The Burning Stupid of Canada's Extreme Left

From the same people who brought you the insidious Ollie North/Taliban conspiracy theory comes this recent gem in which John Baglow, aka "Dr Dawg", takes issue with a less recent National Post Full Comment blogpost by Raphael Alexander.

In the post, Raphael renews the call for the trial of Omar Khadr to begin:

"Seven years in prison without trial is certainly a lengthy incarceration without due process, and I am concerned that we may never get to see Omar Khadr’s day in court."

What emerges as so distasteful however, is the notion that Alexander would think that Khadr is likely guilty:"

...This is still a man 22 years of age who, if released in the next few years, would still have his entire life to make amends with his fellow Canadian citizens, to whom he has brought shame and embarrassment"

"Seven years without trial -- and still guilty," Baglow complains.

Which leads one to ask themselves this question:

What, precisely, do John Baglow and company think Omar Khadr was doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Enjoying tea and crumpets?

One really does wonder. Because, as Mike from (Ir)Rational Reasons seems to indicate, they really may have no clue whatsoever:

"Raph does not even entertain the possibility that Omar is not guilty of the crime his is accused of and is the victim of his circumstances - brought to Afghanistan by his father at a young age and brought up in that environment.

Its simple: if he is guilty of an actual crime, produce the evidence and convict him. Now. Otherwise, bring him home and let him go. Now."

Apparently, in the mind of Mike -- and one wonders how many share his particularly fevered and hazardous way of thinking -- a "not guilty" verdict in a trial means that Omar Khadr walks free immediately.

And if a judge were particularly reckless with Canadian national security, that very well may be the case.

After all, Canadians know full well what Omar Khadr was doing in Afghanistan -- or, rather, what Ahmed Said Khadr was doing on the many occasions when he had his family overseas. In 2003, Ahmed, a known Al Qaida financier, was killed in a firefight in Pakistan.

He was continuing to indoctrinate his children in his militant Islamic religious beliefs, and involving them in militant Islamic groups. In 2002, Ahmed Khadr sent Omar with a band of Arab Muslims who associated Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Al Qaida leader.

Ahmed Khadr had a habit of putting his sons into warzones that should disquiet even the most unscrupulous "peace" activist -- the kind of "peace" activist that have often been willing to participate in rallies with the Khadrs. Not only did Ahmed Khadr expose Omar to the rigours of warfare, but his son Abdul Karim Khadr was paralyzed during the same firefight in which Ahmed himself was killed.

Omar Khadr is a child soldier -- not simply a child soldier, but a child terrorist soldier. And that makes his prospect of immediate release far cloudier than Mike is giving it credit for.

Demobilizing child soldiers is a long and arduous process. Child soldiers need to be provided with education and psychiatric care. The rehabilitation of Omar Khadr would only be further complicated by the fact that his enlistment as a child soldier was also a gross act of child abuse -- even though he and his family may not recognize it.

To turn Khadr loose into the public would be allowing a ticking time bomb to go free. While Mike is close to spot-on when he notes the resentment that comes with seven years of imprisonment without trial -- only another reason why said detention is a miscarriage of justice -- but to credit that with any militancy is to ignore his family history, and ignore what his father indoctrinated him in, and subjected him to.

Considering Mike's long and far-from-rational history of lunacy, one should be far from surprised to find that he has so little grasp of these concepts.

That he can't conceive of the very real possibility -- even likelihood -- that a child soldier indoctrinated in Islamic militancy could be dangerous is just another example of the burning stupidity of Canada's far left.

Small Favours

Big questions at root of Khadr issue

With Barack Obama set to come into office in one week, one should be less than shocked that leaders around the world -- including in Canada -- are lining up to do him favours.

Case in point: with Omar Khadr's trial in the United States slated to begin on January 26, Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire is eager to see Canada take Khadr off of the new President's hands. In fact, Dallaire insists, it would be doing Obama a favour.

