Tuesday, August 14, 2007

How to Miss the Point Like a Pro

The debate topic was Afghanistan, remember?

With the Great Canadian Debate finally up and running, those participating in Canada's electronic democracy have a powerful new tool to help bridge the ideological divide between so-called left- and right-wingers.

One topic up for debate, in particular, is Canada's participation in Afghanistan. The question asked is simple: "must a person be in favour of the war in Afghanistan to "support our troops"?"

The topic is debated between Red Tory and Let Freedom Reign's Richard Evans.

Evans, for his part, argues that Canadians owe moral support to Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan so long as they are participating in the mission out of their own free will, and that vehemently protesting their participation in a war they believe in only serves to demoralize them.

Red Tory, on the other hand, insists that supporting the troops and supporting the mission are two different concepts, and to this end, manages a somewhat convincing argument:

"The resolution as I understand it is essentially premised on the notion held by some that one cannot "support the troops" if one doesn't support the mission in which they are engaged, or put conversely, that one must support the mission in order to support the troops. In other words, the two concepts are inextricably conjoined for all intents and purposes, making one implicitly dependent on the other. I would argue that need not be the case by any means, and indeed that the two concepts are quite mutually independent of one another and, furthermore, that they can be maintained simultaneously with equanimity (that is to say, an absence of so-called "cognitive dissonance" that some might feel to be unavoidable with such an apparently conflicting proposition). It should be noted that in this case the mission in question is the engagement of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, but the nature of the mission itself is actually quite irrelevant and beside the point for the sake of our purposes here (it could be conquering the moon for all the difference it makes) and therefore its relative merits wont be addressed in my argument."
He's also right when he forecasts that Afghanistan (the actual topic of debate) won't be addressed in his argument, or at least will barely be addressed.

But Red Tory is right when he suggests that one can support soldiers without necessarily supporting their mission. One suggests personal support for them, and a desire to see them come home safely. The other believes that the mission itself is right. Support of the troops without support of the mission recognizes that the soldiers participating in the mission are merely following their duty, and that their personal consent and support is not even necessary.

So, when Red Tory insists that one can support troops without supporting the mission they're participating in, he's right in the most basic way.

But unfortunately, the real world never seems to be basic. Living in the real world comes with all sorts of unfortunate layers of complexity, where most important issues never really become black-and-white issues, but more cliched shades of grey.

So of course, Red Tory is right when he insists that the concepts of supporting the troops and supporting the mission aren't inextricably linked. He's just wrong when he suggests that one can support the troops in Afghanistan without supporting their mission.

In fact, Red Tory's argument really has little or nothing to say about Afghanistan, aside from noting that the debate topic is Afghanistan. What he really wants to talk about is Iraq:

"I would draw your attention to thousands of immediate and extended families who belong to organizations such as Military Families Speak Out. Whether you agree or disagree with the rationale of these people who strongly oppose the war (in Iraq for the most part in the case of MFSO), their passionate and heartfelt support for the troops is beyond doubt. To me, this is pretty much QED for this whole argument. It's quite evident from this example alone that one can be deeply opposed to the mission, and yet still be tremendously supportive of the troops themselves."
So, it seems, Red Tory's argument is that because the families of military personell serving in Iraq support their family members without supporting their mission, then objectors to Canada's involvement in Afghanistan can do the same.

At it's simplest level, this seems true. Then comes another one of those unfortunate layers of complexity, washing that simplicity away.

The fact is that the families of Canadian soldiers have been supportive of the war in Afghanistan. Consider the case of Jim Davis, father of Corporal Paul Davis, one of Canada's Afghanistan casualties. Mr Davis is perhaps the worst nightmare of Liberal partisans who want to politicize the war in Afghanistan: he's a Liberal supporter who disagrees with Dion's take on Afghanistan.

When addressed by Davis, Dion turned immediately to partisan politics and, predictably, to Iraq. "It's only the prime minister who made it an issue, who said if you don't support the mission my way you don't support the troops," Dion insisted. "This is what President Bush did in the United States about Iraq, that same approach, and this is wrong."

