When worlds collide


Canadian military forces are currently deployed in Afghanistan. In the Canadian Throne Speech of April 4, 2006, the federal Government stated that it is “committed to supporting Canada’s core values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights around the world.” The government also declared that it “stands firmly behind the vital role being played by our troops in Afghanistan today. The dedicated Canadians in Afghanistan deserve all of our support as they risk their lives to defend our national interests, combat global terrorism and help the Afghan people make a new start as a free, democratic and peaceful country.”

Why our role in this conflict is considered vital and what our national interests in Afghanistan are have never been satisfactorily explained. Neither has clarification been provided on how the occupation of Afghanistan is combating global terrorism. Does our government truly believe that the fiercely independent tribal societies of Afghanistan will somehow coalesce into a “free, democratic and peaceful country” under Canadian tutelage?

For centuries, only kings and warrior emperors have been able to unify the ethnically diverse peoples of the region. This has been achieved through military conquest – suppressing individual freedoms and suspending human rights, those “core values” of our Canadian sensibility. The vast majority of Afghanistan’s population is comprised of Islamic tribal communities led by independent warlords beyond the control of the central government based in Kabul, which was established under the constitution of 2004. They have no cultural tradition or experience of what we in the western world think of as “democracy”. The people subsist on meager yields of grain crops such as wheat, as well as various fruits and nuts. Grazing sheep is a staple of Afghan life in a country of steep-sloped mountains, supplying skins, wool and meat for food. Afghanistan’s most important cash crop, however, is the opium poppy. Despite civil war and occupation, this country is still the world’s largest producer of opium, from which more than eighty percent of the world’s heroin is derived. The largest markets for Afghanistan’s illegal drug trade are Pakistan, the United States and India. According to United Nations statistics for 2006, 2.9 million Afghans were directly involved in the narcotics trade, estimated to be worth 3 billion dollars. Opium poppy cultivation in 2006 reached an estimated record 6,100 tons, almost twice the harvest of 2005, even though the country was under occupation by United Nations forces. This amounts to some fifty percent of the country’s gross national product. Somehow, it seems, the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan has lost us the “war on drugs” in that same country, a fact no one in a position of authority seems inclined to discuss publicly. Perhaps more embarrassing still would be reminding the public of the fact that the Taliban government overthrown in 2001 had banned opium production in 2000, if only to eliminate their rivals’ source of income.


In October of 2006, NATO assumed full responsibility from the United Nations for security throughout the entire country. NATO’s troop strength of 35,000, drawn from 26 member countries, (2,500 of which are Canadian), is clustered primarily around the major cities of the south and the northeast: Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul and Jalalabad. In 2003, Afghanistan had an estimated population of more than twenty three million people dispersed throughout an area of more than 652,000 square miles. The ethnic composition of its people is roughly 38% Pashtun, 25% Tadzhik, 19% Hazara, with a mix of additional ethnicities comprising the remaining 18%. To expect a meagre NATO military force of 35,000 to maintain control over such a vast area while simultaneously pacifying such a widely dispersed, diverse and hostile population until we can “win their hearts and minds” seems entirely unrealistic. Yet, without critical analysis, both our media and government insist that this is our achievable objective in Afghanistan.


Repeated attempts were made by the British Empire in the nineteenth century to establish its influence over Afghanistan through force of arms. The First Afghan War of 1839-42, ended in disaster. It wasn’t concluded until 4,500 British and Indian troops, along with 12,000 families and camp followers, were slaughtered at Kabul between January 6 and January 13, 1842. In 1878, the British again invaded Afghanistan and once again, after a protracted series of bloody engagements, were forced to withdraw in September 1880. A century later the Russians would also learn that, while the Afghan people could be defeated in open battles and their cities occupied, foreign armies could not hold the country or subdue its turbulent people for very long.


In 2006 alone, more than 2,800 deaths from car bombings and other terrorist attacks occurred in the country. In their attempts to control insurgent activity and to maintain order, NATO forces have been mistakenly shooting innocent civilians while raiding homes, while confronting dissidents in the streets of various cities and while waylaying unsuspecting travelers at security checkpoints.


A growing number of accidental civilian deaths are also being caused by a reliance on air strikes called in for support during battles with suspected Taliban rebels, further alienating the Afghan population.


