University of Oklahoma: Home of the Sooners

“I’m a Sooner born and Sooner bred and when I die, I'll be Sooner dead.”

I was born in Oklahoma, grew up in Oklahoma, and earned my B.A. from the only university in Oklahoma that matters. I am a Sooner through and through.

For some context, here is the history of the word Sooner, as cited from the Oklahoma Historical Society: “Sooner is the name first applied about six months after the Land Run of 1889 to people who entered the Oklahoma District (Unassigned Lands) before the designated time. The term derived from a section in the Indian Appropriation Act of March 2, 1889, which became known as the ‘sooner clause’.”

There are some great ironies being completely ignored by Indigenize OU.

The suffering and maltreatment forced upon indigenous peoples came from the actions of the U.S. Federal Government. Thus, by their logic, and the record of history, the real aim of decolonization through the renaming of identity seems like it should be aimed at ‘American’, not, in fact, ‘Sooner’.

Furthermore, those who wish to indigenize and decolonize OU and are opposed to the term ‘Sooner’ seem to be completely fine with other colonialist constructs that fit their personal preferences. How is this not some sort of cafeteria in which you can pick and choose what you want in regards to the colonizers’ creations?

For wanting to decolonize, they are operating completely within the system of the colonizer. A University is completely manifested from the colonizer - as it epitomizes the whole foreign/European modus operandi. The stated goals of the organization are inherently at odds with the institution it operates in: Why even attend a University? You are choosing to participate in a colonialist entity and that colonialist entity has allowed you in. How does that reconcile with OU not being inclusive?

Indigenize OU is self-described as “the collective thoughts of [4 Indigenous Students]” and they cite the “representation of under 4% of individuals who identity as native” as cause for their mission at OU. Meanwhile, the OU student body totals over 30,000 - and by their own math - that means they represent roughly 1/3rd of 1% of native individuals.

In his response to Indigenize OU’s request to abolish the Sooner name, President David Boren correctly summarized what being a Sooner means: “The term today stands for a spirit which is very inclusive, sets high standards of excellence, and represents a strong sense of a common family”. Just as well, the ways in which us Sooners already share some of the core principles of Indigenize OU are demonstrably provable by OU’s achievements in regards to indigenous peoples: “Five Native American languages are taught at the University of Oklahoma, more than any other university in the world” and “[OU] ranks in the top five in the nation in the number of undergraduate degrees conferred to Native American students, according to Diverse: Issues in Higher Education.” Additionally, as 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Center for Education Statistics shows, OU is nearly 500% more inclusive of indigenous persons than the U.S. National average of just 0.8% for undergraduate enrollment.

How exactly is that evidence that Sooners are, as put by Indigenize OU’s response to President Boren, “not inclusive of indigenous communities?”

I would argue it exemplifies how Sooners have led the nation’s universities in being inclusive of indigenous communities. And, of course, it goes without saying that those benchmarks are things that can and should be improved upon. I get that undergraduate students want to take on the world. I remember that idealism. However, fighting against the modern ’Sooner’ identity is counterproductive, as that energy could be better spent lifting up the OU community and building upon great movements for a more inclusive campus. Instead of tearing down the Sooner name, embrace and collaborate with the Sooner spirit that has brought about unprecedented cooperation and inclusion of indigenous culture in an inherently colonialist system.

- Nolan Kraszkiewicz, Master of Peace and Conflict Studies (MPACS) Candidate, University of Waterloo, & OU Alumni, B.A. in Political Science and Religious Studies, Class of 2013.

Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

"We'll Be Right Back..." (My Farewell to Jon Stewart)

"We'll be right back..."

Something one of my heroes has said during each and every episode of The Daily Show.

Tonight, as of 12:01pm EST on the 7th of August 2015, that assurance ceases to exist in its current familiar form.

The Daily Show will live on, as will Mr. Jon Stewart. In my list of the Top 5 people (who I have never met and were living at some point during my 24+ years) that have greatly influenced me artistically, creatively, and/or intellectually during my lifetime, Stewart joins the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Barack Obama, Casey Neistat, and Till Lindemann.

