"Our Generation's Spanish Civil War"

[[R_H]]

National Post

'Afghanistan is not just "George Bush's war." This is a liberation struggle. It's a war of resistance against clerical fascism. So why do my fellow Canadian leftists oppose it?'

Among the 130 or so members of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee--a new group that it would be fair to describe as unapologetically "pro-troops" -- there are Muslims, Jews, Christians and atheists. There are feminists, campus activists and academics. There are gay-rights veterans, writers and trade unionists.

Our members also include a cook, a computer-game developer and a young man who ran as a Conservative party candidate in the last federal election. We have an insurance broker, a former diplomat, some retired soldiers and a warehouseman. There are quite a few Afghan-Canadians among us.

Our more prominent members include former Progressive Conservative cabinet ministers John Fraser and Flora MacDonald, and a former Liberal Cabinet minister, Iona Campagnolo, who was also, until quite recently, British Columbia's lieutenant-governor. We have poets and novelists, too.

But the thing that tends to strike people as especially unusual about our membership is the preponderance of people you would not be wrong in calling "left-wing." And on Afghanistan, we're not just pro-troops. We're pro-mission. Sometimes we wonder who's more pro-mission, Prime Minister Harper or us.

Given the way the Afghanistan debate has unfolded in Canada, you'd think it would be an act of apostasy for people of the left to be saying such things and keeping such company. You'd be right. It is. Nevertheless, the committee's apostate leftists are enormously proud of the brave work Canadian soldiers are doing to advance the cause of security and justice in Afghanistan, and they reckoned they should say so.

We all came together because we were fed up with the shallow level of Canadian debate about the mission, and we all shared a conviction that Canadian soldiers were absolutely necessary to ensure that Canada keep its commitments to the Afghan people. We were also tired of hearing that as Canadians, we were merely "imposing our values" on the Afghan people, when the Afghan people themselves were crying out for our help.

We also share a commitment to the proposition that human rights are universal, that women's rights are human rights and that these rights are neither culture-specific nor are they negotiable. We reckon it's high time Canadians started paying closer attention to what the Afghan people themselves have to say about these things, and we hope to make room for more Afghan-Canadian voices in these debates, too.

As someone who tends to get singled out as one of the group's left-wing types, it often falls to me to address two things. First, to explain why Canada's engagement in Afghanistan is in the most noble traditions of the left, and second, to set out why, in the main, the Canadian left has broken with these traditions, and has instead made what United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls a "misjudgment of historic proportions."

The first part is easy.

This is a UN operation, and Canadian soldiers are standing shoulder to shoulder with Afghan soldiers, and with soldiers from nearly 40 armies under the leadership of the UN's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Canadians enjoy peace and freedom in abundance, and we are thus burdened by a solemn duty of solidarity to help the Afghan people as they assert their rights to enjoy the same.

This is not just "George Bush's war." This is a liberation struggle. It's a war of resistance against clerical fascism, against the most unspeakably brutal kind of misogyny, against tyranny, slavery, illiteracy and oppression. Over the past six years, poll after poll has provided unequivocal, empirical evidence that the Afghan people want us there to help them win this fight. And the people are winning.

In 2004, only one in 10 Afghans had access to medical services. Now it's eight in 10. Three out of every four children under the age of five have been immunized against childhood diseases. There are millions of girls attending school now. More than 100,000 women have begun their own small businesses with micro-loans administered by the World Bank -- that sinister institution we progressives are supposed to despise.

Afghanistan is now an embryonic democracy, and one of every four Afghan MPs is a woman. Just a few years ago, Afghan women weren't allowed out of doors unless they were accompanied by a man. Under the Taliban, you weren't allowed to watch television, but now there are seven national television stations, and all sorts of little newspapers, and 10 universities.

None of this would have happened if the so-called "anti-war" argument had prevailed. If the ISAF armies just packed up and left, it would be back to the Dark Ages again.

