Afghanistan Op-Ed in Friday's Toronto Star

Taylor and I had an op-ed we’d written on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan published in the Toronto Star on Friday. Below is the original text we submitted to the Star. I like this version as it contains some of the arguments that got cut, most notably that there is a direct connection between our policies in the downtown eastside of Vancouver and the streets of Khandahar. Interestingly, Harper has promised, in the coming weeks, to table a strategy for Afghanistan. Our hope is that it will reflect some of the concerns outlined below.

Getting Back on Track in Afghanistan

Success in Afghanistan remains as vital today as when the government first sent troops, aid workers and diplomats to Kandahar in August 2005. Many Canadians, however, feel unsure about the mission and want to be assured that our government has a strategy. On February 6th, Prime Minister Harper promised as much, stating his government will table a report summarizing the progress and challenges to date, and will make a significant announcement about our next steps. This is an opportunity to clarify our strategy and to unite both Parliament and the country around the largest deployment of Canadian forces since the Korean war.

First, let us be clear. Canada has an unambiguous purpose in Afghanistan. Failure to secure and rebuild will leave the country as a failed state, a neo-Taliban led fundamentalist regime, or a training ground for terrorists. Any of these would fundamentally threaten Afghan human security, regional stability, and our Canadian national interests.

Prime Minister Harper must reaffirm our commitment and clearly articulate our way forward. We suggest that his report must address three critical areas that if left unchecked, will cause the mission to deteriorate and could cause it to fail.

1. Return to a strategy that complements counterinsurgency with reconstruction and the imposition of the rule of law. Over the past year Prime Minister Harper has increasingly relied on failed US policies and rhetoric, compounding existing problems and creating new ones. In a battle for the hearts and minds of southern Afghans, an aggressive approach will do more harm than good.

Militarily, the killing of even one civilian can do great strategic harm, turning entire villages against us. The Taliban use these casualties to great effect, so that some Afghans now fear international forces more than those who brutally ruled over them.

We need to rethink our counterinsurgency strategy, by relying less on military force, and more on innovative local interactions. As a start, we must curtail the use of air strikes, resume the policy of compensating civilian casualties and determine how our forces can best support reconstruction. The Liberal cabinet deliberately chose not to deploy Leopard tanks and CF-18’s, prioritizing interpersonal contact with Afghans over brute military might. The Prime Minister must explain why we deviated from this strategy.

Most importantly, we need to ensure effective governance. Support for the Taliban derived, in part, from their capacity to impose law and order. Many felt a draconian but predictable governance structure was preferable to chaos and anarchy. Afghan’s desperately want the stability and freedom that comes with the rule of law. If we want to win their hearts and minds we must enable them to establish a just and fair system as quickly as possible.

Diplomatically, the Taliban resurgence in the south remains unchecked. Our problem starts, not from lofty negotiations with Pakistan, but from our own polarised view of the Taliban. Like the failed de-Baathification of Iraq, categorising all who support the Taliban as “against us”, both radicalizes and creates enemies out of moderates whose political support could help stabilize the country.

2. Align Domestic and Foreign Policies. Support for US-backed counter-narcotics tactics endangers the Afghan mission. Poppy eradication destroys the livelihoods of many Afghans and fuels Taliban recruitment. Forcing farmers to shift from poppies, which generate $5,200 per acre, to wheat, which generates $121, is unrealistic. Farmers need a viable alternative. One that curtails the influence of warlords and reduces the global supply of heroin.

Internationally, the Canadian government should ally with the British to develop a regulatory regime that legalizes the purchase of Afghan poppy crops. These crops could be used in the legal production of codeine and morphine, which are scarce in the developing world.

The Canadian Government should also support the Afghan mission by curbing demand for opiates the one place it can – at home. In our globalized world there is a direct link between the poppy fields of Afghanistan and overdose deaths in downtown Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Domestic policies that reduce demand for illegal opiates – such as renewing Vancouver’s Insite safe injection site – diminish the market for these illicit crops and make it easier to shift Afghan farmers to alternatives.

3. Provide clarity of mission. Canadians must be provided with the necessary information to judge our strategy and progress in Afghanistan. When Canada agreed to the Kandahar mission it sought to balance development, military and diplomatic components. Prime Minister Paul Martin outlined this strategy on February 22nd, 2005 when he described how Canadian Forces “…will be assisted by aid officers, who will identify key assistance projects to help to reduce tensions, and by diplomats, who will work with the provincial and local authorities in building confidence with the local population.” Are we still implementing a 3D strategy? If not, why not? If so, what are the benchmarks with which we can measure our success and evaluate the balance between our defence, development and diplomatic efforts?

