Front Burner - A buried history of Canada’s Afghan war

Episode Date: November 13, 2023

In 2007, military historian Sean Maloney was commissioned to write Canada’s account of the war in Afghanistan. Unlike other official histories, this one would be documented as it was being fought. The three-volume The Canadian Army in Afghanistan, was set to be published in 2014, but it didn’t see the light of day for nearly a decade due to, according to Maloney, concerns within the military. The book was quietly, and some say reluctantly, released last summer. CBC senior defence reporter Murray Brewster on the long delay, what’s actually in the book, and why historical accounts of war can be so divisive. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Damon Fairless. A month after 9-11, in October 2001, Canada committed to sending troops to Afghanistan as part of a multinational military operation led by the U.S. The United States military has begun strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We are joined in this operation by our staunch friend Great Britain. Other close friends, including Canada, Australia, Germany and France...

It would become Canada's longest war. More than 40,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces served, and 158 were killed. Afghanistan, inarguably Canada's longest and least understood war. A war within living memory. A war that divided Canadians. Specific things that have stayed with me as a result of the tour over there. It's just the level of man's

inhumanity to man really I guess sort of can sum all that up to really see it and experience it firsthand is shocking you know. In 2007 in the middle of the war the Canadian military commissioned a historian to write Canada's official account of it. One of the things that stands out about that official history is that it was documented as the war was being fought, in real time. The result is a three-volume book called The Canadian Army in Afghanistan, which was expected to be published in 2014. The other thing that stands out is that, for nearly a decade, this book hasn't seen the light of day. According to its author, there were concerns from within the military about what he had written. Not that it wasn't accurate, but that it contained uncomfortable truths. The book was quietly released last summer, but a limited run that

makes it more or less inaccessible for anyone who actually wants to read it. Today, CBC defense and security reporter Murray Brewster on the long delay, what's actually in the book, and why historical accounts of war can be so divisive. Hey Murray, thanks so much for coming on FrontBurner. You're welcome. Okay, so what we know is that this was commissioned by the Government of Canada and the military. Putting together a history of a conflict like this is standard protocol. There's an official history of Canada's role in World War II, for example. And a military historian, Sean Maloney, was asked to take this on.

Can you just give me a bit of background about who he is? Well, Sean Maloney is a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. He's been there for years. I had run into him a couple of times when he was working the official history of Canada's war in Afghanistan. He had popped into the media tent when I was there. Afghanistan. He had popped into the media tent, uh, when I was there. And, um, he was one of the few, uh, characters who would come and sit down and chat, uh, about, uh, what he was seeing. And it was very open about that. He was, that he was writing this. And when you say seeing too, like we should point out as far as academics go, this is not an ivory

tower academic. This is a guy who's witnessed the war firsthand. He spent a lot of time there, right? That's correct. I mean, he was embedded with Canadian troops and Canadian commanders. He had unfettered access to Canadian commanders. He also had access to documents. Many things that the journalists who covered the war, such as myself, did not have. And he would go into theater for two months at a time, every six months.

And so he spent an enormous amount of time on the ground. Throughout the course of the war. That is correct. Yes. So why was writing this history important to him? I'm going to use his own words. It's in the acknowledgements, because this is visceral for him, I think. And he ends the acknowledgements by saying, finally, to Mullah Omar of the Taliban and his supporters, as well as those who facilitated the activities of the suicide bomber that destroyed my vehicle, wounded two Canadians and murdered nine Afghan men, women and children on the 21st of June 2006.

The evil that he and his colleagues perpetrated that day gave me the resolve to see this project through to the end. It speaks volumes about his take on the war. It speaks volumes about his determination to see this history published. We were part of it. We were deeply involved in it.

In my view, it had to be covered and recorded. And I'd like to get into some of that, but I guess before that, I have a question. So we've got these three volumes. It was finished in 2014. So like almost a decade ago. But as you mentioned, it was only just recently and very quietly put out this past summer. Why the delay? Why this 10-year delay? There are a number of reasons for that. But mostly, I would suggest to you that the narrative that Dr. Maloney espouses about the history of Afghanistan is very blunt. He's very direct, does not hold back in his views of allies and how our allies viewed us. He doesn't hold back in terms of the infighting that went on between the Department of National Defense and other government departments throughout the war. throughout the war. And in its response to us, to this story, the army has said that it acknowledges that some of what Dr. Maloney has written is uncomfortable truths or truths that

are uncomfortable for some people. Now, they deny, however, that they were attempting to suppress the history, but there was a number of reviews and a lot of bureaucracy that the work had to go through to actually make it into print. I should also just mention the book has a disclaimer from the government on it, right? Can you give me a sense of what that says? I can read you the top end of it. says? I can read you the top end of it. The views expressed in this publication are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or

positions of the publisher, the editor, the government of Canada, the Department of National Defense, and the Canadian Armed Forces, or any of its affiliates. That's quite the statement. It's almost, in my estimation, disowning what you are about to read. Even though it was commissioned by the army.

