quote:

---

The consequences of the first drought last year - which saw the wheat crop, on which more than 80 per cent of Afghans depend, cut by half - have gone beyond child brides. In some areas, according to the charity's survey, farmers lost between 80 and 100 per cent of their crops. According to Christian Aid, the children of the affected areas have been hit in other ways: by malnutrition, increased infant mortality, and by being sent on three-hour journeys to collect water and firewood to survive.

---

The culprit seems to be drought. But as we know from years of watching (and trying to alleviate) the famines that periodically stalk parts of Africa -- starvation rarely ensues in an entire area without the complicating factor of war.

Here, from the Toronto Star; a Canadian general and convoy enter a remote, wheat growing part of western Afghanistan.

quote:

---

But these villagers do not walk away. Instead, they are shivering in the sudden cold that descends each winter night with the setting of the highland sun. Some of the children are shoeless and shift their weight from one bare foot to the other, clutching their sides for warmth.

MacBeth tries his best to establish a convivial mood, not easy considering he and his men are clad in full battle dress and have just emerged from the rear hatches of three hulking attack vehicles, each armed with a 25mm cannon.

What's more, the LAVs have wrecked some of the dikes that criss-cross these winter-barren fields, sometimes planted with wheat or grapes.

MacBeth tries to explain. "We're driving through the fields because we've had reports that the Taliban is mining the roads."

---

{the above is taken from sgm's submission in this closed babble thread.}

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Thank goodness Peter Mackay is there to tell us how well the Afghan "mission" is proceeding.

---

Man, I was just going to say this!

I say the CPC are gearing up for an election, and want to "combat" the Operation Medusa images, and are trying to sell to Canadians they are NOW doing reconstruction efforts, which is what we were supposed to be doing, prior to Harper's advent on the scene, changing it to offensive fighting with Canadian tanks firing the first time in 50 years.

quote:

---

Najibullah, 39, is a farmer. He sold his eight-year-old daughter Somaya for $3,000 (£1,560). She is engaged to a 22-year-old man from the village, Mohammed, who has also gone to Iran to earn the money to pay the bride price.

'He has already paid a deposit of $600, which we used to buy warm clothes and food,' said Najibullah. For her part, Somaya knows she is getting married but does not know what that means....

Zarigul is 40 and also from Houscha. 'Our children are very weak from lack of food and we are worried that they will die. We feed them boiled water and sugar. We have no vegetables for them, just potatoes. Last year we had vegetables. We need help - food for ourselves and our animals.'

Children are already dying

---

And we are occupying the country which is causing this to happen!

She is presently making much noise over the lack of attention paid to refugees from Panjwai who are still homeless and hungry.

quote:

---

And we are occupying the country which is causing this to happen!

---

Are you saying this did not happen before the Canadians arrived on the scene? This is not a new practice. It is disingenious to blame Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Are you saying this did not happen before the Canadians arrived on the scene? This is not a new practice. It is disingenious to blame Canada.

Canada may or may not be exacerbating the practice.

---

Are you jesting?

Did you read the full article or even a full quote?

quote:

---

'We were not so desperate before. Now I have to marry them younger. And all five of them will have to get married if the drought becomes worse. The bride price is 200,000 afghanis [£2,000]. His father came to our house to arrange it. The boy pays in instalments. First he paid us 5,000 afghanis, which I used to buy food.'

---

Let's not point the finger exclusively at Canadians (although we have been destroying Afghan agricultural infrastructure partly as a byproduct of war -- driving through wheat fields and over grape vines-- and intentionally through blasting apart grape drying buildings).

It is not accurate to talk about "selling" and "price".

The issues here are:

Because of the drought and because of devastations brought upon crops and fields by military operations, Afghanis experience a state of dire need.

Consequently:

1) they give their daughters to marriage at a very young age
2) the family and not the bride seems to receive the (mahr) dowry, which is required by Sharia
3) in some cases the mahr is requested by the family instead of the bride herself.

What is mahr ? Roughly: A muslim groom is required to provide a "gift of friendship" to the bride. It can be $1.00 or $1M, according to the ability of the groom. It can be money or something else.

The mahr is for the bride, not the family.
The mahr is requested by the bride and not the family, in accordance to the means of the groom.

