IS CANADA AT WAR IN AFGHANISTAN, OR NOT?

IN AN APPEARANCE last Tuesday before the House of Commons defence
committee, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor came under fire when he
tried to define Canada's role in Afghanistan. What caught the media's
attention was O'Connor's denial that we are a nation at war.

Journalists can be forgiven for their confusion, as in we have seen
the casualty count jump to 17 killed and 62 wounded in the Afghan
campaign, with almost daily reports of firefights and combat operations.

"We have to conduct operations where we engage them with firepower,"
O'Connor said. "I don't consider this war."

The same day he was downplaying the level of conflict, the army
announced the armoured Gelandewagens (G-Wagens) were not well enough
protected to be allowed outside the airfield gates in Kandahar. From
now on, only fully armoured personnel carriers are suitable.

To be fair to O'Connor, the events of 9-11 changed more than American
foreign policy; it seems they have also replaced logic with rhetoric
in common word usage.

Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, much of the world pledged
solidarity with the United States in its declared "war on terror."
Military analysts and historians questioned how it was possible to
declare war on something as vague as a human emotion.

For Americans it was not so difficult, as previous U.S.
administrations had already domestically devalued and distorted the
word "war" by declaring it on just about everything imaginable --
drugs, poverty, prostitution and illiteracy, to name just a few.

But now that Canada has signed up for this "war," it becomes
difficult for our political leaders to distance themselves from the
connotation of the word while simultaneously trying to sell a
confused public the notion that we are in fact engaged in a
"humanitarian process of nation building."

As the most uninformed observer understands, wars are fought with
weapons. By their very nature, weapons -- even those in the hands of
the so-called good guys -- are frightening. So if manipulative
opportunists want to keep their followers cowed and fearful, then
they must convince the public that the enemy possesses something
truly terrifying.

Enter the post 9-11 buzzwords "weapons of mass destruction."

Originally, this term was used to vaguely identify a secret arsenal
being amassed by then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Although no
real specifics were given, the U.S. State Department alluded to
Hussein's WMDs as a nuclear warhead. As events unfolded, Saddam's
inventory of WMDs proved to be a complete fabrication. Nevertheless,
the term "weapons of mass destruction" has now become part of the
modern lexicon used to exaggerate the security threat and garner
support for the "war" effort.

One of the most absurd uses of the term came when Richard Reid
(a.k.a. the Shoebomber) tried to use a match to ignite a few ounces
of plastic explosives aboard a passenger jet. Anyone with some
knowledge of explosives knows that without a detonator, which he did
not have, all Reid would have accomplished would be the burning of
his shoes. But Reid pleaded guilty to the charge of possessing a
"weapon of mass destruction."

Closer to home, our beloved chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick
Hillier, has proclaimed heroin a WMD to justify the continued
presence of our troops in Afghanistan. While this may seem a noble
initiative, it is important to note that the Taliban destroyed the
poppy fields during their tenure. It is only since the U.S.-led
coalition deposed the Taliban that the drug trade has once again flourished.

But to follow Hillier's argument, we must sacrifice some of our best
and brightest young Canadians to prevent our heroin addicts from
buying harmful narcotics of their own free will. Something is not
right with this logic.

However, the award for best oxymoron goes to former defence minister
David Pratt, who recently opined that "small arms" are the new
"weapons of mass destruction" as a result of their being readily
available on the black market.

Given such convolution of what used to be easily definable terms, is
it any wonder that Gordon O'Connor had difficulty explaining our role
in Kandahar?

To paraphrase former U.S. president Bill Clinton's testimony regarding his
relationship with Monica Lewinsky: That would depend on what you mean by
the word "war."