quote:

---

(Kandahar) The teenage convicts hold hands as they arrive at Kandahar prison by car, shackled in pairs at the ankles and wrists beneath their bulky red coveralls.

"The young ones are thieves and some are homosexuals, but mostly they are thieves," says a prison guard who refuses to give his name.

Most of the 620 prisoners behind the walls of Kandahar prison are the usual assortment of adult male thugs and bandits. But scattered among them are women and children accused of so-called crimes that human rights organizations denounce.

Four years after the end of the brutal excesses of the Taliban government, Afghan authorities supported by the U.S.-led coalition, including Canada, are still jailing teenagers convicted of homosexuality and women accused of adultery, eloping or running away from their husbands.

The Kandahar prison, known simply as Mahbas - "the jail" - to local people, is organized around four compounds ringed with small brick cells where often the only visible light is the red glow of a cigarette ember.

The prison has 11 women in one compound, where their dozen small children play. Three of the women prisoners have murdered their husbands, officials say. Most are in jail for offences not found in the Criminal Code of Canada or the US.

A couple are guilty of being "Taliban women" while the rest are in for "sex problems" and running away, according to Mohammed Aslam, the prison's head of security. He declines to offer much more of an explanation for the offences.

Human rights groups have their own interpretation. "Dozens of women are imprisoned around the country for running away from abusive or forced marriages, or for transgressing social norms by eloping," says the 2006 report on Afghanistan by Human Rights Watch. "Some are placed in custody to prevent violent retaliation from family members."

Amnesty International's 2005 report notes the same phenomena. It adds: "There remained widespread confusion among officials in the criminal justice system, including judges, as to the exact legal basis of the 'crime' of 'running away.' Such an offence does not exist in the Afghan Penal Code."

[...]

A Canadian unit from the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team paid a visit Monday to scout the possibility of starting educational training programs. They might also become managers for the ongoing renovation project and help equip the prison clinic, which has bare walls and empty shelves.

The main task of the PRT's civil-military co-operation unit is improving the professionalism and effectiveness of Kandahar's security forces.

Changing the law falls far outside their mandate. "We are in a different culture,'' said Maj. Ron Locke, head of the unit team.

"Different laws and different treatment standards are normal here. All we can do is try to influence them with advice and training."

---

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Support our troops! Export clean living to the whole wide world!

---

How about exporting "cough" democracy and basic human rights to Afghanistan, and maybe even Haiti while we're at it ?. If these things mean anything to someone going by the "unionist" handle, then they should mean something for other human beans in the world and all. United we stand, brootha.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

"Different laws and different treatment standards are normal here. All we can do is try to influence them with advice and training."

---

But the fact that Canadian forces are having to figure out responses to these kinds of situations as they go along speaks to the necessity for a full national debate on what Canada's role should be in Afghanistan, and for clear principles of action that anticipate such problems and specify Canada's position and response.

Our white man's cultural imperialism might actually make things safer for gays in Afghanistan and some other places. I suppose this would doubly annoy Rudyard Kipling and others.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
So.... other than about four of us, this story excites no comment? Everyone else pretty much good with this?

---

I had some ideas, in particular about this notion that we can export democracy, but I was really at a loss.

Perhaps what we are really talking about when we start talking about exporting democracy, we are talking more about exporting morality. "Democracy" is really about system of governance and inclusivity, while morality is much more deeply seated and not something easily "exported."

It comes down to this problem of how you enforce morality through law and order, at some point an occupying army has to work with the people whom they are occupying and build allinaces within its communities. This means, if they are to be succesful that they can not just assert their own morality, but that they must compromize will local traditions, and morality, because if they do not the people will simply go around their backs and at worst rebel outrght.

Herein lies the falacy behind enforcing an morality from the outside, doing so will ultimately lead to military defeat, despite any intentions. Therefore the military victory based on building allinace with the local community will always be at odds with the social agendad.

In the end you will always end up with the formula of enforcing some kind of tyrrany in order to enforce the order. It really is Catch 22.

Then of course, at some point the occupation will end, and again the forces of regression will reassert themselves.

What is sailent is that there are immense cultural and political struggles in play in Afghanistan, and one way or the otehr they are going to come to ahead, and there is no point in prolonging the process by trying to put an artificial cap on the contradictions. They will have to work that out for themselves, while keeping troops there is as likely as not going to act as a lighting rod and a justification for supporting the regressive forces we say we are trying to defeat.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It can be done, but a lot of infrastructure needs to be laid in areas like justice, accountability and so on before true democracy has a chance to take hold. I'm sorry I can't link directly to this article right now, but perhaps you saw it? It is interesting because Saunders, a G&M writer I am coming to have a good deal of respect for, argues that if conditions are right and things done properly, democracy and civil society can be created and nourished. In the case of Afghanistan, conditions for success look supremely unpromising from many points of view. But there is a large plurality of Afghani people who do want and deserve a better share of modernity, democracy and equality, and I also think that the Canadian military might just be exactly the right vehicle to help them achieve these things.

