Canadians Protest the Afghanistan War

Protesters all over Canada are out on the streets in force today to support our troops by demanding that they come home from Afghanistan.

Francisco Juarez, a demonstrator in Toronto, was fined by the Canadian army reserves and released earlier this year after he refused to train for the Afghan campaign.

"Today I'm here at the protest because I feel that in whatever way I can, I need to assist in engaging Canadians in a broader debate, the issues of why we're in Afghanistan and what the priorities are in Afghanistan for our Canadian forces."

We were denied that debate by a Conservative government aided by 12 Liberal MPs in the spring who voted to extend Canada's role in the NATO mission for 2 years without even examining what such a commitment would entail. That they would place Canada's troops in harm's way without a strenuous examination of the conditions on the ground speaks volumes about just how little concern they have not only for our troops, but for the people of Afghanistan. Even Defence Minister O'Connor has admitted that the war will not be won militarily. So what exactly are our troops dying for?

The answer you'll get from people who support the war is that Canadian soldiers are making Afghanistan safer in order to foster reconstruction. Let's look at how that's working out - keeping this statement in mind:

Guillaume Fournier, Afghanistan Country Manager for the Senlis Council, told CBC Radio One in September, "The biggest hindrance to reconstruction is the weekly bombing of civilians."

We certainly got a cruel reminder of how many civilians are dying when NATO claimed last week that only 12 civilians were killed in a recent bombing but the people of the town that was bombed estimated the number was much, much higher - in the dozens.

While Canadian officials try to convince the public that our soldiers are over there to help the Afghan people, the reality is quite different:

According to World Bank estimates, Afghanistan needs $27.5 billion to rebuild its shattered social and physical infrastructure. But according to Senlis, Afghanistan received only $7.3 billion between 2002 and 2006, while NATO military spending was $82.5 billion during that time.

A September 23 Canwest News Service article, entitled "Reconstruction in Baby Steps," described the reality of Canadian reconstruction efforts in Kandahar province. A Canadian military officer said that resources are lacking and reconstruction is still a "work in progress." "I don't have a squadron's worth of engineers here. I don't have troops that go out with equipment and build things and build bridges."

The September 26 Globe and Mail reports that an ambulance donated by Canada for use by the medical center in the Panjwaii agricultural district west of Kandahar city four months ago is instead being used by local police and government administrators. Two doctors in the medical center told the reporter they are not keen to work with NATO-organized medical clinics because of the deep resentment of the population towards the occupiers.

Similar failure surrounds the British presence, according to the September 9 Economist magazine. Citing one example, it wrote, "British troops in Helmand (a neighbouring province to Kandahar), who have $36 million to spend this year, have built the odd bridge and market stall..."

If the failure of "reconstruction" in Afghanistan is little known in Canada, one reason is the concerted efforts by authorities to hide it. An article by Geoffrey York in the June 3 Globe and Mail described the rules for journalists working in Afghanistan who choose to "embed" with Canadian forces.

"The restrictions warned sternly that I could be ejected from the military base if I spent 'an inordinate amount of time' covering non-military activity. The Department of National Defence doesn't want the embedded reporters to write much about refugees, schools, health care or electricity – all the basic realities of life for Afghans."
link

DND doesn't want reporters covering those realities because indicate a massive failure 5 years after the war began - a war which US forces are now fleeing from, leaving NATO troops to clean up their mess while they're over in Iraq making a nightmare of that country too.

Meanwhile, the political climate at home, even in the face of the majority of Canadians now withdrawing support for this mission, is not promising. PM Harper will stick to his NATO commitment. Ignatieff, who is the current frontrunner in the Liberal leadership race, voted for the NATO extension last spring and Layton's NDP, which supports bringing the troops home, doesn't have any hope of leading the government anytime soon.

We're stuck there now but it is vital that Canadians keep speaking out loudly and often because even if Ignatieff ends up leading the party, which could win the next election, he needs to be reminded that his is the minority opinion and that he would be making a huge mistake if he chooses to stick to his guns by keeping Canadians involved in that war. Ignatieff is the wrong person to lead the party, especially during these times, and this is one of the prime reasons for my opposition to his candidacy. That, along with his views on torture and lack of political experience ought to be enough for his rejection, yet there are still too many Liberals who think he's the second coming. If they're not mindful, he'll be the second coming all right - of Stephen Harper.

I extend my solidarity to those out on the streets today who are doing their civic duty. Their numbers, whatever they may turn out to be, must be multiplied manyfold to include Canadians who are not physcially with them but are there in spirit because they represent many of us who oppose the continued use of military force in Afghanistan. They speak for me.

Update: The National Post is running a story today about purported al Qaeda threats against Canada for its continued role in Afghanistan based on information from the US SITE Institute.