The NDP's real position on Afghanistan

At the end of my enormous post-convention post, I wrote about how odd it was for me to come out of the convention bubble and see how the NDP's official position on Afghanistan had been portrayed in the media. In particular, I was surprised by how the situation was being portrayed as the party's leftmost wing forcing the NDP to adopt a hard-left stance. There certainly are hard-left elements within the party, and they certainly do exert plenty of pressure on the party leadership--but the problem with that line of reasoning was that the official position as worded hardly amounted to a hard-left one. So I chalked this discrepancy up to media sensationalism and thought nothing more of it.

Then came the bloggers, who were worse. They've called Layton "Taliban Jack" ad nauseum and accused defence critic Dawn Black of wanting "to return to the days where Afghan women were brought to the centre of sports stadiums built by the UN, and stoned to death" and thinking "kids shouldn't be able to go to school." On the September 17th Bloggers' Hotstove podcast, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor presented a caricature of the NDP's position that had only the fleetingest flirtation with reality, and he sounded so much like one of those spinning Tory talking heads on CPAC that I almost turned it off in disgust. But I chalked all this up to typical blogger polemicism and dirty-tricks partisanship and thought nothing more of it.

Imagine my surprise last night, then, to find that Conservative bloggers had started claiming that Layton was "reversing his party's Afghanistan position" to...what it's been all along. (My first thought upon reading this was that you really can't win as a politician: when the inevitable simplistic portrayals of your position start appearing, you get painted as a radical, but when they realize that you're actually saying something rather pedestrian, you get painted as a flip-flopper.) But all right, I'm going to be charitable and assume that the kind of distortion of the NDP's position that I've been seeing for the past month hasn't, in fact, been deliberate, but attributable to an ordinary human misunderstanding. And I'm going to try to clear it up.

To do that, we have to be able to address two issues: what, exactly, the NDP is calling for, and why they are calling for it. And for that, we have to go straight to the original source--to the party's actual official statements on the matter. First, what they're calling for, from the August 31st statement:

That's why I'm announcing that as a first step, New Democrats are calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from the combat mission in southern Afghanistan. Withdrawal should begin as soon as possible - working with our international partners to ensure a safe and smooth transition - but with a view to having it complete by February 2007. Canada can then focus on building a made-in-Canada foreign policy that moves us toward reclaiming Canada's place in the world. One that is clear, comprehensive, and balanced.

In point form, then (and rephrased from politician-speak into plain language), the NDP is calling for Canada to:

• take troops out of their combat role in southern Afghanistan
• work with other countries to make sure this withdrawal can proceed safely
• complete this withdrawal by February 2007, and
• come up with a new foreign policy that's a little more independent from the United States.

In light of the misunderstandings that have occurred, it's also important to look at what this statement doesn't say, namely:

• we should pull every Canadian soldier out of Afghanistan, including the ones working on humanitarian aid projects
• Canada's military can serve the country better sitting on their duffs and twiddling their thumbs, and
• Afghanistan would be better off with the Taliban in charge.

So that's the what; now let's look at the why. Again, from the same August 31st statement:

By participating in this aggressive counterinsurgency war, Liberals and Conservatives claim to be making Canada safer. But Canadians are asking themselves whether Canada’s role in this war is actually making our country less secure. These are valid questions. Our efforts in the region are overwhelmingly focussed on military force--spending defence dollars on counter-insurgency. Prime Minister Harper need only look at the experience in Iraq to conclude that ill-conceived and unbalanced missions do not create the conditions for long-term peace. Why are we blindly following the defence policy prescriptions of the Bush administration? This is not the right mission for Canada. There is no balance--in particular it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance. [...]

Naturally, we must continue to work multilaterally to get tough on terrorism. But, we also understand that making the world a safer place requires us to go much further. Issues like international development assistance to combat global poverty, reforming international institutions, peace building and securing human rights are all part of the solution. So is the strategic use of our highly-skilled and well-respected Canadian armed forces. Canada has a long history of stepping into the breach when called upon by our international allies.

Unfortunately, the number of conflicts around the world today, including deepening tensions in the Middle East, mean that we must carefully choose where we can make the greatest difference. New Democrats understand the need to send troops into combat and the risks involved. We support and have supported appropriate missions. Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success.

And then later, and somewhat more pithily, in Jack Layton's September 10th keynote address at the convention:

That mission is the wrong mission for Canada. There is no plan for victory. There is no exit strategy. There is no sign that it is making the Taliban weaker or the world safer. And there is no hope of changing the realities on the ground in Afghanistan--with the forces we have or can commit.

So again, in point form and rephrased into plain language, the reasons for the NDP's official stance on Afghanistan are as follows:

• like the war in Iraq, the Afghanistan war is poorly planned
• also like the war in Iraq, too much money and effort is being poured into combat while the humanitarian side is being neglected
• we're following the U.S.'s lead in a mission that's supposed to be Canada's
• it's impossible to win a war when we don't have a clear statement of what winning would entail, and
  
• as things now stand, we're not doing any long-term good over there.

And again, what the official position doesn't name as reasons for withdrawal:

• Afghanis have the right to govern themselves without any interference from us
• War Iz Baddd, and
• Canadian troops are no better than imperialist invaders, and the Liberals and Conservatives are complicit in that invasion for sending them there in the first place.

Now, no matter how you feel about the NDP's hard-left element, you have to admit that this simply isn't a hard-left position. What this actually is, is a pessimistic position. Yes, that's right: where the Conservatives are adopting the positively Pollyanna-ish stance of what amounts to "if we just stick around for another two to five years, we can defeat Afghani society's rogue elements and then go back to building hospitals and schools for children," the NDP is saying what can be boiled down to "we're just spinning our wheels in combat in Afghanistan, and since what we're doing isn't going to work anyway, we should pull our troops out of a futile combat role and put them into a role where they can do some good." The irony is delicious, isn't it?

Now, there's certainly plenty to criticize about that stance. As a militant agnostic on Afghanistan ("I don't know, and you don't either"), I don't agree with it myself. But if you're going to criticize it, criticize it for what it actually is. Call it too short-sighted, too ad-hoc, or, yes, too defeatist. Point out what this commenter at bound by gravity says: that ceding Kandahar to the people we've been fighting could move the warfronts to parts of the country that are currently relatively peaceful. Point out the fact that calling for withdrawal from the combat mission without a serious, thorough debate in Parliament is no better than extending the mission without the same. Say what my friend Jo Cook said at the convention: "We need more information, more consultation, more thought. I believe we need a coherent foreign policy framework for military and international affairs which this party has never developed." But--and this goes for both the traditional media and the bloggers--argue with the NDP's real official position, not with what the stereotyped mental image of the NDP in your head has come up with.

To do that, of course, people have to listen, watch, and analyze, instead of knee-jerking and name-calling. But you can call me a Pollyanna if you want, but I actually don't think that's too much to ask.