• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

After Afghanistan - What Will Canada Do With Its Army?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
145
Points
630
The following op-ed piece which appears in the 28 March edition of the Toronto Star is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act.

What next for Canada's tough new army? Canadian foreign policy appears to have no role for battle-hardened force after it leaves Afghanistan

Canadian soldiers deploy in Kandahar province March 19, 2009. Many troops are on their fifth or sixth rotations.

Eugene Lang

Eric Morse



Sometime in mid-2011, after nearly a decade during which the Canadian Forces have had several thousand boots planted firmly on Afghan firmament, our troops will come home.

While last week witnessed some media speculation to the effect the Americans might ask Canada to remain in Afghanistan beyond that date in a training capacity, the government continues to maintain a steadfast public stance to withdraw the forces entirely on schedule.

There are valid reasons for this – mainly that after four-plus years of unexpected combat in Kandahar, Canada's army is burnt out. Neither the politicians nor the generals contemplated anything like a five-year mission in Kandahar at the beginning of this adventure. Many soldiers of this volunteer army are now on their fifth and sixth rotations. They need a break.

Yet ironically the army will emerge from the Kandahar cauldron far stronger than when it went in. The ranks of the regular force have swelled to 24,000, up from 19,000. They have better and more equipment than they did at the beginning of the Afghan adventure. The soldiers have become highly proficient warriors, led by a battle-hardened corps of officers and NCOs.

They are particularly adept at counter-insurgency warfare, insurgencies being a central challenge to peace and security in the world today. And while the growth in defence spending will be reduced as Ottawa comes to grips with its deficit, the defence budget is on track to continue rising for years to come. There will be no "peace dividend," to borrow the phrase used to describe what many expected in the early 1990s at the end of the Cold War. That's because the world is far from a peaceful place.

This new fighting machine Canada possesses, along with its warrior image, is foreign to Canadians. It makes a good chunk of our population and many of our politicians uncomfortable. But whether we like it or not, Canada has a finely honed army, forged and funded over nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan.

Yet the big question remains. After the army pulls out of Kandahar, and once it has regenerated in a couple years' time, what do we do with it? This is the central unanswered – even unasked – question of Canadian foreign policy.

It should come as no surprise that there are more than enough uses and demands for an army like ours around the world. Indeed, if the post 9/11 Canadian conceit – "the world needs more Canada" – is true, surely that means Canadian boots on the ground in the world's failed, fragile and dissolving states, of which there are a growing number.

Yet while our army is envied and respected the world over, Canada lacks any semblance of a foreign policy framework that might suggest to Canadians and the world how, where and when we might employ that force in the future. Not to mention whether the army will even remain a central instrument of our foreign policy.

This has happened before – the history of the Canadian military is one of emerging from World Wars I and II and Korea with world-class fighting machines, only to have the political leadership let them crumble due to neglect – both financial and intellectual.

The defence staff is well aware of this. Some now talk of re-engaging with the UN in peacekeeping, but this is little more than an attempt to grapple toward a military raison d'être that aligns with majority Canadian public opinion, which tends to mythologize any mission with the UN prefix.

The problem is that a generation of Canadian officers has been imbued with a distrust of the UN, its ineffectualness, its impossible rules of engagement, and its high-profile failures in Rwanda and Somalia.

Moreover, the current government seems to have no use at all for the United Nations, which it seems to see as a liberal talk shop incapable of grasping the nettle of real world problems. There is some truth in that analysis.

But if not UN peacekeeping missions, and given the prospect of a humbled and shackled NATO as a result of its probable failure in Afghanistan, what is our framework for deploying force going to be? The reality is that Canada is incapable militarily, diplomatically and politically of acting outside a multilateral coalition of some description.

At a minimum, our political leadership owes Canadians a conversation about the military as an instrument of Canada's foreign policy. An honest conversation about the nature of our military today, the realities of the dangerous world in which we live, the imperfections of our international organizations, and how a Canadian contribution to international peace and security can fit with these realities.

None of this is happening in Ottawa today. We are just getting ourselves out of a war in Kandahar that we stumbled into. Yet it seems we still lack the foresight and planning to ensure we do not throw away what our taxpayers, our soldiers and our war dead have paid such a price to build, so that next time we might know what we are doing and why.

