Reconstruction or Occupation

Two incidents in the past couple of weeks have me thinking as to what the role of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan are. Is the role that of reconstruction or of occupation. This would then lead to further debate as to if our troops should be over there in the role that they are actually fulfilling, as opposed to the role that the government claims they are doing, or at least it should.

The two incidents I refer to are, of course, the Iraqi government asking an American private security firm to leave and the revelation that Afghan president Karzai's speech to Parliament last year was if not written by the Canadian Department of National Defence at the very least heavily cribbed from one given to him by DND. In the first instance, the American security firm is still in Iraq. In the second instance, you have to ask yourself, why would the Afghanis lean so heavily on DND speechwriters?

This is where the role of the foreign troops in those countries comes into play. If the troops were truly there for reconstruction at the behest of the governments in question, then those troops, and the governments that sent them, would acquiesce to any demands of the "host" government. This would show that the governments in question, those of Iraq and Afghanistan, are truly in charge and the foreign soldiers are simply there to help that government get "back on it's feet". Failure to do this, would tend to indicate that the foreign troops are there for a reason other than reconstruction and thus are in occupation. This doesn't mean that there isn't some reconstruction going on, but it does indicate that reconstruction is not the reason for the foreign armies being there. The ability to independently formulate policy and action is the hallmark of sovereignty, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the evidence of the past couple of weeks would seem to indicate that neither government is truly sovereign.

This leads me to conclude that the reason the West is in both Iraq and Afghanistan is occupation. The reasons for that occupation are varied as the western nation involved, but the armies are there in occupation. Shifts in message by both the Bush Republicans and the Harper Conservatives don't change the facts. The missions of both countrys' armies is primarily a combat one and one of occupation. Missions designed to force the population of those countries into a model of government that is acceptable not to those populations, but to the governments who's troops are stationed there.

This is, of course, a plan for failure. Imposition of order from the outside has rarely worked in history and this will not be the exception. Both countries have been notoriously difficult for foreign invaders to hold, no mater how benevolent the reasons. So either the occupying armies will need to be there long enough for the imposed change to become part of the society, something that will take generations; or stability will happen when the armies pull out, but the occupiers will have to live with massive instability in these regions for 15-20 years or so till the various factions within these countries sort out how these countries will be run. Neither of these options are what the voters of Canada or the United States will put up with. I suspect the multi-generational approach appeals to the neo-conservative elements of the governments of these two countries though as it would allow them to generate the fear in the populace that the neo-cons desperately need to hold onto power.

Which leaves the question of should we be an occupying power in someone else's country. The answer to this is complex as apart from the moral and ethical implications of occupation, there are the issues of national interest as well. For example, it may be morally and ethically wrong, in the broad sense, to occupy someone else's country, however there may be extremely compelling national interests, both economic and security, in doing so. The Americans, to further this example, have huge economic, and hence security, interests in the Middle-East and hence in Iraq. So strictly in terms of national interest, the occupation of Iraq is justified. This doesn't mean that it's ethical or moral though as these concepts are more ephemeral than pure economics and security which tend to be rather black and white issues. It is really up to the citizens of both Canada and the United States to decide if the occupation and all the brutality that occupations involve (killing of civilians, destruction of property, etc.) is something they can fit into their personal moral and ethical frameworks. If it is, then the occupations will continue. If not, then a way to soften the blow of the resultant chaos has to be found so that the troops can be either returned home or put into a non-combat role of rebuilding.