In an uncharacteristic move today, the Liberals suggested a plan to the Government that would allow the Canadian Forces to stay in Afghanistan beyond the 2011 pull out date. The last discussion over the Afghan mission was a motion to extend our commitment to the Afghanistan war, a motion which the Liberals supported, granted the proviso that we remove all combat forces from the area by 2011. The Conservative government agreed (the full text of the motion can be found here). The gist of this new Liberals plan is to go ahead with the withdraw from combat operations while keeping troops in safer regions of the country to help with training the Afghan police, and with infrastructure developments. I’ll discuss the validity of this strategy later (there are some issues here) but for now let’s focus on the question that’s more cogent to FRM: when should a country use its Military and how?

Wars have changed in the twenty-first century; the conflicts are different, more a clash of ideologies than about geopolitics. They are no longer fought on traditional battlefields with one massive force vs. another massive force; superpowers (currently) do not war with each other. This has given rise to the popularization of asymmetrical warfare, which is effectively a combination of Guerilla warfare, espionage, assassination, sabotage, and terrorism. The goal of Asymmetrical warfare is to perpetually escalate violence while depriving your enemy of a target to hit. It is particularly useful against super powers and established countries which heavily depend on blends of second and third generation warfare. It forces them to engage in a manner which their citizens will find ethically questionable. And it’s that last part that makes the question of this article so important. If the populace, the people, the citizens, find the methods of war required to achieve victory to be unacceptable, but failure to employ those methods results in a defeat, jeopardizing the ideals which held us back – what are the Generals to do?

Currently, western militaries have two options; censorship for the sake of national security or execution of counter-insurgency warfare (See Israel) and hope the populace can be swayed to understand the necessity. But the problem is, neither of these solutions is ideal. The first violates the Western ideal of government by the people for the people; it denies the populace knowledge of their government’s actions. The second requires, usually, that the state sacrifice the moral high ground so as to survive against the barbarians at the gate. When considered from this angle the outcome looks grim. There are some, however, who speculate on a new tactic. A tactic that Canada is well positioned to take advantage of. That tactic is provincial reconstruction and cultural restoration. This is something that we need to do AFTER the bad guys have been suppressed, and be certain in the first place that they need to be suppressed. It’s not a feel-good do-gooder force that goes around builds wells so they can later be claimed and/or destroyed by the bad guys. It’s a force that knows and believes in what our country stands for, has the ability to rebuild, and (this is the important part) is backed up by a fighting force that can and will destroy the peoples and organizations which stand against it.

So when we look at military police-actions in general, and the Liberal’s plan specifically, we should be asking whether it will put us closer to this type of military/civil operation. In the case of the proposed Liberal plan the answer is a resounding no. It still leaves us dependant on a foreign country (READ: The United States) to do the protection for our reconstruction guys. It’s bad enough that we’ll en up leaving the lives of our soldiers in the hands of another country; but this also puts our ally into the untenable position where they become the demonic symbol of the imperialist West. We, as a sovereign nation and interstate actor, must create a military that can rebuild other nations to the point where they might also function on the global stage. A military with the capacity to instill a minimal level of governmental values while maintaining their unique cultures.

One might call it Peace Building.

That military, our military, must also be willing and able to stand and fight against those who pose a threat to peace building operations and we must do this hand-in-hand with the governments and nations that share our values, not while being carried by them. But before we even get to that stage we need to admit to ourselves that our values, while not perfect, are easily the most successful and humane in history, and that any real steps toward globalization must fall within the loose standards of Classical Liberalism. You don’t have to be Catholic, you don’t need to be white, you don’t need to like hamburgers, or have a swimming pool, you don’t need to eat with a fork or celebrate Christmas. You simply need to play within the loose and versatile rule set of Western governance.

So you ask me, what is the use of War by a freedom loving country? The use is removal of tyrants and despots who stand against our values and threaten our security, the defense of those countries struggling to build their own social institutions. Wars will not be short, they will not be clean, but they will be necessary and they require our support. Have pride in our country and its role as a leader on the global stage, demand that it stick to its core values, and you’ll have your peace.

But it’s not going to be free. Nothing ever is.