By Agar Adamson



The Middle East today is a conundrum, a volcano and a disaster in the making, but then what else is new?

From the days of the Roman Empire, what we now call the Middle East has been in turmoil. It has been said that we do not learn from history, and when it comes to the Middle East this is true. The British should have remembered their history. They tried to extend their Empire into what is now Afghanistan and the inhabitants repelled them. The Turks did their best to keep the lid on, but in the end were unsuccessful as were the Russians. The European Crusades were a disaster.

Tribalism, nationalism and religion all have left their mark on the region, as has colonialism, be it Turkish, French, or British. Now the Americans want to have a go at it.

As we know from history, the borders of the region were artificially designed by Europeans after World War I. Democracy, as we know it in the west, has never taken root in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel. Absolute monarchs, military dictators and religious zealots have been the rule of the day. The discovery of oil, particularly in Iran and Iraq, has led Western nations such as Britain, France and the United States to making ‘friends’ with some interesting local characters, while failing to study history. The Cold War intensified regional rivalries.

Three religions, all of which at one time or another have been less than charitable to each other, look to this region as the geographic homeland of their faith. Each has some of its most significant and important artifacts and structures in the region.

In Canada we face the question, should we be involved in this cauldron? We are there because the Americans decided that they could fight on two fronts: Afghanistan and Iraq. They now know that they cannot do so. Voices have already been raised in the U.S. that Iraq is another Vietnam. Knowledgeable individuals, who are not members of the Bush Administration, have proposed dividing Iraq into three regions, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish. The question is, should the new Iraq be a federation, a confederation or three independent states? It would appear that the Iraq question must be solved before that of Afghanistan, for the Americans cannot fight on two fronts and public opinion against the war is growing. No government can fight a war unless it has public opinion on its side.

The question for Canadians is, should we continue to send Canadian soldiers to the region while the Iraq war continues? If we do, should we restrict their involvement as some of our NATO allies have to reconstruction activities rather than as front line soldiers? Will public opinion be prepared to support the government if the number of Canadian casualties continues to rise? Already in Quebec we are seeing a growing reluctance to continue Canadian involvement and the Royal Twenty-Second Regiment, the Vandoos, will not be shipping-out to Afghanistan till 2007.

It has been some time since a foreign war (for that is what it is) has been at the centre of Canadian public policy. At the moment, the Harper government is not doing a great deal to marshal public opinion in support of the Canadian military. The Liberals, as seen in the leadership contest, are divided in their support, and it was the Liberals who first agreed to send Canadians to Afghanistan. The NDP and the Bloc are both opposed to Canadian military involvement. If there was a ‘free vote’ in the House today, one suspects that a majority of members would vote to bring the troops home.

But wars are political events and there is foreign policy at the core of every war. It is politicians at home that send their youth off to fight. Canada, thanks to the wisdom of Jean Chrétien, refused George Bush’s invitation to join the Iraq invasion. What would be the consequences if we brought our troops home from Afghanistan? Remember that the invasion of Afghanistan was a direct result of 911. The terrorists who perpetrated the crime of 911 on the world are still at large and still up to their old tricks as we have seen in Spain, Indonesia, the UK, and perhaps Toronto. The original reason for the invasion of Afghanistan remains unresolved. Today, this is a NATO-led force that is trying to destroy both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and we are members of NATO.

As Bill Clinton pointed out, Bin Laden might well have been captured and Al Qaeda and the Taliban destroyed if Bush had not invaded Iraq but had kept the extra 110,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Can we afford to further antagonize the Bush Administration, or must we continue along as best we can hoping that the new administration, which will take office in January 2009, will not continue Bush’s war? Put another way, we are once again facing the issue; can a Canadian government have a foreign policy which is independent of the United States?

This is an issue that has bedeviled every Canadian prime minister since Louis St. Laurent. It is particularly difficult for Harper whose own political philosophy is so close to that of George Bush. Harper’s goal of a majority government rests upon how he is going to resolve this issue and stay clear of Bush. It may also decide the outcome of the Liberal leadership contest. After all, many Liberals, like many Canadians, do lie awake at night worrying about casualties.