The number of civilians killed in recent U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan is reportedly now at 147. The United Nations estimated that more than 2000 civilians were killed in fighting last year. Over the past few years thousands of innocent civilians have reportedly been killed.
Canada is of course part of NATO's fighting forces in Afghanistan. Yet few in Canada or the United States seem particularly outraged over these horrendous numbers of killed innocents. U.S Defence Secretary expresses his "regret". My local newspaper, the Edmonton Journal, covers the story not on page one, but on page 13. Everyone seems rather content to express regret over the incidents, but to ascribe blame to the Taliban who "use civilians as shields" and who "hides among noncombatants during attacks" (Edmonton Journal, page A13, Friday May 8).
Where are the outraged Michael Ignatieffs and Louise Arbours who were all too quick to condemn Israel when civilians died in Lebanon and to judge the Israeli actions as "war crimes"? Where are the academic boycotters, the campus protesters, the non-stop television coverage, the UN Security Council emergency sessions, and the constant stream of invectives directed this time not at the Israeli army but at NATO troops? Where indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You generalise too much. Iggy and Arbor are not "everybody." Nobody under fifty reads the Journal's print edition, and the story was prominently posted in the Journal's online edition. Forty percent of Canadians surveyed in the CP Harris-Decima poll published a day before you wrote this post want Canada to get out of Afghanistan, like, yesterday. Only eight percent polled think Canada should stay past the targeted pull-out of 2011. This despite Harper's recent PR about all the good we're supposedly doing over there.
ReplyDeleteAnd all this despite a real lack of hard evidence re the demised.
Thanks Marnie.
ReplyDeleteBut.. I do not think Canadians want to get out of Afghanistan because innocent civilians are being killed. They (like me) want us to get out because it seems like a hopeless venture, Canadians have no real reason to be there in the first place, and Canadian soldiers are being killed and wounded.
Well, the real question is: has anyone asked the Canadians who want to get out of Afghanistan why they want to get out.
ReplyDeleteI note you includes yourself in the group that wants to get out for more pragmatic reasons than the loss of innocent lives. (Just teasin' you.)
Prof Klar,
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason we're in Afghanistan is that what goes on there matters to us. Our national interest in Afghanistan lies in our interdependence.
How would you respond to that?
Regards,
Mike
I would respond in two ways.
ReplyDeleteFirst, assuming for the sake of argument that what goes on there "matters to us" ( a point which you merely assert but do not explain), who says that our presence there will in fact make any difference, over the long run, as to what goes on there? Will we succeed in our mission? What actually is our mission? Obama thinks our mission is to kill the terrorists before they kill us. Sound familiar? Hint: George W. Is that your understanding.
Second, what happens in a lot of places "matters to us". Do you support military intervention by Canadian troops in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. Surely what goes on these places "matters to us". No?
I think most reasonable Canadians must feel ambivalent about our involvement in Afghanistan. The denial of basic human rights, especially among women, is unconscionable. But centuries of history suggest that intervention may be futile. However, to ask, "what exactly is our mission?" is too flippant. You might consult the Canadian government's actual rationale and benchmarks for progress -- at http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/index.aspx?lang=en -- as a start to considering the issue seriously.
ReplyDeleteRon C
Prof Klar,
ReplyDeleteI don't think I was being unduly assertive in suggesting that what happens in Afghanistan "matter to us". In fact, I was relying on and agreeing with something you had previously written:
"September 11, 2001 also made me realize, if I hadn’t before, how interdependent we in the world are. What happens in Afghanistan, the Middle East, in Europe, or anywhere else in the world matters."
See http://www.canonsofconstruction.com/vol-2001/2001-10/dean/index.html
Regards,
Mike
Another point, Prof. Klar. Your earlier response to me also seems to show some inconsistency on your part about the merits of George W. Bush's middle eastern policy. In 2009, you respond to me saying that it's a bad thing for Obama to emulate ("Obama thinks our mission is to kill the terrorists before they kill us. Sound familiar? Hint: George W."). In 2007, however, you were not as hard on Bush "under Bush's leadership the peace prospects in the Middle East [have] never seemed better"). (See http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/10/george-bush-and.html). The only difference between now and then, however, is that Obama is the president. It is hard to avoid concluding that your criticism here is not so much driven by the policy as by the policy maker.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Mike