The money exchanged here is referred to as bride price (if the Guardian didn't get it wrong) which technically always goes to the family of the bride. A dowry is a mobile form of wealth that goes with the bride (whether camels, cows, cash, etc.).

An important point is that the family here speaks of having to marry their daughters at an earlier age, earlier than that to which they are accustomed, as a result of hardship, war, famine. This does not mean that the girls/ young women are necessarily taken to the marriage bed of their new husbands at this age.

Customs vary but an underage child is usually regarded as an underage child across the board. A girl may remain with her parents following marriage (more likely in matrilineal societies) or more likely here, go to live with the groom's family for some time before consummation of the marriage.

Serious question, not a pointed one. We could agree to take any and all persons wishing to come to Canada. But we won't, I don't think. So what else?

We can agree to contribute aid money, we can agree to send soldiers for active combat and reconstruction. Been done. It's still a disaster.

Although, how much of the money we promised have we anted up so far?

I'm not sure what else Canada can do at this point. This is what I see:

A military with a leadership that has much to gain and a lot invested in "seeing this mission" through. They stand to be well-funded right now since they can make some sort of argument they're useful (seeing as how we're using them). They also seem to have the typical military "we'll never back down" attitude. So they want to stay.

A government that feels the cost of this operation in lives and in money is small potatoes compared to the benefit of cozying up to the Americans over it. I'm not entirely sure what they really think will happen. I don't know if they believe our involvement will make anything better in Afghanistan, or really affect anything at all. But I believe they look at Iraq and think this is a small price to play for a welcome seat at the neocon table.

A public that scarcely considers the issue and when it does, is poorly informed about it. I also would not be surprised if it were discovered that, say, 20% of high school seniors in, say, Kelowna, are unaware we're in Afghanistan. I just don't think this is on people's radar screens much. It gets much less play than the war in Iraq, in which we don't even have active combat troops.I wonder if what opposition exists to the mission stems mostly from a general souring of opinion towards President Bush and his foreign adventures rather than any sense of serious material loss people have. I would still say the majority opinion out there is that we should be helping the Afghanis (and that we are doing so with troops in the country) and things are better with the world community, and Canada, involved. I don't see opposition to the war as a major vote-winner, but I don't see it as the opposite either. Same goes for support for it, right now anyway.

[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Not to quibble with your expertise sidra, but there are many tribes in Afghanistan, not all of whom follow the same customs, nor all of whom follow sharia law.
The money exchanged here is referred to as bride price (if the Guardian didn't get it wrong) which technically always goes to the family of the bride. A dowry is a mobile form of wealth that goes with the bride (whether camels, cows, cash, etc.).

An important point is that the family here speaks of having to marry their daughters at an earlier age, earlier than that to which they are accustomed, as a result of hardship, war, famine. This does not mean that the girls/ young women are necessarily taken to the marriage bed of their new husbands at this age.

Customs vary but an underage child is usually regarded as an underage child across the board. A girl may remain with her parents following marriage (more likely in matrilineal societies) or more likely here, go to live with the groom's family for some time before consummation of the marriage.

None of which should be happening as a result of food scarcity in an area where some 39 NATO nations are supposedly helping Afghans. -siren

---

Thank you for the precisions you kindly provided, siren. I am in total agreement with what you wrote, especially your last paragraph.

quote:

---

Well, at least they don't have the PDPA government anymore who, incidentally, banned bride price in the 1980's. It's sad. -Fidel

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
Thank you for the precisions you kindly provided, siren. I am in total agreement with what you wrote, especially your last paragraph.

Where I don't agree is when you wrote "Not to quibble with your expertise"

---

quote:

---

Our newspapers don't mention the Ben Ali dictatorship very often, in power since 1987. The west is happy with Tunisia's "political stability" with its crackdowns on protesters apparently. -Fidel

---

General Ben Ali is a product of the USA. His regime is supported by France and the USA. Elected by 99.99% of the voters. The missing 0.01 are said to have died between voters' registration and ballot day.

Democracy or what ?

BTW Privatization rules, everything on sale. Long live Uncle Sam.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

General Ben Ali is a product of the USA. His regime is supported by France and the USA. Elected by 99.99% of the voters. The missing 0.01 are said to have died between voters' registration and ballot day.

Democracy or what ?

BTW Privatization rules, everything on sale. Long live Uncle Sam.

[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

---