acclimated to the idea that journalists refrain from advocating any particular political position or course of action, and that was the approach I took with both the book and the movie. “We don’t tell people how to think,” was how Tim put it.
We shot 150 hours of video and then interviewed eight of the soldiers after they had returned to their base in Vicenza, Italy. Neither the film nor the book ever reach for a wider truth or try to evaluate the political dimensions of the war. It was purely a soldiers’-eye view of combat: They can’t ask a general or a diplomat why they’re fighting, so neither would we. Our job, as we saw it, is to document the effects of war on people, and in this case the people in question were American soldiers. On later assignments we could return to our work among the civilian population in the country.
Restrepo won the grand jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival and went on to enjoy commercial distribution in cinemas around the country. For a while, it was the top-grossing independent film in the country, and support seemed to come from across the political spectrum. Conservative reporters seemed to love it because a pair of “left-wing” reporters had refrained from morally deconstructing the war. And liberal reporters—swayed by the same raw footage of American combat deaths and civilian casualties—saw it as an irrefutable indictment of war. They decided that Tim and I had secretly made an antiwar film but just hadn’t told anyone. Tim and I watched this debate without saying a word. We have opinions, of course, but we suspected they were far more complex than either political camp wanted to hear.
It took about a month, but the criticisms finally started to trickle in. Some reviewers argued that to have no agenda in a film about war amounts to an acceptance of the status quo—which is essentially a pro-war position. The only morally defensible film about war, it would seem, is one that condemns it; everything else is propaganda…
Whatever its flaws, the current situation represents the lowest level of violence in Afghanistan since 1980 [emphasis added, one would never think that in light of what our media emphasize, see Update here]. Estimates of civilian deaths in the nine years since NATO began operations range from 12,000 to 30,000—a tiny fraction of what they were during the previous decade. (According to the United Nations, more than two-thirds of the civilian deaths in 2009 were caused by the Taliban.) Conversely, infant mortality has gone down by roughly 20 percent and over 6 million children are now receiving an education—the highest number in Afghan history. Many of those children, of course, are girls.
The war, however, is going worse and worse. I don’t have a son or daughter over there, I don’t have anything personal at stake in this miserable affair, so I feel completely unworthy to answer the question of whether the United States should keep fighting or pull out. As a journalist, the only thing I can do is try to guess the likely consequences of each choice and explain them to people who can’t go over there to see for themselves. If NATO remains in Afghanistan, it can probably maintain the current level of stability and prevent Taliban and al Qaeda forces from reestablishing a base in that country. If NATO withdraws, those forces will almost certainly sweep into Kabul and precipitate another protracted civil war. That risks recreating the circumstances that led to the 9/11 attacks, but the human and economic costs of another attack might possibly be lower than if we continued waging war.
What is almost certain, however, is that in Afghanistan, every index of human misery will probably skyrocket back to pre-9/11 levels. We are a great and powerful nation, and I am not suggesting we owe it to the Afghans to protect them from themselves. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, don’t imagine NATO should withdraw for their sake. The Afghans will undoubtedly be the ones who pay the heaviest price for a NATO withdrawal. That’s not necessarily our problem, but don’t delude yourself into thinking it isn’t so.
Mr Junger has also written a book about the platoon, War:
Mark
Ottawa
Sadly a lot of conservatives, now that the going has got tough, want out too.
I am going to have to bullsh*t on this statement. What do you have that proves that conservatives want out? If you are referring to the parliamentary end date that was voted on by the House of Commons, and that the CPC has steadfastly referred to as our commitment then I still call bullpucky.
What you see as a desire to leave I see as a desire to obey the will of the House. That the CPC has never brought another vote to the house to change this is what you need to discuss. You would then have to determine if it would be a matter of confidence, and then you would have to determine if the motion would pass or be defeated.
Your take on the political situation seems naive. Based on your background and knowledge I know that you aren’t all that naive, so perhaps you are being disingenuous in your discussion of the situation. Or perhaps you are just ignoring the political situation because it doesn’t fit with your perception of what conservatives really want.