Still, the Afghan people want more, and faster. Last month, to protest the snail's pace of their government's efforts to bring armed militants to heel, workers in the Herat region launched a five-day general strike that came close to shutting down the entire province. What did Canada's left contribute to that effort? Nothing.

Last November, 10-year-old Alaina Podmorow got together with 18 of her fellow Grade 5 pupils in British Columbia's Okanagan Valley, and they raised enough money to pay the salaries of five Afghan schoolteachers for a whole year. How is it that in doing this simple thing, Alaina and her young comrades, in the space of a few weeks, made a greater contribution to the liberation of the Afghan people than the combined efforts of the NDP, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Federation of Students, over the past seven years?

It's a long story. It's at least partly because cultural relativism has eaten away at the principle of universal rights -- which was once the bedrock of left-wing politics --and a crude and paranoid anti-Americanism has come to serve as a substitute for rational, progressive analysis. By Sept. 11, 2001, the politics of solidarity had been eclipsed by the politics of the counterculture, and so the main ranks of the left settled into a comfortable and familiar Sixties' narrative: It's the Third World vs. American empire.

The British linguist and historian Fred Halliday sets this historic "antiwar" misjudgment in these terms: "To my mind, Afghanistan is central to the history of the left, and to the history of the world since the 1980s. It is to the early 21st century, to the years we're now living through, what the Spanish Civil War was to Europe in the mid-and late-20th century."

What this means is that the heirs and successors of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion -- the brave Canadian volunteers who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists -- are to be found today not in the main ranks of the left, but among the courageous young men and women of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Vandoos and all those other Canadian regiments that are holding the banner high in Afghanistan.

It means that Canadian soldiers, and not Canada's "anti-war" politicians and polemicists, are at the vanguard of the historic mission of the left. I would have been proud of those soldiers anyway, but as someone who counts himself among the left-wing founders of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, I am doubly proud of them.

We have work to do in Afghanistan. We must fight on.

[Coyote]

I think part of the problem with the Afghan war is that it was followed so quickly by the Iraq war, for which things were far more doubtful, rationales shifting and ambiguous, and in many cases just downright shifty. In trying to "elevate" the Iraq War to righteousness, they tied it to the Afghan war's initial popular support.

Unfortunately, instead of enhancing the Iraq war's status, the opposite happened-- the Afghan war's status got dragged down. Add to that the problem that the Iraq war grabbed a lot more media attention while the Afghan war slipped off the radar. Now, when you say "the war", people automatically conjure up images of Iraq. You have to specifically say "Afghanistan" to differentiate.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's really a pity, too. Just think of what we could have done in Afghanistan with the resources bleeding into Iraq right now, and with the legitimacy we had. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a living, breathing example of the "Islamofascism" that the Republicans are supposed to abhor, and wiping it out, replacing it with a better, more prosperous, more Democratic state in the Middle East would have done wonders for our reputation.

[Cecelia5578]

Give me a break-this is the kind of pro-war crap that was trotted out years ago. Its a poor attempt by various pro-war causes to co-opt the terms of liberalism, to make it appear as if true liberals, leftists, feminists, etc. should support invading backwards Muslim countries and making them democratic.

Of course Iraq has siphoned off lots of resources that could have been better spent on A-Stan, but these kind of tactics were used by the Bush administration and various war pundits prior to both A-Stan and OIF, in order to get various liberals to sign on to the pro-war agenda. Since when have you heard National Review, The Weekly Standard, or the White House talk about these things? If anything, women and non-Muslim minorities have it worse than under the rule of Saddam.

[Cecelia5578]

I should also note that if these people are so eager for the US Military and the CF to spread the good word of Westernization, then they are of course welcome to enlist.

[Shroom Man 777]

They DO have it worse in A-stan than under Saddam. They had it even worser under the Taliban, though.

