Canada's Unexplained Military Presence in Afghanistan
Canada's Unexplained Military Presence in Afghanistan
by Shane Ruttle Martinez - May 23
Since Ottawa sent military support to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, Canadian public opinion has generally hovered in a state of confusion, with many people unsure of exactly why troops have been sent there in the first place.
Now, however, that befuddlement is steadily being combined, if not replaced, with a sense of distrust and agitation.
And understandably so. Canadians largely remain perplexed as to why Ottawa has sent troops to a war which many see as unjustified, and even more seem to feel is still unexplained. No solid reasoning has come from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to elaborate on the very general statements released this far, which have simply declared that Canada is now "committed" to the war. Despite the rising military and civilian death toll overseas, he claims that Canada now has a "better military" from the experience.
Contrasting with the tranquil and vague rationalization from the federal government has been a rabidly defensive outcry by the armed forces. Conveniently disregarding the large number of innocent people killed in the invasion and consequent occupation, military officials have been quick to respond to anti-war sentiments by offering up the suggestion that the public often forgets about "all the good things" which Canadian soldiers contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
An intensified pro-military advertising campaign in Canada over recent years has been coupled with corporate media refusing to carry out a critical analysis of the political and economic reality of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. This has fostered the conditions for at least partial support of the war by working class Canadians.
But the attempts at winning over public opinion have not been as successful as some political leaders and military brass had hoped. According to recent polls, nearly 50 per cent of Canadians are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Public demonstrations against the occupation are still strong, with thousands protesting in the streets throughout 37 cities last October 25, in order to spread the truth about the Conservatives' agenda.
When examined, the often ignored numbers don't lie either. Canada entered a war that aroused international popular condemnation, which is now responsible for the deaths of between 20,000 and 49,600 Afghanis, according to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian. Canada's participation in Afghanistan provides essential logistical suport to the simultaneous US war in Iraq. Canada's death count in the Afghan "theater of operations" is now at 45 troops, with an additional 150+ injured. In analyzing the number of dead, the math paints a dreary picture which is difficult to understand. Great Britain, which currently has 4,700 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, has had fewer troops killed than Canada, which has fewer than half the number of British soldiers stationed there. Meaning that Canada's casualty rate is double that of the British. Yet these realities do not penetrate Canadian media.
Further displaying the success of wartime propaganda at work, an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of CanWest News Service this past September showed that of just over 1,000 Canadians questioned, 80 per cent actually believe that Canadian forces are conducting a "vital humanitarian mission" in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the truth is far different from this common misconception of the Canadian military as being one of peacekeepers eager to reconstruct war-torn communities.
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan currently have approximately 90 per cent of their work consisting of combat missions, and only 10 per cent allocated to humanitarian projects – a scandalous injustice when it is considered that 1.5 million people in Afghanistan are suffering from imminent starvation. Canada's participation in this US-instigated war helps maintain the annual deaths of 268,000 Afghani children under the age of five who pass away from easily treatable diseases such as diarrhea and pulmonary conditions.
Since Canadian forces arrived in the region in late 2001 (and actively engaged in on-ground missions beginning in early 2002), the US government has been able to utilize more of its military resources in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Mainstream press in Canada has been largely silent on this matter. There was an equal lack of publication on the confirmation from Ottawa in April, 2003 that over 50 Canadians were actually fighting in Iraq, placed there via exchange programs with the "allied" forces.
Canadians are faced with the challenge of choosing between blind nationalism and a critical perspective on the economic realities underlying the occupation of Afghanistan, through which Canada has enrolled itself as a military junior partner of the US global empire. As the body count of both Afghanis and Canadians grows higher, the facts are becoming clearer as to the true intentions behind the war, and the necessary illusions which cloak them.
-- Shane Ruttle Martinez is a Catalan Canadian independent journalist and human rights activist based in Toronto, Canada.
- Login or register to post comments
- 3215 reads
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
A person from Afghanistan
A person from Afghanistan is called an "Afghan" not an "Afghani". An Afghani is a term synonymous with currency and could be misconstrued as a bit insulting.
Worker support is based on the appreciation of the women and men who are doing the job regardless of the mission. The average worker who supports the 'war' appreciates the fact that even if you don't like your job, its the only one you've got. The average Canadian Soldier and Oshawa GM Plant worker will have more in common than any political ideology that can be tagged to them.
just killing for a living?
you make it sound like all missions are morally neutral. planting flowers, killing men, woman, children, it's all the same. and canadian workers should blindly support them regardless of the ethical questionableness of their actions 'cause hey, they're just doing their job. if the workers were over there, they should be pointing their guns at whomever they are instructed to kill and not question what good or harm it might be doing. after all, we would never be involved in an immoral war would we? we're the good guys, right?
and why is is that you put quotes around the word 'war'? what about the deaths of tens of thousands of people from gun fire and land mines, plus the hundreds of thousands dying from the living conditions brought on by the occupation plus the deaths of all those that won't be counted as they die from exposure to depleted uranium? doesn't all that add up to WAR?
I put quotation marks
I put quotation marks around war as its not the war that the working class is in support of. Its usually support for the guy doing the job. And I think you should re-read my comment before stumbling over your words. If you READ it. It talks about the reasons WHY the working class would support the war. Not whether its good or not.
And just for future reference, you should usually cite things when you start streaming off numbers like "10 000" or "Hundreds of thousands". It makes it seem like you're making it up when you don't cite.
But because you likely won't read this as you've already found me as a target to rail your anger against, I'll reiterate. I was giving the reasons behind WHY workers appear to support the war, NOT. (I'll write it one more time for you). NOT why the war is 'good'.
Being preachy and condescending is not only the quickest way from turning people away from the cause, but it also shows you have no respect for other peoples opinions.
the numbers i referenced are
the numbers i referenced are from the article above. i didn't see much point in referencing them.
as for misreading your post, i can now see your interpretation of your words. they aren't particularly clear and in conjunction with your remarks at the end of the post that were removed because they violate our content policy (abusive generalizations directed at authors who would write articles like this one), it made me think that you were taking a position that supports blindly supporting the troops. guess i was wrong? sorry.
Not a problem,
No worries, I should have been clearer with my intent. I'm glad you replied because I had a follow up concept to the original article. If workers "support the troops" because of the statement I made earlier, then a campaign which separates the government monopoly of 'Supporting the soldiers is supporting the war" could be effective. Specifically, if you can separate "Supporting the troops" from "Supporting the war" it might gain more influence among workers. Just as most GM plant workers probably hate General Motors, but take pride in the effort they put into their work.
I know it seems like a softening of war opposition, but consider this: Most Canadians venerate "heroes" of World War II. Mentally distinguishing it as a "just war". As such, there is an ingrained respect for individuals who are in the military. Marketing the fact that this war is NOT JUST, would allow the average person to continue to venerate the individual soldier, but hate the war they are fighting.