Hillier & Haiti & Other Thoughts

1. Hillier promised Martin that we could "do Kandahar" and also fulfill an equivalent mission, in terms of resources, in Sudan or elsewhere. Untrue, as others noted long ago. So whatever we do in Haiti, it will be less than we could and should have done, had Hillier not misled PM.

2. If one's concern is reducing human misery/making lives better, then the cost-benefit ratio of aid & investment in Haiti, sub-saharan Africa and similar regions, far outweighs Afghanistan, since probably nowhere on Earth is costlier, on a per capita basis, than Afghanistan, for equivalent result for median or average human being in misery. Afghanistan's combination of terrain, distance, war, culture & politics make it uniquely intractable. One aid dollar goes a lot further in a, by comparison, relatively peaceful society where the help is desired by all, and there are few if any attacks, easier terrain and less intransigent culture(s). And that is only a static analysis. Given the cited factors, having spent far more to achieve an equivalent amelioration in a given average or median case of misery, there is also a far higher probability that circumstances will cause the individual's situation to regress in Afghanistan than elsewhere. So aid to Afghanistan, as opposed to Haiti, for instance, is an extremely sub-optimal use of an aid dollar in the short term, and increasingly unproductive, comparatively, in the medium to long term.

Now that's an evaluation on the premise that the goal is increasing well-being. One may claim that Afghanistan aid, though relatively unproductive, is more necessary as a matter of national security. I think that is complete tripe, for any countries other than, arguably, the USA, & maybe, just maybe, the UK (only as a consequence of Blair foreign policy, it should be noted). Even then, I'd be doubtful, but the two cases can be made. The Taliban/Pashtun nationalists have no foreign ambitions. And, as Biden argued, gunboat/gunship diplomacy, along with intelligence work, special forces' strikes, bribery, intimidation, "divide and keep unthreatening" tactics, etc., are more than enough to further weaken the already much diminished foreign terrorist forces, and keep them at bay. In fact, I would also agree with Biden and others that, starting from zero, increasing outside military force in Afghanistan quickly reaches its point of optimum utility, beyond which its utility decreases, as its increase engenders further nationalist resistance, and becomes counter-productive. Better to have fewer forces and stay on the short, more productive, increasing-utility side of the curve. Of course there will always be the odd attack outside the region, large and small, and inevitably some will succeed. Price of empire: ask French & Brits. But no Afghan-originating risk of WMD attack. Even Pakistan worst-case scenario unlikely, or anywhere, as possessors of WMDs tend to be rational actors and know any attack would lead to their base's/country's annihilation (ex: Iran's theocrats are bad, but they are not mad, if you analyse their behaviour).

So national security justification for sub-optimal aid investment in Afghanistan is unconvincing even for USA & UK (beyond what is necessary to manipulate situation), and tripe for others. Hence resources currently expended in Afghanistan would be used more productively in Haiti, sub-saharan Africa, etc., to improve people's lives, encouraging peace and security, hence promoting liberalism, that is, eventually, (better) functioning democracies & mixed economies.

NB. Trying to being coldheaded about the matter, I have not mentioned the inestimable cost of Canadian lives and casualties, which one can take as implicit in the evaluation, or, as I am inclined, of such value as to be considered on their own, in addition to any coldminded analysis of input-output productivity.

3. Haiti has been our 2nd biggest aid recipient for a bit. Good. But if we weren't in Afghanistan, we would have done still more, and be able of doing even more in a time of crisis, like now.

4. Were we not in Afghanistan, what portion of those resources would be used, where and how - would Haiti have received much more aid and would we be doing more now? Haiti would have received more, but how much more, one can't say, would depend on government of the day. Might be roughly equivalent to now, might be more. Would be at least a bit more, though. As for crisis, assuming a goodly proportion of civilian and military personnel & resources currently based in Afghanistan were in Canada, we would indeed be doing far more, right now.

5. Given resources at our disposal, we are doing well, that is, as well as can be rationally expected, in current circumstances. It is right and natural that there be criticism - it is good and necessary pressure on all authorities to do best they can. Whatever the source of criticism, desperate Haitian expats, frustrated NGOs, concerned MPs, and others, it is understandable and useful in keeping everyone on their toes. But I don't think anyone doubts the goodwill and dedication of public servants working the file. And they should be commended for their efforts.