Yeah, which is kind of peculiar for an official history. It was commissioned by the army, exactly. Yes. So you touched on this a bit, but the way Maloney wrote about Canada's role in Afghanistan was uncomfortable for some folks. Can you just go a bit into detail about the roadblocks he came across when he was trying to get the book published? when he was trying to get the book published? Well, according to Professor Maloney, the roadblocks began to appear shortly after he handed in his first draft. And we saw the work being moved between various parts of the army,

various parts of national defense as to who was going to publish it. But there were some specific concerns that were raised directly to him. One of them was that he was criticizing other government departments and that he was criticizing government policy and he had to remind those who were complaining that he had full academic freedom. There were a number of people that tried to step in and interfere with my editorial prerogative.

Another colonel stepped in and said, I can't contradict an established Canadian position for political reasons. And I said, yes, I can. I have academic freedom on this and editorial control. At one point, he had a list of concerns that had been given to him, and he took them directly to the former chief of the defense staff who reviewed them and found 90% of them to be unfounded. I also read in your piece about this, that at one point Maloney discovered that certain

sections of text were being rewritten without his permission. They wind up bringing in about three different editors, one per volume. So there's problems with editorial continuity. And then in one volume, I found out the editor was rewriting what I'd written and distorting what I'd said. And I had to step in and deal with that.

I want to come back to that. But before I do, maybe it makes sense to hear a little bit more about what's in the book. You know, you've read sizable chunks of it. As someone who's covered the war in Afghanistan too, and someone who knows the history really well, when you were reading it, what really stood out to you? A number of things stood out to me. Um, he gives in many respects, uh, a lot of granular detail about some of the decisions and some of the thinking that was going on in the army for certain periods strategically, but also for individual battles that took place. For example, the signature battle in Afghanistan was Operation Medusa, which took place in 2006. Operation Medusa is one of the largest coalition efforts

to be launched in Afghanistan to date. About a thousand Canadian soldiers are leading the operation, which also includes other NATO troops and the Afghan National Army. Their goal is to root out Taliban insurgents from their stronghold in the south near Kandahar. Canadian Brigadier General David Fraser is NATO's commander in southern Afghanistan. The general issued a clear command. Well, Operation Medusa was the bloodiest battle in NATO history. It cost Canadian soldiers their lives, cost billions of dollars, but also changed the course of the Afghan war. He lends a lot of insight into where it came from and how it unfolded and what was in the minds of the commanders as it was being prosecuted.

So it was very interesting and especially for the troops who were there, it will certainly, there are portions of it that will certainly be an eye-opener. Okay. And so I want to go into that just a little bit. I guess I kind of have a couple of things I want to go into that just a little bit. I guess I kind of have a couple things I want to ask you. The first, and just really broadly, can you help, because the Taliban had dug themselves in in positions in the western portion of Kandahar province. The Taliban were defeated soundly, and it was a turning point for the war in the sense that the Taliban realized that they couldn't sense that the Taliban realized that they couldn't move and take over an entire province in one shot. So it changed the nature of the war in the sense that it converted the war into an insurgency,

a hit and run campaign that continued for as long as Canada was on the ground in Afghanistan. Okay. So, so given that, then what are the, what are the concerns about how Maloney portrayed this pivotal moment in Canadian action in the war? It's funny to ask the questions what the concerns are because in reading it as a journalist, I don't see any concerns. I think I just see a very blunt assessment as to how the war took place. He questions some of the decisions, some of the decisions that in some cases led to losses of life. He fully acknowledges that his depiction of events is going to be challenged. And he says that his view, his take on things did not and does not represent the official position.

So it is bound to stir some debate both within the veterans community and among the Army as an institution itself. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people, and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income. That's not a typo, 50%.

That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. So it could be that some army commanders who have read or who will read Maloney's account of Operation Medusa might take his observations as criticism. He was also pretty pointed in his criticism of Canada's global allies in the war, right? I'm curious how those went over.

Well, I'm going to come back and use Professor Maloney's words himself. Basically, he talks about how the existing literature in the United States and the United Kingdom dealing with the war in Afghanistan, that I'm quoting here, has thus far virtually written Canada out of history. Worse, American and British failures are now assumed to be Canadian failures as well. And where Canada or the Canadian army is mentioned, it is cursory in nature, derisive in tone or both. And that is a sentiment that is stitched

throughout his narrative. We are part of a coalition. There's no doubt about that. But we had our own particular objectives. We had our own particular ways of going about doing business. We weren't always smart about it. We needed to understand that and how we could

improve on that in the future. What I'm curious about is what are these disagreements about Maloney's writing about the war tell you about how contentious it is to write a historical account? What, what, about what gets remembered or how it's framed or what gets forgotten in a war? Well, it's interesting because we have a tough time talking about war in this country.

