SACHA TRUDEAU: CALLING IT AS HE SEES IT

Trudeau: Calling it as he sees it

I noted this weekend that both The Globe and Mail and The Calgary Herald editorial page took shots at Alexandre Trudeau for his recent comments on Afghanistan. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080823.wetrudeau23/BNStory/specialComment/home
and http://digital.ottawacitizen.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

He had recently stated that Canada should end its “aggressive military operation in Afghanistan.” He thought that the Pashtun people should be left alone because they had “extremely different values than ours, values we may not agree with.” In his view we “have no reason to tell . . .how to live their lives,” and that “It’s not our business to try to teach them lessons.”

The Globe first of all pointed out that the Pashtuns was only an ethnic minority in the country, with about 42% of the population. Whether it is 42% or 50% as said by some observers, the Pashtuns are by far the largest ethnic group. The other six major ethnicities in the country are ranging between 3% (Turkmen) of the population, to 18% (Tajik). But I quibble.

The Globe’s editorial then resorted to the usual emotional and graphic rhetoric that we have come to expect from the supporters of the war. It said the Taliban were oppressors and were the “champion of the global league of utterly odious societies,” who, if returned to power, would “resume exporting abroad the venom that fuelled its barbarity.”

The Globe acknowledges that the mission “is far from perfect,’ and that progress towards secular democracy had been erratic – a very rosy description given the view of many on-the- scene observers who would say that progress has been non-existent and is now in considerable retreat.

But the most glaring, misleading statement of the editorial was the statement that there was a question as to whether NATO could defeat an insurgency without “a substantial reinforcement.” The Globe has excellent people on the ground reporting on the war. They must know that the use of such a benign term as “a substantial reinforcement” to describe what NATO needs to win in Afghanistan is further evidence – if any was needed – of a continuing deception on the Canadian people. If the Globe had said, NATO has 50,000 troops in Afghanistan but needs 300,000 to 400,000 fighting men and women - at least! - to win the day and establish democracy, that would have been a true statement. But the Globe didn’t come clean.

At least Trudeau told the truth as he, and many other observers who have hunkered down in alien cultures with bullets whizzing past their heads, sees it. In his opinion, this is not a good war, and its best we get out.

The Herald as is its wont these days, now that it has relegated itself to being a mere pamphleteer of neocon causes, accused Trudeau of uttering ‘defeatist remarks.’ It took issue with his description of Canada’s role as “aggressive” and conveyed astonishment that Trudeau seemed to consider that Canada was part of a 19th century ‘Great Game’ for dominance in central Asia. Well, its not such a hare-brained idea. No doubt the Herald writers – boneheads as most of them are these days – did not know that it is widely rumored that President Karzai was a consultant for Unocal (since taken over by Chevron) regarding the proposed but now stalled Trans-Afghanistan Gas Pipeline to transport gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, thence to Pakistan and India. Chevron, in fairness, is no longer part of the deal. In fairness to Karzai, he denies the rumor. However, in judging the veracity of the rumor it should be kept in mind that Karzai is not popular in the country, is distrusted by most of the people and his government is corrupt.

Then, in a character assassination worthy of the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy, the Herald poses the thought that Trudeau’s use of the word “aggression” to describe the NATO Afghanistan operation exposes Trudeau “to the suspicion he does not wish the military mission well.” Get it? He doesn’t support the troops. Warming to the subject, the writer describes Trudeau’s words as “a slap in the face to every Canadian who grieves a fallen soldier.”

We’ve heard this cowardly stuff before, during the war in Viet Nam and more recently during the Iraq war. The people making the war and their cheerleaders say, you must support the war, and if you don’t, well, then you obviously don’t support the troops – and if you don’t support the troops you are unpatriotic, perhaps even a traitor, etc. That’s what they said about Muhammed Ali when Uncle Sam tried to throw him into the slammer for failing to go to Viet Nam.

The fact is that there are times – and I believe this is one of them – that to advocate getting the hell out of the war, you do support the troops. Our NATO partners are not pulling their weight. Things are going backwards not forwards. There are still bumper crops of poppies, and plenty of corruption. And the Taliban are using our troops for target practice. The Herald ignores all of that. It continues its mindless jingoism and tries to assassinate the character of a young man who dares to tell the world what he thinks and sees as the truth.

GENERAL HILLIER: HE'S NO MACARTHUR

MacArthur . . . . .

he ain't!