Jon Stewart was the narration to my political awakening when I was in the 8th grade during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. I had been watching Stewart for years prior, but without realization of the witty nuance of his commentary. The earliest indelible memory of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that I have - like many other fans - is that of the first post-9/11 episode. For the past month I have been watching The Daily Show's 'Month of Zen' web stream, which featured every episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from start 11 January 1999 to now, in marathon fashion without geographic restrictions. I have the live webstream on my MacBook Pro as I fall asleep at night and it is likewise there to greet me in the morning. My recent weeks' repertoire is a great departure from the distant nights at my Grandmother's remote Sauble Beach cottage adjusting a bunny-ear antenna on a television set many decades my senior just to have a luxury beyond just electricity.

Like other articles that have been written in the past few months since Stewart announced his retirement plans, now is where I start to create a playlist of assorted episodes... However, I will do no such thing. But only because I have already done so previously: TheNolanK - May 2012 & Mic - June 2012.

I could comment on how Jon Stewart has utilized The Daily Show format to transcend comedy and politics ascending to unparalleled and unprecedented status... However, I will do no such thing. But only because I have already done so previously - in print and online: Mic - April 2012,  TheNolanK - April 2012, OU Daily - May 2012, UWire - May 2012, & The Santa Clara - May 2012.

Instead, I will take relief in how I am parting ways with Jon Stewart. I subscribe to the old maxim that suggests "You should never meet your heroes". While I abide by that maxim, I do reserve the right to amend my position on heroes. In the case of Christopher Hitchens, my vicarious connection via exhaustive texts, Opinion Articles, YouTube Debates, and feature-length documentaries was ripped away from me due to Hitch's untimely defeat at the hands of the spectre of death. Speculation has already gripped the internet in regards to what Stewart's next move might be, with recent reports suggesting a return to stand-up comedy.

Stewart was never more damning than during his relentless (and necessarily crucial) critique of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War, the invasion of Iraq, the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished', and the subsequently poor handling of a destabilized Middle East. Even when Stewart let the sitting duck subjects of satire that were, and often still are, President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have a pass for that week's egregious Iraqi errors, Stewart would focus his efforts on truly important issues such as healthcare efforts for Veterans Affairs and 9/11 First Responders.

The main line of contention that Stewart's critics had was that he would often depart from basic political satire into activist commentary while hiding behind the job title 'Comedian'. Other than the hilarious fact that it was often Fox News personalities that accused Stewart of poor journalistic standards, selling a biased narrative, or (more recently) representing a political entity, Stewart never backed down from a challenge, never used miscontextualization to make his point, and never ceased to be genuine. In fact, that is the justification that Stewart has offered for his retirement, citing that The Daily Show "doesn't deserve an even slightly restless host, and neither do you [the audience]".

"You coulda had all this!"

There is no conceivable way in which The Daily Show with Trevor Noah can even begin to replicate 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' and its 18 Emmys, 2 Peabodys, 1 Grammy, and numerous other awards, accolades, and accomplishments - nor should it. Just as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart blazed a trail in the American political dialectic, so too must The Daily Show with Trevor Noah forge its own destiny. Stephen Colbert did it and John Oliver continues to do it. Never has there been such bigger shoes to fill by a vastly smaller footprint.

From the bottom of my heart, truly and sincerely, I thank you for the amazing ride that was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - and may you enjoy retirement and enjoy the time with your family you so manifestly deserve.

-NK

Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

Welcome to Global Peace Centre Canada (GPCC)

Ziauddin Yousafzai & I at GPCC's Official Launch on 09 June 2015

I have some exciting news on my recent endeavours. About a year ago I started the next stage of my academic career. Since beginning my Masters program I have been fortunate enough to embark on some amazing opportunities. My current pride and joy is my position with Global Peace Centre Canada (GPCC) as a 'Communications and Electronic Outreach Intern' - a continuation from my work developing their prototype structure as part of an MPACS course assignment.

