Dig deeper than donuts
Why aren't media asking the hard questions about Afghanistan?
BY Linda McQuaig
Photography Courtesy Reuters: Chris Wattie
I happened to turn on CBC Newsworld one afternoon recently and found myself watching an interview with a U.S. pundit about the morale of troops in Afghanistan.
The premise of the interview was that, unlike troops in Iraq, the ones in Afghanistan don’t get much media attention and that this must hurt their morale.
On one level, the interview was simply silly. Even the U.S. pundit, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, had the wit to point out that it’s probably better for the troops to be in less danger (as they presumably are in Afghanistan), even if it means getting less media attention (whatever that’s worth).
On a deeper level, the interview was infuriating. As in so much of the Canadian media coverage of the Afghan war, the interviewer seemed unable or unwilling to grasp that there’s more at issue than whether or not the troops feel buoyed up over there.
While there’s no shortage of coverage about how the troops have their own Tim Hortons in Kandahar and how thrilled they were when Rick Hillier showed up with the Stanley Cup, there seems to be no time for questions like: does Canada have any business fighting insurgents in Afghanistan? Why are we there anyway?
The failure to pose these sorts of questions during the Newsworld interview seemed particularly outrageous since, only a week or so earlier, there had been widespread rioting in Afghanistan against the U.S. and NATO, after NATO bombing raids had left dozens of civilians dead.
Even the pro-Washington regime of President Hamid Karzai had called publicly for an end to the bombings. And the Afghan Senate called for an end to NATO fighting against insurgents and for the launching of peace negotiations with the Taliban.
The Canadian media had little time for these striking developments, even though they seemed highly relevant, since they suggested growing popular resistance in Afghanistan to the U.S.-instigated NATO mission that Canada is part of.
The failure of our media to question the legitimacy of our role in Afghanistan has made it easy for the Harper government to proceed with what amounts to a major redesign of Canada’s foreign policy.
To a striking extent, Canada has abandoned its traditional focus on international law, the United Nations and peacekeeping, in favour of a more militaristic stance aimed at currying favour in Washington by fighting insurgents in Afghanistan as a junior partner in George W. Bush’s “war on terror.”
Ottawa’s support has certainly been helpful to Bush. Harper has taken on the role of front man for the war in Afghanistan, berating our NATO allies on Bush’s behalf for refusing to send troops into the real battle fighting insurgents in the south of the country.
With the retirement of Britain’s Tony Blair, Harper effectively becomes Bush’s most important foreign ally, thereby lending Canada’s credibility to an administration that is widely reviled around the globe and enjoys only minimal support among Americans.
Meanwhile, support for the Afghan war remains low among Canadians. A poll by Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail/CTV in May 2007 found 55 percent oppose sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan, while only 40 percent favour it. Furthermore, 63 percent favour negotiating with the Taliban.
So, it appears that 63 percent of Canadians—as well as the Afghan Senate—favour a diplomatic rather than a military solution. This would also fit with the traditional Canadian approach of trying to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts.
But this peaceful approach doesn’t fit with the Bush administration’s attempt to reduce the world to a raging battleground between good and evil, between the West and “radical Islamic terror.”
Gearing up for a long, drawn-out battle against the Islamic world, Bush has proposed increasing the Pentagon’s budget to a mind-numbing $504 billion a year.
But do Canadians really want to be sucked into an endless war against Islam as part of a “clash of civilizations”—whose only sure beneficiary will be the U.S. defence sector? It’s a vital question. Just don’t expect our media to raise it.
