Withdraw the Troops

Withdraw the Troops

Description image by Graeme Smith Emmy-winning foreign correspondent, The Globe and Mail.
  • First Posted: Nov 12 2009 17:42 PM
  • Updated: 7 months

VIDEO: The military mission has failed, and adding more soldiers won't help. It's time to consider other options.

I'm not really qualified to answer questions about Canadian relations with NATO, or the United States, or the domestic politics of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. But I have spent more time in southern Afghanistan, I think, than any of the other contributors to this page, so maybe I can add something to the discussion of Canada's efforts in the south.

We should start by recognizing Canada's dwindling importance in Kandahar. The arrival of a Canadian battle group was a big deal in early 2006, because it doubled the strength of international forces in the south. Now we're a smaller player. Even with the creeping growth in the number of deployed Canadians – hundreds of extra troops that Ottawa has never acknowledged – Canada has little more than 3 per cent of the international troops in the country. Commanders once proudly declared they were chasing insurgents across 60,000 square kilometres of territory, but now Canadians are relegated to guarding Kandahar City and its approaches. From a practical standpoint, we're replaceable.

Symbolically, a Canadian withdrawal would signal to our allies that more soldiers aren't helpful at this point. That's a useful message. As the United States considers another troop surge, it's worth remembering that the number of foreign troops in southern Afghanistan has already increased dramatically. Every year I spent in the country, from 2005 to 2009, saw major troops surges – and terrible surges of violence. With every fighting season, more women and children were killed. I saw their faces, I smelled the death. What did we buy with so much blood? Nothing worth the price, sadly. We tried to make it safer for UN and aid agencies to help the people, but instead it became more dangerous. We tried to set up a democratic government – but it's not democratic, and it doesn't govern much of the country. The mission has failed, so far.

We need to acknowledge this failure if we're going to think clearly about what's next. I have profound respect for optimists like Chris Alexander, who will tell you about the many victories since 2001 – roads, health clinics, polio vaccinations – and he's right, these are important. But how many roads are built in rural Afghanistan these days without paying bribes to local insurgents? How many villagers in Kandahar would get polio vaccinations without permission from the Taliban? Making the country better doesn't necessarily require fighting the insurgents – in many cases, it requires working with them.

Our soldiers have bravely followed orders in Kandahar. But they're being swept aside by a tidal wave of U.S. forces, and this surge is likely doomed to bring the same results as previous surges. Canada should withdraw its battle group, and push its allies toward peace talks.

TAGS: Politics

Comments

Re:Marks

rules of engagement

Thank you, Graeme, for one of the most intelligent articles I've read on this issue!

Shelley Stephenson

play

FEATURED VIDEO

Double rainbow, oh my God ... Jimmy Fallon, in the character of Neil Young, has performed a cover of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI&feature=related" target="_blank">original masterpiece,</a> proving for the umpteenth time that, on the internet, even the slightest video can spawn a meme empire.

Still Not Over the Rainbow

Double rainbow, oh my God ... Jimmy Fallon, in the character of Neil Young, has performed a cover of the original masterpiece, proving for the umpteenth time that, on the internet, even the slightest video can spawn a meme empire.