United States General of the Army Douglas MacArthur had a long and brilliant career in the service of his country. From 1898 when he entered West Point until he was fired by President Truman in 1951 during the Korean War, he served with distinction in all of the many theatres of war in which his country was involved. In the annals of military service he was truly a giant of his profession.

Among his many oft-quoted observations, the one that is most fondly remembered with approval is, "In war, there is no substitute for victory."

When he was turfed by Truman, the old soldier was seventy-one years of age and not looking for any career change. Alas, he had locked horns with "Give 'em hell Harry," over conflicts in strategy in the Korean War. Truman, being the feisty and decisive decision maker, canned him for insubordination. The dismissal has stood the test of history as the classic example of the principle that military commanders are subordinate to civilian leadership.

MacArthur, licking his wounds in the wake of being bounced, gave his most memorable line near the end of a dramatic speech to a Joint Session of Congress: "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away."http://www.rightwingnews.com/speeches/macarthur.php

Well, I guess times have changed. Our Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, at the tender age of 53, has recently announced that he is packing it in this summer. By contrast, George S. Patton was 60 years old and still an active General of the Army when he died from injuries sustained in an accident days after the end of World War 2. As to his future intentions, Hillier intoned, "I don't want to sit on the couch scratching my belly in my underwear watching the soaps."

Hillier's stentorian parting statements for the history books included: "I can only repeat what one of my commanders once said when he noted we're not trying to be one of the big boys, we are one of the big boys and we have to start acting like it. That's a good comment because that reflects our place in the world. Canada has had a significant reprofiling in the world. We're one of the big boys now."

In Hillier's world then - unlike MacArthur's - there is a substitute for 'victory.' That substitute is for Canada or the Canadian military - through the shedding of the blood of its young - to become one of 'the big boys.' In other words, young lives are sacrificed these days - not for victory. This is quite obvious given the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan, where only a few empty headed Conservatives talk of 'victory.' No, in Hillier's world our young lives are sacrificed so that Canada becomes one of the 'big boys' - meaning of course the big military powers such as the United States, the UK, Germany, France and the like. In other words, meaning the important member states of NATO.

Yes, our boys and girls are fighting so that Canada is one of the 'big boys' of NATO - an organization that increasingly shows itself to abhor any bloody conflict in which the bleeding is suffered by NATO member states. Although NATO has no trouble drawing blood from the enemy from 35,000 feet in the air, to lose its own in the grunt work on the ground . . . . well, no thanks. To muster up an extra 1000 men from NATO countries to help Canadians in southern Afghanistan, has been like pulling teeth. In fact, though Canada has pleaded with its NATO partners for many months for the extra thousand, they still haven't arrived. Big boys indeed!

Finally, is this old Canadian soldier - at 53 - likely to just 'fade away,' as MacArthur would say? Not bloody likely. Look for him to cash in on the rubber chicken circuit spinning the yarn about how he stuck it to the civilian leadership and forced them to get Canada a place among the 'big boys.' Victory, be damned.

GRANATSTEIN ON AFGHANISTAN: SPINNING MIKE PEARSON

Jack Granatstein is a much admired historian, holds a multitude of degrees and honors, and has authored or co-authored more than sixty books. His writings have earned him a host of medals and prizes. He is a Professor of History and a true intellectual heavyweight. He has served his country in the Canadian Armed Forces, and has been an ardent believer in One Canada with a strong central government.


His specialty is Canadian military history. He has some very strong views on the subject, which he airs passionately, and frequently in speeches, television appearances and publications of all kinds. He beats the drum for a stronger Canadian military capability.


He believes that for the past forty years Canada has been derelict in its duty to properly arm itself or fully and honorably participate in its defence alliances. Thus, he has been highly critical of what he considers as weak-kneed Canadian Federal Governments of recent years. Recently, he has become a loud cheerleader for Stephen Harper, rightly recognizing that Harper's blood-thirsty streak is consistent with Granatstein’s own macho defence policy positions.

But despite the bloody nature of his subject and his passionate support for tanks, grenades, automatic rifles and other instruments of death, Granatstein has the demeanor and delivery of an unthreatening, avuncular uncle. Listening to Granatstein speak for me is like listening to a kindly grandpa reading Hans Christian Andersen to the little ones as he lulls them to sleep.