The mission of Global Peace Centre Canada (GPCC) is "to foster societal transformation and fulfill human potential through education and peacebuilding." I am pleased to have such a positive and motivated group of colleagues in the GPCC. The Honorary Chair of GPCC is Ziauddin Yousafzai, father of 2014 Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai. My role with GPCC is to help spread his message of peace through education.

Through skills acquired from firsthand experience with this very blog, dabbling in video editing with my YouTube channel, and familiarity with graphic design, I was able to produce an outreach video for Global Peace Centre Canada.



In producing this video, I edited the various clips, composed and recorded the theme song, designed and rendered the intro and outro segments, and developed the storyline to help capture the spirit of Ziauddin Yousafzai along with the mission and vision of Global Peace Centre Canada.

I hope to share more developments with my summer internship and GPCC in the coming future!

Thanks,
-NK
Connect with TheNolanK on Social Media:

Working as a Rapporteur: Group of 78 Annual Policy Conference

Back in September of 2014 I participated in an annual conference hosted by the Group of 78 and Project Ploughshares in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. I, along with three of my colleagues from Conrad Grebel University College and the Executive Director of Project Ploughshares, John Siebert, went to Ottawa for the WWI and Contemporary Policy On War and Peace conference. I served as a rapporteur of the conference proceedings, charged with writing about two of the main conference discussions.

From Left to Right: Holger Afflerbach, Tamara Scheer, Daryl Copeland, Ernie Regehr, Mustafa Aksakal, and CBC's Michael Enright.

Attending this conference as a rapporteur was my first major extra-curricular outing as a graduate student. Over a decade had passed since I last visited Canada's national capital - which brings the current score of the Canada vs. U.S.A. capital visits competition to 2-0 in favour of Canada.

The annual conference report has finally been published and I can now share my work. Here is the conference's concluding summary that I wrote, in its entirety:

Concluding Roundtable Summary: What can we learn from WW1 to make the 21st century a century of peace?

What did we learn from WW1 to make world a safer place?

The traditional 19th century opinion of ‘The Fatherland’ faced a watershed moment. The notion of “Dying for Fatherland” that was prevalent in 19th century Europe was abandoned except in its cynical or ironic uses. This was quite a political departure.

WW1 served as an exercise in the failure of our ability to accommodate shifting power. The only thing we ever learn is that we never learn. It is now more necessary than ever to learn from previous conflicts to prevent emerging and escalating conflicts. The key is to understand and evolve past these issues to address the big ones that humanity faces collectively.

WW1 was transformative in the Middle East and shaped how it is today. WW1 touched off civil war and mass traumas that lasted well into the 20th century. Understanding this period as the origin of contemporary problems is invaluable. Often times the region is described as having populations predisposed to violence, which is categorically untrue. What the denizens of the 34 Middle East have been subjected to for the past century is shortsighted Western policies of imperialism, colonialism, and interventionism. Organic growth in the region continues to be scarred from the consequences of WW1.

Conflicts are multifaceted and are by nature hard to understand fully for factors and igniters, especially when the WW1 alliances were so veiled and secretive. Rather than apportioning specific blame, humanity should extract useful lessons. For instance in WW1 the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand caused events that spun out of control. When politicians default on their responsibilities as decision-makers, the result is handing their control over war to the military.

Regardless of the justifications used for war, all belligerents bear responsibility. Nations should unite not in military alliances, but rather in understanding that they should not be sending their sons and daughters off to war. This ideal is what has fostered peace in the European Union. The role of the media must be considered, for instance, in the case of the Hapsburg Empire from the turn of the century up until 1914. Newspapers treated war like it was expected, yet people were surprised when armed conflict actually broke out. Bertrand Russell remarked that England was also happy for war.