Like many of the “conservatives” out there you never discuss the politics of the decisions. You fail to regard what happens when a minority tries to govern like a majority… Joe Clark ring a bell?
Dwayne: I am referring to small-c conservatives, not the party. The comments on Afstan at this blog over the last few months I think tend to support my case.
Unless they were made, instead, by hard big-C types with a domestic political agenda foremost. And there has been a vote in the Commons:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/commons-motion-targets-liberal-divisions-over-afghan-mission/article1819267/
More here on how Afstan has been approached in Canada:
http://unambig.com/the-disgraceful-failure-of-our-major-medias-afghan-mission/
Mark
Ottawa
I’ve wanted our folks out of there, not because the effort and expenditure were not valuable and making a difference, but because I did not see the signs, from a broad spectrum of our political leadership, that they understood the magnitude of the task they had undertaken.
I thought then, and still believe now, that ultimately our government will abandon Afghanistan, as a political burden too heavy to carry.
Maybe if the people of that fetid sh^%hole would get off their lazy asses and take on more of the heavy lifting we wouldn’t need to worry about this.
Nah, better to accept our money, squaunder it, play both sides of the Taliban/NATO fence sell drugs and blubber about what victims they are.
I am reminded of a story by a Canadian soldier who went to Somalia. The women of the village begged the soldiers to dig a well because “they needed water for their babies” (Aaaawwwww)
The men of the village did little all day but wander around chewing a narcotic weed.
The Canadians had no well drilling equipment so they went to work digging a well by hand (shovel & pick axe). The Somali men watched and did nothing.
Some days later the unit was required to leave the area (for some reason I can’t remember). Th well was quite deep but had not yet reached water.
However, the Canadians were pleased that they had given the well “a good start ” and the remainder could be left for the locals to complete.
A couple of months later the same soldier returned to the village to find the hole no deeper than it was when they left and piled with garbage.
The women of the village upon seeing the Canadians, began again their usual wailing about water for the babies.
Note to third world, failed state, sh**holes:
Dig your own damned wells!
I guess that’s what I mean Mark, many conservatives here, and elsewhere, wonder why the CPC has held hard and fast to the vote in the HoC with the withdrawal date.
No need to wonder, discuss the political ramifications of either unilaterally changing the terms of withdrawal, or moving in the House a change.
As we have seen recently, only with the Liberal Party going along with them will the CPC be able to change the withdrawal date, and even change the mandate of the military within Afghanistan. But this is a very political decision based on support of the Liberals, even though they know they will face a media that will screech and scream about the change. Not to mention the Bloqist pacifists and NDP no nothing defeatists screeching along with the media at the change. Without the Liberal Party, the CPC would not be able to do what we all know is right, but could be politically wrong without support.
And that, finally, is the case in a nutshell, for the past few years the Liberal Party has waffled on the support, and so the CPC had to fall back on the line that the House of Commons had spoken and they were only following the will of the House. Now, the will of the house can change, only with the Liberal’s help. And with that help, the CPC will be able to create a new mandate, a new withdrawal date, and a new “non-combat” role that many people had hoped for for a long while.
Could the CPC have done this without the Liberal Party support, I submit to you that they could not have done it, and that is all politics.
Dwayne: My main point, made.
Mark
Ottawa
John’s example of people not helping themselves has nothing to do with your meme of conservatives getting out when the going gets tough.
He relates a story that isn’t that hard to understand from a field point of view. When you spend all that time doing the heavy lifting only to find out the people you are trying to help won’t do any heavy lifting themselves you get discouraged. Some people decide at that point that if you can’t help yourself, why should I continue to help you.
But that has nothing to do with your point, that the CPC, and small c-conservatives, want to leave Afghanistan because it was getting to hard. They were leaving because the HoC set a time limit and the PM was abiding by that decision, no matter what you or anyone else said.