Thanks Eau.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
This highlights a bigger issue in Canada's Afghanistan commitment. Not more important, but larger - does Canada in its role of support for the central government enforce Afghani laws which contravene universally-recognized human rights?

---

Why would Canada even be supporting the existence of a government that enforces laws which contravene universally-recognized human rights?

You're suggesting indirectly that we should pick and choose, i.e., we should make the law in Afghanistan under such circumstances, based on what we consider to be "universally recognized".

Of course, that is what the U.S. does wherever it goes -- not only does it prop up tyrannical anti-human regimes that would fall the moment the U.S. military might departs (Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, etc.), but while there it follows no national or international laws itself (rejection of Geneva Conventions, rejection of U.N. authority, rejection of International Criminal Court, etc.). Canada must not embark on such a path.

quote:

---

Our white man's cultural imperialism might actually make things safer for gays in Afghanistan and some other places. I suppose this would doubly annoy Rudyard Kipling and others.

---

Kipling was writing favourably about the White Man's burden, not critically, but never mind that small point.

Your superimposition of your superior morality on Afghan society is either painfully ingenuous or profoundly cynical. It leaves me struggling for analogies.

Maybe Canadian troops should overthrow the Italian govt., install some puppet regime which invites us in to "stabilize" Italy, raze the Vatican to the ground and slaughter its "insurgent terrorists" -- and make the whole world safer for gays, lesbians, women, children, people needing abortions, people needing divorce, people needing birth control, people suffering from HIV/AIDS, etc. The disappearance of the Vatican (rhymes with Taliban) would cause me no grief -- but I would join hands with all Italians, including those of the cloth, who fought to resist these arrogant invading murderers.

Regarding Kipling : touche.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Unionist, you write as if you are unaware that Afghanistan is a United Nations mission?

...

I am impressed by your level of passion on this issue, but a little less so by your historical analysis.

---

dum,de,dum

quote:

---

Canada's leading efforts in Kandahar will play a key role in the transition from the U.S.-led multinational coalition to NATO leadership.

yer local defenders of freedom

---

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
So.... other than about four of us, this story excites no comment? Everyone else pretty much good with this?

---

Um, I'm just noticing this thread for the first time now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Kipling was writing favourably about the White Man's burden, not critically, but never mind that small point.

---

So why would you quote a poem written in subtle praise of imperialism if you're against imperialism ?. Quote Marx or Lenin in that case, and a few of us real lefties here might understand what it is you're driving at.

quote:

---

Maybe Canadian troops should overthrow the Italian govt., install some puppet regime which invites us in to "stabilize" Italy, raze the Vatican to the ground and slaughter its "insurgent terrorists" --
Maybe it's a poor example. The good examples are sadly ready to hand all around the world.

---

But infant mortality is not 140 out of a 1000 in Italy. People there still enjoy some semblance of civilized society. Women can vote and even choose who they have sex with and marry without being buried alive or imprisoned by extreme right-wing religious fanatics. Italian's can join unions if they want to, and not have to donate half of their annual harvests to feudal land barons and drug lords or tribal chieftans. And Italian's enjoy about 1000 more basic human rights than your average Afghani does. What a poor comparison. Here's a better one,imo.

Imagine that the Klu Klux Klan and several right wing religious groups from the States takes over Quebec after several years of infiltrating Francophone society and a dozen years of proxy war waged on Quebec by the ultra right and using Ontario as a staging country. Ontario's democracy is overthrown in turn by right wing whackos from Alabama to Michigan to Alberta. It's not the same province at some point, is it, unionist ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
dum,de,dum

---

United Nations Resolution 1623:

1. Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security
Assistance Force, as defined in resolution 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for a period
of twelve months beyond 13 October 2005;
2. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security
Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;
3. Recognizes the need to strengthen the International Security Assistance
Force, and in this regard calls upon Member States to contribute personnel,
equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and to
make contributions to the Trust Fund established pursuant to resolution 1386
(2001);
4. Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to continue to
work in close consultation with the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General as well as with
the Operation Enduring Freedom Coalition in the implementation of the force
mandate;
5. Requests the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force to
provide quarterly reports on implementation of its mandate to the Security Council
through the Secretary-General;
6. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

As to the matter at hand, no I'm not happy with it at all, it's a difficult issue but I would consider it disgraceful if Canadian forces actively aided and abetted these policies. At the very least we should be confident (for the time being) that the presence of Canadian forces can only present an opportunity to improve this (and the original post suggests some small steps) - one can only imagine what it would be like otherwise.

