Afghanistan - The good we do, the sacrifice we make, the suffering we cause
The Ottawa “group of four” greens sponsored a panel discussion on Afghanistan and Canada, which included the Ambassador from Afghanistan. During the question period an Afghani told a story of his relatives in which a young man, within a day of being married, was taking two children to the market for some shopping. They failed to understand an order to stop and all were shot dead by Canadian soldiers. Rather than a marriage, there were three funerals. How could this happen?
The question was directed at me as a panel speaker and as a retired Colonel from the Canadian military. This is the stuff of trauma. How do you respond to such a story, but to respectfully listen, and feel the tragedy of the suffering in war and the insanity of this notion of collateral damage.
Then there has to be a moment where we just stop and just reflect on just what we are doing in Afghanistan and what we should be doing. We must face squarely not only the good we do, and the sacrifice we make, but the suffering we cause.
In the good we cause, there is no doubt that some good humanitarian work and reconstruction is being done in Afghanistan. For that we are to be commended.
In the sacrifice we make, there is no doubt that we have made a heavy sacrifice in lives, over 130 of our Soldiers and other Canadians killed, and many more wounded or traumatized. For the tragedy of this, we vow to honor and remember, and we extend our deepest sympathies to their families, and do what we can to relieve their suffering.
However, there is the suffering we cause. Do we never learn? We are a global family and those children are our children. We have no right to do this. One has only to reflect on the abuses in the residential schools and our aboriginal communities, to know there will be an accounting and a healing sooner of later.
The way forward can only be of one of truth and compassion. We must provide opportunities and “safe spaces” such as this, to have the truth spoken, to be listened to and respected, to have responsibility accepted, to make sincere apologies, to make restitution, and to ask forgiveness. We must take those suffering into our hearts. Everyone must be satisfied with the outcome, including the Canadian public. We must resolve to do be better and do better. We must get out of this combat role in Afghanistan yesterday. We must adopt as a first and enduring principle of our foreign policy, as DO NO HARM!! THE ETHIC OF CARE - ALWAYS!!
We must treat those we harm with the same respect, obligation and consideration we treat our soldiers. Exactly the same, trauma care, everything, nothing less will suffice. As we remember our fallen soldiers, we must always in the same breath, remember those who suffered at our hands. How else can we not go down this road again? How else can healing ever happen?
If we do not voluntarily deal with this now, we will deal with it later, and the longer we leave it, the more we diminish ourselves. First, we need to speak the truth. This is a call to the government and the Department of National Defense, to provide a list of the suffering we have caused. They deserve no less.
In the cause of peace from the Ottawa Group of 4
Paul Maillet, Akbar Manoussi, Sylvie Lemieux, Qais Ghanem
Paul Maillet
Colonel (retired)
Ottawa Group of 4
Green Party Nominated Candidate Ottawa-Orleans
http://paulmailletgreenpartyorleans.wordpress.com
President Paul Maillet CENTER FOR ETHICS
http://paulmailletethics.wordpress.com
- Paul Maillet's blog
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Commentaires
Re: Afghanistan
"How do you respond to such a story, but to respectfully listen, and feel the tragedy of the suffering in war and the insanity of this notion of collateral damage."
You could respond by saying we are occupying Afghanistan in order to secure a route for the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP / TAPI), whatever the cost in human lives: CCPA: Afghanistan gas pipeline could impact Canada's role in Afghanistan
re Afghanistan
Hello Micheal;
I wish it was that simple.
Paul
Re: Afghanistan
Re: Afghanistan
First off, we need to be truthful about how are actions in Afghanistan should be benchmarked. To say that we cause some harm by being in Afghanistan, or that refusing a combat role makes us morally superior is to simply ignore the consequence of abdication of any moral responsibility to fellow human beings.
We cannot go everywhere and protect everyone, but we've already committed to Afghanistan, and leaving would prove once again the West is incapable of caring for anyone outside their own borders.
I also defy anyone here to explain the difference between peace-keeping and whatever it is you think we are doing now. Because if you think that peace-keeping involves building schools, providing water and little else, then you are sorely mistaken about what you will be accomplishing.
Peacekeeping vs Warfighting
Certainly we have a moral responsibility to deal with the suffering. I do not suggest we leave. Peacekeeping in a military sense means security and policing. It does not mean tactical air power, 2000 lb laser guided bombs, heavy tanks and artillery and the killing and destruction that accompanies this. Peacekeeping rules do not condone collateral damage. It means neutrality and efforts to facilitate dialogue and ceasefires. It means efforts to talk to all sides, making safe spaces for when belligerents are ready to talk. This is a militarily unwinnable insurgency war. Do not forget this.