It would appear that our struggle to “win the hearts and minds” of the Afghan people will not be ending any time soon.


2 Responses to “When worlds collide”

  1. richard Says:

    Or alternatively, there’s the side put forward by writers like Terry Glavin at http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2007/07/making-progress-in-afghanistan-story-so.html

    I’m not sure what you suggest a viable alternative would be at this point, or what this alternative might mean to Afghani women.

  2. Guy Says:


    Thanks for the link.

    Terry Glavin certainly focuses on the positive points of our Afghani occupation, and there is no doubt that there are positive aspects – we are, after all, Canadians, not Nazis.

    My concerns are with our motivations for being there. “Nation building” seems to be one of those wonderful side effects that result after the fact – not the primary motivator behind military action. We could send troops to any number of countries around the world and “help them” build a political/economic system which mirrors our Canadian democratic values; so why haven’t we? Ask yourself – why have we not conducted ourselves in a similar fashion towards a dozen or more African nations who need our help just as badly, and who treat women just as badly as the Taliban have?

    Terrorists have been known to frequent Sudan also. A Muslim nation steeped in civil war for decades, its civil war spilled over into war with Chad. The Sudanese government, as well as rebel forces, is openly guilty of genocide. In all that time, the African Union and UN peacekeeping forces have made only inconsequential gestures towards a meaningful intervention.

    Why have we become obsessed and committed to helping the people of Afghanistan these past two years, when we could have been helping the people of Sudan for the past twenty? Why are we not intervening in this African country as forcefully as we have in Afghanistan to help them build a democracy based on our Canadian values?

    “August 14, 2006, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch found that the Sudanese government is both incapable and unwilling to protect its own citizens in Darfur and that its militias are guilty of crimes against humanity.” These human rights abuses have existed since at least 2004. The US State Department’s human rights report issued in March 2007 claims that “All parties to the conflagration committed serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers. Both government forces and militias allied with the government are known not only to attack civilians in Darfur, but also humanitarian workers. Sympathizers of rebel groups are arbitrarily detained, as are foreign journalists, human rights defenders, student activists, and displaced people in and around Khartoum, some of whom face torture. The rebel groups have also been accused in a report issued by the American government of attacking humanitarian workers and of killing innocent civilians.”


    Are the events in Sudan any less worthy of our Canadian altruism?

    You stated:
    “I’m not sure what you suggest a viable alternative would be at this point, or what this alternative might mean to Afghani women.”

    Shouldn’t we care just as much about the plight of Sudanese women?

    We were aware of these atrocities long before the attacks of September 11/01 took place; we were aware of the Taliban’s reprehensible conduct long before 9/11 – why didn’t we act? What was/is our motivation? Certainly not the welfare of the women in Afghanistan, otherwise we would have acted sooner. If restoring or granting human rights was/is our motivation, we would have taken action elsewhere, wouldn’t we?

    How is it that we’ve decided to play God in Afghanistan, but not Sudan or North Korea – or China, where millions of children are slave laborers? Tens of thousands of female children are murdered at birth? Why do we continue to conduct business with China? Why has the western world not invaded North Korea if we care so much about the human rights of innocents overseas?

    A “viable alternative” at this point may be avoiding the accidental murders of innocent Afghanis to save other innocent Afghanis from human rights abuses.

    As Canadians, Richard, we now have innocent blood on our hands just a red as the blood on the hands of the Taliban. Do you think that those Taliban fighters are any less sincere in their beliefs of what is morally right and wrong in their world? Is their courage to die for what they believe in any less than a Canadian’s? Do you think them to be evil people? Is brute force the only alternative available to our civilization in our efforts to make others see the world our way?

    I cannot claim to possess the wisdom of King Solomon, Richard, therefore I don’t have all of the answers for the woes of the world. I do know, however, that two wrongs don’t make a right and if we as a country are going to use force of arms against other people around the world, we should have a legitimate reason for doing so. In Afghanistan, I don’t think we do.

    Someday, we must leave Afghanistan. What then?

    Mark my words – things are only going to get worse throughout the Middle East and our efforts will have been for naught. No, worse than that: we will have killed many innocent human beings while sacrificing many innocent Canadians, all for nothing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: