- Reaction score
- 10,179
- Points
- 1,260
For the most part, my answer would be yes.
Like I said before, I wouldn't advocate the deployment of Canadian soldiers to the hornets nest that is Baghdad, Najaf, or the Sunni Triangle. IF we were able to find the necessary troops to make possible a deployment, I would like to see us place under the British Division in the south. Ideally, with the handover, the American-led coalition can dissengage itself from the urban centers. To me, the prime reason for remaining in Iraq (and for which I support Western, and more particularly, Canadian involvement) in to have the military forces on hand to present a real political force to encourage behaviour change in a region traditionally hostile to Western interests. By contributing to Iraq, Canada can take its place on the line ensuring that Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran know we are playing hardball when it comes to terrorism.
So much for the military aspect. I also believe some sort of involvement in Iraq is politically necessary in order to repair some of the bridges between our allies and brothers that Cretin so callously burnt. Even if initially all we can offer is political support, we would be telling the world that we are taking ourselves out of the Axis of the Meek. I felt that we took one step forward by deploying to Kandahar and then took two steps back by choosing to sit on the fence on the issue and than get down on the wrong side. We need to show our friends that we will not stand on the sidelines while they fight our battles for us. By joining, we can regain our "seat at the table" (or take Spains?) and ensure that we play an active roll in defending ourselves from the forces of barbarism and fanatic extremists.
I disagree. Despite the fact that our Forces did an excellent job in Kabul, it remains a side-show. Rather than supporting the Mayor of Kabul in some far-flung ideal of a democratic Afghanistan, I'd rather see our forces in Bagram where they could take part in operations in fighting Al Qaeda resistance. The North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, with its Pashtun tribalism, remains one of Osama bin Ladin's strongholds. Despite, all the glitter of ISAF, the real game is down south.
I'm interested to hear if there has been any progress on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These have the possibility of providing constructive regional stability and can be of use to prevent Taliban resurgence.
As well, please quit pushing forth the notion that going to Iraq would be a simple matter of "following the examples of the USA." What of the other countries involved in this effort? Are you forgetting the fact that Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain (which subsequently committed harikari), and a host of other states where behind the coalition that went into Iraq. This is not a clear cut case of right vs wrong, rather it is a clash of interests for which we seem to be throwing ourselves in a position that offers us no political advantages (except, possibly, for allowing the government of the day to get away from being faced with the fact that it had neglected defence capabilities to the point of obscurity).
As well, I'm still curious as to why you see the UN as the only way of bringing success to this situation. The UN is not an independent, altruistic institution. It is merely the sum of its parts. Do you honestly believe that the nation states that compose the General Assembly (and especially the Security Council) check their national interests at the doors in New York? The UN in another place for realpolitik to be carried out by the powers of the globe. It is apparent that French and German opposition to the war was an attempt to galvanize Europe behind Paris and Berlin to create a political force that could offset the power of the American Hegemon (an effort that failed). As well, seedy as it sounds, economic interests in the form of the multi-billion dollar petroleum industry can find their interests added to the fray. We are eager to point fingers at Haliburton, but there is no denying the TFE didn't have its fingers in the pie as well. And what of Russia, who has always seen the area as its own backyard full of clients to support its military exports, or China, always eager to parry the Americans, and eager to quit the criticisms when their precious economic benefits were threatened. The UN is simply another stage for that dirty game of international politics; I fail to understand why people feel the urge to see politics through a UN filter as pure and righteous.
As well, I feel the failure to successfully resolve SC Resolution 1441 only continues to demonstrate the fact the United Nations cannot be the bearer of the national interest of Canada. It is simply too fickle, inconsistent and susceptible to erratic policy decisions (Iraq on the disarmament committee comes to mind). We should use it as a tool, and if it fails, look somewhere else to achieve our goals.
Take for example the Korean War. What if SC had turned down the decision to intervene? The only reason it didn't was due to the fact that the Soviets were boycotting and China had yet to emerge. What if America had decided to lead a coalition to Korea in support of the Truman Doctrine without the support of the UN. Most people do not care that the mission was a UN one; the democratic prosperity of South Korea is a testament to the fact that intervention proved to be the better path, especially when compared alongside their xenophobic neighbours to the North. Ironically, South Korea was slow to move to a liberal democracy, ensuring that the foundations were properly laid first. Perhaps this should point out to us the folly of rushing Afghanistan and Iraq, two of the 20th centuries most undemocratic states, to a representative government, but alas, that is another debate altogether.
The fact that we are at war always worked for me.