Be that as it may, Uncle Jack can get it wrong. Very wrong, as he did in his National Post column of February 2nd, 'Mike Pearson's true heir: Stephen Harper': http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=280672

Granatstein’s subject was his high opinion of the Manley report on Afghanistan. Manley, he said with enthusiastic approval, made it clear that Canada’s mission in Kandahar upheld the UN Charter. It was Pearson’s Charter, he said, and it represented liberal and Liberal values.

Granatstein reminded us of the brilliant career of former Liberal Prime Minister Lester 'Mike' Pearson. For a Grit like myself who had great admiration for Pearson and was lucky enough to have met him several times, I enjoyed the brief biographical review. Granatstein reminded us of Pearson’s Great War experience, his sparkling career as a Canadian diplomat dealing with our allies during the Second World War, and his support and promotion of Collective Security as advanced in the formation of the UN, and later NATO and NORAD.

He spoke with approval of Canada’s post-war contribution to the collective security of post-war Europe and our generous financial contribution at the time (7% of the GNP) to defence spending. Granatstein also praised Canada’s military contribution to the UN forces in the Korean War and Pearson’s Nobel Peace Prize efforts in bringing the Suez Crisis to an end.

After trashing Bob Rae and Stephane Dion as namby-pambies for their support of a Canadian role in peacekeeping in Afghanistan, he argued that the true heir to Pearson’s foreign and defence policy was Harper. Because it was Harper who was “trying to give the Afghan people the human security they want and being prepared to fight alongside our friends against a fundamentalist, totalitarian army.”

Granatstein forgets that Pearson was a realist. Surely the good Professor remembers Viet Nam. Pearson never came close to helping LBJ out of his debacle in Viet Nam. It was a useless exercise as far as Mike Pearson was concerned. LBJ was on his own. Collective Security be damned. He even made a speech at Temple University in Philadelphia urging the President in his own backyard to stop the bombing of North Vietnamese cities (On their next meeting at the LBJ ranch, the hulking President apparently grabbed Mike by the lapels, shook him, and warned him never again to defecate in his nest. Pearson was surprised but undaunted).

Even with the issue of the Suez crisis that made Pearson a star, he was not going to get involved in the folly of the invasion of Egypt by our great ally Great Britain. No siree. Pearson sat down, figured things out and organized a peace-keeping force to end the hostilities. This brought Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize, the leadership of the Liberal Party, and ultimately the Prime Minister's Office.

Really, what would Mike Pearson have done in Afghanistan - with his allies providing a measly 35,000 troops and refusing to put their troops in harm's way, and the troops themselves having to look the other way while the poppy farmers supplied the world with 95% of its heroin supply?

Would he have continued to prop up a corrupt and brutal regime whose claim to be a democracy hangs by a thread, if that? Would Mike have ignored the fact that our sacrifice in lives was far greater on a proportionate basis than American military deaths in Iraq? Would he have asked for an extra thousand troops and some helicopters and dug in? While the government he was defending used torture as state policy, and even provided for the death penalty for anyone converting from Islam to Christianity?

And would Mike have hung in to fight a hopeless and endless war because not doing so would affect Canada’s reputation in the world and our influence in international affairs, as Uncle Jack would have us believe?

Would Mike have hung in, in all of those awful bloody circumstances? Not bloody likely. Mike Pearson was a realist.

What Granatstein does not appreciate is a civilian perspective of war. People are prepared to sacrifice their lives and their children’s lives in a war if the cause is noble and just or if our country’s security is at stake. They are not prepared to do so merely for the sake of our international reputation or to have influence in international affairs. Those issues may drive Granatstein but they do not drive the people. For proof, look to the people of the United States and their vastly unpopular wars in Viet Nam and Iraq.

If Granatstein or Harper for that matter, think that its important that Canada has “a seat at the table” and lives should be sacrificed for that goal, then by all means, let them be our guests. Let them go into the filthy streets in Kandahar and fight an impossible war.

HARPER'S AFGHANISTAN: A FINE MESS

I have predicted for some time that the perfect political storm likely to engulf the Harper government is Afghanistan.

Canada began its participation there for the right reasons. We agreed to help rid the world of the terrorists who organized 9/11 and the government that supported them - the Taliban. At the same time, we wanted to help the development of the country, to help children get an education, and assist in bringing about some semblance of the rule of law to the country. Good intentions. But as Samuel Johnson once wisely said 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Afghanistan is turning out to be indeed a road to hell - for NATO troops there and the politicians of the countries who sent them.