Eugene Lang, co-author of The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, was chief of staff to two Liberal ministers of national defence.

Eric Morse, a former Canadian diplomat, is vice-chair of security studies at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto.

 
Bob Fowler, a former Deputy Minister of National Defence and, recently, a scholar in residence at The Centre for International Policy Studies, has some ideas about where Canada’s should (and should not) be in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/robert-fowler-attacks-ottawas-inaction-in-africa/article1514913/
Thinkers' conference
Robert Fowler attacks Ottawa’s inaction in Africa
Diplomat who was kidnapped by al-Qaeda condemns the ‘squandering of Canada’s reputation,' criticizes Liberals for embracing special interests


John Ibbitson

Globe and Mail

Sunday, Mar. 28, 2010

In the most scathing condemnation of Canada’s growing silence before the world, Robert Fowler, the eminent diplomat who was kidnapped by Al Qaeda, excoriated Ottawa’s abandonment of Africa Sunday morning.

Before a hushed audience at the Liberal Party’s policy conference, Mr. Fowler relentlessly catalogued the “wanton squandering of Canada’s reputation,” as a respected voice within the dialogue of nations.

Domestic political posturing “by politicians of every stripe in Canada as they compete to corner the ‘ethnic vote’” coupled with he described as a relentless pandering to the superpower to the south has led to “a small-minded, mean-spirited, me-first, little-Canada, whatever-the-Americans-want foreign policy,” he berated.

“I believe the Liberal Party has lost its way…indeed, is in danger of losing its soul.” — Robert Fowler

Specifically, “the scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada’ has caused this country to “sell out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice in the Middle East, in particular, for the cause of just settlement for the Palestinian people.”

As a result the world’s failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Fowler believes, Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans.

“Unless our friends within this region receive a great deal of clear-eyes, generous, timely and focused assistance,” Mr. Fowler declared, “there is a good chance of Al Qaeda realizing their dream of turning the northern part of Africa into a combination of Afghanistan under the Taliban, Darfur and the current murderous anarchy in Somalia.”

Consider who is saying this. Mr. Fowler, who is 64, served as foreign policy advisor to Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Brian Mulroney. He was deputy minister of Defence, and represented Canada on the United Nations Security Council.

He was serving as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s special envoy to Niger when he was kidnapped by Al Qaeda in December 2008. After five months in captivity, he was released in April 2009.

Mr. Fowler acknowledged the pain he felt at castigating the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, which successfully brought about his release.

But this was no partisan Liberal attack. Far from it.

“I believe the Liberal Party has lost its way…indeed, is in danger of losing its soul,” he told the gathering. “Liberals seem prepared to embrace an infinite array of special interests in order to shill for votes, rather than forging a broad-based, principled alliance, founded in deep Liberal traditions, one with a distinct social conscience and an independents, Canadian character.”

As Liberal Leader Michael listened impassively, Mr. Fowler urged the abandonment of the mission in Afghanistan, arguing “we will not prevail” because Canada its allies are “simply not prepared to foot the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan…and replace their culture with ours, for that seems to be what we seek, and the Taliban share that view.”

And he urged the federal government to refocus and intensify its efforts to aid northern Africa, “to ensure that it does not become a 7,000-km-wide Darfur.”

As soon as he concluded, a television reporter rushed past with the videotape of the speech.

“The world needs to hear that,” he said.

Liberals, at least, just did.

I do not, particularly, agree with his stand on Canada’s Middle East policy, but I do accept that he is correct in asserting that it does play into al Qaeda’s hand. In my opinion Canada has no friends amongst any of the Arab/Persian states and withdrawing our support from Israel would not change that, even supporting the Arabs more actively than the Liberals did would not help – as it did not help when Chrétien tried it. But, he’s right: ”Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans.”

I also agree with Fowler that, in Afghanistan, “we will not prevail” because Canada its allies are “simply not prepared to foot the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan…and replace their culture with ours, for that seems to be what we seek, and the Taliban share that view.” I think this is not, just, a Canadian failure. I believe the entire US led West, especially NATO, has failed to select and maintain the correct AIM in Afghanistan and defeat, in the form of stalemate and eventual withdrawal when our populations are all sick and tired of endless failures.

