Anti-war clarity

Reading the previous post, one might get the idea that I'm a bomb-loving hawk, or at very least a Christopher Hitchens disciple arrogantly dismissing the anti-war argument. Well, maybe I am a bit of a Hitch disciple, but unlike him, I don't dismiss the anti-war argument out of hand. I just want to have a better sense of what's motivating people - whether it's about protecting the lives of Coalition soldiers or Iraqi (or Afghani) citizens. Seems to me that, given the situations on the ground in those countries, it can't be both.

Afghanistan, and Canada's involvement in it, might actually be an even more curious example. There is definitely an anti-Afghan war movement in Canada, and it's strong enough that the country's military commitment to Afghanistan is constantly being reviewed and debated by national politicians. That there is an ongoing debate at the highest political levels is an encouraging sign of Canadian democracy.

But when it comes to the anti-Afghan war movement, I find myself even more frustrated than I am with the anti-Iraq war crowd. The dedicated pacifists seem to be okay with Canadian troops being stationed in Afghanistan, providing they don't serve a combat function and concern themselves more with reconstruction efforts. Sounds grand, but it's awfully difficult to reconstruct a country when there are people shooting at you and trying to blow up everything you build. That there are actually Taliban fighters working in violent opposition to reconstruction efforts, and trying to take back the country itself, is a fact either ignored or unrecognized by the anti-war groups. 

A lot of this goes to the question of how powerful countries such as the U.S. and Canada should use that power on the international stage. Should we mind our own business and let other countries engage in all manner of rights abuses, or do we have an obligation to intervene when another state crosses a moral boundary? Many of the people who would argue the latter - who would argue that the non-intervention in Rwanda was, and the non-intervention in Darfur is, an example of gross moral negligence - are nevertheless screaming for troops to be recalled from Afghanistan and Iraq. We can't have it both ways. Standing up to injustice often involves killing and dying, and we cannot be squeamish about this if we are to serve this function.

Many people who are against both wars, particularly Iraq, point out the dishonest rationale for invasion and the woeful lack of planning in the occupation(s). I agree that, in practice, Iraq has been a disaster (Afghanistan much less so). But that doesn't negate the moral justification for intervening in the first place. There were genuine and courageous reasons to exert military strength in both countries, even if those reasons weren't foremost in the Bush administration's thinking.

Do people in the West accept the job of serving as global police officers, or do we accept the injustices that will take place if we don't take on that role? Those questions have to be answered, especially by people who oppose the Iraq and Afghan wars, because the lack of clarity in their position undermines their ability to question the very real and tragic mistakes made by the West in the prosecution of the current military efforts.