War - Definition Please

Some hold that war is a means to achieve political goals by military force when diplomacy fails. In other words, you look to the political objectives going into the war to measure the outcome as a success or failure.

When he assumed control of the federal government, Stephen Harper clearly stated Canada's political objectives for the war in Afghanistan. Boiled down they came to the establishment of a viable, democratic government for the country and the introduction of Western-style human rights, particularly rights for Afghan women.

By the standards announced by Mr. Harper, Mr. Harper has already lost the war in Afghanistan. His objectives were formulated not to meet conditions on the ground in Kandahar but to suit his political interests at home. Sheer rightwing jingoism at its finest.

The man resorted to every cheap trick in the book. Criticize the mission and you're undermining the troops. Yes, they went there and they did it shamelessly. Red shirt Fridays. OMG. On and on it went.

On Harper's initiative, his government pushed through extensions of the Canadian mission in Kandahar first to 2009 and then to 2011.

Odd that we haven't even reached 2009 and we've already lost. The Karzai government is hopeless, there's no salvaging it. It's already fallen victim to rampant corruption. It has lost the support of the Afghan people who see it as a source of their suffering acting in league with the Infidels of NATO and the American Operation Enduring Freedom. Karzai's remit has hardly spread past the boundaries of Kabul. In the countryside, the power vacuum has been filled by warlords or the insurgency. Some of these warlords, former Taliban enemies, have now drifted over to the insurgency. Others are simply weighing their options.

And how are the Afghan women doing anyway? Not very well but, then, what did we expect? Did we believe that it was the Taliban who had brought the scourge of Islamist fundamentalism to Afghanistan? Did we think that, once the Talibs were sent packing, we would have freed Afghanistan of the Islamists? That goes beyond any decent interpretation of naive.

Well what about the Afghan army? A "national" army in a nation still rent by tribal warlordism is, at best, a temporary merger of ethnic militias. If, when, the Kabul government collapses, watch this army fall into five easy pieces - Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and Turkmen.

So, by any measure expressed by Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper's Conservative government has lost this war. Remember when George w. Bush was no longer able to get out the name "bin Laden?" Well, Steve has stopped peddling fanciful notions about democracy and human rights for Afghanistan. When he does talk about Afghanistan, his focus is on getting out in 2011 and that's it.

In the meantime, Canadian soldiers will keep losing their lives in Kandahar for the next three years. It would be helpful if Steve could talk with us and explain exactly what these soldiers are buying with their lives and their sacrifices? I'm sure they're saving face for Stephen Harper and that military genius who masterminded this mission. I'm sure they're keeping Mr. Harper's chummy relationship with Washington in good standing. I'm sure they're pleasing Jaap de Hoop Scheffer no end. But in terms of concrete achievements, meaningful things that will last far beyond 2011, just what are we buying with their lives?

It's particularly irritating to see our expectations steadily plummet while our soldiers' death rates keep going up.