Is Africa, specifically the Sahal Belt, our next mission area? I wouldn’t bet against it.

(By the way, I doubt Mr. Fowler’s text said ”Liberals seem prepared to embrace an infinite array of special interests in order to shill for votes, rather than forging a broad-based, principled alliance, founded in deep Liberal traditions, one with a distinct social conscience and an independents, Canadian character.” My guess is it was typed in block capitals and he (Fowler) was really saying ”founded in deep liberal traditions”. His own family connections to powerful Liberals do not make him a Liberal partisan.)
 
It is my impression that the foreign service officers as a group had a fixation on influencing or at least maintaining friendly relations (whatever that means) with the Arab/Islamic states. Given our unconsiderable influence elsewhere in the world, one wonders whatever could they have been thinking? We might be better to work on the principle that we don't necessarily have friends, we have interests. As an aside, too often we seem to have operated as if we desired neither.

When I posted the piece, I had considered mentioning Africa, but thought the better of attempting to lead the discussion down one track. In my opinion Mr Fowler is fixated on Africa to such an extent that he may be loosing his usual impressively cool and levelheaded approach to issues. (This is based on seeing him in action during a few crises.) However, if I was a betting man, I would keep my stock of Lonely Planet guides to Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa up to date.
 
I agree Mr. Fowler is fixated on Africa but I sense (I guess that's the right word) that he thinks' that about the only place that's:

a. in crisis; and

b. practically redeemable through Western action.

I think even he (but not Gerry Caplan et al!) appreciates that Sub-Saharan Africa is beyond outside help.

Despite his well entrenched view that there is a 'solution' to the Middle East I think he recognizes that it will happen only when hell freezes over/Leafs win the Cup/Santa is proved to exist/etc.

My other worry is Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia. Poverty, corruption, mismanagement and bad friends (who supply arms but not trade and jobs) lead to hostile takeovers by al Qaeda like factions.
 
While it was painfully obvious that Fowler, as Deputy-Minister, could out-think pretty much all of the Daily Executive Meeting participants attendees, I find baffling his assertion that "Afghanistan is too tough....so we should sort out Africa and the Middle-East."

You may be right though about Africa being our next ground zero, especially if we market our participation as a UN operation (without self-hobbling ourselves through UN "leadership.") As such, in addition to updating Lonely Planet's African guides, folks may want to read Jeffery Gettleman, "Africa's Forever Wars: Why the continent's conflicts never end." Foreign Policy, March/April 2010, available here.
There is a very simple reason why some of Africa's bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end: They are not really wars. Not in the traditional sense, at least. The combatants don't have much of an ideology; they don't have clear goals. They couldn't care less about taking over capitals or major cities -- in fact, they prefer the deep bush, where it is far easier to commit crimes. Today's rebels seem especially uninterested in winning converts, content instead to steal other people's children, stick Kalashnikovs or axes in their hands, and make them do the killing.
 
Am I the only one who finds it disingenuously offensive of Mr. Fowler to describe our relations with the US as "whatever-the-Americans-want-foreign-policy"?
I don't find this a truthful descriptor.  Maybe I'm not keeping up with Foreign policy enough!?
 
Thanks for the link to the article, JM.

Is not much of Africa in a state paralleling pre-colonial tribalism by another name and under another organizational framework? We are not talking about failed states; we are looking at a failed continent.

Let's not get into the blame game. There are plenty of possible culprits and I don't really care whodunnit. Is it capable of being fixed? Does the west have the cajones to sort it out? Should we? Most important perhaps, who stands to benefit most from the current chaotic state, and do they pose a legitimate threat to our vital national interests? If we did intervene, as Jean Chretien planned to circa 1995, would we be able to impose some sort of order? If so or perhaps not, what would be the result? It may be that western intervention (I almost wrote massive western intervention, but I suspect we would penny packet the whole thing into a too small slurry of national caveats and competing ideals.) would just exacerbate the situation, and the only faction to see any benefit might be the militant Islamists.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Bob Fowler, a former Deputy Minister of National Defence and, recently, a scholar in residence at The Centre for International Policy Studies, has some ideas about where Canada’s should (and should not) be in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/robert-fowler-attacks-ottawas-inaction-in-africa/article1514913/

I do not, particularly, agree with his stand on Canada’s Middle East policy, but I do accept that he is correct in asserting that it does play into al Qaeda’s hand. In my opinion Canada has no friends amongst any of the Arab/Persian states and withdrawing our support from Israel would not change that, even supporting the Arabs more actively than the Liberals did would not help – as it did not help when Chrétien tried it. But, he’s right: ”Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans.”