WW1 gave us new technologies to build better weapons. Humanity has perfected the means to kill each other. What mankind has yet to do is wholly unite against non-traditional threats, whether that be climate change, diminishing biodiversity, resource shortages, or the challenge of managing the global commons. There are no military solutions to many of the threats which now imperil us all. Airstrikes are no remedy for a warming planet. Expeditionary forces cannot occupy the alternatives to a carbon economy. Garrisons and border guards are useless against the advance of pandemic disease. These sorts of issues are best addressed using the tools of diplomacy and development: dialogue, negotiation, knowledge-based problem solving and cooperative action in concert.

Framing a conflict as war will always leave a winner and a loser. However, it is what those parties choose to do, either in victory or defeat, which will shape the future. While the Americans won WW II, they have been a global leader in armed interventions during the second half of the 20th century. Conversely, Germany and Japan have adopted foreign policies centered on pacifism. The frame of conflict analysis is always focused on why war happened or who was responsible. Perhaps our thinking should be the other way around: Why did the peace work before? Credit has to be given for the prevention of large-scale wars since the end of the two World Wars of the 20th century. Diplomacy has identified conditions that would lead to war. Attention must be given to de-escalation and prevention. Nations must never stop talking; transnational cooperation needs to exist in good times and bad.

There exists a grotesque imbalance of resource allocations in major nations, as the lion’s share of resources fall to defence agencies and defence corporations. In the USA there are more soldiers in uniformed marching bands than there are diplomats. In any given year the budget increase alone that is afforded to U.S. defence exceeds the total budgets of the State Department and USAID combined. A major disparity between defence spending and spending on diplomacy and development of nearly 24:1 exists in the U.S., while Canada is 4:1, and the Nordics are 1:1. Contemporary wars are primarily intra-state or civil wars and they emerge out of internal conflicts based a variety of social, political, and economic grievances and the failures of 35 national institutions in weak states to mediate effectively and respond to chronic grievances. Military force is incapable of mitigating these grievances or of forcing dissident movements, once they have gained the support of major communities and sections of the populations, to conform. Political accommodation is the only sustainable response, yet most states, even or especially weak states, are better prepared for mounting military responses than political responses. The result is long drawn out civil wars, even though they cannot be, and are not settled on the battlefield. Most wars today, in fact, have little in common with the circumstances and conditions of World Wars I or II.

Special attention must be afforded to the distinction between commemoration and glorification of war. Countries recently engaged in conflict or those nations that were plagued by conflict for decades regard war in a manner that contrasts with countries that have not had conflict waged on home soil in quite some time.

Did they all die in vain? Soldiers that perish on the battlefield and civilians that bear the brunt of a conflict will die in vain if the lessons learned from that conflict are not applied towards the future. If the conflict does not just lead to peace, but an understanding of how to sustain peace, then the victims of war will indeed die in vain. In the case of WW1, little was learned – and that led to WW II.

History does not create workable models for the future. What is clear is that war must be avoided at all costs. In the tradition of Bertha von Suttner, the first female to win the Nobel Peace Prize, she insisted that you never stop talking. Never give up. Meeting a person’s basic needs of food, water, shelter, and economic prospects contribute more to human security than any military force could. Security is not a martial art. Human security is the key. Freedom from fear and freedom from want.

Canada’s capacity to contribute and innovate when it comes to assisting humanity towards peace must be resurrected. Unfortunately in Canada today much of that capacity has been lost. Canada has moved away from internationalism and diplomacy, and renowned institutions and civil society organizations are among the casualties. As a result Canada is losing its established influence on the international stage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to thank the Group of 78 and Project Ploughshares for this marvellous opportunity. Additionally, I would like to thank my colleagues Allie Bly, Darren Kroph, and Sandrine Uwimana for contributing to an awesome weekend.

Here is a link to the entire conference report - in which my name is only misspelled once...

From Left to Right: Darren Kroph, Allie Bly, Sandrine Uwimana, John Siebert, and Nolan Kraszkiewicz (me).

TheNolanK is Now on YouTube!

TheNolanK now was an Official YouTube Channel! I have been making small videos of all sorts for quite some time now. Mostly they are low-production iMovie pieces about going to the shooting range or a Call of Duty gameplay montage.

