Currently Canada has approximately 2500 armed forces deployed in Afghanistan.  They are posted in the Kandahar province in Afghanistan's south, a region known to be home to many Taliban fighters and their sympathizers.  Their mission is to fight and destroy the Taliban in order to prevent them from taking control of the territory and to assist the Afghan government in maintaining sovereignty.  There are also some Canadian police and aid workers who have been dispatched as well to train Afghan police and to assist in humanitarian activities.

The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is the largest combat mission that Canada has undertaken since the Korean War of the 1950's.  Since it began in 2002 there have been 77 Canadian soldiers and 1 Canadian diplomat killed in the fighting, as well as many more who have been injured.  It is perhaps understandable then that this mission has been the subject of much debate at home in Canada.  Some believe the war is unjustified and/or too dangerous and want Canadian troops withdrawn immediately and others argue that we need to stay in Afghanistan until we have clearly defeated the Taliban.  I think that the last time I checked the Canadian public was split somewhere near the 50/50 mark on whether to stay in Afghanistan or pull out.

The discussion has caught my interest for several reasons.  Firstly, I'm interested in Canada's role in the world and whether it is appropriate for Canadian soldiers to be dieing and getting hurt in Afghanistan.  Secondly, it brings up the the wider issue of when is it justifiable to go to war in the first place.  Which circumstances justify the use of force and which do not?  What is a just war?

Pacifists would argue that there is no such thing as a just war.   They likely would see any armed conflict as a violation of human rights.  In any war many people will die and suffer and often these victims will be the most innocent ones possible, unarmed civlians.  Even where civilians are not deliberately targeted (and history has shown that they often are) they end up getting caught in the crossfire.  Homes are accidentally bombed, vehicles carrying non-combatants are mistaken for those carrying soldiers, roads and electricity are knocked out in order to hamper enemy forces but this also causes hardship to civilians, etc.

Those who support the use of military force on the other hand would argue that war is sometimes a necessity.  A country that is unable or unwilling to defend itself militarily will eventually fall prey to its enemies who are willing to use force.  Additionally, they might suggest that there are times when a country should go beyond mere defensive actions and use its armed forces to protect or advance its interests by invading other nations.

I identify myself as a liberal (that is liberal with a small l, a distinction that is important in Canada since the term Liberal, spelled with an uppercase l, means a person who is a member of the Liberal Party) and therefore some people would assume I lean more towards the pacifist end of the spectrum but this is not completely accurate.  Even though I recognize the pain and suffering that war can bring I also know that sometimes there is no alternative but to use force.  There are such things as "just wars".  An example that springs to mind is World War Two where the Allied Forces fought and defeated the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler.  Surely, his gross violations of human rights and rampant territorial expansionism justified the use of force to stop him.

I am not naive enough to think that the only reason the Allied powers opposed Hitler was that he was an evil man and had created an evil regime.  The true reason likely was that they were fearful for their own safety and/or interests.  However, even though their motivations might not have been completely altruistic, the fact remains that, in my mind, his despotic regime and flagrant disregard for the fundamental values of humanity made the war a just one.

Does this mean that it is justifiable to use military power to overthrow every evil dictator?  Perhaps not.  You need to weigh the costs versus the benefits.  On the one side of the equation you need to consider how much harm the enemy leader and state is causing or is likely to cause.  For example, how badly is he oppressing his or her people and how much threat does he or she pose to neighbouring states?  Then, on the other hand, you need to consider how much harm will be caused by going to war?  How many soldiers' lives will need to be spent, how many innocent civilians may be killed and how much money will this divert from other areas that the state could be spending on (i.e. healthcare, etc.)?  Only after considering all these factors can one decide whether it is justified to go to war.  These deliberations are difficult and they cannot be made into an exact science.  There is no magical formula one can use to calculate precisely when the use of force is justifiable and when it is not.  Yet, you still must attempt to weigh all these matters carefully to come to an informed decision.

After reading and thinking on Canada's war in Afghanistan I've come to the conclusion that it is a just war.  The Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan before the invasion of the USA and its allies harboured and supported terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida and these groups carried out attacks against allies of Canada (most famously the September 11th attack on the USA).  This makes them complicit in these acts of aggression and it then becomes "fair game" to retaliate against them.  Additionally, the Taliban regime oppressed its people badly, carrying out serious violations of human rights.  Women were harassed and beaten for such offences as not having long enough dresses, members of religoius minorities were forced to wear badges and even simple pleasures such as playing music were banned on the grounds that they were unIslamic.  This sort of severe oppression of the freedom and digntiy of one's own people might even be enough, on its own, to justify a war against the Taliban and, in conjunction with its support for terrorism, it certainly is.