I agree its unlikely that we have much goodwill/influence in the area, even with Chrétien refusing to send troops to Iraq and I wonder if its just daydreaming on our part. I think most Arab governments consider us to close to the Americans and truthfully I can't think of any governments actions (either Liberal or Conservative) to really push Canada's interests in the area. However, having said that, I was on holidays in Tunisia a few years ago and the local people were very friendly when they found out I was a Canadian because "we're not capitalists like Americans!"  Go figure.

While I agree that the lack of a resolution to the Palestinian problem is playing in Al Qaida's hand (see quotation below), I disagree with Fowler that Al Qaida is spreading its influence across North Africa. The largest and most active terrorist organization is the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (the group that kidnapped Fowler and his co-worker) is the former Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat that tried overthrow the Algeria government in the '90's. The group is still pretty activeand is active not only in Alergia, but also neighbouring states. The group is shadow its former self having, however, its still poses a serious threat in the region. There are other groups active in the region, but the other North African governments (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco) have been pretty successful in suppressing them. Here is the U.S. State Department's 2008 country report on Middle Eastern and North African terrorist groups. Of some importance is this nugget from the the write-up on Morocco: "The perceived injustice faced by the Palestinian people was cited by Moroccan officials as the single greatest radicalizing element among Moroccan extremists."

Is Africa, specifically the Sahal Belt, our next mission area? I wouldn’t bet against it.

Personally, I don't think we should be involved in Africa at all. The place is a mess and the only way to sort the place out is to go in and re-colonize the place and we all know what the lefties think of that idea. Secondly, it was the Europeans who colonized the place and screwed the place up; let them sort it out. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Ever since the Conservatives "abandoned" Africa there has been an outcry from the left about how we are failing the continent and need to start getting involved and start spending our tax dollars over there. So once we pull out of Afghanistan, start to see the clamour for us get involved in Darfur or some other hellhole.

 
Journeyman said:
While it was painfully obvious that Fowler, as Deputy-Minister, could out-think pretty much all of the Daily Executive Meeting participants attendees, I find baffling his assertion that "Afghanistan is too tough....so we should sort out Africa and the Middle-East."

...


My sense (I wish I had a better word) of his views, from a few brief discussions a couple of years ago, is that Afghanistan need not have been to tough IF we had a sensible (comprehensible), achievable and agreed strategic AIM. I think we (Beijing, Berlin, Canberra, London, Paris, Ottawa, Tokyo and (above all) Washington) never got around to selecting, much less maintaining such an aim. It is, probably, too late now, for anything but footing "the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan…and replace their culture with ours" which, I agree with Fowler, we are not prepared to do.

I think the American led West is failing in Iraq, despite military success, and will fail in Afghanistan. I think, in both cases we will declare victory and come home, but the victories will be short-lived and both Iraq and Afghanistan will be, in 2021, as bad off and as problematical as they were in 2001.

I doubt that Bush/Rumsfeld, Obama/Gates or Petraeus/McCrystal had or have the strategic vision necessary to tackle the Islamic Crescent which includes the Sahal Belt, the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. We, the American led West, do not have coherent interests throughout the Crescent - in fact we have policy conflicts amongst ourselves in some regions and differing interests among others. A coherent strategy is too much for which to hope about which to dream.
 
leroi said:
Am I the only one who finds it disingenuously offensive of Mr. Fowler to describe our relations with the US as "whatever-the-Americans-want-foreign-policy"?
I don't find this a truthful descriptor.  Maybe I'm not keeping up with Foreign policy enough!?


I think that's been a quite accurate descriptor of Conservative and Liberal foreign policy since, oh, about 1984. Our goal has been to do just enough to not annoy the Americans in most areas and, where it would not be expensive or painful, to do whatever they asked elsewhere.

