In essence, Canada's objective in Kandahar, Afghanistan was to conduct operations in order to support the effort to create a secure, democratic and self-sustaining nation state. With this prospect as the foundation of their deployment, the concept that the military was simultaneously committing war crimes is nearly unthinkable. The mission was believed to be a brief peace-enforcement action that would eventually allow the new Islamic government to rebuild its war-torn country. Instead, Canadian soldiers became involved in the most extended period of conflict in Canadian history, of which all of their combat skills were needed to fight a determined and deadly insurgency; The unapologetic truth among this, is that there is a disconnect between the way they were expected to act, and the way they did act, during the war. The Canadians evidently had a more sweeping agenda than just fighting an insurgency: to bring a measure of calm, to improve lives, to establish law and order. Sometimes they succeeded: child mortality declined, more women survived childbirth. A new generation of Afghans now enjoys much greater access to education than its predecessor, despite the fact that many schools were burned down. A cascade of foreign aid brought some of the trappings of modernity to parts of the country that had never seen television, cellphones and the internet, however the Canadian combat mission unfortunately failed to meet the goal of establishing security. Eventually, it was revealed that Canada, alongside NATO forces, had been cycling their Taliban detainees into Afghan custody, during which about 30 percent of prisoners are regularly abused and mistreated: a war crime, forbidden by the Geneva Convention. All of this sparked controversy in Canada's parliament, prompting questions about whether the country was respecting international law; this is when most Canadians began to seriously doubt the nobility of the war. The fact that Canadians were transferring the detainees to the Afghans all the while being aware of the torture allegations is in direct violation of The General Protection of Prisoners of War. Military life does not usually reward curiosity; personnel are encouraged to ‘stay in their lane' or ‘watch their arcs' and often refer to problems as being ‘above their pay grade' Most soldiers are not experts in international law: they trust their commanders; and it's difficult to conclude that the commanders violated that trust. Somebody, however, had to make the call to deploy; they are unapologetically to blame In May of 2008, it was estimated that over 200 civilians had been killed by foreign forces during the first four months of the year, often in joint operations with Afghan security forces. So not only were the troops acting unlawfully towards members of the Taliban, the detainees just as one example, they were acting unlawfully towards the innocent civilians as well. This goes against all core Canadian values of peace and security and significantly altered the paradigm of the mission's purpose. The fact that 200 civilians had been killed in addition suggests the allegations that soldiers hadn't been following the ROE's properly were correct. I'm not foolish. I'm certain in the heat of the moment, it is likely not about following the rules, it is about saving the life of a fellow soldier; that victory is scribed into our human nature, consequently, above all else. The soldiers are not to blame: when the decision is made to deploy, it is absolutely vital that it is rooted into law that the ROEs will prevail against individuality. If patriotism or loyalty or morality is threatening those laws, troops must not be posted. That is where the true problem lies; it was never a question of if the troops had failed Canada, Canada had failed the troops by putting them in an endless ultimatum of morality versus instinct, the law versus the individual; of which of course, the overbearing prospect will always be the individual. The mission must be surrounding a conflict so justified, the soldiers would stop at nothing to end the injustices which first prompted them to act; going as far as to say, they'd put the law over saving a fellow soldier. The thing about Afghanistan is that Canada never should have been there. The moment the prospect shifted from “peacekeeping” to “peacemaking,” NATO forces should have known the war would not be over until there was a winner; a dilemma heavily weighted in favor of NATO troops to begin with. There must be an alternative, better judgement must be applied; judgement that will favor ending injustice by abiding the law over winning a war of individualism and falsely-promised victory. It is not “just-war,” it is the uncertainty of collaboration, social justice and human life, and the truth must surface from beyond the facade before the mistakes of Afghanistan are repeated.