"If we take Omar Khadr back, we take one of his problems away. We alleviate a situation for him where he doesn't have to look at a case of a Canadian child soldier being prosecuted in a process that is considered to be inappropriate, if even legal in international law," Dallaire announced. "So I think the opportunity is there to assist the new president in moving down the road of human rights and applying the international conventions like the Geneva convention."

Feeling that he's exhausted his options within the Canadian political system to bring Khadr back to Canada, Dallaire has taken his show on the road to Washington, DC, where he directly lobbied the American government to deport Khadr.

For his own part, Michael Byers seems to believe that Obama is eager to be rid of Khadr, but that political interference north of the border is preventing it.

"The Obama team may be discovering that the reluctance on the part of certain allies to take Guantanamo detainees is actually causing some delay in their plans," Byers noted. "Obviously, one of those allies who could and should be helping the Obama team is Canada, in terms of requesting and accepting the repatriation of Omar Khadr."

But while Dallaire insists that judicial proceedings are inappropriate against Khadr -- who he quite accurately describes as a child soldier -- Byers quite properly notes that Khadr should undergo a psychological evaluation upon his return to Canada. The question to be decided by that evaulation, according to Byers, is whether or not judicial proceedings are appropriate.

But whether Dallaire likes it or not -- and the reasons why he doesn't like it are understandable, valid and even commendable -- this is an important question to answer. And whether or not Byers likes it -- and his reasons for not liking it would be perfectly valid as well -- there remains a possibility that the United States would prefer that this question be answered in one of their courts.

The question could turn out to be pivotal in the war on terror: whether individuals such as Khadr should be treated as child soldiers, criminals, or as prisoners of war.

The implications of each are fairly obvious. If Khadr is treated as a child soldier, the proper course of action is to keep Khadr in custody while giving him psychiatric care and counselling. If Khadr is treated as a terrorist, he will fall into a very nebulous area of international and criminal law. Whether terrorism suspects should be treated as criminals or prisoners of war has never been absolutely clear because it has never been clear if terrorism is better treated as a crime or as an act of war.

At stake could be the issue of whether or not individuals like Khadr could, in future, be treated as assets in future terrorism investigations and how far investigators -- be they law enforcement or military intelligence officials -- can go in regards to interrogation.

It also has obvious implications for the kinds of rights that individuals such as Khadr would have under each circumstance. As child soldiers, individuals such as Khadr have the right to treatment and, eventually, freedom. As criminals, they would have the right to a speedy trial. As prisoners of war they would enjoy the full protections of the Geneva Convention.

What is absolutely clear is that the legal definition of "enemy combatants" will no longer cut it. While those in favour of prosecuting the war on terror under the most vigilant pretences certainly loathe to admit it, the detention of such individuals in full denial of any rights whatsoever is as contrary to international law as it gets.

Even Obama himself -- with his own keen interest in the war on terror -- may prefer that the answer to this question be decided in American, rather than Canadian, courts.

If Canada accepting Khadr is a favour to Obama, it's certainly a small one. Considering some of the larger questions at play in the matter, it may also be a favour too small for Obama to accept.




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Mike Oldham - "Omar Khadr"

The City Gal - "Senator Romeo Dallaire on Khadr"

Archiblog - "Obama's Flip Flop and Child Soldiers

Not Nearly So Simple

After Khadr comes back to Canada, what's next?

If predictions for the coming new year turn out to be true, Omar Khadr may be on his way back to Canada.

With Barack Obama planning to finally close down Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, many are expecting Obama to return Khadr to Canada.

Michael Byers is among them.

"I am absolutely convinced that Khadr is coming home," Byers remarked. "Not because Stephen Harper wants him to come home but because of the pressure from the Obama administration for Canada to provide this small degree of assistance with respect to their closing down of Guantanamo Bay."

(This last little bit is yet another manifestation of Byers' bizarre predilection for blaming Stephen Harper for things that were actually started by the Liberal party that he somehow prefers to Harper.)

