It seemed as if Stephen Harper had an epiphany when he claimed in a CNN interview that NATO troops are “not going to ever defeat the insurgency” in Afghanistan. This is a turnaround from a year ago, when he said during a visit to Afghanistan that NATO troops could completely wipe out the Taliban insurgency. However, if there is one politician whose change of heart should not come as a surprise, it’s Stephen Harper.
One could argue that the experiences of Canadian troops in Afghanistan have made him reflective. But during the interview, Harper gave a different reason: “My reading of Afghan history is that it’s probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind,” he said. Harper (and many notable others) were naïve to think they could destroy the Taliban. Fighting an insurgency in a highly unstable country where the opponents have the home-field advantage is not an easy feat. We’d like to think that our national leaders would read up on a country before sending their troops off to fight there.
Harper’s blunt talk about the war in Afghanistan to an American news channel was disappointing. His comments seemed to be directed at Obama—his change of view comes as the Obama administration begins to act on its promised troop increase in Afghanistan. The past month’s events also shed light on Harper’s comments. During his visit to Canada, Obama indicated that his government would emphasize development and diplomacy. Harper’s strategy in Afghanistan is similar to Obama’s rejection of military-only solutions. So what accounts for Harper’s new-found wisdom?
Harper’s claim that NATO cannot defeat the insurgency raises the question of why Canadian troops are in Afghanistan in the first place. Canada has spent more time fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan than it did fighting in World War II. So when will we finally withdraw? Harper’s claim that the insurgency is impossible to defeat was a response to a question about the decision to withdraw Canadian troops in 2011. Let’s not forget that, in 2007, Harper strongly condemned a “cut and run” strategy for Canadian troops, claiming that was not his “way of doing things.”
Harper’s new and realistic approach to insurgency and his emphasis on effective governance in Afghanistan are praiseworthy. However, his vision is not motivated by concern for stability. Whether Harper’s comments were motivated by Obama’s foreign policy or reflect his own government’s strategy for withdrawal, the bottom line is that his words carry weight—and he will be held accountable for them.