The reasons for this international nightmare are plainly evident. Now that at least some of us have read some history of the region (the Prime Minister excluded, it seems [see, DARRYL RAYMAKER BLOG, July 5, 2007, 'Harper Gets Ready To Cut and Run - Again'] ), we realize that this war is an attempt to bring order to one of the wildest countries on earth. For more than 2000 years Afghanistan has proved itself to be a tough and well-nigh impossible nut to crack by powerful invaders and occupiers. From the era of Alexander the Great to modern times this mostly lawless country has always left their opponents either lifeless on the battlefield or beating a hasty, bloody, and disorderly retreat. Even vast and well-equiped armies from far more sophisticatred empires have failed to subdue the war-like propensities of the Afghan people. Alexander the Great didn't stay long. The British Army at the height of its Empire was routed there. And more recently, the Russians left in failure after racking up 15,000 dead Russian soldiers as part of the lost cause (See DARRYL RAYMAKER BLOGS, July 5, 2007 and March 18, 2007, 'Gordon O'Connor - In Over his Head').

The Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan is particularly difficult. For centuries it has been home turf to Pashtun tribes who roam the mountainous and lawless border region of Pakistan-Afghanistan. To the people who live there, life is cheap. Islamic religious fanatics abound. Added to this holy mess is the timid and weak NATO offering to the project - a scant 35,000 troops scattered throughout the country. Neither is there any great enthusiasm among NATO nations to relieve or help Canadians who, with so far 66 troops killed in action, are taking the worst of it.

But it gets worse. The NATO forces, together with the Karzai government are looking the other way while the poor Afghan farmers cultivate their only significant cash crop - poppies. This year there is a record harvest of poppies in Afghanistan. That harvest will be turned into the production of opium, which will thereupon provide nearly 90% of the world's supply of heroin - heroin that continues to poison the minds and lives of millions of people throughout the world. Most of the heroin users reside in western member nations of NATO - rich nations - whose citizens are rich enough to support a heroin habit. So Canada and other NATO nations involved in Afghanistan are not only pursuing a lost cause with little support. They are tacitly supporting the production of heroin which fries the brains and ruins the lives of millions of people - mostly westerners, and many Canadians.

And according to all credible reports, the whole situation there is getting worse by the day.

Once again Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and the Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier are tripping over each other as to where Canada goes from here. Two weeks ago, O'Connor gave the sunny prediction - contrary to everybody else who knows something about what is happening in Afghanistan - that over the next four or five months Canada would take on a reserve role. He said that when Quebec's Royal 22nd Regiment - the Vandoos - had completed their rotation in Afghanistan, there would be 3000 Afghan Army personnel operating in Kandahar and that "we will continue to withdraw" as more Afghan army personnel are trained. He said that it would mean a reduction in Canadian combat duties.

A few days later, Hillier contradicted O'Connor, saying that the training process had just started and it would be a long time before the Afghans could do the job themselves. O'Connor tried to recover this past weekend at the Conservative caucus meeting in Charlottetown, by saying he and Hillier were on the same page and that he did not know how long it would be before the Afghans were capable of taking the pressure off of the Canadian troops.

This latest O'Connor/Hillier difference of opinion, when added to their misleading and contradictory statements on other embarassing issues surrounding the Afghan adventure, seems to have been the last straw for Harper. There is now strong speculation that O'Connor is on his way out in a very merciful and immediate shuffle to Veterans Affairs. Deputy PM Jim Prentice is widely predicted to replace the hapless O'Connor.

Chalk one up for Hillier. However the General, who has never met a microphone he doesn't love, may be next on the list for the secrecy obsessed Harper.

And if Harper doesn't wake up to the futility of it all soon, he too will be a victim.

GORDON O'CONNOR: LIKE THE PIANO PLAYER IN THE BORDELLO

In case Canadians think that we don't have our very own Dick Cheneys and Donald Rumsfelds, they should read today's Globe and Mail. In a front page expose we learned that when suspected Taliban Afghans are captured by our troops, after being handcuffed and treated politely, they are turned over to Afghan security forces. The Globe dug up 30 former detainees in Afghanistan who said that they received good treatment from the Canadians.

However, once the Canadians had sent them to the Afghan security forces it was a different story. To put it mildly. The Afghans were a little harder on the detainees. For example, they were choked. They were hung by their ankles. They were whipped with electrical cables. They were starved, stripped naked and made to spend the night in brisk Afghan temperatures. And this treatment went on for days on end. When their tormentors decided that the detainees were no threat, they were then released.

