Ben manning his rapid-fire Nerf assault rifle

Most boys love weapons. Cross-bows, battle axes, harpoons, guns: they can’t get enough of them. The latest implements of war to be installed in our house are a full complement of Nerf guns. These are built like colourful assault weapons, with laser scopes, auto-loading mechanisms and support tripods. They shoot day-glo coloured Nerf bullets — not just one a time but in a steady stream of foam-rubber mayhem.

The boys love them and find them vastly entertaining. They delight in staging long-lasting wars with both their male and female friends. Adults tend to avoid such battles in case they show something truly alarming or distasteful about the development of their children.

We didn’t buy these Nerf guns for them (they were Christmas gifts from relatives) but we don’t lose much sleep over the implications of them being in our house. Nor are we too concerned about the possibility they will inflict severe psychic damage on our boys. Boys will be boys. We predict these boys are as likely to be attracted to a career in video production or on the stage of musical theatre as on the battlefield.

As when training dogs, the technique that seems to work best in the boys’ education is to praise the behaviour we wish to encourage and ignore that which we hope to discourage. Therefore, we tend to ignore this latest Nerf gun invasion. If we don’t talk too much about it, it might just go away — like every other toy that has crossed their path.

What is amusing is to consider where this development in toy design — giving boys exactly what they really want in their most-Rambo-esque fantasies — might lead. Combining the infinite resources of the military-industrial complex with the innovative minds in toy design is ripe with possibility.

We predict: Pretend IEDs by Fisher Price — ‘trip the plate and you’ll have an explosion of fun!’ Guided attack drones by Lego Mindstorms — ‘your little sister will never even hear it coming!’ or Fun-time Phosphorus Bombs by Play-Doh — ‘you’ll bust a gut when you see the agony on your playmates’ faces!’

Quagmires are usually created by modes of thinking that ignore basic aspects of geo-political or common-sense reality. This appears to be the case with the Western-led war in Afghanistan.

Why do I think it is a bad idea to escalate this war?

• War is violent and dehumanizing by its nature and escalating a war tends to increase suffering, destruction and injustice
• War waged on the premise that it helps those it is directed against is nonsensical
• The war lacks public support in all countries in which it is being promoted
• The war is unlikely to be won by Western forces
• Governments friendly to occupying forces (such as Karzai’s) tend to lack basic legitimacy within their own populations
• The war is unaffordable for the USA — a country that is quickly running out of cash and credit
• It is unrealistic that a Western-friendly government – with any chance of longevity – will be formed in Afghanistan
• The war could easily escalate into a wider regional conflict involving the much more populous country of Pakistan
• The war lacks legitimacy — it is not a just war and never has been one

We have had seven years of punditry concerning the situation in Afghanistan. This commentary encouraged Western troops to invade an obscure, mountainous and poverty-stricken country in central Asia. Let’s review how we got there.

After 9/11, most people were shocked that such an attack could happen to the most powerful country in the world.

It became clear that given the state of American politics at the time that in response some act of butt-kicking would likely be performed by the US military. There was some concern about preventing future attacks, but simple vengeance was an important motivator right from the start. If you provoke the boss, expect some payback. The myth of redemptive violence, which so animates American popular and military culture, was in full swing.

The rhetoric at the time was that the USA had the right to ‘act out’ in some way that would involve its matchless armed forces. This was done without excessive concern about the legality or social propriety of its actions. This type of behaviour coincides with one definition of ‘acting out’:

acting out: a (usually irritating) impulsive and uncontrollable outburst by a problem child or a neurotic adult [thefreedictionary.com].

The USA has a powerful military, but often fails to consider how its military actions are viewed within the society of nations. This tends to encourage it to pursue armed conflicts that appear contrary to its own best interests — even commercial or diplomatic interests. This is one aspect of US exceptionalism that many in the rest of world find disturbing: its military power appears unconnected to any sensible rationale other than the projection of its own power.

Being currently the sole super-power, the USA is frequently given a free pass to do whatever it pleases when its military is concerned. Despite being enormously expensive, the US military is seen as a guarantor of American freedoms and prosperity. However, it increasingly appears to be source of weakness for the USA in that its use tends to obscure new geo-political realities not wholly based on military power, such as the rise of China and other BRIC nations. Not all problems are ones that can be solved with military force.

As well, the US military is fiendishly expensive.

One law even more iron-clad than the efficacy of military force in inflicting pain is that if you run out of money and credit, your position in the world can diminish quickly and substantially. You do not need to spend much time reading Victorian novels to understand the indignities that lack of cash can bring.

The USA, despite being a productive and creative society, does not have unlimited cash and credit. Eventually, debts come home to roost. The US military certainly attempts to serve the interests of Western capitalism but this assumes there is sufficient cash earned elsewhere to maintain this military. If the USA spends too much money in ’saving’ failed states, it may just become one itself.

As it turns out the invasion of Iraq was based completely on lies, while the invasion of Afghanistan continues to be represented as a ‘just war.’ This is what gives Obama some cover when he decides to escalate the Afghan war. All wars though, even the most egregious, are portrayed as just wars. It is only much later that historians untangle the lies that may have lead to that impression.

If someone attacks you, you sometimes have the right to attack back if your attack prevents some greater evil from taking place. But the inconvenient truth about the Afghan war is that the Taliban didn’t attack the USA. Al-Qaeda did.