The CPC and the prime minister were happily ready to abandon any military effort in Afstan, for political reasons, until the Liberals–basically Bobbety, to whom in this one case I will give great credit–essentially shamed the government into doing a lesser, but still right, thing.
Why must Canadians be so single-mindedly partisan? There is a broader matter, the Islamist threat after all. And if they win in Afstan the consequences will be increasingly unpleasant. Cf. Sweden today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BA2GZ20101212
Mark
Ottawa
And here we disagree on the why and how things happen. The CPC and the PM were not “happily ready to abandon any military effort in Afghanistan for political reasons” as you say. The government was handed a political situation, the troops were already in Afghanistan with an end date which the house had set. Here is a quote from the CBC, this would have been near the end of 2006:
A heated debate arose within Parliament, and among Canadians, on the future of the Afghanistan mission. Should troops be pulled out in February 2009 as had been committed? If the mission were to continue, what should be its focus?
So, an end date had already been determined once by the house, right? So, what happens next? The PM sets up a non-partisan committee:
In October 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called for an independent panel to study the questions and recommend a way forward. Former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley led the group.
And after the panel was finished they had recommendations, which the government used as guidelines, and then the CPC went back to the House of Commons:
Seven weeks after the Manley report was released, a confidence motion to keep Canadian soldiers in Kandahar until 2011 passed easily in the House of Commons.
Now, here is the tricky part. There was an election in 2008 and the PM was being asked about Afghanistan. A majority of Canadians didn’t like the fact that we were over there fighting “Bush’s War”. Not only in Quebec, where they have a history of pacifism in the general populations, but across Canada.
The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 34 per cent of respondents “strongly disapprove” of Canada’s participation in military action in Afghanistan, while 22 per cent “somewhat disapprove,” making a total of 56 per cent.
See this story:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html
This was Sept. 2008 and a few weeks later the PM asked the Gov Gen to dissolve parliament and we were off to the polls.
During the fall 2008 federal election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper emphasized the “end date” for the Afghanistan mission would be 2011, with the bulk of the Canadian military forces withdrawn by that time.
So, there is a political component to the decision to leave in 2011. Like I have said before, are politicians supposed to cut their own throats to do what is perceived as right by some Canadians, and wrong by others? It is naive to think that politics can but thrust aside when making decisions while governing the country. And, I don’t think that it has anything to do with “single minded partisanship”. Or, if you like that phrase, then it would be the single minded partisanship of each of the 3 major political parties. The only party that shows consistency on the issue is the NDP, and they can afford to be consistent because they have no hope of ever forming a government. They can say anything they like and 15-18% of Canadians will vote for them regardless of how stupid or unachievable the statement.
The CPC and the Liberal Party both are playing to the mushy middle, neither one claiming solid footing on the left or right. They make decisions based on polls and perception in the hopes of finding enough common ground with a majority of voters so they can govern. In the end, that is what politicians do, they try to win so they can make the rules.
So, I guess I am partisan because I want the CPC to be the ones making the rules. And, I understand that to do that they have to win a majority. We have seen what a minority government is like, it is give and take and compromise.
So, just like back in 2008, the CPC and the Liberal Party have come together to find common ground on Afghanistan and thereby neutralize one of the areas where they could take opposing positions. My personal opinion, the Liberal Party is caving and the CPC is getting what they want, further support in Afghanistan. Where you seem to think that Bob Rae or M Ignatief have a hand, I see PM Harper having a hand, and the compromise that BOTH parties have come to allow them to remove this from the table during the next election.
As for the Islamist threat, you can look at the Liberal Party’s big tent of terrorist and know which side they are on – Tamil Tigers, Hamas and Hizbollah and so on. The CPC has consistently been the one party to single out terrorists and to support the only real democratic and human rights supporters in the Middle East, Israel.
[...] to this post on Sebastian Junger, Progressives, war, and what happens if NATO pulls out of [...]