That's been my impression. If you look at the two official histories of, uh, the previous wars of the last century, the first world war and the, uh, and the second World War, they were written many, many years after. War is painful, it's ugly, it's messy. And I think that the disagreements over the sacrifices and the loss of life are something that Canadians really struggle with. Canadians are often referred to as reluctant warriors. And I think that is reflected in our reluctance to look at our history and our history in armed conflicts. So Canada's role in recent years more generally has come under a lot of criticism that it was ill-prepared to win the peace after battle for one. It's also been criticized for not doing

enough to help Afghans get out of the country after the U.S. withdrawal in 2021. Do you think there's a broader reticence to look back on the war in particular because of those issues? There is definitely a broader reticence to look back at the war, both politically and socially in this country. All you have to do is look at the parliamentary committee that looked into the evacuation of Afghans who work for Canadians. I wrote about it that last year and how we were just very eager to forget what happened. And my, you're getting my personal, uh, my personal views here in the sense that, um, Canadians have not had a fulsome discussion about the war in Afghanistan, why we were there and how the war evolved and what it means for us as a nation and what it means for our role in the world. And I think that that discussion is long overdue because outside of our borders, the world is largely on fire. And I think it's incumbent upon Canadians to reflect upon our experience in Afghanistan and to learn from it and then to figure out where we are in the world.

You've described the war in Afghanistan as our least understood war. What do you think is least understood about it? When you put young men and young women into harm's way. You, in my estimation, owe it to them to have a fulsome debate about the reasons that you're doing it. And as I documented in my own book 12 years ago, there really wasn't that. It was political expediency.

It was, we didn't go into Iraq, so we had to do something to satisfy the Americans, so we went into Afghanistan. And I think that the fact that the war was originally portrayed as a response to terrorism, the terrorism of 9-11, As a response to terrorism, the terrorism of 9-11. But then it morphed into becoming a nation building exercise where we were building schools and we were helping young women go to school. The objectives changed. And I think that there was a great deal of confusion in the public's mind. And one of the things that is important about this particular work by Dr. Maloney is the fact that it focuses almost exclusively as to like what happened on the battlefield, as opposed to what happened politically. Because the other reason that this war is misunderstood is because there was a great deal of focus on the politics and the divisions and

the political lines that were created by the war. And for those reasons, I think that history was not fully served in terms of looking back as to why we were there and what our objectives were. The idea of a protracted conflict like this that we can't get out of, or perhaps should or should not get out of, that's a discussion we need to have. And that's a political discussion at the highest level in terms of what Canada wants

and how Canada's going to get it. And that's another thing we can learn from this. You've talked to a lot of members of the military who actually want to see this book, get a wider distribution, want to read it. I'm curious what they told you about the cost of not being able to do that, what that's like for them, about not being able to understand Canada's role in Afghanistan in this comprehensive way that's laid out in this book. They are disappointed, first of all, with some of the reluctance and the infighting that they've seen that has gone into the publication of this book. But what's at stake for them is validation, first of all. They want to understand their own history. They want to understand their place in the history of this conflict. One of the soldiers I spoke with said that he wants to be able to point to this work and point his kids to this work to say, this is what I did.

It's disappointing. Our history deserves to be told. It deserves to be in a proper historical context, in a three-volume set like it is. It deserves to be out in the public, in the libraries. While that's been important to many soldiers, it's even more important since the events of 2021 when the Taliban took over, because the war is now framed as a defeat. And I know that a number of soldiers who fought in that conflict, and I'm talking from privates and corporals all the way up to the highest ranks, are struggling to make sense of the sacrifices.

And that's why they look at this book as important because they see it as a, not only a validation, but it helps them make sense of what they went through. We're living in a time of war. There's Israel and Hamas right now. There's Russia, Ukraine. There's a lot of misinformation, disinformation, clash of narratives. With that as the kind of broader context, I'm curious what you think this story of a history being essentially shelved, what does

that teach us about how we remember or try to remember what's going on right now? Well, it's a reminder, first of all, that history is a living thing. And there have been disagreements in the past about the narratives that were part and parcel with the previous wars. Like, for example, I will give it to you. I, if you remember in the Second World War, Canada suffered enormously in the Dieppe

raid. And the narrative that came out of that was that for every life sacrificed at Dieppe, 10 were saved at D-Day because the Allies learned something from it. And I remember covering the 65th anniversary of Dieppe and standing on the beach with some of the survivors and the Veterans Affairs Minister of the day repeated that line. And the look on the faces of some of the veterans was just incredible. In fact, one of them was so angry when he heard it, he banged his cane on the pavement and said, bullshit. And said, bullshit. And that to me is a visceral example of the stories that we tell ourselves. We seem to feel as though they're carved in stone and there's no other version of it out there. But there are. There are going to continue to be disagreements about our history. What's important, especially in this day and age, because you have so much misinformation and disinformation out there, is it speaks to the importance of people like Professor Maloney who are, who is intellectually honest, who will call a sp like almost 13 years down the road from Afghanistan. And that's important. It's important for not only history to debate it, but it's important for democracy as well, I think. Murray, thanks so much. It's been great talking to you. Great talking to you too.

Thanks. Only 1,600 copies of the three volumes of the Canadian Army in Afghanistan have been published, half in French and half in English. A statement from the Canadian Armed Forces says that it hopes to one day produce a downloadable electronic version, but no concrete plans are currently underway to make that happen. That's it for today. I'm Damon Fairless. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. I'll talk to you tomorrow.