Freedom's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan

We were supposed to be bringing democracy to Afghanistan, not becoming complicit in torture.

The late American historian Howard Zinn rhetorically asked: "How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?"

It depends on who you ask. The hawks will tell you that the war in Afghanistan is about freedom. The doves want out and say we shouldn't have gone in the first place.

The hawks see a chance for Canada to shed its mythical peacekeeping mantle and go after, as former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Rick Hillier put it, "these … detestable murderers and scumbags." Hillier, who commanded NATO soldiers in Afghanistan before his promotion to CDS, went on to hum the hawkish tune, arguing that the Afghan mission was about protecting Canada itself from those who "detest" our "freedoms … our society … our liberties."

Indeed, after the fiction that the Ba'athist regime in Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda was discarded, the focus shifted to weapons of mass destruction (which could have been possible at one point, seeing as the Americans sold such weapons to Hussein in the 1980s). When WMDs proved to be a sham, the Bush administration yelled "freedom" louder than Braveheart, hoping this cri-de-coeur would stir jingoistic passions and drown out the years of mendacities.

I suppose if "invasion" sounds a bit dissonant in this supposed post-colonial world, the exportation of "freedom" and "democracy" is more palatable to a public that can grow weary quickly when the nightly news beams images of sons and daughters in body bags into their homes.

Wasn't Afghanistan supposed to be Canada's consolation gift to the ornery Excited States of America, miffed that we pooh-poohed invading Iraq? Yes, we were going to root out these detestable scumbags cowering in their caves and liberate oppressed Afghanis. They would cheer and shout and ride around the streets of Kabul with us on their shoulders.

But in the last few months, the rule of law, an essential core of any democracy, has been battered and beaten under allegations of Canada's role in transferring Afghan detainees into the hands of torturers.

The stunning testimony of Richard Colvin so shook the usually cocky Harper government that they smeared the diplomat's reputation and then beat a hasty retreat with the second prorogation in a year.

The Harper government has tried desperately to distance itself from this debacle, one that could, if the evidence is sound, lead to accusations of war crimes. But each new piece of correspondence that trickles out seems to indicate that the Harper government knew what was happening since 2006. They knew that NATO feared prisoner maltreatment and wanted stronger safeguards.

The Liberals smell blood and have been trying to publicize documents, hoping to shame the Conservatives. But in 2005, during the Martin months, the Liberals themselves may have handed detainees over to the Afghan government with the same understanding that doing so risked sending captives to torture. How far and deep Liberal involvement in this goes remains to be seen, but the blood they smell could well be their own.

What happened to bringing "freedom" to the Afghan people? And where's the Canadian public on this? Why are we not outraged that, while Liberal and Conservative governments preach "freedom," they seem to have been complicit in torture? Why are we not more ashamed to see Canada's international image so tarnished by its actions?

The hypocrisy displayed by the law and order Conservatives is stunning. The possible involvement of the Liberals equally so.

Canada should hang its head in shame.