The Taliban — a particularly odious and fundamentalist regime, which most of the world considers a loathsome carbuncle on the face of the world politic — had the temerity to lend support and provide sanctuary to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s guilt was one of association rather than commission.

Clearly, Al-Qaeda and Taliban are separate entities. Al-Qaeda is a trans-national Islamic militant organization committed to the use of terrorism to forward its political goals, while the Taliban is a fundamentalist movement with a power base almost entirely within the Pashtun tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban appears to lack trans-national ambitions of exporting terrorism or of influencing politics outside its core region. Al-Qaeda on the other hand is expert in doing just that.

Al-Qaeda continues to be a threat to the West, while the Taliban continues to be a threat to Western interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan as long as the West occupies Afghanistan. Clearly, you don’t want to mess with the Taliban, but then you probably don’t have to unless you make the mistake of invading their homeland based on justifications not quite found in international law.

Al-Qaeda conspirators spent time conspiring in various places including San Diego, Hamburg, and at flight schools in Florida. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Why didn’t the USA attack those places instead? Because it would have been seen as ridiculous to do so. It is usually not seen as practical or moral to attack a whole country if a tiny minority within that country has behaved badly.

Gangs, cults and militant forces exist in most countries of the world, which if given the right opportunities could inflict serious damage to polite society. This is not just in failed states such as Somalia or the Congo, but also in places such as Idaho and southern Ontario. I bet if you travelled 100 kilometers down the road from Hamilton a group of radical bikers with a penchant for meth, murder and mayhem could be found. Fortunately, Canada is in no danger of being invaded by foreign forces to alleviate this security threat.

Why then were the Taliban conflated so seamlessly with Al-Qaeda in the popular Western imagination?  One reason may have been is that they represent the perfect ‘Other.’ The Western public knew little about their cultural or social belief systems and tended to believe the worst. The prevailing rhetoric in the West was that the Taliban’s beliefs are inimical to all Western notions of decency or civilization. This may or may not be true, but it does not constitute adequate grounds for invasion.

A basic lack of legitimacy is what makes the Afghan war so difficult to pursue and what makes it such a hard sell to American allies: it just doesn’t make much sense. A fight against Al-Qaeda has morphed into a fight against an anti-modern but essentially nationalistic enemy in the Taliban. This is why parallels to the Vietnam war seem more and more appropriate. The Taliban has replaced the Vietcong. Apparently, not everyone within the American establishment learned the same lessons about the quagmire that was Vietnam.

In Afghanistan the smart money is staying clear of that war as best they can. If you hope to ingratiate yourself with the USA, which includes such countries as Canada, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia then you might find some motivation for enthusiastically supporting this war. All others seem to have much less commitment to the idea that the West will eventually succeed there. They don’t call Afghanistan the ‘Graveyard of Empires’ for nothing.

For all those who had trepidation about the moral implications of Canadian participation in the Afghan war became more nervous with yesterday’s headline in newspapers:

“All detainees were tortured, all warnings were ignored”

Wow. This testimony was given by Canadian diplomat and whistle-blower Richard Colvin, to a parliamentary committee in Ottawa. Colvin had served in a diplomatic capacity in Afghanistan for 17 months. This is the first time a government official has made such far-ranging allegations of complicity in torture by the Canadian Forces and the Canadian government.

There has been suspicion for some time that some Afghani detainees may have been tortured after they were transferred from Canadian to Afghan Army custody. Colvin’s testimony suggests that the transfer of detainees — to probable or certain torture — was a widespread Canadian practice. If true, it would greatly discredit Canada’s conduct in Afghanistan and reduce its legitimacy as an occupying force.

The Canadians Forces apparently detain larger numbers of people in their military operations than do their allies. A large proportion of these detainees may be innocent of any crime.

Clearly, complicity in torture is a war crime. Armies of occupation such as Canada’s must follow rules as defined in part by the Geneva Conventions. If Canadian Forces were complicit in the torture of detainees, were aware of their involvement and still allowed the torture to occur, they are guilty of war crimes.

The Conservative government has experienced little political cost from previous torture allegations — or indeed from the entire Afghanistan war — from either the Canadian public or the opposition parties. The issue, oddly, gets little traction in Canadian politics. Previously, the Conservative government has managed to sweep all allegations of complicity in torture under the rug. It is unclear whether, with these new allegations by Colvin, they will be able to continue to do this.

What these allegations mean for Canada is that they reflect poorly on the political leadership of Canada, on the Canadian Armed Forces and on Canada as a whole. They conflict completely with the commonly-provided narratives about the roles Canadians play in Afghanistan.

Canadian politicians see these allegations as a domestic political issue and have failed to acknowledge their international implications — such as severe risks to Canada’s reputation.

This head-long rush to possible pariah status is an odd, self-defeating behavior on Canada’s part. It has similarities to the Canadian government’s recent policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which many view as obstructionist, disingenuous and fundamentally lacking in leadership.

One of the main reasons that the Canadian government has given about why Canada invaded Afghanistan in the first place was to raise the human rights conditions for its residents. At first this did not appear to be difficult to achieve given that the previous Taliban regime had an abysmal human rights record and was itself a pariah regime within the international community.

It now appears that the  Karzai government in Afghanistan is breathtakingly-corrupt and has little interest in improving the human rights conditions of Afghans.

The NATO occupying forces in combination with the Karzai government may have achieved what would seem to be impossible — to create a regime worse for the average Afghan than was the previous Taliban regime.