However, seeing how I have yet to see evidence that Canadian troops are "rounding up" gays and others, rather than merely being present where they are imprisoned, I'll have to call Hephaestion's title just a little dishonest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Why would Canada even be supporting the existence of a government that enforces laws which contravene universally-recognized human rights?

---

Nor have I ever heard of any arrest being made by ISAF or NATO forces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

There was an interesting news article on television yesterday evening. The Canadian forces in Afghanistan are taking over command of a prison in Khandahar. There are more than a dozen women in that prison. They have been raped, are charged with adultery, and face prison terms of up to 16 years. Their children are being raised in the fetid, filthy prison right along with them.

It is good to see nice Canadian lads enforcing backward, human rights abuses against women.

---

quote:

---

known simply as Mahbas - "the jail" - to local people

---

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

There are at least three prisons in Kandahar City and the surround areas, according to the maps I have seen (if I am remembering the maps correctly, it has been a while).

Kandahar city is roughly 250,000 people in size, there must be more than one prison in the city and more for the province of 850,000 people.

I could be wrong about the number of prisons however I know of no prisons being operated by the Canadian Forces in Kandahar.

Frustrated Mess

Can you provide any more details on what news station you were watching?

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Your thoughts about the difficulty or impossibility of exporting democracy are well - taken, Cueball. I don't know if "morality" is the best word, but certainly a certain kind of world view has to be established before democracy can really take root. Doug Saunders, (I think) wrote an article recently in the Globe about "a place where the US succeeded" or something like that, about a small area in the former Yugoslavia where an environment created and enforced by US military resources has permitted three or more different ethnic groups who had been viciously at each other's throats to live in a balanced, equal and accepting society they were creating.

It can be done, but a lot of infrastructure needs to be laid in areas like justice, accountability and so on before true democracy has a chance to take hold. I'm sorry I can't link directly to this article right now, but perhaps you saw it? It is interesting because Saunders, a G&M writer I am coming to have a good deal of respect for, argues that if conditions are right and things done properly, democracy and civil society can be created and nourished. In the case of Afghanistan, conditions for success look supremely unpromising from many points of view. But there is a large plurality of Afghani people who do want and deserve a better share of modernity, democracy and equality, and I also think that the Canadian military might just be exactly the right vehicle to help them achieve these things.

Thanks Eau.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

---

Ok. I am going to take exception to this on the following grounds.

1) I don't agree that Bosnia has been such a great success, nor do I thnk that much of what happened there was not the result of meddling from the outiside. Just to give you an idea of the situation in Bosnia, Serb police were refusing to vow alligence to the state of Bosnia, even last year. But that is an old story.

2) There is a myth going around here and elsewhere that Soviet rule was so much better, and in a sense evidence that "intevention" responsible for the superior quality of life during that period. I must demure.

3) The reality is that the Marxist coupe of 1978, and the subsequent invasion of 1980 came at the tail end of a relatively stable period in Afghanistan. Many of the achievements which are attributed to the Soviet Union's intervention, here by some, are atually the result of the slow and stable step by step indiginous political processe taking place after WW2 and up to 1978, when the ountry was more or less a consitutionsl monacrhy. So your statement that this is the most democracy that Afghan's have evern had is simply untrue.

The Soviet invasion was actually the death nell for those reforms, which collapsed in the 15 years of open warfare that followed the Soviet invaasion.

4) What this shows is that steady development of advanced social forms results not from well intentioned inerference but from stability itself. Stability can not be achieved unless the underlying social stresses which make Afghanistan so volitile are resolved.

Foreign troop deployments do not achieve this because siding with any one faction only polarizes internal sruggles, and creates an staility which is artifical at best, with the forces supposedly being repressed only biding their time for the end of occupation, and for new opportunities to arise (note again the situation of the Serb polica I noted eralier.)

And the occupation will end, sooner or later.

[ 28 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Webgear --

Okay, maybe so. Maybe. But if FM's info. is accurate, can we expect to see Canadian Forces releasing rape victims from the prison that they WILL be administering? (Assuming that these are not one and the same prison. If they are, can we expect to see homosexuals released as well?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

As for this. I think the NDP should immediatly demand that the Canadian government send a consul to the prison, especially if the prison comes under some part of Canadian control, for the express purpose of looking into cases that could come under Canadian refugee claims, and such should be offered where waranted.

---

Even if our immigration bureaucrats saw their way to bringing Afghani victims of rape and the many other unwritten Taliban laws, it would be a drop in the bucket. There are probably thousands and thousands of women (and boys?)who've been raped by marauding factions.

