Smothering tough love

Things appear to be changing in the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

The terrorists are not only sneaking back into relatively secure areas, but are also using bigger bombs.

In the bigger picture, the terrorists still can't - and won't - engage with Canadian and NATO forces in the field. The Taliban campaign can't move to the next military level. But, their improvised explosive devices (IED) are being detonated in or near inhabited areas.

This means civilians in those areas have to be given a sense of responsibility and participation. It's important for westerners to comprehend what that can mean.

If the inhabitants don't want to suffer collateral casualties at the hands of the NATO forces, they have to assist them, through information at least. The Afghan government's protestations of the 300 or so civilians accidentally killed by NATO firepower this year because terrorists hid among them are surreal. In fact, they appear to be backdoor warnings for Afghans to avoid harbouring terrorists. “We got these friends with this great, big firepower, see, and we want them to control it better, see, but….”

This isn't warmongering.

This isn't August, 1914.

No one could enjoy the sort of conflict ongoing in Afghanistan.

No one wants Canadian - or any allied - young people stuck in those circumstances for any amount of time, ever.

But there is no alternative until early 2009. True military supporters should hope the troops are successful and out of hard duty by then. It depends two things: how dispirited the terrorists can be persuaded to be, and/ or how much more of their share of the dirty work our fairweather allies will assume.

Sweet dreams.

There could be a lot of lingering bitterness in this country if there is any failure or appearance of it from the mission. Politicians who provide naive “peace” solutions could well pay dearly in the long term. Failure will stick to them like tar, regardless of fault.

General Van Tien Dung, who commanded the North Vietnamese invasion and elimination of the Republic of Vietnam in the spring of 1975, acknowledged the importance of American “peace groups” in that catastrophe. The protests encouraged the aggressors.

The whole concept of Canadians helping others could take a big hit. Already, we're hearing about development aid dollars - in fact, whole programs - being wasted over the years. Some are leery of where the tangible results of Canadians' generosity just after the Boxing Day tsunami in Southeast Asia actually went.

The danger is, regardless of one's views on the Afghan mission, Canadians could be excused for being very wary of any obligations to anybody, anytime. That would include war, drought, pestilence, famine.

If things go wrong with our troops' efforts in Afghanistan, Canadians could well think “we already gave, including blood, and it was thrown back into our faces.”

The natural kindness North Americans - as smothering as it can be - have to do good for others could turn sour awfully quick.