Snow in the Sand: Canada's involvement in Afghanistan
I support our country's military operations in Afghanistan, but I want both the government and the military to do it in a smart way.
In a recent report by CTV, it appeared as if Canada was closely following the US style of counter-insurgency (now commonly known as counter terrorism). Coming from a country where insurgency is not only a problem but a real state defying issue, and having studied with some detail previous responses to this plague, I can assert that US counter-insurgent actions are utterly inefficient.
Before I go on, it is better to clarify why I'm calling the Taliban's actions in Afghanistan an insurgency rather than terrorism. Insurgent are guerrillas, which are armed rebels who oppose the government within their territories.They often attack like regular armies, or they use hit and run operations. However, they can also, as they often do, use terrorism to their advantage. Their main goal will continue to be the overthrow of their government. Insurgent soldiers (especially low ranking ones) are really upset with how their country is run. I don't mean "Damn those Liberals" kind of upset. These soldiers need to feel like they are doing what hard, honest work never accomplish. Killing for them seems justifiable.
Terrorism is the use of mass murder for the purpose of causing widespread fear. Their goals are many; Muslim terrorists want to punish gentiles, for example. The other main difference with insurgency is that they know no territorial boundaries. They can attack in Tokyo or in New York; they are incapable of overthrowing any particular government. Their leaders get followers by showing that their enemies are being punished, and often promise a better future if they continue doing so.
Sometimes the lines blurs, but the difference is important.
Why should we make the difference? Because our politicians are good spellbinders. If they think they are doing the right thing, or their actions serve their purposes, they will use words to convince people. 'Terrorism' is one of them. Thinking of what that word implies makes everyone think of evil people (their leaders certainly are, and their brain washed followers are close behind). But insurgency is an expression of real greif. They can all become evil, but that can be prevented. Canada has experience in conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and grassroots outreach. These components should be added to, or accompany all military operations. Alienating the people in places like Kandahar feeds the Taliban insurgency. Politicians may make the operations look good, leaving us thinking the troops are being ordered to do a great job. But if the CTV report is true (always question the media, too) even if only partially, then Canada is doing a shitty job in Afghanistan, and that's not cool.
In a recent report by CTV, it appeared as if Canada was closely following the US style of counter-insurgency (now commonly known as counter terrorism). Coming from a country where insurgency is not only a problem but a real state defying issue, and having studied with some detail previous responses to this plague, I can assert that US counter-insurgent actions are utterly inefficient.
Before I go on, it is better to clarify why I'm calling the Taliban's actions in Afghanistan an insurgency rather than terrorism. Insurgent are guerrillas, which are armed rebels who oppose the government within their territories.They often attack like regular armies, or they use hit and run operations. However, they can also, as they often do, use terrorism to their advantage. Their main goal will continue to be the overthrow of their government. Insurgent soldiers (especially low ranking ones) are really upset with how their country is run. I don't mean "Damn those Liberals" kind of upset. These soldiers need to feel like they are doing what hard, honest work never accomplish. Killing for them seems justifiable.
Terrorism is the use of mass murder for the purpose of causing widespread fear. Their goals are many; Muslim terrorists want to punish gentiles, for example. The other main difference with insurgency is that they know no territorial boundaries. They can attack in Tokyo or in New York; they are incapable of overthrowing any particular government. Their leaders get followers by showing that their enemies are being punished, and often promise a better future if they continue doing so.
Sometimes the lines blurs, but the difference is important.
Why should we make the difference? Because our politicians are good spellbinders. If they think they are doing the right thing, or their actions serve their purposes, they will use words to convince people. 'Terrorism' is one of them. Thinking of what that word implies makes everyone think of evil people (their leaders certainly are, and their brain washed followers are close behind). But insurgency is an expression of real greif. They can all become evil, but that can be prevented. Canada has experience in conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and grassroots outreach. These components should be added to, or accompany all military operations. Alienating the people in places like Kandahar feeds the Taliban insurgency. Politicians may make the operations look good, leaving us thinking the troops are being ordered to do a great job. But if the CTV report is true (always question the media, too) even if only partially, then Canada is doing a shitty job in Afghanistan, and that's not cool.