A consideration of the economic stimuli that governments almost everywhere plan to apply to their economies leads, naturally enough, to an examination of all public spending. Are there areas where governments can cut costs in order to free up more funds or keep their deficits as low as possible? In Canada, one commitment that is coming into question is this nation’s role in Afghanistan.

More Canadian soldiers have recently been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the total to an alarming level. I’m not very comfortable writing about this. It involves too many emotions. But I must try, partly to sort out my own feelings and partly to acknowledge a truth that is not being spoken.

I feel tremendous compassion for anyone who has lost a loved one in the conflict. They are not likely to take much comfort from the main reason that Canadians are in the danger zone even though it is, in fact, a very good one. Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for the practice.

We tell ourselves and certain of our political leaders inform us that Canadian military personnel are in Afghanistan to serve a higher purpose and reverse a moral wrong. Absolutely there is truth in this.

The Taliban are repressive, unforgiving and a vicious step backward on any social evolutionary scale. Average men, women – especially women – and their children need outside military intervention to go about their daily lives. That includes earning a living, acquiring an education, raising a family and observing normal religious practice.

Canadians have a proud tradition of participation in two world wars, the Korean conflict and numerous peacekeeping efforts. The latter is where we have made our major contributions over the last several decades.

Nor is the need in this area, given the number of tyrannical and corrupt regimes in the world, likely to diminish any time soon. In such enterprises, Canadian soldiers are asked to serve with international contingents. We want our men and women to carry their weight.

At the beginning of the U.S.-Iraq conflict, no Canadian Prime Minister could send troops because there was little belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The Afghan-Pakistan conflict zone, with the presence of Al-Quaeda and the Taliban, has provided a more persuasive argument. There is justification on humanitarian grounds and the scope of the engagement has been more limited.

For Canadian troops to serve with the forces of other nations – especially in an era of increasingly sophisticated weaponry – they need actual combat experience. No amount of field exercises can do the job.

Canada is a sovereign nation in a dangerous world. We are not likely to ever be a huge military presence in a global sense. Nevertheless, in order to hold our heads high, we must be able to provide some bite when the occasion demands.

Alex Carrick

Find Canadian construction-related economic articles in Canadian Construction Market News and in the Economic Outlook section of Daily Commercial News.

» View all comments (0 total comments)

Post Your Own Comments

» Not a member? Register now to become one. Otherwise, login to post your comments on this article.

11/19 - Starts remain low in CanaData’s latest forecasts, but there are signs of a pickup in optimism

11/11 - CanaData’s October Construction Starts and Remembering Planned Obsolescence with Some Fondness

11/04 - It’s a World of Opportunities as Economic Thoughts Turn to Recovery

10/28 - Housing markets in Canada and U.S. tell complex stories

10/22 - The Current Grace Period for Construction Costs will Expire within Six Months

» Back to Alex's Blog