The recent poll that showed 62% of Canadians are opposed to our troops being in Afghanistan is not an indictment of the deployment itself. It is, rather, an indictment of the manner in which the Liberals went about it.
There is no good reason for Canadians to oppose our involvement in Afghanistan - and I say that as someone who would oppose sending our troops to Iraq. This is not Iraq, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in a war fought under false pretenses and with a flawed battle plan. In Afghanistan, there really was a 9/11 connection, and al-Qaeda really was an active presence. This is not a neo-conservative project masked as the war on terror; this is the war on terror.
Each of the federal parties knows this - which is why the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois are supportive, and even the pacifist NDP seems unsure what to do. But none of them have properly sold it to Canadians.
It was to the credit of the Liberals that they made the decision to ramp up Canada's commitment to Afghanistan in January -- even though bad news from the front would have hurt their chances in the federal election.
But as with our troops' presence there for the past several years, our country's bold decision to take command of multinational forces in the troubled Kandahar region has often been treated like a dirty little secret.
Yes, Paul Martin and then-defence minister Bill Graham occasionally made vague noises about fulfilling our role in the war of terror. But never was there a parliamentary vote on deployment to lend it needed legitimacy. Worse, there's never been a real effort to explain to Canadians why our troops are there -- the sort aimed not just at abetting fears, but instilling pride.
As communications specialist Rick Grant - who has served both NATO and the United Nations in Afghanistan - detailed in these pages last month, Canada is failing to promote the efforts of our soldiers and diplomats. Whereas other countries' governments go out of their way to highlight their overseas heroics, Canadian politicians have kept mum. And at the same time, they've made only perfunctory efforts to explain the broader purpose of our efforts - the value of getting Afghanis past the horrors of a wretched existence under the Taliban, and of protecting the world from the terrorists who still plot a return to power.
The result of this failure seems to be that some Canadians are unclear on the very real difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. To many Canadians, they both seem tainted with the charge of U.S.-led imperialism.
There is, admittedly, one connection between the two conflicts: By relieving U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Canadian forces may indirectly facilitate deployment to Iraq. But even if you think the Iraq war was wrong, it needn't follow that the Americans should immediately withdraw and leave behind the mess they've made. And since they're not about to do that anyway, the prospect of Afghanistan being left to fester while U.S. interest turns elsewhere should be something to guard against.
These are arguments that Ottawa needs to be making. And it might also be time for something a little more basic: a dose of flag-waving patriotism and pride in our troops' efforts.
A full debate in the House of Commons, in which the government stands up to critics of the Afghanistan effort, would be a good start. So, too, would Stephen Harper's rumoured trip to Kandahar. But what's really needed is a concerted day-to-day campaign to win over Canadians.
Gordon O'Connor, the new defence minister, evidently recognizes that - telling an interviewer last weekend that the polls prove he's "got to start explaining to Canadians why we're in Afghanistan and the good work we're doing."
But he'll need to work quickly. Given the risks in Afghanistan, it seems likely we'll soon witness serious casualties. If public sentiment isn't changed before then, it sure won't be changed after.