Davis later remarked Dion is "the right man to be prime minister," but promised to continue to pressure him to change his stance on Afghanistan.

This is similar to how the Vandoos have become the Quebec peace movement's worst nightmare, forcing groups like Guerre a la Guerre to claim they support the troops even as they rally in opposition to them. In the end, the claim that they are supporting the troops falls flat.

But more from Red Tory:

"Another example in this regard is the case of Corporal Pat Tillman, who was killed under mysterious circumstances while serving in Afghanistan. It’s well known that Tillman was "totally against Bush" and was highly critical of the Iraq war, reportedly saying, "You know, this war is so fucking illegal." According to his mother Mary Tillman, a friend of Pat's even arranged for him a meeting with Noam Chomsky, an outspoken critic of the war, to take place after his return from Afghanistan - a meeting prevented by his death. Unless one is prepared to suggest that Tillman didn't support his fellow servicemen serving in Iraq, then it must be accepted that his support of the troops was quite independent of his opposition to the mission there."
Once again, Red Tory doesn't really want to talk about Afghanistan. He wants to talk about Iraq, to the point where he's willing to cite the words of an American criticizing the Iraq war -- a different conflict, being fought under a different situation and under different pretences -- while he just happens to serve in Afghanistan, even if he never really mentions Afghanistan. Anything to try to merge the two wars.

Ironically, it is the opposition of so many American servicemen and women to the war in Iraq that allows American objectors to support the troops without supporting the mission. Yet in Canada, this opposition simply doesn't exist amongst those who would be fighthing this war. To date one, single, solitary individual (Francisco Juarez) has refused deployment to Afghanistan.

For the record, Juarez was fined $500 and discharged -- a far cry from the jail time faced by Americans who refuse to report for duty.

In his most peculiar example of sophistry, Red Tory cites the comments made by Bob Taylor:

"let me use the example of Bob Taylor, a Canadian Forces veteran of WWII, who according to a CBC news report on war dissenters in New Brunswick said he completely supports the troops. However, as a former soldier, he said he believes that Canada's proudest moments are when troops work with the United Nations to keep peace, not fight battles under a military group like NATO. "We're fighting for the wrong master," Taylor said as soldiers were being sent from Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. "We're fighting for NATO. We should be under the United Nations completely." "
Perhaps it escaped Red Tory's attention that Taylor's comments are remarkably void of any commentary on the mission itself, but merely constitute a criticism of how the mission is being handled. Which, although not necessarily opposition to the mission itself is actually a valid way to criticize the mission without criticizing those who believe in it.

Yet the most illustrative point of Red Tory's argument is its overwhelming reliance on Iraq. The unjustified war in Iraq is, without a doubt, the issue that has poisoned the public opinion environment against the justified war in Afghanistan. So while trying to equate Afghanistan with Iraq as closely as possible is sophistic at best and dishonest at worst, at least it's a wise and reliable tactic.

It really does seem that Canada's peace movement believes they can misrepresent, patronize and dissemble their way to victory. Those who support the war understand that there is really only one victory, and that is when Canadian troops are able to leave a stable Afghanistan, with the ability to govern itself according to the will of its people, behind them.

On this note, one has to note that, on some perverse level, opposition to the mission does seem to hope for the mission to fail, and sometimes even expresses a lack of faith in the troops' ability to successfully achieve their mission goals.

That isn't supporting the troops. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

In the case of Afghanistan (again, the actual topic of debate), supporting the troops really does entail supporting the mission they so passionately believe in. To do otherwise is to suggest that someone else is a better judge of what causes they should be allowed to risk their lives for.

Supporting the troops necessitiates respecting their right to support the mission. Thus, on a key philosophical point, support for the troops must entail support of this mission.

16 comments:

  1. I'll tell you how I "support the troops" without supporting the mission - whether it makes sense to anyone else or not.