About a year ago I learned about the 'Subscription' feature on YouTube. From that avenue I discovered some really cool channels. I especially love Casey Neistat, Demolition Ranch, KYR Speedy, and Cinema Sins. Just as well, some good friends of mine also have a channel called 'Fiesta Squad' and they do hilarious comedy clips. In fact, my buddies are the ones that showed me how easy and accessible creating a YouTube channel was.

My channel has quite a few videos on it already. I use it to highlight my media creation skills across a variety of different approaches: live action, editing, compilations, formatting, and design.

I have three main playlists under which I release videos:

VIDEO GAMES



GUN STUFF

(Disclaimer: All firearms are handled and operated in a safe and controlled manner. The purpose of these videos are to provide insight into my relevant experience with said firearms in regards to how my worldview of firearms, the global arms trade, and conflict analysis is grounded in an applicable hands-on reality.)




OTHER STUFF




Please Subscribe to my channel drop a like and comment on my videos. I would really appreciate the feedback!

New Perspectives and New Pursuits

My father and I during my first campus visit (June 2014)

I am back! (well, sort of)

Since I last posted, much has changed.

After some time off from the world of academia, I am once again embarking on a journey in the realm of higher education! The job hunt in the immediate aftermath of my graduation from the University of Oklahoma yielded minimal results. However, I am quite excited to reveal my latest endeavour...

I am now a graduate student pursuing a Masters of Peace and Conflict Studies (MPACS) at Conrad Grebel University College at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Over the next two years I will be immersed in a practical application of civil society oriented approaches to peace building. I just started my first semester and could not be loving this return any more than I am now. This term I am taking three seminar courses: Building Civil Society, Conflict Analysis, and Land & Place as Foundations for Peace. And yes, because I will be generating more academic materials, this does mean the return of new content and the end of my hiatus.

When I announced my hiatus back in August of 2013, I noted that I had over 22,000 visitors to my academic blog. Since that post, just over a year ago, I managed to add another 30,000 visitors - all while still never having paid for any sort of advertising or content promotion. I cannot explain how exciting and reaffirming it was to see the content on my blog continue to generate heavy traffic during my hiatus.

Lastly, while trying not to rely on past glory, I have once again been published in an academic journal. A research paper I wrote while still at the University of Oklahoma back in April/May of 2013 titled "Martyrdom and the Afterlife in Islam: Analyzing Theological Justifications in extremist Ideologies" for a course called Conceptions of the Afterlife was selected for publication in the OU Religious Studies Student Journal, Volume 7. In the paper I deconstruction the notion that Islam is inherently evil and is the root of terrorism by examining source texts like the Koran and Hadith as well as the charters and creeds of Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, transposing them against the University of Chicago's Project on Suicide Terrorism, all, of course, peppered with my insightful analysis and commentary. Here is a link to the full text which can be found on my 'Publications' page.

I have left Oklahoma and the U.S.A. and I am now living in Canada. I will be doing so for the foreseeable future - until, at the very least, I graduate. I absolutely love the societal atmosphere and the new perspective on many current affairs issues.

Even in its infancy, the new chapter in my life has been enthralling. For example this weekend I will be going to Canada's capitol, Ottawa, for a three day conference marking the centennial anniversary of World War I. During this event I will be reporting on the conference proceedings for Project Ploughshares, a leading peace-building NGO in Canada.

Thanks again for your continued support of my academic and blogging endeavors. It feels good to be back!

-NK

Boston Marathon Bombing: UN, NATO & World Leaders Respond

Yesterday's tragedy at the Boston Massacre has been felt the world over. Support and condolences have poured in from America's friends and allies abroad. Yesterday, I offered my uplifting response in an open memo on PolicyMic. Twitter is on fire with support for Boston, with #BostonMarathon trending worldwide in yesterday's aftermath.

Here are the statements and reactions of various world leaders and international organizations.

