Canadian Involvement in Afghan War - Literature review Example

Ever since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the United s has been engaged in what they have termed to be a war against the efforts of global terrorists. A campaign forged on two fronts, which in this instance would be Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of lives placed on the line for the protection of freedom globally and billions of dollars spent to aide that very enterprise. While many can understand the need to go after those very groups that seek to cause harm to others, as well as whatever groups exist that harbor such individuals but for many, the road traveled toward such a goal, has been incredibly costly. Such costs that have come in the form of empty seats at the dinner table for Christmas and Thanksgiving and also the economic cost. Each participating nation has contributed on both levels to the overall battle. When it comes to a public relations standpoint, it has left many wondering when, if ever, the needs of back home will be attended to. Things such as health care for those who need it, funding education, taking care of roads that need repaving, etc. Many have argued that, while the intent of riding the world of terrorism is an understandable cause, the amount of time and energy spent on the issue, could very well be allocated elsewhere as well. In such areas that are desperately seeking an assistance from the necessary state and federal agencies and if they don't receive such assistance, may run the risk of falling by the waste side. An example of such a country with real economic concerns for their citizens and the desire to investigate the expenditures given to the war in Afghanistan, would be Canada. America's neighbor to the north but a neighbor that has issues at home that are just as important to them, as American and other countries issues are to them. Just as the case is for other nations that are faced with the issue of assisting with the war on terror, such as combat issues in Afghanistan, Canada too has been faced with the dilemma of deciding how best to proceed. In regards to Canadian intent, "At the Conservatives' behest, Parliament voted in March 2008 to end Canada's military role in Afghanistan in 2011," (Annis, p.1). A clear indicator of the desire amongst many to return the attention of the Canadian government back to where most feel it should be. That is, handling the many issues within its borders that average Canadian citizens feel remain un-noticed, all the while, the economy of the country remains locked into the impending cost assessments of its continued involvement in the war effort. From a more human level, "The war is going terribly wrong for Ottawa by any measure. Thousands of Afghans have died or suffered injury. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have been displaced, forced into exile and otherwise lost their livelihoods," (Annis, p.1). Such an assessment, would serve to bring into focus the cost of continued involvement with the war, that can easily be overlooked. That is, the cost to the lives of those who are faced with the continued responsibility, on whatever level, of maintaining the present action in Afghanistan and forgoing anything else. From a standpoint of economics, the GDP (or Gross Domestic Product) of a nation, affirms its strength as a producing country. According to the U.S. State Department, the following are figures in regards to Canada's GDP which come from 2007. In the section under economy, they are: GDP(2007): 1.266 trillion Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7% Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435. (Background Note, p.1). Economically speaking, the citizens of Canada have real and pressing needs to be met that would be assisted by the re-direction of funds back to aiding the funding of those programs and services. Keeping education funding at the level at which it would need to be in order to best serve Canadian students, would better be met by the re-allocation of funds that are presently being spent on military operations in Afghanistan. From a standpoint of diplomacy, for some, it may seem politically incorrect to back away from combat for the sake of fulfilling obligations at home. As the northern neighbor to the United States, the level of Canadian involvement in US-led military operations, would remain a keen interest for policy makers of both the Canadian, as well as the American government and military structures. In the spectrum of military spending, the cost of man power and weaponry exists and the cost of absorbing Canadian military might in a war over seas, does in fact hinder to a degree, its ability to serve and protect the populous back home. Roger Annis addresses this in the following manner, "Serious questions have arisen over the toll that the war is taking on Canada's military. It has lost 133 soldiers to date, the highest number of deaths, proportionally, of all occupation forces," (Annis, p.3). With that kind of troop loss, it would be expected that many in Canada, especially within the general citizenry, would create a considerable outcry seeking a change in course and a re-direction that would lead them outside of Afghanistan and back within Canada's borders. Just as the case is with other choices made, politics tends to intercede with the will of the people. The desire of the people to bring about change, tends to result in it being overrun by the majority desire amongst the elected officials to do that which is seen to be the most favorable to placate the allied nations. As part of the agreement that the Canadian government made to extend the nation's involvement in operations, "..As a condition for the extension, the