That Which We Call a War...

On Canada's 'training' mission in Afghanistan, the prospects of peacekeeping, and the folly of nuclear submarines.

Remembrance Day is upon us once again, and with the combat mission in Afghanistan having officially wrapped up in July, Nov. 11 takes on a particular importance this year. At the top of many minds this Friday ought to be Bryon Greff, the Canadian Forces soldier killed in Kabul last weekend when a suicide bomber blew up a fortified bus carrying Greff, 13 American military trainers, and three Afghans. Greff was the first fatality of Canada's training mission in Kabul, and Scott Taylor wonders in The Halifax Chronicle Herald if the attack will lead to "many Canadians questioning Canada’s decision to continue putting our soldiers’ lives at risk in order to train yet more young Afghan men how to fire assault rifles." Make no mistake, just because the Canadian Forces aren't on active patrols in Kandahar does not mean that they're not in a warzone. After all, as Taylor points out, "the year 2011 will realize the highest casualty figures in the decade-long intervention. Simply being a westerner in Afghanistan — particularly one in a military uniform — makes Canadian soldiers targets, even if they are limited to teaching Afghans in a classroom or barracks." The dangers remain real for the 1,000 Canadians, thousands of their allies, and the millions of people that currently call Afghanistan home. We owe it to all of them to reflect on the unending violence in that country as we don poppies this week.

Barely a week after the Canadian Forces' mission in Libya has ended, military scholar J.L. Granatstein examines what the future might hold in store for the military. Granatstein suggests that we do away with the notion that Canada can return to its past as a peacekeeping power, considering that the battle-hardened forces are hardly equipped to tackle the most likely peacekeeping destinations – Darfur and Congo. Says Granatstein:

Then there are the peculiarly Canadian factors that suggest participation in Africa would not be wise. The first is that the Canadian Army fought for a decade in Afghanistan and its soldiers and equipment have suffered in consequence. A period of rest and recuperation, and a year or two of training and re-equipment, is in order for our tiny army of twenty thousand. Good sense suggests that some time off is needed.

Moreover, the members of the Canadian Forces are still overwhelmingly Caucasian, and that’s never a plus in the Congo or Darfur where whites recall past colonial oppression. The CF is also a Western force that needs roads and mobility to operate effectively, requires a high standard of logistical support, and has small numbers at its disposal. Both countries are huge, and in the eastern regions of Congo where much of the killing goes on, there is no infrastructure, no roads that are passable in the rainy season. Darfur is largely desert, again a territory without many roads and little to support a First World military. In Afghanistan, Canadians piggybacked on American resources, but that would not be possible in Darfur or Congo.

The Canadian Forces are slated to begin intense training operations throughout the Arctic in the coming months. Barring the breakout of another civil war (anybody have Greece in the failed states office pool?), attending to matters in our backyard while the army takes a break from bloody international intervention would be a far wiser choice than hoping to play developing-world crusader once again.

And over at the Sun chain, Peter Worthington lashes out at the Conservative government for wanting to throw more money away on nuclear submarines. And for good reason: the last four submarines that Canada bought from the British have mostly sat in dry docks for repairs since 1998, costing the military a couple billion dollars more than the original $750 million we paid for them. "What advantage would nuclear subs give Canada?" asks Worthington. "Well, we could better detect Russian subs under Arctic ice. What would we do if we detected Russian subs? Well, we could inform the CBC, which would relay the fact to Canadians. Would we consider torpedoing a Russian sub? Good gracious, no!" Buying new nuclear subs might make the brass in the navy happy, but remember: the fleet is also in the midst of getting a $35-billion upgrade by building much more practical destroyers, frigates, ice breakers, and supply ships. Plus, whatever billions that would be spent on new subs could surely be put to better use by looking after the men and women who make the military run, unless we want them living in shipping containers once they're discharged.