During April, Canada sent 25 troops to Afghanistan to doreconnaissance work in preparation for the arrival ofabout 1800 Canadian troops this summer. The 25 troops were not allowed to take weapons and had to rely upon the German forces there to protect them.

What drives the thinking process of politicians who would send soldiers into such a dysfunctional and violent region as Afghanistan, on military duty, without allowing them to carry their weapons? Fortunately, an agreement with the government in Kabul was signed recently, and the troops can now protect themselves.

The whole Afghanistan adventure raises some seriousquestions for Canada. Military operations in the country have recently been assumed by NATO, an alliance of North Atlantic countries designed to counterbalance the Soviet Union. Why is there still a NATO when there is no longer a Soviet Union? What on earth is it doing in Afghanistan, faraway from the North Atlantic? Rather than offering tocommand a force of an outdated alliance in an area remotefrom its concerns, maybe Canada should be bowing out ofthe whole adventure and rethinking its defencepriorities.

Last week, Major General Cameron Ross tendered hisresignation from the Forces, because he disagreed with thegovernment’s decision to commit troops to Afghanistan.

There are concerns in the military that it does notpossess the resources to do the job without damaging itscapabilities elsewhere. There also seems to be someresentment that this decision was made entirely based onpolitical considerations without adequate consultationwith the military.

It might mend a few fences and regain points with George Bush after standing up to him on Iraq, but does this move serve the best interests of Canada and the world?

Afghanistan is a mess. Though some would argue thatit is much better now than before the U.S. invasion,reports indicate that it is slipping backward, and onehas to wonder if all of the lost lives were worth it.

The Taliban appear to be regrouping, Al Qaeda certainlydoes not seem extinct, the war lords that are allied tothe U.S. are no better than the Taliban, except that theyalso export opium, and the US is looking for othercountries to clean up the mess that it has created. Wemust ask ourselves if we should be a housekeeper for the U.S., and if so, at what price?

The problems in Afghanistan, as in many areas of theworld, will be difficult and costly to fix, and they willrequire more than troops to solve them. Poverty has to be addressed; without addressingpoverty, there will always be a seed bed of resentment toinspire extremists and empower them. Removingpoverty cannot be done with a magic wand or a fantasy formula for economic growth. The wealth requiredto alleviate poverty will have to come from those whoalready have it. So, are we or anyone willing to pay the price? Will the Afghan warlords go for this or turn on us?

Along with poverty, the issue of justice and humanrights is, in some ways, the toughest nut of all tocrack. In Afghanistan and other countries with similartraditions, religious law is placed above human and civilrights. Women are treated more like property thanpeople. To change this successfully requires changingtradition, not an easy or popular assignment.

Perhaps before jumping into Afghanistan, we should weighall of this carefully. Maybe we should require thatAfghanistan and our allies, including the U.S., agree toabide by the values of the UN Declaration of HumanRights and join the International Criminal Court. If wecan move the world in that direction, then perhaps therisk and the cost would be worth it.