UN Secretary General, Ban-Ki Moon: "I condemn this senseless violence, which is all the more appalling for taking place at an event renowned for bringing people together from around the world in a spirit of sportsmanship and harmony. I would like to express my deepest condolences to the families of the victims, and to wish those wounded a speedy recovery. As more details emerge I am sure we will return to this with a more formal statement. But for now I just wanted to say that my thoughts are with everyone in Boston."

Anders Fogh-Rasmussen

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh-Rasmussen: "I am deeply shocked by the explosions at the Boston marathon. I express my heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were killed, and I wish a full recovery to those who were injured. My thoughts are with the people of Boston and all of the United States."

British Prime Minister, David Cameron: "The scenes from Boston are shocking and horrific - my thoughts are with all those who have been affected."

Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper: “I was shocked to learn of the explosions that occurred today during the running of the Boston Marathon. It is truly a sad day when an event as inspiring as the Boston Marathon is clouded by such senseless violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with those injured or affected by this horrible incident. We stand with our American neighbours in this difficult time.”

Julia Gillard

Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard: "Australians have awoken this morning to shocking and tragic scenes at the Boston Marathon. Our condolences go to the families of those killed and our thoughts are with those who have been injured. It will be some time before we know the full extent of what has occurred but these explosions have cast a long shadow over one of the world’s great sporting events."

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, via a Kremlin statement: "Vladimir Putin strongly condemned this barbaric crime and expressed his belief that the fight against terrorism requires the coordination of the global community’s efforts. The President of Russia stressed that the Russian Federation will be ready, if necessary, to assist in the US authorities’ investigation."

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu: "A day of joy became a day of terror, I send my condolences to President Barack Obama, the American people and the bereaved families. Today, like everyday, Israel stands shoulder to shoulder with the American people."

American President, Barack Obama, on the day of the marathon: “The American people will say a prayer for Boston tonight,” he said. “And Michelle and I send our deepest thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims in the wake of this senseless loss.”

American President, Barack Obama, this afternoon: "We continue to mobilize and deploy all appropriate law enforcement resources to protect our citizens, and to investigate and to respond to this attack. Obviously our first thoughts this morning are with the victims, their families, and the city of Boston. We know that two explosions gravely wounded dozens of Americans, and took the lives of others, including a 8-year-old boy. This was a heinous and cowardly act. And given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism. Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror. What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack, or why; whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act of a malevolent individual."

Even comedian Patton Oswald has garnered media attention for his response. On Facebook he posted an eloquent response, which has been shared nearly 250,000 times. Here is an excerpt: "I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, 'Well, I've had it with humanity.' But I was wrong. I don't know what's going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths. But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out."

As far as who is responsible for these cowardly attacks, no person(s) or group have yet to come forward. However, one of America's typical enemies have issued an official statement regarding the bombing, but they have denied any involvement.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, via spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan: "We believe in attacking US and its allies but we are not involved in this attack. We have no connection to this bombing but we will continue to target them wherever possible."

Canada's Continuing Commitment to NATO and ISAF

I wrote this analysis for a course I took called '9/11 and the War on Terror.' This policy memo served as our term paper, in lieu of a traditional final exam. Our assignment was to examine an aspect of the war in Afghanistan. I chose this topic because of my Canadian roots and my interest in NATO. Learn how early friendly fire incidents and experiencing the highest proportional rate of fatalities amongst active ISAF partners provided Canada’s policy makers with adequate justification for actually expressing the public’s will in regards to reducing military engagement. However, an analysis of public opinion, voting trends, and implemented policy clearly demonstrate Canada’s commitment to NATO and ISAF, even amidst the Afghan disengagement.

