| |
|
Who's Online |
|
We have 15 guests online |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upcoming Events |
Burma Uprising Anniversary- Fri, Aug 8th, 2008, @12:00am- 12:00pm
|
Better Biking Brainstorming Session- Thu, Aug 14th, 2008, @7:00pm- 9:00pm
|
Missing Women Conference Opens- Thu, Aug 14th, 2008, @3:00pm- 9:00pm
|
Weyburn Zero Waste Convention Opens- Fri, Aug 15th, 2008, @9:00am- 5:00pm
|
100 Mile Potluck- Tue, Aug 26th, 2008, @5:30am- 8:00pm
|
Aboriginal Music Festival - Saskatoon- Fri, Sep 19th, 2008, @6:00pm- 11:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Pathway :: Home
|
What's Wrong with the Manley Report on Afghanistan? |
|
|
|
|
Contributed by John Keen
|
|
Wednesday, 30 January 2008 |
Last week Prime Minister Stephen Harper released the report by the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan. It was chaired by John Manley, former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
As I read the Manley Report I was struck by the total absence of certain critical information. Let us look at one example, how many people are being killed in this war. There is no attempt to quantify the number of Afghani casualties needed to gain their trust and friendship. Using Vietnam or Iraq as a yardstick it could be quite a large number. And then there is another problem: who would qualify as a casualty? Would only those individuals killed be considered? If indeed the wounded are to be counted would the severity of the wound be assessed points as a percent of a "kill"?
Are all "kills" of equal importance? If a family (mother, father, two adolescents and a baby) is accidentally killed when their house is mistakenly destroyed are they counted as five "kills"? Or are points to be awarded on a basis of age and/or gender? Or, indeed are they simply disregarded since the killing was unintended?
If we are using a point system and we are lucky enough to cause a combatant to become a "kill" will there be bonus points?
Once we arrive at the desired number of dead people required to win, we can consider a proper ratio of Canadian "kills" to Afghani "kills". (When people are dead they should be shown equal respect.) To make this calculation we will need to know how many citizens we have already killed and injured. That number may be difficult to obtain.
Since Afghanistan is only slightly more populous than Iraq we may be able to extrapolate figures from that conflict zone. Iraq has had around four thousand to five thousand coalition of the willing "kills" and an estimated one million Iraqis "kills," a ratio of about 1/250. There is an obvious problem - this ratio, and the total number of kills, has not been effective in securing a lasting friendship with Iraq.
If, indeed, we would need a much larger number of Afghani "kills" (say two - three million) to have a chance of making friends, would these numbers be acceptable? At a 1/250 ratio that would mean eight to twelve thousand NATO "kills". As civilized people we would probably not accept such losses.
This would mean resorting to various high-tech methods of pacification. Remote control drones, spy satellites, cluster bombs (legal for US military) and land mines (legal for US military), and other goodies. There are always problems when we are forced to use such devices. It is possible to make mistakes. In rural areas sheep could be killed, even the odd shepherd, or possibly some small girls on the way to school.
But it will all worthwhile if we can improve the lives of the survivors. Those lucky few that get jobs on the oil and gas pipelines will certainly be grateful.
Editor’s note: John Keen is a retired farmer and served with the Canadian Forces in the Korean War. Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 30 January 2008 )
|
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. Opinions expressed in articles within this site are those of their owners and may not reflect the opinion of ActUpInSask.org, its staff, or its associates.
|
|
|