[Coyote]

Give me a break-this is the kind of pro-war crap that was trotted out years ago. Its a poor attempt by various pro-war causes to co-opt the terms of liberalism, to make it appear as if true liberals, leftists, feminists, etc. should support invading backwards Muslim countries and making them democratic.

Of course Iraq has siphoned off lots of resources that could have been better spent on A-Stan, but these kind of tactics were used by the Bush administration and various war pundits prior to both A-Stan and OIF, in order to get various liberals to sign on to the pro-war agenda. Since when have you heard National Review, The Weekly Standard, or the White House talk about these things? If anything, women and non-Muslim minorities have it worse than under the rule of Saddam.

Well in a way, your points are what I'm talking about. The Afghanistan war has to be viewed on its own merits, without the Iraq war coloring perceptions. I very much remember lots of pre-9/11 discourse on Afghanistan about how the clerical totalitarian government there treated women, gays, non-Muslims, and how people all seemed to agree that "something" should be "done" but what?

If you look at Afghanistan without the Iraq war at all-- just seperate it totally-- what the people in the article are saying is that it is a noble mission. The Afghan people are better off than they were under the Taliban (the article infers) and that is what we should keep up, not discourage. Iraq enters into the picture only because it saps vital resources from the "real" calling of rehabilitating A-stan.

[Darth Wong]

The massive levels of corruption in the Afghan government don't exactly help. When we look at Afghanistan, we look at a country where we are helping venal and corrupt government to triumph over evil fanatics. Lesser of two evils perhaps, but still something that tends to bleed one's enthusiasm.

[Qwerty 42]

They DO have it worse in A-stan than under Saddam. They had it even worser under the Taliban, though.

Unless I've missed some important development, I take this to be a typo?

[TheKwas]

The article describes me pretty well, actually. The Afghan War is probably the biggest reason why I felt compelled to abandon the federal NDP as my party of choice. Thanks for the link.

[Elfdart]

If this is the Spanish Civil War II, let these posers do what the late Abe Osheroff and others like him did: form an International Brigade and go fight. Oliver Law didn't wait six years to fight against Franco and Hitler. He joined up and fought at Jarama in 1937.

Fuck these drama queens for using the memory of the Brigades to advance neocon bullshit!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, it was a damn shame when Abe Osheroff died, and I wish my life hadn't been so chaotic last month that I was unable to go to the memorial service--I'm basically sympathetic to the Nationalists from a Carlist perspective, but I have the personal decency to recognize immense courage where it resides. There were few men like him even in the last bloody century--and Afghanistan is nothing at all like the Spanish Civil War.

[Brain_Caster]

I'm not sure if the comparison to the Spanish Civil War is accurate (ok, let's be honest: it isn't) and I'm also quite unhappy with how things are handled in the Afghan government.

But one thing can not be denied: Afghanistan is not Iraq. This is our war, just as it is the Afghans' and the United States' war. When the decision was made to topple the Taliban by force, it wasn't just the U.S., many other western nations all agreed with seem and supported them. Afghanistan is as much our responsibility as it is theirs.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's really a pity, too. Just think of what we could have done in Afghanistan with the resources bleeding into Iraq right now, and with the legitimacy we had.

Umm, not much? Seriously, you want to send 150,000 western soldiers to Afghanistan, then you’d better find a way to convince Pakistan to let NATO have full access to ports and interior infrastructure… not to mention allow NATO troops to occupy both sides of the boarder, all of which would cause Pakistan to break out into a full scale civil war. As it was they gave us a bare minimal of basing for special forces for less then a year, and still huge areas of the country to started and still are rebelling. Any other way it’s not happening, logistic impossibility. Afghanistan is a graveyard for invading armies, and I for one am damn glad we have not attempted to win it simply by turning on the tap of not so endless resources. The current plan of low level western support while being up a local army might work, going full bore to win the war with western troops will not. Not unless we want to kill a couple million people, which would be pointless.