This may or may not happen before Khadr finally goes on trial for killing an American soldier in Afghanistan. In fact, rumours abound that Khadr will be returned to Canada mere days before he's scheduled to go on trial.

If that is the case, then Obama will have to act quickly. He takes office a mere six days before Khadr's trial is scheduled to begin.

Even if Khadr is quickly returned to Canada, serious questions will remain for individuals such as Byers to answer. Most important is the question of what, precisely, will be done with Khadr after he's returned.

Essentially, there are two ways to treat Khadr: as a terrorist or as a child soldier.

If Khadr is to be treated as a terrorist, he will have to be charged under Canadian law and put on trial. At that point the government will have to deport Khadr, as they should have deported Khadr's family long ago.

In Khadr's case, however, the more appropriate method is to treat him as a child soldier. But even in that case, Khadr cannot simply be turned loose into the Canadian public. If Khadr is to be treated as a child soldier -- and considering that he was indoctrinated into Islamic militant ideology by his father and participated in combat at the age of 15 -- he will have to be rehabilitated. Above all, he must renounce the terrorist philosophy his father raised him on.

If Khadr cannot be rehabilitated and will not renounce the beliefs he was taught by his father -- something representing the ultimate form of child abuse by any civilized standard -- then Khadr will have to be treated as a terrorist, and either imprisioned for life or deported.

But, upon his return to Canada, Khadr deserves the opportunity to determine his own future. Whether he does that by working hard toward rehabilitating and reintegrating into society or in how he chooses to answer for his purported crimes will have to be seen.

What should be known in the meantime is precisely what individuals such as Michael Byers believe should be done with Khadr upon his return to Canada.

If Byers were to suggest another one of his trademark reckless ideological stances -- such as his stance that Canada should interact amicably with countries that beat and rape our citizens to death -- it should serve as yet another reason for Byers to be rejected again by Canadian voters in a future election.

Odds are, the Omar Khadr situation is not nearly as simple as Byers would like Canadians to believe.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Connie Crosby - "Continuing Efforts to Bring Omar Khadr Home"

Toni Inst - "A Child Soldier or Just a Child?"

Khadr Case Reaches Definitive Turning Point

Guantanamo interrogation tapes having a profound effect

On The Root of All Evil, Lewis Black ruled that YouTube is, in fact, the root of all evil.

In a show comparing YouTube to pornography, Black determined that YouTube has had such a decisively negative impact on western civilization -- transforming us into the words of advocate Patton Oswalt into a "country of Caligulas".

But if YouTube has really had such a negative impact on civilization, it's hard to overlook some of the good it's done as well. When Robert Dzienkaski succumbed to his injuries after being excessively and mercilessly tasered by airport security, it was YouTube that ultimately brought the outrage to the world's attention. When University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was tasered for asking Senator John Kerry a question that somebody didn't like, it was YouTube that prevented the story from being swept under a carpet.

Now, it's YouTube that has brought the severe psychological stress being experiened by Omar Khadr unignorably to the world's attention. And, just as with these and countless other previous cases, YouTube has had an abrupt effect on the case.

Such is the case with a recent National Post editorial in which Jonathon Kay has finally come around to the thinking of those who agree Omar Khadr should be repatriated to Canada:

"As I write this, at 1 p. m. on Tuesday, piteous video images from Omar Khadr's interrogation at Guantanamo Bay are not only the #1 news item on the National Post Web site, but also the lead item on BBC News and USA Today. Millions of people are now wondering why Canada's government has acquiesced-- and as the video shows, even participated -- in the unconscionable treatment of a blubbering boy-soldier.

As someone who otherwise considers himself one of the War on Terror's noisiest Canadian cheerleaders, I submit that the bleeding hearts are right on this one: Omar Khadr needs to come home.

