Anniversary of the end of Canada's War in Afghanistan

Markers for those Canadians who lost their lives in Afghanistna

NATO is still in Afghanistan sans Canada.  Five years ago, Canada ended its military role, although the big change was four years earlier when Canadian troops moved out of Kandahar and started the training mission elsewhere.  Still, it is an important anniversary. 

To my surprise, Afghanistan has not yet fallen to either coup or the Taliban.  It, however, is suffering mightily from civil war, and the US is keeping the Afghan government mostly out of the negotiations with the Taliban.  So, the war goes on. 

As we look back, there is a lot of regret.  I have seen many folks saying that the war should never have happened--if we had given the Taliban more time, then they might have turned over Bin Laden.  I don't really think so.  Others say we could have just chased AQ out and then left Afghanistan to its own devices.  I think the examples of Libya and Syria suggest that is not a great counterfactual either.  I do think that the US starting another war and becoming distracted by that, combined with designing a dumb constitution, were the big fatal errors. 

That will do the trick

I tried to answer some of the big questions about how Canada did in my book--Adapting in the Dust (now less than C$10 in either paperback or e-book).  Why did Canada join the effort?  Simply put: an ally was attacked.  Why did Canada keep going back?  Because Canada wants to be a good ally even when it is hard.  Did the military have too much influence over the big decision?  No, it was Paul Martin's to make, and I am pretty sure most other PM's would have done the same thing.  The bureaucracy mostly recommended the Kandahar deployment, not just Rick Hillier.  Did the parties handle the conflict well?  Nope.  Should we be surprised?  Not really.  Did Canada manage its mission well--did whole of government work?  Better than most countries but not that great. 

I do think Canada needs to put stuff in comparative perspective--all of the countries involved faced the same challenge regarding detainees, for instance.  A key myth--that Canada was alone in Kandahar--did no one any favors. 

I still wonder whether Canadians began opposing the mission because of the costs paid by the Canadian troops, because of what the Canadian troops were doing (combat), or because of the end of elite consensus (my personal fave based on the academic literature on casualty aversion). 

We can learn a lot from this experience.  Alas, the government did not, with a pathetic ten page document that wasted a lot of effort to come up with pablum which they then hid not just from the public but from the rest of government.  The good news is that, dare I say it, this is a job for academics.   Not just me but also folks like Boucher and Nossal. 

Canadians will always be unsatisifed with this mission, and rightly so.  The troops, the diplomats, the aid workers and others made a contribution, a difference, while they were there.  But they faced tremendously difficult decisions, had to compromise their values, and only had limited ability to change things.  I wish they had had better political leadership.  And I hope the next time, the political system handles things better .... although I doubt it.