This event was part of the miriad going on on campus as part of Homecoming celebrations. Since I’ve been out of town for the past few years, I figured I might as well partake in some of the less destructive parts of this weekend. It was an interesting debate, with Dr. Doug Bland, the Chair of Defence Management Studies in the School of Policy Studies, and Steven Staples, the Director of Security Programs at the Polaris institute. I found it more revealing to listen to the questions posed by the audience than the predictable, and sometimes incoherent, responses of the experts. Here are some highlights:

Dr Bland:

“We will leave Afghanistan when the government asks us to leave, and I don’t mean one cranky member of parliament…”

I’m assuming he’s referring to Malalai Joya. So, we’ll leave when the warlords in office who we are supporting or the western friendly leaders we’ve appointed ask us to leave, but only if we agree with them. That pesky woman should quit asking for unreasonable things like aid and justice. She obviously needs to take some pills and go back to being oppressed so that we can save her with our guns.

Talk about cowardly. Sure, he can say this from the security of a classroom in Canada, where he knows he is in no danger of being assassinated. He didn’t even have the courage to name her.

“We aren’t in Sudan because the Sudanese government doesn’t want us there.”

How about the Taliban government? They didn’t exactly want us there either did they? I think what you mean is:

“We aren’t in Sudan because the [American] government doesn’t want us there”

On the same subject, he claimed that because our equipment is so crappy, we shouldn’t be going to Darfur, or anywhere else. But that doesn’t mean we should leave, or reconsider our actions in Afghanistan.

The repeated mention of “cut and run” was also incredibly annoying. Let’s substitute catchy phrases for actual ideas and arguments, why don’t we! Great plan!

Dr Bland repeatedly implied that it was dishonourable and didn’t support our troops to question the mission. He said that it was important that they feel as though they’re doing the right thing. How is that possible if we don’t question the mission? Later on, when asked why it was seen as dishonourable to question the mission, he said that it wasn’t, as long as we didn’t actually suggest leaving…

Mr Staples

I think it discredits the movement against this mission that advocates of changing our mission in Afghanistan keep focussing mainly on the deaths of our troops as Mr Staples did. Of course the troops are important, but by joining the military, these are the risks that they take on - of course with the implied guarantee that the missions they will be going on will be worthwhile. I think the second part - worthwhile missions - needs to be emphasized every time we talk about too many troops having died.

It might also be useful to emphasize the fact that we aren’t just killing Taliban, we’re killing Afghanis - the people we’re told we’re there to protect. The number of people over there getting killed without seeming to improve matters is just disgusting. Mr Staples did bring this up, but only after a direct question from the audience.

Also annoying was Mr Staples assertion that the military should only be used to attack or react in defense of our country. I think that can be used to argue against the peacekeeping and humanitarian missions that Mr Staples advocated for.

Good little RMC boys

They certainly do a good job at that institution teaching those boys that the only real colours are black and white. Questions along the lines of “What kind of message would it send if we negotiated with the Taliban?” show a deep misunderstanding of both the situation in Afghanistan and diplomacy in general. We are already negotiating with warlords who should be tried for war crimes - in fact they make up the government. This is a pretty horrible state of affairs for those represented by these people, but it’s a step up from open warfare. Through negotiation and quiet pressure we can moderate the situation, deliver aid, and prevent young men from feeling that their only option is joining the local resistance force.

All in all, it was an interesting debate, although by the end Dr Bland seemed to be a little incoherent. At the beginning of the debate he managed to speak well, but by the end, his closing statement seemed to be all over the place, as he searched for the words to finish his sentences.

As for the vote on who won the debate at the end, it seemed juvenile and tacked on. The vast majority of the people there didn’t change their opinions based on the debate. What we were voting on was not particularly well phrased either. Principal Hitchcock was asked to decide on who won based on the votes, and she refused to acknowledge that any side had won, although it was obvious that the majority voted for Dr Bland…

In any case, I’d go again, if only to hear audience questions.

Posted in Politics |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Trackback from your own site.