popularly-elected lower house of Canada's parliament will demand that Canada's NATO allies deploy at least an additional 1,000 soldiers to fight alongside the CAF force in Kandahar and assist Canada in equipping the CAF force with helicopters and drone airplanes," (Charron, p.1). Such a request that would enable other nations to provide the additional manpower and aide the already overstretched Canadian military. While this would surely serve as a means of angering an electorate already clamoring for withdrawal, the political structure would assess this as a way to take away at least some of the strain being felt in terms of military means. It can be understood amongst many that, with the level of death and injury being sustained by those in battle, that it would cause a level of apprehension amongst the voting public, as well as create the possibility of hindering the chances of maintaining a strong and healthy fighting force that would be needed to take care of other pressing issues that will arise. A nation may best serve its neighbors when it is first able to care for itself and in this case, Canada would be no different. While not popular amongst the ranking class of military hierarchy or the political grouping of elected officials, polls are often times used to gauge the thoughts and attitudes of the general public that it seeks to take the temperature of. In this instance, "Despite the vociferous support of the ruling class and all the major media outlets for the Canadian military's leading role in the Afghan war, polls indicate that a substantial majority-over 60 percent-of the Canadian population is opposed to the CAF intervention," (Charron, p.2). One of the key ingredients to such concern, would be the inevitable question in regards to an exit plan. Without a clear and concise plan in regards to an exit strategy and the sight of victory, the citizens of Canada are left with far more questions than answers to be given at the present time of uncertainty. For some politicians, even the presence of appearing to be against the military and its goals, would only been seen as weak and cowardly. This is further aided when requests are made by military members towards the very politicians that are able to enact such actions and the allocation of funds to complete them. In this case, "Leaders of Canada's military and security-intelligence agencies have intervened in the public debate with increasing frequency and aggressiveness in recent years in order to pressure political leaders to increase military and police spending and increase police powers," (Charron, p.5). By using their power and stature and inflicting it upon the political structure, the military in return further increases the amount of time at which the forces are being strained by continued action in Afghanistan and only serving to put into potential question. The question being, whether or not the military might of the Canadian people, is strong enough in its current state to fight wars on multiple fronts. From the observation of the ranking officers, they would most likely say yes. Or at least some would. As for the elected officials, they would say that it would be in the best interests of Canada to maintain its involvement, as a means to ensuring continued favorable relations from all sides. In this case, it would truly become a question of whether or not the ends, really do justify the means of getting there from the beginning. The time line of this conflict would date back to shortly after the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. In conjunction with the start of US operations, this would begin Canada's involvement in the fight. At this time, "Then-prime minister Jean Chretien announces Canada will join the US-led war on terror. Operation Apollo starts shortly after. Canada's first move is to send warships to the Persian Gulf. Initial commitments involve about 750 Canadian Forces members," (Now, p.1). With any military operation, the number of forces starts out at a certain number in the beginning and as time goes on, that number almost always increases. The question left remaining has to do with how many service members will be added, not if they will be added at all. Estimates abound as to how much continued involvement in the Afghan conflict has cost the Canadian budget. Many, including Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, have offered up their own estimates. Offering a staggering figure, "His minority Conservative government has estimated the total cost to date of Canada's mission at under $8 billion,"("Harper OK's", p.2). While being an estimate, one that would have been spent otherwise on the very schools, roads, healthcare and national interests that seek to sustain themselves with what's left of the budget and clamor for assistance from the ranking Canadian government and its officials. With 2008 being an election year, the stakes would only be considerable for the decision makers involved with handling this issue. In early September of that year, "The Conservatives confirmed the limit on the Afghan mission last week, when Harper pledged to withdraw most of Canada's military forces from combat duties by 2011," ("Harper OK's", p.2). On the one hand, some would see such a pledge as a right step in the best direction. On the other hand, such a statement would only be seen as placation of the electorate and an assured outcome of what most feel, would be the continued presence of the Canadian military in the battle campaign, at any level. From a statistical standpoint, "Of the 36 NATO countries militarily engaged in Afghanistan, only the Netherlands and Canada have provided definite dates for ending combat operations," ("Harper OK's", p.3). Dates that would