    The excuses for sending troops over to Afghanistan in the first place, as I understood them, were that we belonged to NATO, and had signed on to an agreement that an attack on any NATO country was to be recognised as an attack on all. Therefore we had an obligation to go.

    I was also under the impression that we had sent troops over there to assist the Americans in finding Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, by using our expertise in locating and disabling mines, and perhpas police work.

    We did not go over with a mandate from the country to fight "the Taliban" - who are tribal warriors from the disputed border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Yes, it was indeed the Liberals who upgraded the mission to combatting the Taliban, and I thought they did very sneakily. That is, it seemed to me to be a fait accompli before the subject was ever discussed in the MSM.

    I did not support the mission from Day One, but those who know more than I do saw it as an obligation. I don't think any of the originators of NATO ever thought any of us would be dealing with a fringe terrorist group. Most wars in the past have been gought between governments, with someone eventually surrendering.

    It seems pretty clear to me that the Taliban - and possibly the al Qaeda Gang as well - will never need to worry about running out of people who will fight the invaders for their own homeland, invaders who think so little about bombing and killing innocent civilians and destroying their livelihoods (farming, not necessarily opium) that they refer to the dead, maimed and destroyed as "collateral damage." Yet who send anyone fighting for his own freedom to offshore prisons.

    So I think the "mission" is a fool's errand and cannot be "won" in any way that would make sense to us.

    Nevertheless, since we have sent our military over there, the least we can do is give them the proper equipment to do the job!!

    I support any effort which makes their lives safer - with things like more up-to-date equipment and better communication with the Friendly Firers.

    I also support any efforts which will make life in the field more bearable, such as decent food, lots of Tim Hortons coffee, air conditioned tents, the best follow-up after they come home and most of all, higher salaries!! A 15+ year career army friend of mine who has recently returned from Kandahar, after narrowly surviving a suicide bomber who got the folks 2 trucks ahead of him, gets a whopping $57K a year!!

    Anyone who represents this country - whether he likes and approves doing his duty or not - deserves the best of care and consideration for his life, his family and his future.

    The nature of the mission has changed so much since the first transport arrived over there - at least as far as the public is concerned - that it is now unrecognisable,

    We went over there to locate mines, then we were in combat against the "terrorists", and now we are putting our young people in the line of fire to make sure women can walk around without burqas and girls can go to school??

    It's all propaganda.

    Meanwhile, the prospect of that pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Americans' behest is hard to ignore.

    If "we" ever get Osama bin Laden, I predict as much peace will follow as has done in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was captured.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Once I see RT in the discussion I leave. He may very well have the most vitrioloic blog in Canada. People can get nasty on both sides of the spectrum but RT spits it in his own blog and carries it to others. I could care less what the guy thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I'll tell you how I "support the troops" without supporting the mission - whether it makes sense to anyone else or not.

    The excuses for sending troops over to Afghanistan in the first place, as I understood them, were that we belonged to NATO, and had signed on to an agreement that an attack on any NATO country was to be recognised as an attack on all. Therefore we had an obligation to go.

    I was also under the impression that we had sent troops over there to assist the Americans in finding Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, by using our expertise in locating and disabling mines, and perhpas police work.

    We did not go over with a mandate from the country to fight "the Taliban" - who are tribal warriors from the disputed border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    "

    Part and parcel of the problem of terrorism is the problem of countries that harbour terrorists. The Taliban harboured Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden as "honoured guests".

    As such, in wiping out Al Qaida, but still leaving behind a regime that will allow whatever remnants fester to reconstitute and reorganize themselves would still constitute a failure of the mission's goals.

    The Taliban was as big a part of the problem as Al Qaida. Furthermore, harbouring terrorists really is a passive-aggressive act that threatens international stability.

    "Yes, it was indeed the Liberals who upgraded the mission to combatting the Taliban, and I thought they did very sneakily. That is, it seemed to me to be a fait accompli before the subject was ever discussed in the MSM.

