War has changed
<>i>Canada’s military role has had to adapt to the new reality of warfare
XAVIER HAMONIC THE PEAK (SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY)
BURNABY, B.C. (CUP) — Should we stay or should we go? This easily describes the current debate among Canadians. As a result of mounting casualties, the public rightly ponders whether the Armed Forces should continue to play a pivotal role in Afghanistan.
Yet Canadians are still unclear of the true role of the armed forces and the changing nature of armed conflict and this confusion is blurring their perception regarding Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan.
Most Canadians continue to perceive the Armed Forces as a group of lightly armed personnel destined only to conduct United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Though the majority of past operational deployments were of such a nature, Canadians still continue to dismiss the true design of the military. The reality is that since the beginning of modern civilization, the primary role of the military has been to defend the territorial integrity of the state and safeguard its security interests from any external or internal threats. In order to fulfill such a mandate, the military must be prepared to engage the enemy with deadly force — that is, to wage war.
This applies to every state holding a military, regardless of their foreign policy. Unfortunately, Canadians are having difficulties coming to terms with this reality, especially in light of the new geopolitical environment that has arisen across the globe since the end of the Cold War and throughout the current “war on terrorism.”
So what has happened to the sensible peacekeeping missions that Canadians fondly adore? The regrettable truth is that the deployment of a neutral, lightly armed UN peacekeeping force is no longer suited to administer a ceasefire, let alone impose peace upon opposing war factions.
Since the end of the Cold War, the nature of armed conflict has changed considerably. The majority of conflicts today are civil wars derived from ancient religious and ethnic strife. Civil conflicts differ enormously from traditional inter-state conflicts.
For example, the majority of civil conflicts are fought between hard-toidentify opposing factions instead of identifiable, uniformed conventional armies. In addition, as witnessed in Bosnia and Rwanda, rather than being deployed in an operational environment where hostile activities have ceased, recent UN deployments have occurred while a conflict was still in progress.
As demonstrated during the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia, foreign intervention to their internal strife, including that of the UN, is viewed as a clear violation of sovereignty. As a result, hostile warring factions are likely to initiate armed action against any intervening force.
If the UN is seriously committed in implementing and protecting the peace, then it must deploy a sizeable, well-equipped force. There is no use in deploying an armed peacekeeping contingent if it is politically restrained from employing the force necessary to intervene and defend unarmed civilians.
The rules of engagement associated with peacekeeping must be changed in order to reflect the strategic reality where the use of defensive and offensive measures shall be employed without any political restraints. It has become increasingly evident that traditional peacekeeping has been replaced by a new derivative called "peace-making" or "nation-building." This notion of peace-making/nationbuilding is characterized by military force being employed to impose peace in a war-torn country and assist in the reconstruction of the country’s social, political, and economic infrastructure.
Afghanistan is not a UN mission, but is under the auspices of NATO in response to the 9-11 attacks, and the mission itself is characterized as a peacemaking/ nation-building operation. NATO forces in Afghanistan are conducting counter-insurgency operations to eliminate the Taliban, and are responsible for clearing roads and farmlands of landmines, securing food, water, and medical aid, and building new schools.
Opposition political parties and public opinion have continuously called upon the government for the withdrawal of armed forces from Afghanistan and for a return to their traditional peacekeeping role. To assume that employing armed forces as peacekeepers to Sudan would be less hazardous than the current Afghan mission is pure fantasy. A sizeable peacekeeping force in Sudan shall face a similar picture as in Afghanistan: unidentifiable insurgents, improvised explosive devices on roadways, and suicide bombers.
Reverting to peacekeeping in Sudan is senseless, as Canadian policymakers shall rapidly come to the realization that the traditional use of peacekeeping is futile in bringing any stability to the region. Canada would then have to decide to opt out of such a venture or to seriously prepare and commit itself to full-fledged combat operations in order to bring an end to this ongoing conflict successfully.
Politicians and public opinion have argued that our current military role in Afghanistan has hampered Canada’s reputation as a well-known global mediator and peacekeeper.
This is simply untrue. The Canadian Armed Forces are not participating in an invasion operation in Afghanistan, nor are we at war with the Afghan population. Canada, along with other NATO countries, is responding to the call from the Afghan government to remedy the security situation in Afghanistan by providing military assistance to destabilize the Taliban insurgency. Once the Taliban has been eradicated, Canada will be able to resume its traditional peacekeeping role.
To leave Afghanistan to its own devices is not a viable option, as it will again be a breeding ground for international terrorism. Global terrorism is not a fictitious threat as witnessed by the devastating bombings in Madrid, London, and the arrests of bomb plotters in Toronto. It is time for Canadians to wake up to this harsh reality and to take responsibility for ensuring that Canada’s security, and that of the world as a whole, is maintained.