Here's why:

Omar Khadr was a child soldier

During the carnage that gripped Sierra Leone in the 1990s, the most terrifying crimes often were committed by gangs of children who'd been abducted by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). Isolated from their families, and stripped of any sort of moral compass, these child brigades were renowned for such monstrous acts as hacking off the legs and arms of defenceless villagers. When the RUF's war with the government ended, many of these children were assimilated back into civilized society. No one -- in the West, at least -- blamed them for what they had done. As in Sri Lanka, Congo and other parts of the world where children are abducted and forced into combat, it is universally recognized that child soldiers are not morally culpable for their actions in the same way as adults. That's why the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal didn't prosecute child soldiers -- it prosecuted the monsters who exploited them. Can someone please tell me why this principle has not been applied to Omar Khadr, who was all of 15 when he allegedly threw the grenade that killed Sergeant Christopher Speer of Delta Force in 2002?

What makes the case for Khadr especially strong is that he was essentially recruited into combat from birth--by his own flesh-and-blood, no less. The true monster in the Khadr narrative is not Omar, but his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an al-Qaeda lieutenant who moved his whole family from Canada to central Asia so they could share in the glory of jihad.

As a nine-year-old, Omar drank in his father's Islamist propaganda -- spending months by his father's bed as the jihadi patriarch lay hunger-striking against Pakistani authorities, who'd arrested him on terrorism charges in 1995. Following 9/11, Ahmed (who, thankfully, was dispatched to his celestial virgins in 2003) enlisted his son as a sort of sidekick and maidservant to a jihadi cell hiding out in the Afghan outback. It was in this capacity that Omar tagged along with the pack of terrorists who would eventually meet their maker in the June 27, 2002, firefight that claimed the life of Sergeant Speer.

I have been reading a lot of tough talk on the blogs about how Khadr should be "waterboarded until he stops crying" and such. I wonder if those same hard hearts could tell me how they would have turned out if they'd been told --literally, since birth--about the necessity of jihad and the beauty of martyrdom; if, since their early days, they'd been propagandized into believing that the West was waging a genocidal war against Muslims; and that military resistance was the only path of survival. Are we to expect some sort of inborn moral sense to activate -- to tell us that everything being told to us by our own parents is wrong -- even before one is old enough to shave?

I know about 20,000 former child soldiers in Sierra Leone who could tell you the answer to that question. And unlike Khadr, not one of them stands accused of "Violation of the Law of War."

We don't know that Omar Khadr killed anyone

The U.S. government's line on the events of June 27, 2002 -- reported uncritically, for the most part, by the Canadian media -- is that a cowardly Khadr popped up from the rubble in the aftermath of a firefight in the Afghan hinterland, killing a U. S. medic who was looking to treat wounded survivors. In fact, the grenade that killed Speer (who was fighting, by necessity, as a solider, whatever his training as a medic) was thrown when the four-hour long battle was still hot. And it is far from clear who threw it: Contrary to initial accounts, there was a second jihadi still alive when the fatal grenade was thrown -- and since Khadr was badly wounded at the time, the second militant (who later died) is the more promising suspect.

(We might also dispense with the idea that Speer was on a mission of mercy: Post-battle testimony from his battlefield companions suggests they were -- quite understandably --more interested in shooting the wounded than healing them.)

My own view is that Speer may well have been killed by a grenade thrown by one of his comrades. (Reports from the battle suggest that grenades were flying thick and fast from both sides.) As the Pat Tillman scandal shows, the U. S. military sometimes goes to extraordinary lengths to cover up friendly-fire deaths. And in the Khadr case, his U. S. Department of Defense attorney claims, there is at least one instance in which a lieutenant-colonel retroactively amended and backdated a battlefield report to buttress the case against Khadr.

Even if Khadr did kill Sergeant Speer, he did so as a soldier, not a terrorist

There's little doubt that Ahmed Khadr was training his sons to be terrorists -- the sort of people who blow up buses and restaurants, or who wear civilian clothing as they lie in wait to detonate explosives under vehicle convoys. But what Omar Khadr did on June 27, 2002, wasn't terrorism. It was participation in a military engagement -- a fact that can't be changed merely by slapping a label like "unlawful combatant" on him.