We have not had a foreign policy that AIMED to serve Canada's best interests since 1947-67. While the greatest foreign policy failure is Trudeau's, none of his successors, Conservative of Liberal did much better. Kudos to Mulroney for putting us on the right side of history on South Africa and for free trade; as for everyone else: a yawn, at best.
 
leroi said:
Am I the only one who finds it disingenuously offensive of Mr. Fowler to describe our relations with the US as "whatever-the-Americans-want-foreign-policy"?
I don't find this a truthful descriptor.  Maybe I'm not keeping up with Foreign policy enough!?

Thank you Mr. Campbell. One of these days I'll get myself turned around.
With some things I can't separate their interests from ours.
 
As I read the media reaction to Flowler's bombs (there were more than one tossed about) the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition are being told to "find out what Canadians want and make policy accordingly."

Only blithering idiots would follow that advice.

With all due (but very limited) respect for my fellow citizens, no one should listen to such nonsense. Policy makers should not give a sh!t for what "Canadians want;" they need to focus on what "Canada needs" and the devil take the slobbering masses and their wants.

My sense is that Harper doesn't much care about Canadians' wants or Canada's needs - he is running a tactical vote getting operation and he will give some thought to policy after he gets a majority - maybe. Equally, my sense is that Ignatieff is uncomfortable with the realities of foreign policy. My guess is that under a Conservative government the army will get used if Harper thinks that use will produce temporary, political advantage; but, under a Liberal government, the army will stay in barracks because Ignatieff will be afraid to commit troops to anything.
 
It is certainly interesting debate and discussion, but at the end of the day it's impossible to know.

You work on Bosnia, the Kosovo flares up.  Then you start winding down Bosnia and 9/11 happens what was the catalyst for all of this.

History will show that just about every major war is started by some bad guy somewhere doing something really drastic that wasn't planned by the rest of the world (Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, etc).
 
Petamocto said:
...
History will show that just about every major war is started by some bad guy somewhere doing something really drastic that wasn't planned by the rest of the world (Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, etc).


That's a very particularist view of history (and, therefore, muddled, in my opinion) because, in part, it depends on your definition of "bad guy."

Vercingetorix? Julius Caesar? Parliament in 1645? Napoleon? Jefferson Davis? Bismark? And what they did wasn't always unexpected. Churchill and others saw, pretty clearly, what Hitler was doing and several respectable people warned that Bin Laden was going to do something outrageous - in fact, Bil Laden warned that Bin Laden was about to do something spectacular.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Vercingetorix? Julius Caesar? Parliament in 1645? Napoleon? Jefferson Davis? Bismark? And what they did wasn't always unexpected. Churchill and others saw, pretty clearly, what Hitler was doing and several respectable people warned that Bin Laden was going to do something outrageous - in fact, Bil Laden warned that Bin Laden was about to do something spectacular.

The "so what " is that it is logical and important for Canada to keep its Army prepared for what may happen in this uncertain world.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
My other worry is Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia. Poverty, corruption, mismanagement and bad friends (who supply arms but not trade and jobs) lead to hostile takeovers by al Qaeda like factions.

Its not just Al Qaida like terrorist groups that we have to worry about, but also criminal groups. The present situation in Mexico is a perfect example. Then there's wackos like Hugo Chavez who like nothing better than to stir-up the pot. Plus, the fact that he is buying weapons from the Russians and cuddling-up to Iran, just so he can thumb his nose at the U.S.

As I read the media reaction to Flowler's bombs (there were more than one tossed about) the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition are being told to "find out what Canadians want and make policy accordingly."

Only blithering idiots would follow that advice.

With all due (but very limited) respect for my fellow citizens, no one should listen to such nonsense. Policy makers should not give a sh!t for what "Canadians want;" they need to focus on what "Canada needs" and the devil take the slobbering masses and their wants.

Talk to the average Canadian and you quickly realize that they have no idea what is happening regarding Canadian foreign policy. If they do know something its filtered through the CBC or CTV which gives you an idea about how reliable their views are.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
That's a very particularist view of history (and, therefore, muddled, in my opinion) because, in part, it depends on your definition of "bad guy."