prove to be essential as a means of clearing out a definitive plan for disengagement with the current operation and in turn, a return to the home nation and consideration given to other pressing obligations. For the voters of any nation, Canada included, dates are the closest to being the best option in seeking to allay fears and give much needed assurance. "Herein lies a paradox of politics in many of the invading countries in the Afghan war, including the United States itself. The war is more unpopular than ever, yet numbers at antiwar protests have stagnated or grown smaller," (Annis, p.3). A further example of the Canadian government's motivation would be found in a quote from Prime Minister Harper. In it he states that, "Countries that cannot or will not make real contributions to global security are not regarded as serious players. They may be pleasantly acknowledged by everybody. But when the hard decisions get made, they will be ignored by everybody," (Charron, p.4). A similarity to be found within the boundaries of Afghanistan and the people of Canada, would be the hunger for real change to happen within their countries. A change from forgoing the needs and desires of the general populous but rather, attention being paid to those very needs and real action resulting from that attention being paid. From the standpoint of the current global economic crisis, the resulting outcome, if left unchecked, would continue to leave the vital programs and services of Canada starving for assistance. Such assistance going instead to funding a military campaign whose results many feel, are not in sight and are not assured to occur in the same manner that many have predicted and hoped for. In regards to the New Democratic Party (NDP), a group that initially supported the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan for just over four years, it now has other intentions. That is, "Today it calls for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in order to send them t o other parts of the world such as Lebanon, Haiti, or Darfur. The NDP wants NATO to transfer responsibility for the war in Afghanistan to the United Nations, pretending that the UN- dominated by the United States and the great powers of Europe- would play a role different than that of NATO, which was given the mandate for the Afghan occupation by the United Nations in the first place," (Charron, p.6). Resulting in a more concerted effort on the part of the majority of the allied nations and not just a few. The dynamics of international relations are something that many seek to understand and very few have the outcome of doing so. The importance of maintaining the best possible relationships with neighboring countries while in that vein, maintaining the economic ability to not only sustain that form of intervention and sustainability options but also keeping a firm grip upon the national issues that are essential to the greater good of the country. With the domestic needs of the nation itself not being met, or seeing its performance barely meet the basic requirements, such avoidance only leads towards the end result of failing in all other avenues as well. Without the clear plan of knowing when there may be an end to combat operations, it often times becomes quite difficult to adequately fund the ground forces that are placed into action to control the end game. Nation building is an important aspect of relations between countries. In this case, it also becomes clear that while nation building over seas is instrumental towards building relations and gaining friends, letting the nation at home become degraded and failing, is not something that assists with set goals but rather, it only serves to further hurt and delay any potential of a positive outcome. The terrorists who sought to reek havoc on September 11, 2001, did so with the intent of showing not just the United States but also the rest of the world, that they could and would do whatever they wished, no matter what the cost would be. For the act itself, that cost would come in the lives lost at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the abandoned field in Pennsylvania and for the last 8 years, the human cost of lives lost fighting battles in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The key to a strong nation, is not just how it may fight a battle over seas but in the end, also how it elects to take care of its people at home. The very people that, like their neighbors including those who live in Afghanistan, only want a better life and the access to basic services to achieve that. A very basic principle would be the consideration taken at home, to preserve the very way of life that so many seek to make mention of and claim their country takes pride in. The time would be now to show it, as not only being the case but also, something that remains the top priority of all who reside within. References Annis, Roger. (2009). Escalation of Afghan War: Canada Faces a Fateful Decision. Socialist Voice. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://globalresearch.ca/index.php context=va&aid=16140 "Background Note: Canada". (2008). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm Charron, Guy. (2008). Canada: Liberals and Conservatives join forces to extend intervention in Afghan war. World Socialist Web Site. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/can-m06.shtml "Harper OK's release of report on costs of Afghan war". (2008). Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/17/afghan-report.html Now, Burnaby. (2008). Timeline: Canada's war in Afghanistan. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://www.canada.com/burnabynow/news/story.htmlid=ee0b2552-c5fe-44b4-b56d- d6e586c70fdd Read More