Moreover, it was a military engagement fought on American terms: After U. S. soldiers sealed off the village encampment housing Khadr's cell, they prosecuted the siege with about 100 troops, some of them Special Forces, as well as Apache helicopters, F-18 Hornets and A-10 Warthogs. You can say that Khadr was fighting in an evil cause when he was captured, but you can't say that he was preying on the defenceless.

Even if you don't buy anything I've written above, Khadr's treatment still ranks as abominable

Let us assume that Omar Khadr actually threw the grenade that killed Sergeant Speer, that he did so as a cold-blooded killer, not as a soldier, and that his status as a child combatant is irrelevant -- in short, that Omar Khadr is a murderer. Well then, how do we treat murderers in Western countries? Answer: We put them in jail. We don't beat them, or move them from cell to cell every three hours, or terrify them with threats of pedophilic rape, or deny them appropriate medical care -- all punishments that Khadr has endured -- a litany of abuse so traumatic that, according to one piteous detail among many, he took to falling asleep at Guantanamo desperately hugging a Mickey Mouse book brought to him as a gift.

In the space of six years of incarceration, Khadr has endured more brutality than any ordinary jailbird would endure in 60. And if he had any intelligence value to his American captors, it surely has been exhausted. Please bring Omar Khadr home. If he is to face justice, let it be in Canada."

Naturally, those who disgustingly insist Khadr should be "waterboarded until he stops crying" will consider Jonathon Kay way off the reservation on this one.

But he's right. Whether it's to be put on trial for his alleged crimes or reassimilated back into society (but absolutely not before his demobilization can be assured, Omar Khadr must be repatriated back to Canada.

Which makes the government's insistence that they can do no such thing all the more unacceptable. In time, as the Khadr tapes continue to make their rounds via the mainstream media and YouTube, this position will become utternly untenable.

Even the alleged arch-conservatives at the National Post are beginning to see that.

Partisans With Short Memories

Omar Khadr affair has serious implications for Liberal party

There's little question that the ongoing Omar Khadr affair poses a significant dilemma for Canada, one that, by necessity will eventually have to be addressed by the sitting Conservative government.

Yet as the issue continues to gather steam as a partisan issue, the Omar Khadr case has also taken on some very serious implications for the Liberal party -- implications that Romeo Dallaire and Stephane Dion don't really seem to comprehend.

"Canada is alone among Western nations in not having secured the release from Guantanamo of one of its nationals. Prime Minister Harper must finally ensure Mr. Khadr receives the same consular support that any other Canadian -- detainee or not -- would receive," Dion lectured in September 2007.

Dallaire first publicly announced his intention to agitate on Khadr's behalf on May 1 of this year.

"I'm going to be a pain. Every time I stand up in the Senate, the leader of the government knows I'm coming at her and every time she gives the same answer, she is losing more and more feathers," Dallaire said.

"There is no depth of logic in [the government's position]," Dallaire added. "There is a real smell of short-term political fiddling. There's no doubt that's influencing the decisions. It's setting up Canada to lose enormous credibility when it's being tested on one of its own people."

Of course, the problem for Dallaire -- and for the entire Liberal party -- is this: where was Romeo Dallaire before May 1, 2008?

Where was Stephane Dion and the Liberal party in July of 2002 when he was first arrested by US troops in Afghanistan?

The answer: in power.

Where was Stephane Dion and the the Liberal party on September 19, 2004 when Omar Khadr turned 18 years old?

The answer: in power. Romeo Dallaire would be appointed to the Senate the very next year.

And what did the Liberal party do to help Omar Khadr? Not a damn thing up until their ouster from office in January 2006.

This party that now wants to agitate on Khadr's behalf, and take up the mantle of human rights and clemency for child soldiers, didn't do a damn thing on Khadr's behalf when they were in power and had the ability to do so.

It's a reality regarding this affair that only serves to undermine them politically. While both men may well be legitimately concerned for Khadr's well-being -- and Dallaire's previous tragic experience with child soldiers arms him with particular credibility to this end -- their previous inaction only serves to discredit them.