    I did not support the mission from Day One, but those who know more than I do saw it as an obligation. I don't think any of the originators of NATO ever thought any of us would be dealing with a fringe terrorist group. Most wars in the past have been fought between governments, with someone eventually surrendering.

    It seems pretty clear to me that the Taliban - and possibly the al Qaeda Gang as well - will never need to worry about running out of people who will fight the invaders for their own homeland, invaders who think so little about bombing and killing innocent civilians and destroying their livelihoods (farming, not necessarily opium) that they refer to the dead, maimed and destroyed as "collateral damage." Yet who send anyone fighting for his own freedom to offshore prisons.
    "

    The problem is that many of those fighting on behalf of the Taliban aren't Afghans. There are many Uzbeks, Saudis and Chechens fighting on behalf of the Taliban.

    It should be noted, however, that there are many non-Taliban insurgent groups at play as well. We should be negotiating with these insurgent groups, but absolutely not with the Taliban.

    "So I think the "mission" is a fool's errand and cannot be "won" in any way that would make sense to us."

    The troops disagree with you, Penny.

    "Nevertheless, since we have sent our military over there, the least we can do is give them the proper equipment to do the job!!"

    Truer words have seldom been said.

    "I support any effort which makes their lives safer - with things like more up-to-date equipment and better communication with the Friendly Firers."

    IFF (Identify Friend/Foe) systems are being developed, but they really are only as effective as the human beings operating them.

    "I also support any efforts which will make life in the field more bearable, such as decent food, lots of Tim Hortons coffee, air conditioned tents, the best follow-up after they come home and most of all, higher salaries!! A 15+ year career army friend of mine who has recently returned from Kandahar, after narrowly surviving a suicide bomber who got the folks 2 trucks ahead of him, gets a whopping $57K a year!!

    Anyone who represents this country - whether he likes and approves doing his duty or not - deserves the best of care and consideration for his life, his family and his future.
    "

    You're right about that, which is why we should avoid sending our troops abroad unless we have foreign policy interests at stake.

    Fortunately, in Afghanistan, they're numerous.

    "The nature of the mission has changed so much since the first transport arrived over there - at least as far as the public is concerned - that it is now unrecognisable."

    That simply isn't so. The nature of the mission has never changed. It remains the same: remove the Taliban from power and rebuild and stabilize the country while searching for and destroying terrorist cells.

    "We went over there to locate mines, then we were in combat against the "terrorists", and now we are putting our young people in the line of fire to make sure women can walk around without burqas and girls can go to school??

    It's all propaganda.

    Meanwhile, the prospect of that pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Americans' behest is hard to ignore.
    "

    That pipeline has never been built, and probably never will be built. The creditors necessary to underwrite the project were unwilling to foot the bill under the Taliban, and remain unwilling to pay for it now.

    "If "we" ever get Osama bin Laden, I predict as much peace will follow as has done in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was captured."

    It may not bring peace, but it might still bring stability.

    Remember that a stable war tends not to be peaceful, and a peaceful world tends not to be stable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So I think the "mission" is a fool's errand and cannot be "won" in any way that would make sense to us.

    So what you're really saying is that you don't think our troops are up to the task of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. That they're inadequate. That's not really support now, is it?

    Patrick;

    That was a great deconstruction and had I not been limited by the scope of the debate, I would have written much the same. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "So what you're really saying is that you don't think our troops are up to the task of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. That they're inadequate. That's not really support now, is it?"

    Under some cases, where the population is inherently and implacably hostile, this wouldn't necessarily denote a lack of support, but rather a recognition of reality.

    As it relates to Afghanistan, however, I think that it ignores the number of Afghan civilians who have embraced their new freedoms.

    We're winning the battle for their hearts and minds. However, we still need to win the battle for their faith (not in a religious sense, but in a broader sense) by keeping them safe from Taliban attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. we still need to win the battle for their faith (not in a religious sense, but in a broader sense) by keeping them safe from Taliban attacks.

