we have to question cnd's roll

Dare to debate: Canada's role in Aghanistan warrants serious discussion
Bill Kaufmann, March 13, 2006, The Calgary Sun

If ignorance is bliss, it must also be a recurring theme.

While they strive to distance themselves from all things George W. Bush, our supposedly transparent and accountable federal government apes him; debating matters of war is unpatriotic while it undermines the troops, we're told.

Bombings, air strikes and assassinations three years on in Iraq are daily reminders of the wages of incuriosity.

Obviously, Afghanistan is not Iraq with its lower intensity of mayhem and resistance to foreign troops, but what sort of message is being sent by arguing a debate would erode public support for the deployment?

It suggests the more Canadians discuss and know about the mission, the less enthusiasm they'll have for it.

The majority of Canadians in a recent poll who voiced profound unease over the mission are condemned as ignorant.

Well, that's right -- Canadians know little about their nation's Afghanistan strategy and our leaders in Ottawa appear content with that.

We have been told our soldiers are fighting terrorists there who threaten us in Canada, even though our intelligence experts have informed us the main such menace exists from within our home populations.

Recall our own Gen. Rick Hillier colourfully condemning the barbarity of those his troops are fighting in Afghanistan, associating them with last summer's London bombings, when those crimes were committed by Britons. So, is it really true that if our soldiers make themselves targets in Afghanistan, the terrorists won't attack us here?

It's very possible those cunning fiends are smart enough to hatch their schemes in safer places -- they seem to have been doing just that ever since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan 41/2 years ago, given the worldwide upsurge in bombings.

We've heard from our Tory leaders the Afghan commitment is open-ended, while the number 10 years is bandied about.

Imagine our soldiers sacrificing themselves to fight for more than a decade on one or more sides of Afghanistan's seemingly endless civil war, while terrorists with a more international bent adapt accordingly and go along their merry way.

And this March 2 admission from U.S. Brig.-Gen. Robert Colsen on the effects of military action in Muslim countries doesn't bode well for Canada's deployment.

"We are not killing (terrorists) faster than they are being created," said Colsen.

Our 2,300 soldiers, alongside about 7,000 other NATO troops, are expected to ex-pand their mission in 2006 throughout a country where their control is now limited.

Along with 18,000 U.S. troops, whose numbers are expected to dwindle this year, it doesn't seem like a lot of soldiers for a nation as large and rife with challenge as Afghanistan.

Canada is fighting for freedom and democracy, but some of our Afghan allies have proven every bit as bloodthirsty as the Taliban, which once formed the de facto government and had dealings with the U.S. right up until the summer of 2001.

The rap sheet of the United Front/Northern Alliance includes mass murder of PoWs, the killing and rape of civilians, religious persecution and the use of child soldiers.

These allies proved remarkably unreliable, most notably during the alleged escape in 2001 of Osama bin Laden.

The best-case scenario goal is to turn over more of the country's security to many of these same people.

Coloured fingers are nice, but when cutthroats and drug runners empowered by the U.S. invasion are the end result, surely our country's deployment is up for at least debate.

Canadians should also know whether the prisoners taken by our troops are turned over to U.S. jailers who've been known to batter captives to death from Baghdad to Bagram.

Canada's elite JTF2 commandos have worked closely with and under U.S. command.

When I put this question to a Foreign Affairs spokesman, he said "all persons apprehended by Canadian forces are accorded the same rights under the Geneva Conventions."

But how do we know that, if those captives disappear into Afghanistan's secret and lawless "black site" prisons?

Clearly, our brave soldiers are delivering humanitarian aid to a grateful populace in the few areas they can and that's nothing to be dismissed.

The argument can be made it's our duty to ensure Afghanistan doesn't remain a failed state, though it's interesting to note America's growing distaste for the mess, whose slack is being picked up by its allies.

Supporting the troops means ensuring they're properly de-ployed, a concept worthy of serious debate.