As each man seeks to lecture the government from the opposition benches of their respective House, their sudden show of concern is starkly contrasted by their previous silence while sitting on the other side of the aisle.

There is a serious issue underlying the Khadr case that must be resolved.

But in order to contribute constructively, Dion and Dallaire need to cool their partisan fires, think back to all the things they didn't do when they had the opportunity, and accept their share of the responsibility for the current state of affairs vis a vis Omar Khadr.

Then we'll be one step closer to recognizing the Khadr affair for what it is: a non-partisan political issue that demands resolution.

Tough Questions Regarding Omar Khadr

Child soldier, terrorist, or a little of both?

The controversy surrounding Omar Khadr came to a head during a hearing of the foreign affairs committee on international human rights, as Lt Gen (ret) Romeo Dallaire and Parliamentary Secretary Jason Kenney came to odds of Khadr's treatment.

Today, Dallaire compared Canada unfavourably to Al Qaeda for not treating Khadr as a child soldier.

"The minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, with civil liberties in order to say you are doing it to protect yourself … you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all," said Dallaire. "We are slipping down the slope of going down that same route."

For his part, Kenney took exception.

"Is it your testimony that al-Qaeda strapping up a 14-year-old girl with Down Syndrome and sending her into a pet market to be remotely detonated is the moral equivalent to Canada's not making extraordinary political efforts for a transfer of Omar Khadr to this country?" Kenney asked.

Dallaire was typically resolute in his answer.

"If you want a black and white [response] … I am only too prepared to give it to you: absolutely," Dallaire replied. "You are either with the law or you are against the law. You're either a child soldier or you're not. You're either guilty or you're not."

The dramatic nature of Dallaire's response aside -- that is certainly one thing that Dallaire excels at -- the issue really is not that simple, regardless of what Khadr's advocates may claim.

The Khadr affair has taken on some degree of partisanship, as the Liberal party's Dominic LeBlanc, NDP's Joe Comartin and Bloc Quebecois' Vivian Barbot have been quite vocal on his behalf.

For his own part, general Dallaire has proven to have little use for partisanship. As an individual with extensive experience dealing with child soldiers, his concerns are certainly genuine.

The confrontation really underscores a key dilemma as it regards Omar Khadr: notably, whether to treat him as a child soldier or a terrorist.

Certainly, the age at which Khadr was taken prisoner by US soldiers -- 15 years -- is of issue. There is absolutely no question Omar Khadr was a child soldier. However, there is a larger question about whether or not Khadr should be treated as a terrorist.

Dallaire insists that Khadr should be released almost immediately. But the experiences some other countries have had releasing terrorists should give Canadians cause to think twice.

Considering the experience Algeria has had with its clemency program -- in which terrorists surrendered peacefully in return for a full pardon, only to continue to plot and carry out attacks such as the various bombings this past year.

Of more concern still are the activities of Khadr's family. In particular, Abdullah Khadr, Omar's older brother, was arrested in Pakistan for buying weapons for Al Qaeda.

While Khadr's tender and impressionable age certainly warrant consideration, one must certainly consider that Abdullah Khadr -- 25 years old at the time of his arrest -- serves as an example that the militant ideology taught to them by Ahmed Said Khadr has taken root very deeply indeed.

If Omar Khadr is simply released into Canadian society, we must realize that we are taking a tremendous risk. Upon release, he very well could be a ticking time bomb.

It's important to note that Khadr's US military lawyer, Lt Cmndr William Keubler, has assessed Khadr very differently.

"The Omar Khadr they describe does not exist," Kuebler previously testified. "He is not one of our enemies in the war on terror, he is a fellow victim of those enemies."

Keubler's assessment of Khadr could very well be accurate. But Canadian officials had better be certain before releasing Khadr into the general public. The stakes are simply too high to take any unnecessary risks.

Some of Dallaire's other criticisms were spot on. The highly questionable legality of the legal proceedings -- not to mention the torture -- at Guantanamo Bay are clearly of concern to any country whose citizens are being held there.

