Insurgent Strategy and Late Great Debate
It is fair political debate for people to question Canadian foreign policy objectives in Afghanistan. It is fair to ask why we are there, and to question the methods for achieving our ends. I would suggest, however, that the time to debate these questions is before commitments are made. I do not blame the politicians for the late debate on Afghanistan. I blame the lazy media, above all the CBC, which sat on the story until troops were actually in theatre and then began making hay of the dangerous character of our mission. Former MND, Bill Graham, and the CDS, General Hillier, have been warning PUBLICLY since no later than September 2005 that the Afghanistan commitment would be dangerous and would involve casualties.
I remember, in the fall of 2005, being surprised that these bald statements were generating no public comment or debate! I should not have been surprised. The reason it didn't make the news is because there were no body bags yet. Now the body bags are coming home, the CBC and others are suddenly interested in airing critiques of Canada's Afghanistan policy. I am not going to criticize those who don't agree with the Afghanistan policy. They have the right to air their opinions at any time they choose. However, I hope they are aware of two very important problems with the sudden interest in criticizing the Afghanistan policy.
1) We've been there in various capacities since 2002. It was announced in advance that we would be moving into Kandahar with a new focus on counter-insurgency, with precisely the intent of providing fair warning and generating debate. So the newfound interest in Canada's Afghan policy is LATE. Editors, arm-chair generals, talking heads and commentators, you have the right to your great and LATE opinions. You're not dumb, you're just lazy. Like a hard-ass professor, I don't accept LATE assignments.
2) The extremist insurgency cannot defeat NATO forces in military conflict. However, they know that they are prepared to make more sacrifices than Western audiences are prepared to witness on their television screens. Their political and military objective is to feed the self-doubt and inevitable political criticism that human sacrifice creates in Canada. They know that the prevalent post-modern mentality does not hold any principles that it considers worth killing or dying for. And so, if the insurgents are the IRA, the LATE great debaters are the unwitting Sinn Fein: They are carrying forward, unaware, the political objectives of the insurgency, the withdrawal of the NATO security force from Afghanistan.
Soldiers like to do post-exercice evaluations and try to identify lessons learned after every operation. This promotes permanent self-improvement. I suggest the late great debaters take home the following lesson: Regardless of your political opinions, do not fall victim to the lazy media syndrome of waiting for body bags to make your political opinions known. Tread carefully when you, politically, attempt to undercut the resolve of your fellow Canadians to face danger on behalf of your country and your interests. When caskets are being carried at slow march from aircraft to hearses, we find your opinions somewhat irrelevant.
(A footnote to this debate: Those who complain about the fact that this does not appear to be a peacekeeping mission are apparently unaware of the strategic situation that has evolved since the end of the Cold War. I won't bother trying to educate you, because I think that's your responsibility. But I will recommend a series of books that will help you understand the difference between the peacekeeping myth and the strategic reality in international security that Canada has faced for the past 15 years. A good start is Doug Bland and Sean Maloney; Campaings for International Security: Canada's defence policy at the turn of the century.)
Say what what you need to say. As long as you know what you're talking about. And as long as you know what you're doing.
I remember, in the fall of 2005, being surprised that these bald statements were generating no public comment or debate! I should not have been surprised. The reason it didn't make the news is because there were no body bags yet. Now the body bags are coming home, the CBC and others are suddenly interested in airing critiques of Canada's Afghanistan policy. I am not going to criticize those who don't agree with the Afghanistan policy. They have the right to air their opinions at any time they choose. However, I hope they are aware of two very important problems with the sudden interest in criticizing the Afghanistan policy.
1) We've been there in various capacities since 2002. It was announced in advance that we would be moving into Kandahar with a new focus on counter-insurgency, with precisely the intent of providing fair warning and generating debate. So the newfound interest in Canada's Afghan policy is LATE. Editors, arm-chair generals, talking heads and commentators, you have the right to your great and LATE opinions. You're not dumb, you're just lazy. Like a hard-ass professor, I don't accept LATE assignments.
2) The extremist insurgency cannot defeat NATO forces in military conflict. However, they know that they are prepared to make more sacrifices than Western audiences are prepared to witness on their television screens. Their political and military objective is to feed the self-doubt and inevitable political criticism that human sacrifice creates in Canada. They know that the prevalent post-modern mentality does not hold any principles that it considers worth killing or dying for. And so, if the insurgents are the IRA, the LATE great debaters are the unwitting Sinn Fein: They are carrying forward, unaware, the political objectives of the insurgency, the withdrawal of the NATO security force from Afghanistan.
Soldiers like to do post-exercice evaluations and try to identify lessons learned after every operation. This promotes permanent self-improvement. I suggest the late great debaters take home the following lesson: Regardless of your political opinions, do not fall victim to the lazy media syndrome of waiting for body bags to make your political opinions known. Tread carefully when you, politically, attempt to undercut the resolve of your fellow Canadians to face danger on behalf of your country and your interests. When caskets are being carried at slow march from aircraft to hearses, we find your opinions somewhat irrelevant.
(A footnote to this debate: Those who complain about the fact that this does not appear to be a peacekeeping mission are apparently unaware of the strategic situation that has evolved since the end of the Cold War. I won't bother trying to educate you, because I think that's your responsibility. But I will recommend a series of books that will help you understand the difference between the peacekeeping myth and the strategic reality in international security that Canada has faced for the past 15 years. A good start is Doug Bland and Sean Maloney; Campaings for International Security: Canada's defence policy at the turn of the century.)
Say what what you need to say. As long as you know what you're talking about. And as long as you know what you're doing.
posted by Lt Smash at 10:00 AM
1 Comments:
I agree that there was tonnes of coverage when the announcements were made. However, I only heard announcements from the MND and the CDS. I didn't hear any talk shows, or sunday morning political shows or other fora focused on this topic. I'm not saying the media didn't report it well. I'm saying the editors failed to programme analysis and critique when the timing was opportune. Put this way... General Hillier gets up and says, in widely reported comments, that the Government of Canada expects to suffer casualties in the new mission. Pause for response. No response. Ok, I guess everyone's fine with that. So we get there, and sure enough there's casualties... Now Margaret Wente and others are all "See, we shouldn't be in Afghanistan" as if they were waiting for soldiers to die in order to prove their point.
Post a Comment
<< Home