Today, we hear from the Toronto area that a new idea is being floated. With a provincial election coming in October, Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is seriously considering the proposal that we rename the 172 kilometre stretch of Highway 401 from Trenton to Toronto. We should call it Highway of Heroes. As bodies of soldiers are repatriated from Afghanistan, they are being transported along this stretch of highway while flag–waving onlookers gather on overpasses to view the processions.
Am I the only Canadian who thinks this is a dumb idea? Am I the only Canadian who thinks it’s wrong for Canada to be sending combat–ready troops to Afghanistan? Am I the only Canadian who does not support our troops?
Briefly, let’s review a little history here:
From 1979 to 1989, Afghanistan was (rather unsuccessfully) occupied by Russian forces who supported the Marxist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government in their efforts to suppress the mostly Muslim Mujahideen rebels. This is sometimes referred to as Russia’s Viet Nam. However, I tend to think that it’s more NATO’s Viet Nam. Russia’s role in Afghanistan is more like the position of France in Viet Nam—one of the earlier forces in a revolving door of occupying powers.
By the end of the occupation, there were a million civilian casualties and one of every two surviving Afghans was displaced.
The current war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. It was a response to the 9/11 attacks and its goal was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al–Qaeda, and dismantle the Taliban who were accused of providing support to al–Qaeda. In other words, the explicit purpose of our current military presence is, in a word, revenge (although the UN officially recognized it as a defensive measure). After the U.S. and the UK had softened things up with extended bombings, NATO became involved. In 2006, NATO troops began to replace U.S. troops—hence the increase in Canadian casualties.
(Here’s a little note to Greg Routenberg, who posted a message in response to the city TV article mentioned above: “Canada’s peacekeeping missions are of great value to wartorn [sic] countries and exemplify Canada’s commitment to helping people all over the globe live safer and healthier lives free of oppression.” Uh … Greg … this is NOT a peacekeeping mission. It has always been officially represented as a combat mission. Greg’s comment—and most of the other comments for that matter—illustrate how poorly informed is the average Canadian couch potato.)
Here are some thoughts:
1. We are sending troops to honour a (perceived) obligation to the U.S. pursuant to our NATO commitment. But America’s moral authority in this matter is about a clear as oil. Ours can be no better. Why do we waste our time fretting over the threat to our sovereignty posed by a Russian flag on the floor of the Arctic ocean? If we really want to assert our sovereignty, why not begin by showing some backbone and refusing to sacrifice our troops to sate a superpower’s blood rage?
2. We have accomplished little except bring a dubious security to Kabul and our own bungling has given terrorists the luxury of time to finance themselves and to organize. Both al–Qaeda and the Taliban are now stronger than ever. Their cause is furthered by mounting civilian casualties and the negative impact this has upon local support for occupying forces.
3. Many who agree that retaliatory strikes are an inappropriate response to 9/11 nevertheless justify our presence in Afghanistan on the grounds that we are bringing freedom to the people. The Taliban is a fundamentalist Sunni Muslim organization which held political power of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. Yet it was ousted by a fundamentalist Christian organization whose freedom–inspiring actions include everything from incinerating people with nuclear bombs to financing South American dictatorships to arbitrarily detaining people for indefinite duration to inflicting hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq. Freedom indeed!
As the experience of the Sandinistas during the Reagan period has demonstrated, yesterday’s terrorists are sometimes remembered after the fact as freedom fighters. It’s all a matter of spin. If U.S. and NATO troops kill enough civilians, then it is entirely conceivable that history will remember the Taliban as champions of freedom.
4. If freedom is the goal, then aren’t there other people whose need is greater? Why have we prioritized this action when a cost–benefit analysis suggests that we should pack our bags and leave? Imagine, for example, what we could accomplish by financing a concerted war on AIDS?
5. It is possible that this whole debacle is an instance of institutionalized racism. We may not like the idea of fundamentalist Sunni Muslims aspiring to political power, but does that justify wiping them out? I don’t like fundamentalist Christians in the White House. But that doesn’t give me authority to shoot the president, does it?
It’s interesting that when the Soviet Union was the occupying power, the U.S. provided aid to the Muslim–dominated Mujahideen. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. lost its favourite scapegoat. Islam had very big shoes to fill, but, with the help of some careful tweaking, it has learned its role admirably.
Highway of Heroes? There are no heroes. Only the powerful, the weak, and the hoodwinked. Those who have died in combat have done so while representing the former. Flag–wavers who stand on overpasses represent the latter.