Transparency is particularly important for effective humanitarian assistance. Critical questions remain unanswered. Where is our development money going? How much are we spending, and on what? Are these programs symbiotic with our military and diplomatic operations?

The Government would be well advised to establish a development measurement framework with clear milestones, based on the Afghanistan Compact, enabling projects to be evaluated and held accountable. Canada could also appoint a Director of Reconstruction to serve as a counterpart to our military commander and charged with achieving our development objectives. Combined, these initiatives would enhance security by ensuring those programs that most positively impact the lives of local Afghans are prioritized and monitored.

While we are but one partner of a large coalition, smart, targeted Canadian policies can make a substantial difference. Because the Afghanistan mission is difficult and, at times, dangerous it continues to test our leadership. Harper’s report is timely, but will only be valuable if he addresses head on the critical challenges we face. Canada needs a clear strategy for success – one that builds trust, engages in development and reconstruction, and ensures the rule of law, simultaneously. Without such a strategy we risk defaulting to a US-style military approach, neglecting development and diplomacy. This is Canada’s mission – let us ensure we tackle it Canada’s way.

 

[tags]Afghanistan, Canadian Foreign Policy, International Affairs, Canada in the World[/tags]

5 thoughts on “Afghanistan Op-Ed in Friday's Toronto Star

  1. Matteo

    Hello Dave,

    Congrats on the Op-Ed. I agree with most of what you have to say (particularly the folly of current poppy eradication policies). Just a couple of points:
    “The Liberal cabinet deliberately chose not to deploy Leopard tanks and CF-18’s, prioritizing interpersonal contact with Afghans over brute military might. The Prime Minister must explain why we deviated from this strategy.” Because they are shooting at them. The idea that this sort of decision can be taken on political grounds is a recipe for disaster. This is at least the prevailing view in Defence Academy circles.

    “Are we still implementing a 3D strategy? If not, why not?” Because they are shooting at them. The people in the development “leg” of the mission require much higher security before they deploy than their military counterparts (and who can blame them?) This leaves the mission stripped of people on the ground who are able to do the actual reconstruction.

    Finally, in Afghanistan the “rule of law” is like the Arab Phoenix; everybody says there is one, no one has ever seen it.

    President Karzai is sincere when he says that to complete the mission is looking at a time frame of 10, 15 years. Realistically (both capital and lower case “r”), though, it is very difficult to envisage a significant Canadian military presence in Afghanistan past 2011.

    I recommend Colonel Langton at IISS on the subject.

    Cheers,
    Matteo

    Reply
  2. Matteo

    Hello Dave,Congrats on the Op-Ed. I agree with most of what you have to say (particularly the folly of current poppy eradication policies). Just a couple of points:”The Liberal cabinet deliberately chose not to deploy Leopard tanks and CF-18’s, prioritizing interpersonal contact with Afghans over brute military might. The Prime Minister must explain why we deviated from this strategy.” Because they are shooting at them. The idea that this sort of decision can be taken on political grounds is a recipe for disaster. This is at least the prevailing view in Defence Academy circles. “Are we still implementing a 3D strategy? If not, why not?” Because they are shooting at them. The people in the development “leg” of the mission require much higher security before they deploy than their military counterparts (and who can blame them?) This leaves the mission stripped of people on the ground who are able to do the actual reconstruction. Finally, in Afghanistan the “rule of law” is like the Arab Phoenix; everybody says there is one, no one has ever seen it. President Karzai is sincere when he says that to complete the mission is looking at a time frame of 10, 15 years. Realistically (both capital and lower case “r”), though, it is very difficult to envisage a significant Canadian military presence in Afghanistan past 2011.I recommend Colonel Langton at IISS on the subject.Cheers,Matteo

    Reply
  3. tiberiu

    I do not agree with this war… Why should we set a way to be for another people and force them to embrace certain values that aren't in their cultural blood. If I native in that country I would hire an asbestos lawyer and file an international lawsuit against the occupants that really do not have any right to be there. The terrorist everybody is talking about are only radical natives that protect their country from outsiders that want to bring harm to their “brothers”. If no influence would occur many terrorist factions would disappear over night.

    Reply
  4. tiberiu

    I do not agree with this war… Why should we set a way to be for another people and force them to embrace certain values that aren't in their cultural blood. If I native in that country I would hire an asbestos lawyer and file an international lawsuit against the occupants that really do not have any right to be there. The terrorist everybody is talking about are only radical natives that protect their country from outsiders that want to bring harm to their “brothers”. If no influence would occur many terrorist factions would disappear over night.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s