[Coyote]

A couple questions-- Elfy, how was the post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan related to the "neocon agenda"? They wanted Iraq round-II from the start and while the smoke was still pouring from the WTC they were trying to create a link to Saddam. A-stan was off their radar for the most part.

And as for the comparison of corruption in Afghanistan vs. the cause of Spain... are we really telling ourselves that the Loyalist cause in Spain was really pure, wholesome, and had not a taint of corruption to it? I mean, seriously, people, talk about romanticizing.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's really a pity, too. Just think of what we could have done in Afghanistan with the resources bleeding into Iraq right now, and with the legitimacy we had.

Umm, not much? Seriously, you want to send 150,000 western soldiers to Afghanistan, then you’d better find a way to convince Pakistan to let NATO have full access to ports and interior infrastructure… not to mention allow NATO troops to occupy both sides of the boarder, all of which would cause Pakistan to break out into a full scale civil war. As it was they gave us a bare minimal of basing for special forces for less then a year, and still huge areas of the country to started and still are rebelling. Any other way it’s not happening, logistic impossibility. Afghanistan is a graveyard for invading armies, and I for one am damn glad we have not attempted to win it simply by turning on the tap of not so endless resources. The current plan of low level western support while being up a local army might work, going full bore to win the war with western troops will not. Not unless we want to kill a couple million people, which would be pointless.

I was referring more to the financial resources, as well as greater flexibility to deal with Afghanistan without our hands tied in Iraq, not a full-bore 150,000 boots on the ground occupation.

[K. A. Pital]

...are we really telling ourselves that the Loyalist cause in Spain was really pure, wholesome, and had not a taint of corruption to it? I mean, seriously, people, talk about romanticizing.

Like in Afghanistan, it's better to have a corrupt Republic than what Franco and the clergy did, a vacchanalia of violence and fascist and clerical opression which still echoes even today in Spain.

The current plan of low level western support while being up a local army might work

"Vietnamization" did not work, so why would it work in Afghanistan?

[Mr Bean]

"Vietnamization" did not work, so why would it work in Afghanistan?

Because unlike the Vietnamese who fundamentally did not want to fight the Afghan's WANT to fight, for fuck sake Stas remember 1979-1989? A small clash between the good old Soviet Union and a bunch of dirt-poor rebels?

If we know anything from history it's that the Afghanise will fight, they will fight under terrible odds against a foe they can't even hurt and they will fight and die in the tens of thousands.

However unlike Vietnamistation, we still have the issue if we back completly out of Afghanstain in the next few years that all our efforts will be undone as all the various tribal groups go back to killing each other over a thousand year old blood feud caused when Cousin Ackmad was caught fucking the prize nanny goat or because the tribe the next valley over killed one of ours even though he was just trying to steal a wife by kidnapping one of theirs.

We still see that in Afganstain and only a good thirty year time-frame is going to work that out of people system to the point at which it's managable. They might do it on their own, and the UN can do it for us, but A-Stan is not a country were we need worry they will fall to Iran or Pakistan.

[CmdrWilkens]

There were also, even within the "Vietnamization," fores which fought well and valiantly. The Airborne and Marine brigades were competent well trained and well led forces that wanted to get the job done. The problem was the average soldier in the ARVN knew that his superiors were more concerned about their own little fiefdom than with actually fighting a winnign war. The US never solved the problem of rampant organzied corruption at the mid and highest levels of the South Vietnamse govenrment and military. The soldiers knew this, they could see it in they way they were used and expended.

Afghanistan, while having similair problems with official corruption in the government, doesn't have nearly as many problems with half assed politican/soldiers. The folks who are running the Afghanistan army know a little bit about how to fight and the troops are quite willing to put forth effort because they believe in their commanders intention of fighting to win.

[MKSheppard]

"Vietnamization" did not work, so why would it work in Afghanistan?

Actually, it worked. Until the Democrats halted military aid to Republic of South Vietnam; which meant that when the NVA came rolling down south in a massive armored thrust, the ARVN had pretty much no supplies.