    And to do that we need willing boots on the ground...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fortunately, we have them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Richard - It seems that we have different defintions of what "supporting" the troops means.

    For me, supporting them means making sure they have the equipment and training to do the job they were sent to do. It means ensuring they have the best support possible after they return home.

    It does not require my "faith" in their ability to get the job done.

    A propos of the Turkmenistan Pipeline, the Asia Development Bank as well as the countries involved were still planning to go ahead with it as of last November. They are also still hoping to get Unocal back on board.... but of course, all participants want the areas involved to be secure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can't support the troops by sending them into the field without being certain they can accomplish their mission.

    They're soldiers, not cannon fodder.

    I'm sure you'll agree with that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Penny...
    NATO argument? Check!
    Assist US to find Bin Laden (in auxilliary capacity) Check!
    Fight the Taliban? Well I'd say they were part and parcel at the time, but they were supposed to be irrelevant by now.. so...moving on..
    Libs/fait accompli..I'm not the best informed on this but that makes sense to me.

    "Nevertheless, since we have sent our military over there, the least we can do is give them the proper equipment to do the job!!"

    Quite!

    OR, if the "job" is ACTUALLY a "fools errand", quit the stupid job! And support the troops by helping them to quit in the moist efficacious and least and dangerous way (to them and everyone else)possible.

    Quite apart from all the existential of good and evil that swirl through this matter ( all rhetoric of course) are some very simple questions:

    What are the benefits to Canda? How do Afghanistanis benefit from the Canadian presence?
    What control does Canada have over the deployment, use and well being of its forces?
    Whom does this deployment and commitement acutally serveZ? By what measure?
    Where are the politicians specific answers to these questions?

    To be quite cynical, Canadian forces may be gaining valuable "real" experience. On the other hand, isn;t this the same old shit? (and if experienced soldiers die in the field, what perspective and wisdom tdo they get toi pass on?).

    As you clearly suggest, Penny, the goalposts have been moved several times. SO what;s the goddam mission you ask? ANd how is anyone supposed to support the mission when it keeps being redifined? All that's left then is to support the troops in their current situation, and the best way to do that is to improve their situation---either by defining the mission, sticking with the definition and giving them the resources to complete that mission, or to admit there is no mission and get the hell out and save the troops from an unachievable mission.

    And that';s all there is to it really. Supporting the mission and supporting the troops are disticnt concepts, especially in this situation.

    I'm with Penny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I do agree, Patrick. In fact, I'd go further; they are human beings first: mothers, fathers, sons, sisters and friends, and only second, are they soldiers. They should never be sent anywhere as cannon fodder.

    But it's the Canadian Government who sent them into Afghanistan, not me.

    It's the job of the various military departments to see that they have the training and equipment, not mine.

    I support them, not only through my tax dollars - which I am happy to see go to ensure their safety - but through my prayers and wishes that they come home safe and sound.

    As I said before, I do not believe this is a mission that will ever be concluded, successfully or any other way. However, if they do succeed, I will be very happy for them.

    Whether I actually believe they will succeed or not won't have the slightest effect on the mission one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Spinks,

    It's "I COULDN'T care less" that I believe you were trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I do agree, Patrick. In fact, I'd go further; they are human beings first: mothers, fathers, sons, sisters and friends, and only second, are they soldiers. They should never be sent anywhere as cannon fodder.

    But it's the Canadian Government who sent them into Afghanistan, not me.
    "

    That's true. But the government didn't send them as cannon fodder, they sent them because they knew the job can be done.

    "It's the job of the various military departments to see that they have the training and equipment, not mine."

    No one's suggested it is your responsibility.

    "I support them, not only through my tax dollars - which I am happy to see go to ensure their safety - but through my prayers and wishes that they come home safe and sound."

    As any good Canadian should.

    "As I said before, I do not believe this is a mission that will ever be concluded, successfully or any other way. However, if they do succeed, I will be very happy for them."

    But what is the issue with this? Do you not believe in the "winnability" of the war, or do you not believe in the ability of our troops to win?