You are right and wrong at the same time.  Right if your definition rests solely on how you are aligned politically with the guy who started the war, but also wrong because anyone who starts a war is bad.

I'm no tree hugger and I am all for killing the enemy when required, but to flat-out start a war (the three names I mentioned) is evil and thus "bad", regardless of your motive being political, religious, or financial.
 
Back in 1990, nobody saw Bosnia on the radar as a future deployment.

In 2000, nobody saw Afghanistan as a future deployment.

Its 2010, and we have no idea where we'll be next.  Im pretty sure something will come up.  At least we'll be better equipped when we go in...


Petamocto said:
...but to flat-out start a war (the three names I mentioned) is evil and thus "bad", regardless of your motive being political, religious, or financial.

Caution should be used when stating 'starting the war' = 'evil/bad' - by definition it is usually the invader who is seen as the agressor, regardless of the reason or justification, which is why the US has caught a lot of flack internationally...
 
Grey,

Your first three lines are exactly the core what I am saying.  The "bad guys will start something else" was just a quip, not a policy.  The point that I was trying to make is that typically other people have a say in a country's foreign policy decisions and rarely do you know it's going to happen.
 
E.R. Campbell and others saying Africa could be next appear to be bang on.

Forces angle to lead Congo mission
After Afghanistan, Canadian troops may tackle nation where 'rights are abused with impunity'

Matthew Fisher, CanWest, 29 Mar 10
Article link

Canadian soldiers may trade fighting the war in Afghanistan for a more traditional UN peacekeeping mission in Africa when the Kandahar mission ends next year.

The military has quietly begun angling to take command of the UN's largest peacekeeping mission, which is in Congo, according to sources at the Defence Department and in Afghanistan.

In a related development, Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported Sunday that if the Pentagon has its way, British forces now in Afghanistan's Helmand Province would replace Canadian troops when they leave Kandahar next year. Helmand, which the British now share with the U.S. marines, would then become entirely the responsibility of the marines. (More on that here)

The Congo mission, which already involves 20,000 "blue helmets" from 50 countries, including a dozen Canadians, could be headed by Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, an Afghanistan veteran who is about to leave his current job as head of the army to complete a doctoral thesis.

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, who commands the armed forces, has already begun talking up an African mission at the "town halls" he regularly holds with troops in Canada and overseas. In recent months, troops of all ranks in Afghanistan have mentioned Africa as the place where Canada's army and air force are most likely to deploy to next.

As part of its exit strategy from Afghanistan, the military also wants to send several hundred trainers to an army academy in Kabul, a possibility that was first reported by Canwest News Service several weeks ago. That deployment, behind the walls of a school on the outskirts of the capital, would not involve combat and would cost a tiny fraction of the current mission in Kandahar.

While it is unlikely that Congo would be nearly as dangerous for Canadian troops as Afghanistan has been, a deployment of several thousand troops to the jungles of Central Africa would be challenging militarily and logistically. The UN estimates that four million people were killed in Congo between 1998 and 2003 and fighting continues, particularly in the East of the vast country, which has a population of 68 million ....



Robert Fowler attacks Ottawa’s inaction in Africa
Diplomat who was kidnapped by al-Qaeda condemns the ‘squandering of Canada’s reputation,' criticizes Liberals for embracing special interests

John Ibbitson, Globe & Mail, 29 Mar 10
Article link

In the most scathing condemnation of Canada’s growing silence before the world, Robert Fowler, the eminent diplomat who was kidnapped by Al Qaeda, excoriated Ottawa’s abandonment of Africa Sunday morning.

Before a hushed audience at the Liberal Party’s policy conference, Mr. Fowler relentlessly catalogued the “wanton squandering of Canada’s reputation,” as a respected voice within the dialogue of nations.

Domestic political posturing “by politicians of every stripe in Canada as they compete to corner the ‘ethnic vote’” coupled with he described as a relentless pandering to the superpower to the south has led to “a small-minded, mean-spirited, me-first, little-Canada, whatever-the-Americans-want foreign policy,” he berated.

Specifically, “the scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada’ has caused this country to “sell out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice in the Middle East, in particular, for the cause of just settlement for the Palestinian people.”

As a result the world’s failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Fowler believes, Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans ....

More on links
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top