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 11th
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 11th,
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.
