Chronicle Herald - August 24, 2006
By Colin Kenny
Afghanistan is Canada’s first major military deployment of the 21st century. It started out being Paul Martin’s war. It is now Steven Harper’s war.
Because war – even if it is sometimes necessary – is such an ugly, brutal, end-of-the line solution to any human dispute, it is essential that the citizens of any country waging war continually measure costs against benefits.
Countries that fail to measure costs against benefits – at the beginning and as the war goes along – can get in over their heads in a hurry.
Citizens need to know why they are at war, what the financial and human costs are likely to be, and what their government believes any given war can accomplish. They can then judge for themselves whether combat makes sense to them.
Canadians have been offered only the fuzziest kinds of explanations as to what we are doing in Afghanistan. Neither the Liberal government that first committed Canadian troops to short-term participation in Afghanistan, nor the Conservative government that extended that commitment to 2009, has offered up anything more than platitudes like Mr. Harper’s “Canadians don’t cut and run.”
Because there has been no clear explanation of how the government would define the words “success” or “failure” in relation to Afghanistan, at this point it is difficult for Canadians to guess whether the decision to send 2,300 Canadian troops to Afghanistan was the right one.
An increasing number of Canadians – having been offered no convincing rationale for Canada’s participation – are starting to believe the decision to be in Afghanistan was the wrong one. This should be disquieting to anyone who believes that this mission makes sense. It will certainly be disquieting to troops risking their lives in Afghanistan.
A Strategic Counsel poll taken July 13-16 showed that 56 percent of Canadians opposed sending troops to Afghanistan. That marks a shift in public opinion – earlier polls had shown a modest majority in favour. Body bags, of course, will inevitably have that kind of effect.
From the beginning, both Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper should have presented what they intended to accomplish by sending troops to Afghanistan and what the expected costs in lives and dollars might be – that’s leadership. Instead of clear goals, Canadians got vague generalities.
What are we aiming to accomplish in Afghanistan, and at what cost? There was a hurry-up pretend debate in Parliament a few months ago when the Prime Minister announced that he was extending Canadian participation. These questions weren’t answered, and the fuzzification process continued.
Let us presume that Mr. Harper has a plan. Any plan should be accompanied by some means of measuring its success or failure. Will Canada’s mission have succeeded in Afghanistan if and when there is law and order there? When democratic government can be shown to be working on behalf of the people? When the GDP of the country is sufficient to get it off its addiction to the poppy crop? When the Taliban can be shown to no longer be a threat to ordinary citizens? When a high percentage of girls are attending school? When the fear that all this fighting brings with it has finally disappeared?
A clear appreciation of Mr. Harper’s plan would give Canadians three ways to evaluate him and his government: first, to decide if what he wants to accomplish is worthwhile; second, to decide if they are implementing the plan effectively; and third, to judge him as a leader.
Right now we cannot make those calls. Take, for example, our Development assistance to Kandahar. It is supposed to be one of the three main components of the Canadian “Defence-Diplomacy-Development” strategy.
The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has made a concerted effort over the last six months to get the Canadian International Development Agency to tell us what development projects it has underway in Khandahar – without success.
As part of any cost-benefit analysis, Mr. Harper needs to lay out interim benchmark results that clearly demonstrate that progress is being made in Afghanistan. CIDA swears by the concept of “results-based management.” Terrific. Now let’s see some evidence that our development strategy in Afghanistan is producing positive results.
I have two main questions for Mr. Harper, and I ask them on behalf of all Canadians.
The first question relates to his decision to commit Canadian troops to February, 2009. Why February, 2009? Is this a random deadline?
When we entered the Second World War, did Canada tell its allies that we were good to go until 1943. Or did we say “this is the mission that needs to be accomplished, and we are committing ourselves to accomplishing it?”
I don’t understand why we would commit a lot of lives and money to Afghanistan and be prepared to turn around and walk away in 2009 regardless of whether our mission has been accomplished. What if 2009 rolls around, Afghanistan is still foundering, and no other country is willing to take up the job we’ve started? If it is truly a vital mission, we should see it through. If it isn’t, why are we there in the first place?
My second question should already be apparent: What is the mission that the Canadian government has set out to accomplish in Afghanistan?
Canadians deserve answers to these questions because real democracies are based on informed citizens (if we are trying to build a real democracy in Afghanistan, let’s start by trying a little real democracy at home).
Canadians deserve answers to these questions because no commitment of such importance to the well-being of Canadians should be initiated without a clear plan. Where is it?
Canadians deserve answers because the lives of their sons and daughters are being put at risk, and they should know why.
Finally, Canadians deserve answers because they will soon be deciding who will be the next leader of their country. Perhaps it should be Mr. Harper – but not if he intends to remain mute on an issue of such incredible importance.
The Prime Minister did the right thing when he went to Afghanistan to visit the troops. That was a first-rate symbolic gesture, and I applaud him for it. But it is time to get past symbolism. It is time for some genuine substance. The Prime Minister needs to share his plan.
Senator Colin Kenny is chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca