Show Some Courage in the Afghanistan War Debate

Steel City generally skates around foreign policy. But this isn’t an issue purely of policy. Rather, it is an issue of process - one that is fundamental and can’t be ignored. I have encountered it before on these hallowed pages, but developing trends legitimate further comment.

George Bush comments on critics of the Iraq War:

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will… As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

Goofy, right? Something that we are lucky enough not to have to contend with. Well lately, and unbelievably, these southerly winds have created clouds in Ottawa. Here’s an editorial from the Toronto Sun ( “Support Our Troops: End of Debate.”):

“Debating now whether to bring them home, as the NDP and some Liberals want to do, would not only be a betrayal of our troops and the enormous sacrifices they are making on our behalf, but would embolden Taliban insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists. It would send a message to the enemies of our soldiers that Canada is weak and lacks conviction.”

This echoes the Conservative party line fairly faithfully. What’s worse – increasingly more Liberals (including certain prominent leadership candidates) have joined this specious chorus.

Taking pride in the Afghanistan mission is not an argument against a debate in the House of Commons. I have expressed my support for the project before. However, I, like most Canadians, am still seeking to understand the dimensions of our new role. I need to know that I’m not making a mistake, that this truly is a nation-building/peacekeeping operation. I’ve no doubt there are very strong arguments for our maintaining a presence there. So let’s hear them.

It is wrong and unfair to assert that Canadians are only concerned because the casualties might begin to mount. That is a huge concern, and a legitimate one. But Canadians are genuinely concerned about the legitimacy of our participation. We would not have reacted so strongly against the Iraq war if our foreign policy feelings were driven purely out of fear of costs sustained by Canadians. There are existential trepidations in play, and they should not be neglected.

To deny a debate on the Afghanistan mission denies many Canadians the ability to feel confident in this major international contribution. It denies a fairly basic democratic process. It even denies the Forces in Afghanistan a certain degree of legitimacy. That’s legitimacy that could be obtained very easily - simply by airing any criticisms and countering them if they can be countered. An explicitly imposed silence becomes a ponderous presence that is bound to haunt the mission. It only serves to weaken.

Opponents have a right to explain their positions. Proponents have a responsibility to defend theirs. This is leadership. Let our would-be leaders show courage in their convictions.