The question is not really if the Canadian government should be seeking Khadr's release into their custody. Certainly they should. The question is what Canada should do with Khadr after taking him into custody.

It's a very contentious question, one that will continue to provoke a good deal of controversy yet. But one thing is for certain. Canada needs to bring Khadr home. His brother Abdullah's criminal responsibility is much more certain, and even he has been in Canadian custody since 2005.

"The way to sort it out is you get the prime minister of this country to call the president and say 'I want my boy out and we’ll fill out the paperwork after.' And that's it," Dallaire insisted.

Likewise, what to ultimately do with Khadr is something better left until after he's back in Canadian custody.

Fight Against Child Soldiers in Afghanistan Critical to Mission's Success

Camp Okutta campaign underscores critical Afghan issue

“Camp Okutta does not exist.”

“But camps like it exist all over the world.”

This is the tagline for War Child Canada’s newest campaign to raise awareness for the critically important issue of child soldiers.

Using several striking ads as well as the Camp Okutta website, War Child is using this brilliantly-conceived viral ad campaign to attract attention to the issue of child soldiers around the world.

The child soldier issue also has implications for Canada’s participation in the war in Afghanistan.

In late 2004, UNICEF reported they had demobilized up to 4,000 of Afghanistan’s 8,000 known child soldiers. UNICEF and several other organizations continue to work in Afghanistan helping former child soldiers through education and therapy.

The Taliban has been known to use children as recently as April 2007, when a child was used to behead a suspected traitor.

“Part of the Taliban's strategy is to make Afghan civilians afraid and their attempts to show that everybody is unified against the occupation of Afghanistan as they call it,” says Human Rights Watch commentator John Sifton. “They may have decided that it would be intelligent to use children to somehow show a kind of solidarity with the Afghan people.”

The use of child soldiers in Afghanistan, by both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, has a long history, basically spanning at least the last 30 years of the country’s civil conflict.

While reports of Taliban use of child soldiers (whether as front-line fighters, executioners or merely as indentured support staff) continue, it has been suggested that the participation of NATO troops in the training of the Afghan National Army has prevented the recruitment of child soldiers into its ranks. In 2003, Afghan president Hammad Karzai issued a presidential decree forbidding the recruitment of anyone 22 years old or younger into the ANA.

It should, however, be noted that the Northern Alliance – a group integrated within the current government – has used child soldiers before, sometimes as young as 11 years old. “Our cause is so great that even our children want to join us in fighting the enemy,” one Northern Alliance commander is noted to have once claimed.

Clearly, if Canadian efforts to help demobilize Afghanistan’s child soldiers and keep them demobilized are to be successful, we’ll have to ensure the Afghan government doesn’t regress in its policies regarding recruitment.

One of the most important, factors involved, however, will be the ever-present fight against Afghan poverty. As of 2007, Afghanistan remains the seventh poorest country in the world.

Economic hardship drives children out of schools and into the work force, and military work tends to be most abundant in a war zone like Afghanistan. Pairing micro-economic foreign aid programs with a push toward attracting private sector business into Afghanistan will go a long way toward ensuring Afghan families don’t feel the need to send their children to war.

But it isn’t only Afghan children who have been recruited to the Afghan battlefield as child soldiers. Consider that Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen was only 15 years old when he was arrested while fighting in Afghanistan.

He’s currently being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Cutting off the supply of child soldiers can also go a long way toward defeating the Taliban, making it harder for them to replace their lost fighters on the battlefield. To that end, perhaps the search for – and subsequent demobilization of – child soldiers needs to continue on Canadian soil as well as in Afghanistan.

Whatever the future nature of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan – be it a combat mission or otherwise -- helping to demobilize and rehabilitate child soldiers will be a key factor toward ensuring a successful disengagement.

Even beyond that, it’s just the right thing to do.

Camp Okutta doesn’t exist. Canada needs to ensure camps like it don’t exist in Afghanistan.