Canada in Afghanistan
In Kabul, Washington, Brussels, London, Paris, and Amsterdam, the debate over NATO’s role in Afghanistan is building. President Obama is not only considering the possibility of General McChrystal’s recommended troop surge and tactical shift towards far greater civilian protection, but more importantly, he is reconsidering the broader strategic objectives of the mission. Is the goal to protect America from a resurgent al-Qaeda, to build an Afghan state that can hold the Taliban at bay, or to reconfigure both Afghanistan and Pakistan? The answer will drive his decision in the coming weeks. As the president deliberates, the U.S. media and public are increasingly engaged.
In Canada, while there is a similar conversation occurring behind the closed doors of government – our mandarins must decide what we will do after the 2011 deadline set by parliament in March 2008 – there has been an astonishing silence in the public domain. What should Canada be doing in Afghanistan post-2011?
The government of Canada has skirted this issue in public with various opaque statements by the prime minister, the minister of Defence and other members of the Conservative cabinet. They have confirmed our withdrawal but have given hardly any indication as to what this will look like, whether a military presence will remain to carry out the development and training tasks they assert will continue or whether the U.S. will fill the void. Meanwhile Lt. General Andrew Leslie, the head of the Canadian army, has stated that they “currently do not have any plans, or even any line diagrams on a blank sheet of paper for post-2011.”
Motivated by the belief that decisions need to be taken long before 2011, that we can’t just up and pull out – that there are substantial strategic, ethical, and financial considerations – last week we convened a roundtable at the University of British Columbia in order to discuss these critical issues. We started with our own “blank sheet” and to fill it in, several seasoned Canadian experts who have lived and breathed Afghanistan over the last eight years, including Gordon Smith, Chris Alexander, and Graeme Smith. We posed a series of guiding questions that we hoped would incite debate. They were as follows:
1) Public support for the Afghan mission stands at 37 per cent in Canada and roughly half of Canadians are in support of a civilian mission post-2011. How are domestic politics likely to influence the shape of Canada's involvement? And what influence should they have?
2) The Canadian government has committed itself to a set of tasks for the benefit of the Afghan people. At the same time, the fighting has killed 131 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat. The war has cost between $11-12 billion. What responsibilities and obligations have we incurred? To the Afghan people? To NATO and the UN? To Canadians?
3) The Government has been unclear as to whether a contingent of Canadian forces will remain to protect delivery of assistance, or whether the ensuing void post-withdrawal will be covered by our U.S. and NATO allies. Moreover, does the withdrawal of a “mere” 2800 Canadians, compared with the U.S. 80,000, really mean a “gap”? What would assistance look like without military support? Can we “do” development without the military? What are the implications of a withdrawal for NATO and U.S. relations?
4) What are the options for our involvement? What are the costs and benefits of different options? What are the standards of evaluation? What is desirable? What is doable? How do we avoid what Gen. Hillier recently called “pie in the sky” ideas about Afghanistan? How do we avoid such ideas and ensure success in whatever it is that we commit ourselves to post-2011.
It is a tall order, we know, but we hope that this web forum, based on last week’s roundtable meeting, will be, at the very least, the start of a much needed discussion on these important issues.
Teaching Peace
- First Posted: Nov 12 2009 17:39 PM
- Updated: 7 months ago
VIDEO: When we teach Afghan children to read, we are teaching them to reject the extremism of the Taliban.
In a recent op-ed in The Toronto Star, the president of the International Board on Books for Young People (IBBY), Patricia Aldana, suggested that the international community along with Afghanistan could "Taliban-proof Afghanistan by teaching children to read."
This recommendation might perhaps contain the most strategic, stabilizing, forceful antidote to war that is possible, in Afghanistan or anywhere. Too often we think of “peace-building” as men in suits sitting around a table drawing up accords, negotiating a peace deal, and trying to bring feuding parties together in an effort to resolve violent conflict. Yet where peace building truly happens is inside classrooms, in teacher training institutes, in the building of village libraries, and in the binding of books. It happens when kids have the right and the opportunity to read.
The Taliban were birthed from the lethal cocktail of an impoverished Afghan refugee population easily recruited into radical Islamic madrasah boarding schools that rose up in the thousands in response to the Pakistani government’s failure to create a viable basic education system. There, in exchange for a bed, food and free “education,” boys and young men faced an extremist and violent religious ideology, militant training, systemic rape, and the denial of contact with any females, even from their own mothers. Misogyny festered along with xenophobia, a fanatical brand of Islam, and intolerance for political, ethnic, and religious diversity. In light of the scale of the thing – it is estimated that there are more than 50,000 madrasahs in Pakistan – the outcome was somewhat predictable.
Despite the challenges, since 2002, extraordinary gains have been made in Afghanistan, including the return of millions of girls to school, the beginnings of a functional primary health-care system, the availability of micro-credit to women, a parliamentary quota for women MPs, and promising economic growth. Having closely followed developments in Afghanistan since 1996, I have watched in awe the changes that have occurred over the last seven years. These include changes to the physical landscape – as reconstruction takes place, roads are paved, and Afghans have cultivated gardens and parks – as well as to the psychological landscape. People are free from the oppression of the Taliban, women take part increasingly in public life, and the arts and culture sector are on an exciting rebound. It is an entirely different place than it was in any part of the 1990s.
Yet for what the education sector has in quantity, it lacks in quality. Capacity to deliver remains poor in the Ministry of Education – few pupils have ever seen a textbook before, few schools have even rudimentary science laboratory supplies, and most teachers have no post-secondary education. International donors are indeed supporting education, not the least of which is the Canadian government, but they are failing to see a robust investment into the education sector as the solution to the country’s insecurity over the long-run. The development of the education sector has been painfully slow.
I think it’s imperative that an international security force remain on the ground in Afghanistan for at least a decade to come, and that should include representation from Canada. This is part of the solution in that it will provide much needed breathing space to build the foundations of a long-term solution: the establishment of effective, quality education, health care, good governance, legal reform, poverty alleviation, and space for the growth of civil society. But the Canadian government, and other donor governments who want to see a stable, peaceful Afghanistan must begin to explicitly make the link between long-term security and quality education; and they must be in it for the long haul.
Education is the most important place donor governments can put their money. But it will take years, if not decades, of commitment and there must be clear measures of accountability for results. It’s not enough that schools are open and pupils – girls and boys – are in their seats. More must be done, and soon. By investing in a quality education system in Afghanistan, Canada will help prevent future wars; and by maintaining a military presence on the ground now and beyond 2011, they can help stop this one.















Comments
Re:Marks
“ You have identified the real problem of Afghanistan. I fully agree with your last paragraph about investing in a quality education system. This does not mean just providing them with books and other study material, but providing them with food, clothing and money if possible. There are so many kids that go to school, but because they have to provide for their family they can not study. If people have education, they could no be used by these radical elements. Appreciate your concern for Afghan children and their future. It is because of people like you that these important issues reach the decision makers. Thanks
Fahim Baloutch