When the Opposition got on O'Connor's case in the Commons today about him turning a blind eye to torture, he and the Prime Minister said our Canadian troops treated all detainees well. Which was true as far as it goes. As to the treatment of the detainees by the Afghan security forces, well, they would look into it. With a straight face, O'Connor said in his defence that the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission had promised to advise Canada if any of the detainees were abused.

That ranks up there as a mother of all disingenuous responses. O'Connor has been connected to the military all of his life. He rose to the rank of General in the Canadian Armed Force. After he retired he lobbied for some Defence contracting firms for a time before he went into politics. Since he's been in politics he has been Defence Minister. He is telling us and would have us believe that he is naive about these things. He pleads ignorance of interrogation methods and treatment of detainees by third world countries like Afghanistan, a country steeped in revolutionary foment for as long as anyone can remember. This is beyond belief - just like the piano player in the bordello who claims he doesn't know what's going on upstairs. This is monumental stupidity or wilful blindness. Take your pick.

O'Connor's actions before and after the evidence was presented by the Globe and Mail are no different from Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush who denied knowledge of mistreatment and torture in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison or Guantanamo Bay. It is the same mentality of officialdom that would send Maher Arar to Syria from Canada and the United States, so that the dirty work would be done by another country that had ways of making people talk. So they wouldn't have to worry about inconveniences like the Charter of Rights or civil liberties lawyers.

This is a continuation of O'Connor's blindness or stupidity on these issues. In the Commons in early March, he was questioned about allegations of detainee abuse by Canadian troops. He responded that Canada got reports and updates from the International Committee of the Red Cross on such issues. Two weeks later he apologized for his misstatement. He had discovered that The Red Cross has no such obligation.

O'Connor is a cowboy in matters of Defence. As is General Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff who broke through to the public consciousness in July with his famous 'murders and scumbags' speech. Part of what he said on that day about the Taliban was this: "These are detestable murderers and scumbags. I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties,.." Now if that isn't a page out of George W. Bush's 'Political Speeches for Dummies' book I don't know what is.

Hillier signed an agreement in December of 2005 wherein Canadian Armed Forces would transfer suspected Taliban detainees to the Afghan security forces. However, the agreement contained no clause that the Canadian military had a right to inspect the detainees after transfer. Unlike other European nations who are in Afghanistan as part of the NATO forces -those nations have such a clause in their agreements.

O'Connor and Hillier are reckless. They are Canada's Cheney and Rumsfeld.

As suggested today by a couple of Professors, if it is proven that Canadians turned over the captive detainees knowing they would be tortured, the two cowboys may be in for a helluva lot of trouble for themselves, not to mention the disgrace upon our country that will follow.

STOCKWELL DAY AND VIC TOEWS: INTO THE BREACH

What a joke. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Treasury Board President Vic Toews on a junket to Kandahar. They are making the trip to provide assistance to the Afghan police.

Kandahar is well known for many reasons . For instance, it is a City that for a couple of hundred years at least has been known to be one of the most lawless on earth. For countless generations it has also been known to have among its residents more religious fanatics per capita than almost anywhere in the world.

The Afghan police force in Kandahar and elsewhere in Afghanistan is known to be ridden with corruption. Murder, rape, torture, pillage and bribery is its idea of law enforcement, not to mention looking the other way respecting poppy production which supplies heroin to the world. Many argue that it is the disgrace of the Afghani police that gives strength to the Taliban. Even the Pentagon and U.S. State Department have acknowledged this sorry state of affairs.

So what are Day and Toews doing in Kandahar. Don't laugh. They are there to spearhead a Canadian Government initiative to help train the Afghan police in such areas as weapons training, searching of suspects and vehicles at checkpoints, and how to respond to roadside bombs. Surely the Afghani police, coming from a country that by and large has been perpetually at war, have nothing to learn from the Canadians about those subjects. Unless it is to learn about the application of a Charter of Rights - which I am sure neither Day nor Toews had in mind.

To assist the Afghanis, Canada is providing 36 Canadian civilian police officers. In addition, Canada will pay for 2500 uniforms and other police equipment, help pay police salaries, and assist in the building and renovation of police stations as well as prisons.

Day, with his usual vacuity, stated that '. . . our police are playing an important role in promoting Canadian values such as the rule of law and human rights, and will help to bring stability and peace to Afghanistan." Fat chance.

