My father and I disagree on a great many things. In what is perhaps an inversion of the typical elder-youth conflict, I am usually taking the more conservative disapassionate approach than my father’s deeply compassionate and socialist political leanings. This provides for me a strong litmus test as far as how half-baked my ideas on various topics might be. If I can articulate them in such a way that my dad agrees in principle, they are certainly more likely to be viable - if not correct.
My father and I are certainly not experts in matters political - but we view them through such drastically different lenses and bring almost diametrically opposed information to bear on events that our discussions, I hope, provide us both with a fresh exchange of ideas we would otherwise shut-out.
The Afghanistan Mission, is an example where I find myself in the minority, as far as my social circle goes. Those people that I’ve talked to about it and believe at least moderately informed as to the circumstances generally believe the action to be a bad idea, ill-conceived and even more poorly executed. I can’t help but suspect that they believe the primary flaw with the idea was that it came from and was executed by a Tory - Stephen Harper nonetheless.
When pressed as to why they think it a bad idea I get a number of responses - none of them have served to change my mind.
The first and most common is that Democracy simply cannot and will not work for these people. That, as a concept, it is incompatible with their deeply rooted theological fundamentalism. When I point out Pakistan, Turkey and to a lesser extent Iran as functioning or semi-functioning Muslim democracies with another fourteen worldwide it doesn’t seem to change their mind. The usual reaction is to elaborate that it goes beyond religion extended to their greater culture, that they’ve never been a democracy and therefore never can be. On more than one occasion there is distinction that since they are Arab they are predisposed to despotism and tyranny or some other vague reference to some connection with race and oppression. I can’t help but feel that generalizations such as “as a people” or “a culture” cannot become democratic are thinly veiled racism.
They go on to say that Democracy cannot maintain itself if it is artificially imposed, that historically externally (especially through force of arms) established democracies have proven un-successful. To this I have disagree as well - the two most totalitarian and genocidal nations (both of which had visions of total global domination and destruction/subjugation of all other nations) are now exemplars of the power of a democratic free-market state bringing about peacen and prosperity to their people. I speak of course of Germany and Japan. Japan particularly has a very short but highly successful history of democracy.
They go on to say that Canada shouldn’t shoulder the burden on its own. This to me doesn’t suggest that the mission is a bad idea, that it is in fact a good idea that should garner greater international support. The statement begs the question however, do you think that support will come if Canada leaves or threatens to leave? If we cannot morally support our own mission, how can other nations support it logistically?
They also say that there is little reason why Canada should be motivated to help Afghanistan. What would we have to gain by establishing a autonomous republic that is comprised mainly of land-mines and barren dirt? Some also believe that democracy would bring about an increase in organized crime via the poppy trade. The fact that it would be private businesses running it rather than the state military is somehow worse in those people’s imaginations. To answer what would be gained is reasonably straight forward - a model. I believe that the primary reason that democracy is reviled by Muslim fundamentalists is because their enemies HAVE democracy - not that democracy IS (conceptually) part and parcel with their enemies.
My final observation is thus, if Canadian soldiers aren’t fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, if men and women trained and willing to fight, armed with the best weaponry we can give them aren’t on enemy soil killing them there, tying up their resources in defending themselves, what would the Taliban be doing now? What would these insurgent groups be doing? I don’t think it too far fetched to presume they would be finding and executing ways to massacre us - without the benefit of targeting those voluntarily engaged.
That to me, is the reconciliation of violence. War is digusting, deplorable and tragic by its very nature. But if we live in a world where one group measures success by how few civilians are harmed in a conflict and every soldier killed results in huge media criticism, and the other group measures success by how many women and children were killed and despise the very concept of freedom - there is going to be a lot of fighting.
What is wrong with saying better the ravening, murderous militant-extremists than you or me?