Executive Summary

The first Canadian casualties in the Afghanistan war were inflicted as a result of friendly fire. A U.S. F-16 fighter pilot bombed a staging area for a Canadian training exercise in a location known as the Tarnak Farms.[1] This incident happened just over six months into the Afghan war. By examining the background of this friendly fire incident, insight to the continued Canadian commitment can be gleaned. Furthermore, Canada has experienced the highest proportional rate of fatalities amongst active ISAF partners in Afghanistan.[2] Canadian policymakers proceeded to utilize this information when they reduced troop levels at a time when the U.S. was planning a troop surge.[3] This reality altered and shifted Canada’s role with ISAF in Afghanistan. Canada then began disengagement in Afghanistan and reverting to a support role in the ISAF mission.

Public opinion polls taken in Canada after the 9/11 attacks concerning U.S. – Canadian relations and of the war in Afghanistan under the Stephen Harper government will illustrate the opinion landscape. From there, government policies will be examined for mention or justification vis-à-vis public opinion. Historically, Canada and the U.S. have shared the world’s largest economic relationship. They also share the world’s largest border. Canada’s empathy for the 9/11 terrorist attack against the U.S. will also be represented in public opinion polls. So it seems as if Canada must continue to support their southern neighbors in endeavors of war as a way to bolster other more beneficial channels. The relationship Canada has with the U.S. appears to be one based upon ideological obligation, rather than one of true support. So it appears that friendly fire incidents, while not the U.S.’s intentions, and a higher rate of soldier deaths provide Canada’s policy makers with adequate justification for actually expressing the public’s will in regards to reducing military engagement. Similarly, voting patterns for the national government are indicative of the waning support for the war in Afghanistan. The elections in Canada in 2008 and 2006 will provide data as to how Canada voted in a post 9/11 political theater during the lead-up to the U.S. surge. The analysis and evaluation of public opinion, voting trends, and implemented policy clearly demonstrate Canada’s commitment to NATO and ISAF, even amidst the Afghan disengagement.

Canada’s Role in Afghanistan

            Canada is a founding signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty. As such, Canada is one of the most senior partners in the alliance, often taking on roles of leadership. After the September 11^th attack against the U.S. in 2001, by virtue of their NATO membership, Canada was thrust into the Afghan War. In response to the attack, the U.S. invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty which effectively made the attack on the U.S. an attack against all of NATO’s members. This is the first, and only, time this common defense article has been invoked. The response was assembled, but how the joint military force would manifest had yet to be established. It was not until late 2001 that the UN passed Security Council Resolution 1386, which “authorize[d], as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force.”[4] As the UN mentioned, the outline for the ISAF force was described in the Bonn Agreement and was charged with, “assist[ing] in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas” with the understanding that “such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.”[5]

            According to the Canadian Minister of Defence, the first Canadian personnel to arrive in Afghanistan was, “approximately 40 JTF2 (Joint Task Force) Operators on the ground in Afghanistan, in or around Kandahar.”[6] As the force build up in Afghanistan continued into 2002, Canada was fully compliant with ISAF military directives and they fought alongside their American and ISAF counter-parts. NATO assumed command of ISAF on August 11^th, 2003.[7] After the change in command, Canadian forces began their contribution to NATO, Operation Athena. Based in the capital, Kabul, and later expanding to Kandahar Province, Operation Athena focused on peace building exercises and civilian population interaction.[8]

Fratricide and Troop Casualty Rates

            During a Canadian only training exercise in April of 2002, Canadian forces would be dealt their single largest troop loss since the Korean War. The absolutely tragic nature of the Canadian loss was multiplied by the fact that it was “an American F-16 fighter jet [that] dropped a laser-guided 225-kilogram bomb” on the Tarnak farms training area. The devastating result was a total of 4 deaths and 8 injuries, marking the first loss of Canadian forces in the Afghan War. There was a major outcry from the Canadian public and outrage from government officials.  Once more details about the tragic friendly fire incident were revealed, the anger grew. There was even public criticism from the Canadian military that was directed at the U.S. forces. General Ray Henault, Canadian Chief of Staff, immediately stated that, “Without a doubt, there was a misidentification of the Canadians and what they were doing on the ground and that was obviously the cause of this accident.”[9] In response, President George W. Bush offered a public apology for the tragedy and commended and thanked the Canadian forces for their continued support.