Advice on prolonging the war: Part II

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

The report issued by John Manley recommends, as described in Part I, extending Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. But it comes down hard on the government's mishandling of the information and propaganda side of the war effort.

As criticism of the war has mounted, including from its supporters, the government has reacted by closing down access to information. Panel member Derek Burney, a highly placed official of the governing Conservative Party, said, "I'm not opposed to a more controlled message." But he and the commission are concerned that a total clampdown on information does more harm than good.


By far the most serious political damage to the war effort has been non-stop revelations of the use of torture by Canada and NATO as a weapon of war. A damning editorial by the Globe and Mail on January 30 listed no less than seven occasions in 2006 and 2007 when the Conservative government lied about or misrepresented the Canadian military's collusion with torture agencies of the Afghan government, police and armed forces.

The government's latest subterfuge was an announcement on January 23 that as of November 2007, the Canadian military is no longer turning over prisoners to Afghan authorities. The announcement baffled observers who wondered why it was not announced when it supposedly came into effect. The government answered by saying that it was not told of the change by the military. But this story had to change because military leaders reacted angrily to the implication that they are operating outside of the control and direction of the government.

The announcement begged a series of questions. If it was true, what is the military now doing with those it detains? Releasing them? Has it created its own detention facilities in Afghanistan? Is it turning prisoners over to the U.S.?

If the latter is the case, then torture has come full circle because the U.S. openly admits to the practice. Its torture centers in Afghanistan are notorious. Canada is already deeply implicated in the torture center operated in Guantanamo, Cuba because of its firm refusal to seek the release of a Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, who was imprisoned there five years ago at the age of 15.

A reminder of the horrifying conditions inside Afghanistan's prisons was reported in the Globe and Mail on January 24. A secret memo by an official of Corrections Canada to the department of foreign affairs was leaked to the media last November. The officials were due to inspect a prison as part of the then-latest promise by Canada to monitor prison conditions in the country. They asked for special boots to wear because they learned that a walkabout inside the prisons would involve walking through prisoners' blood and fecal matter.

In December, army officials were arguing publicly that any relaxation of the torture policy would gravely compromise the safety and security of the Canadian mission. Speaking to a committee of the Canadian Parliament on December 14, Brigadier-General Andre Deschamps, army chief of staff to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, declared, "The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrenderâe¦"

But controversy over the torture policy will not go away. On February 1, the Globe and Mail reported that the governor of Kandahar province, Asadullah Khalid, has personally engaged in torture practices, that the Canadian government knew of this since at least the spring of 2007, and has kept the information hidden. In an article the following day, the newspaper reported that the head of Canada's armed forces, Rick Hillier, praised Khalid as a good friend and ally of Canada and that it was up to the government of Afghanistan to investigate the allegations.

Court challenge to torture

The January 23 announcement of a supposed change in torture policy stems from the government's growing concern about a legal challenge in the Federal Court of Canada brought by the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and Amnesty International that would oblige the military to treat prisoners according to the post-World War II Geneva conventions. Like the U.S., Canada says its presence in Afghanistan is not bound by the conventions.

The government is trying to negotiate an end to legal challenge. The sticking point is the insistence by Amnesty and the BCCLA that any change to detention policy must be publicly announced seven days in advance.

Manley recommends against vote

The report recommends strongly against any vote in the Canadian parliament on the future of the war. The Liberals say they want a withdrawal from the combat mission in Kandahar by 2009. But the review panel wants the Liberals and the governing Conservatives to reach an agreement to continue selling the war by "leveraging" more commitment from Canada's imperialist allies in Europe.

Manley says the best outcome in Afghanistan that can be hoped for is a shattered country where imperialist interests are nonetheless preserved. "We're not going to have a VE day here with parades in the streets," he cautioned journalists on January 23.

Growing numbers of Canadians are questioning the war's aims and rationale. More and more can be won to what is the only principled and humanitarian end to the carnage: a withdrawal of foreign occupation forces and the recognition of the right of the Afghan people to freely determine their political future.

Of course, Manley was never even asked to consider the option of pulling out troops immediately. Instead, his report was designed to bolster support for Canadian involvement in the occupation. It the days and weeks ahead, it will continue to be used by those who are pushing for an indefinite extension of this costly and illegitimate war.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.