Canada has an impossible job in Afghanistan. The west has not put its money where its mouth is. Their meager NATO troop levels in the country together with a reluctance of most of the contributing nations to get involved in the real hot spots of the country will doom the whole exercise to failure. The Russians couldn't control the country with 3 or 4 times the troop levels provided by the NATO forces. The Afghani Government is getting weaker by the day. According to all reliable sources, the Taliban is getting stronger. Its a helluva mess.

Just maybe, that is the reason why Day and Toews made the trip. Get some phony mileage out of a photo-op while you can, and keep bamboozling the public that our contribution actually has a chance of success. Until the election is held. After the election, they can deal with the fallout. Until then, milk it for all its worth.

GORDON O'CONNOR: IN OVER HIS HEAD

I had occasion to meet Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor just before the the calling of the last Federal Election. The circumstances were pleasant enough. We sat beside each other on a Toronto to Calgary Air Canada Business Class Flight and had a couple of drinks together during a congenial conversation.

Even though he wasted no time after introducing ourselves to take the Feds to task on a host of issues, he was certainly not an unpleasant man. Although he was and looked to be in his mid sixties, with his full head of neatly combed straight white hair, angular and alert face, and lean body, he obviously was a man who had taken care of himself, as might be expected from the retired General that he was.

Early in our conversation he disclosed to me that he was the Tory Defence critic, and made no bones about his view that the Canadian Government had for too long ignored its Armed Forces
and that if he was elected, which he quite confidently predicted, Canadians were going to see a far more aggressive Defence policy.

His partisanship and enthusiasm for his job and future plans struck me that he would be shaking things up should he be made Defence Minister. It also left me with the impression that he was so steeped in the view that our Armed Forces had for too long been ignored and that Canada had not done its fair share of international heavy lifting in military actions, that he lacked objectivity and would probably proceed with wild-assed determination quite recklessly.

His performance on the job has proved that my initial impressions were correct.

When it comes to soldiering O'Connor, like Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, is one tough hombre. As Minister, he has pursued his objectives, fearlessly and showing absolutely no doubt as to their correctness. This can be a great quality for a General in a theatre of war, as well as a Government Minister pursuing his policy objectives. Provided that they are right. Because if one is not right, disaster looms over the next hill.

It is evident that O'Connor has demonstated both a lack of thoughtfulness as well as a lack of historical perspective, in respect to what will likely be the biggest military issue for Canada over a period of at least a decade: Canada's role in Afghanistan.

He and the Harper Government have allowed the Canadian contingent of 2200 or so men and women to fight it out in the toughest part of the country - the Kandahar Region - which has been known for centuries to contain the most warlike of tribes as well as the greatest number of religious extremists in the whole country.

The Government of Canada has so far spent something approaching 6 billion dollars on the operation. 44 Canadian personnel have died. The Taliban, who are supposed to be the forces of darkness that are out to oust President Karzai (who is supposed to be the good guy) are gaining strength, the poppy fields are rife with the raw materials to serve the heroin market the world over, and NATO forces number only about 36,000 to impact on the whole country.

Contrast this to the Russian experience, the last major effort to tame that wild Central Asian Republic. They were there for a little over 9 years, ending in February 1989. A total of 620,000 Russian military personnel served - between 80 and 120,000 at any one time. 14,500 died. In addition, the Russians lost 150 tanks, more than 300 helicopters and 118 jet planes before they hightailed out of the country. When they left, the civil war got rolling in earnest.

Add to that sorry history, the fact that Afghanistan has never been subdued by a foreign invader or occupier for very long, whether it be England, Russia, or Alexander the Great, and that there is a tradition of both ferocity and independence amongst its people.

The fact is that the NATO participants, and particularly the United States, are not interested in shedding too much blood in this battle. By all reports our allies, the forces of the existing Afghanistan Government under President Karzai, are fighting at best, a stalemate with the Taliban. Indeed, many observers report that the Taliban are winning.

Soon, the Canadian people are going to twig to this. At the moment, out of support for our troops, questions have been muted. But just as the Iraq experience in the United States little by little finally entered the consciousness of the American people, so to will Afghanistan amongst Canadians. At that point, questions will be raised respecting the futility of it all, and many will pay a political price. At the top of the list will be Gordon O'Connor - clearly a Rumsfeldian, who in his blood thirsty impulsive sabre rattling, did not think through our involvement in Afghanistan. Neither does it seem that he bothered to read much, if any, of its violent history.