    To date, the rebuilding of Afghanistan has been a slow but successful effort, as has been fighting the Taliban.

    There are signs of progress on every front of the Afghanistan mission. This mission can be accomplished, and our troops can accomplish it.

    Moreover, our troops want to accomplish this mission. You don't necessarily have to believe in the mission to give them your blessing.

    However, I would classify giving your blessing to the troops (who, to reiterate again, want to be there) is a form of support for the mission that really doesn't require you to believe in the mission.

    "Whether I actually believe they will succeed or not won't have the slightest effect on the mission one way or another."

    No, it doesn't. But your belief in whether or not they are capable of succeeding does reflect your regard and support for the troops.

    I know you mean to support the troops Penny, and I know you really do. I'm just trying to help you realize that supporting the troops requires some support for this mission, even if that doesn't necessarily mean a "gung ho, let's go get 'em" form of support, but a more conditional and concerned form of support where you want to see them come home safely.

    I do, too.

    But I don't want to see them come home against their will, while there is still a job to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a side note, I'd like to just make a side note about Penny's participation in this thread.

    I really do regard Penny as a valued collaborator in the thought process that goes into writing this blog, as I consider most commentators. She seems a bit outnumbered in this discussion, and because that doesn't make her entirely wrong, I'd appreciate it if a little less hostility could be directed towards her.

    I know she doesn't need my protection, but I certainly don't want her to feel bullied or browbeaten, either.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks, Patrick. I can probably handle myself OK, but I appreciate your - ah - support!!

    The only reason I visit this blog is that I believe that Patrick is one of a very few bloggers who can present a viewpoint different from my own in an intelligent adn respectful way.

    And we aren't all that far apart anyway. To some extent, I suspect some of our difference has to do with semantics more than anything.

    I know the troops want to be there, or I hope they do!! If the mission hadn't been presented to them to their satisfaction it would be a travesty. Knowing one of the fellows who was over in Kandahar, and only recently returned, I realise that they actually prefer combat to supporting roles. I'm guessing that they like being "where the real action is" in the same way I did when I was working. An airplane full of passengers needs a lot of very important support, but to me the "real" action was on the plane, not the ground.

    So I don't worry that there are people over there who don't want to be. My friend who was sent over there volunteered, even though he was already career army.

    I just don't personally think war - bombing and killing and collateral damage - is the right way to solve disputes. If winning hearts and minds is the objective, destroying civilians' grape harvests - livelihoods - doesn't quite seem the best way. Killing kids and grannies isn't likely to win too many hearts and minds, either.

    And in this particular case, the target is so nebulous ("terror" as opposed to, say, "the Third Reich") that I don't know who our people would sit down with to agree to end it. That is the main reason I doubt the war can be won. Afghanistan has been overrun by imperialists for centuries, yet taliban-like "warlords" - i.e. tribal leaders - have always managed to keep a stranglehold on the populace.

    It certainly isn't that I doubt either the willingness or the training our military have had, so much as the apparent goal and the sometimes flimsy equipment.

    And in case I didn't make it clear, I blame the Liberals as much as anyone for that.

    In the end, I would prefer to see our military properly trained and deployed to the North, to protect our interests there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To be honest with you, Penny, I do semantically (and semantics, I think is the only big difference between our views) interpret a variety of support for the mission, vis a vis respect for the troops' support of the mission, in your views.

    I think this particular type of support is very valuable. After all, just because one supports something doesn't mean they can't criticize. I personally support the Conservatives, but I criticize them when I think it's necessary.

    In the end, it's only through considering criticisms of the mission that we can continue to define the nature of the mission for the future, and while I personally support the mission very strongly, I'm very receptive to an end to the combat mission in 2009 for a two-to-four year rest period, so long as Canadian troops remain in Afghanistan to help secure rebuilding efforts in the North.

    It's an immediate, total, and unconditional withdrawal from a justified war which we are winning that I'm opposed to.

    ReplyDelete

Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.