History has been here before many many times. Why can’t we learn?
Paul
Afghanistan built on a lie from the beginning
I admire Paul's compassion and respect his experience. I also thank him for this submission and viewpoint from the Ottawa group of 4. I look forward to their submissions on policy to the next BGM as they are always challenging.
In all my discussions and research I remain unconvinced of a Canadian role in Afghanistan and unlike Bram's willful blindness on the reasons why we are there or the meaning of 'moral' obligation in the world.
"First off, we need to be truthful about how are actions in Afghanistan should be benchmarked. To say that we cause some harm by being in Afghanistan, or that refusing a combat role makes us morally superior is to simply ignore the consequence of abdication of any moral responsibility to fellow human beings.
We cannot go everywhere and protect everyone, but we've already committed to Afghanistan, and leaving would prove once again the West is incapable of caring for anyone outside their own borders."
I've read empty words and arguments like this for years. Truthful? The truth is that we were never committed to Afghanistan for the PR reasons sold to the Canadian public such as human rights, women's rights or anything of the kind. So why don't we face that truth first.
We cannot go everywhere or protect everyone? Who said we could? That has never been the reasoning behind the objections to Afghanistan. There is a clear moral difference between peacekeeping, which has nothing to do with Afghanistan at this point, and military aggression, which has everything to do with Afghanistan right from the beginning.
Canada is an aggressor in Afghanistan and directly tied to the NATO mission there. We cannot extract ourselves from this role. Should the recent peace approaches bear fruit then Canada's role will clearly need to end. We cannot peacekeep ourselves as we are clearly active combatants. This is where Paul and I separate in our viewpoints. Canada may be able to have a role in years to come but in the event of peace must step aside for a neutral peacekeeping force to take on a legitimate peacekeeping mission. Green members ruled in policy ratification last convention, that Paul's approach has merit and I'll defend the policy faithfully despite the fact that it is not the policy I wanted.
Canadian aid after this point is in the form of war reparations and obligation and not an act of generosity.
We cannot be everywhere all the time but dedication to peace and a rejection of military aggression allows us to reach more places than ever before and produce long term positive results for more nations than any aggressive military campaign ever has or ever will.
"... and leaving would prove once again the West is incapable of caring for anyone outside their own borders."
Bram has this all wrong. It is the commitment to military aggression in Afghanistan and Haiti along with the lies and deception used to justify that aggression, that proves once again the West is incapable of caring for anyone outside their own borders.
This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca
http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com
Re: Afghanistan, Stephen is right
Transition to peacekeeping
I believe that we have an opportunity in this year of commitment to withdrawal from the combat role, to adopt a true peacekeeping role. We just have to do it, and be patient that the parties involved will come to recognize this in time. We have never backed down from such challenges before. Doing the right thing is never easy. Have courage.
Just do it, announce that we are doing things differently from now on, and work on building value based relationships. Announce new rules of engagement and restructure our equipment and mission structure. Our actions, if grounded in solid humanitarian values, are what will count, not words.
Re: Transition to peacekeeping
I just don't see how that is possible, as our "peacekeepers" would be at an atypically high risk for peacekeepers, given that the Afghan people view Canadian military personnel as the enemy - an occupying force. We can't just change hats and issue a press release. It'll take years, maybe decades, to build the kind of trust they'd need to be accepted as peacekeepers. If this was a peacekeeping mission (and it wasn't) then they bungled it.
the transition will take time
Yes you are right about the decades part. We were in Cyprus on a peacekeeping mission for over 30 years. Changing hats is the start of a long long risky process, and as you rightly say first to rebuild trust.
Paul
Modern warfare is urban,
Modern warfare is urban, civilians are the major sufferers. This is why war is now obsolete. Modern armies have not adapted to this new reality and are probably not capable of doing so anyway. To win a modern war the public must not be treated as incidental, we need them as allies.
The entire military structure is dated and the manner in which it is structured is for a past era - perhaps it was never truly useful for human evolution. Militaries must reorient and pursue tasks that enhance human wellbeing, not destroy it. Canada has been trying to do this with some success but along side attempting to destroy the enemy. If we lose faith with the general populace the taliban (or whatever insurectionists) will simply multiply from the brothers and sisters of the martyred.
Doing the job correctly is a very long procedure requiring a kind of patience that the military does not have. We need to inculcate the peace keeping role as the primary focus of our military and stop trying to defeat an enemy that thrives on our efforts to eliminate it.
We must all learn that utopia is a myth and cannot be created - as witnessed by attempts at communism, capitalism, religious fundamentalism, and other forms of extremism. A good society is one that recognizes how short life is and how little any indididual can do beyond improving the self first. A lifelong effort at which few succeed.