How many women have been buried alive or shot to death and then buried for breaking Taliban and other militant Islamic laws ?.

There are women being raped and murdered in this hemisphere in Guatemala and El Salvador.

However, Afghanistan is not frozen in time, it is being propelled bacwards through it by succesive military invasions by imperial powers. Ones time for learning political philosophy are somewhat limited when one is hiding in the hills, trying to avoid the zealous excesses of well-wishing Russians whose first thought is liberating you from this mortal coil.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The US seeing their opportunity began funding opposition groups further deteriorating the local situation. The Soviets then compounded their error in supporting the Marxist coupe by having the Amin executed in favour of his Communist compeditor whom subsequently aired a message prerecorded in Moscow inviting the Soviet army. No matter, the tnaks were already rolling by the time the new government was announced.

Sucked in the Soviets then proceeded to demolish 70 years of slow politcal and economic reform through fruitless military actions that led finally, not only to failre in Afghnistan but also to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

'Running away', you should know, is effectively a crime here too, also with no reflection in the written law, and this is a peaceful Pacific island no-one ever called fanatical or terroristic or even cruel. But no-one ever called it developed either, so the ideals of women freely choosing sexual partners or changing their minds about a marriage or not tolerating a little bashing now and then, all these ideas are very hard to get men even to agree with out loud. Let alone do anything about.

Comments like this --

quote:

---

Why would Canada even be supporting the existence of a government that enforces laws which contravene universally-recognized human rights?

---

Once again, now that we have no reasons to brood over the evil Soviets, who was the CIA lapdog in Pakistan throughout their proxy war with the Soviets General Zia, and where did ultra right-wing Taliban ideology come from before putting down roots in Afghanistan ?.
I say, I say it didn't come from the Kremlin.

So we should setup a refugee processing bureau in Kabul and tip toe out of Afghanistan with fingers crossed, you say. I don't agree with that twice as much as five minutes ago.

ETA: And as far as the collapse of the USSR was concerned, it had a little more to do with than just the occupation of Afghanistan. Oil, gold and commodity prices were being manipulated during a time of unprecedented economic warfare waged on the Soviet Union. And they weren't allocating "half their GNP to military" as you've mentioned before. That's not true and sounds as if you've been reading too many CIA/RAND assessments of Soviet military prowesss - essentially a bunch of flat out lies that were used by the MIC to prop-up waning upside-down socialism in the States aka Keynesian-militarism

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
Jesus. Welcome to the planet. Universally recognises? Universally nods it head when everyone's watching and money is one way or another on the line, absolutely. But recognises like agrees with? implements? Earth is going to disappoint you son.

---

Why don't you scroll back up -- Dad -- and you'll see that I was ironically quoting words by Brett Mann. My question was: If Brett Mann acknowledges that the Karzai regime commits or tolerates human rights outrages, then how can he justify armed Canadians propping up that regime?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
This is a fine example of the problems of intervening in the undeveloped world (the developed one isn't inviting us). And it's not notably unlike Kipling's project, except that it's with far more willing collaborators...but don't think there's even a bare majority of men in Afghanistan or anywhere else whose preferences about the place of women come anywhere near the minimum standards of this board.

---

I am sorry you are quite wrong. The myth of Afghan backwardness is exactly that, a myth designed to justify repeated Soviet and US interventions. It is "we" the west that destoryed 70 years of cautious step by step evolution for democratic change in Afghanistan.

From the 1976 constitution of the Republic of Afghanistan:

quote:

---

CHAPTER FOUR

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PEOPLE

ARTICLE TWENTY SEVEN: ALL THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN, BOTH WOMEN AND MEN, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND PRIVILEGE, HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BEFORE THE LAW.

ARTICLE TWENTY EIGHT: LIBERTY IS THE NATURAL RIGHT OF HUMAN BEINGS, UNLESS IT HARMS OR DAMAGES THE LIBERTY AND DIGNITY OF OTHERS, OR THE BENEFIT AND SECURITY OF THE PUBLIC AND THE NATIONAL INTERESTS. THIS RIGHT SHALL BE REGULATED BY LAW.

ARTICLE TWENTY NINE: EVERY AFGHAN WHO ATTAINS THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF THE LAW.

---

THE CONSTITUTION OF AFGHANISTAN 1976

They wrote it themselves. There were no armies their to teach them how to read the words human rights as Fidel asserts, they were moving along this path in leaps and bounds without the guiding hand of our "superior" culture.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

They wrote it themselves. There were no armies their to teach them how to read the words human rights as Fidel asserts, they were moving along this path in leaps and bounds without the guiding hand of our "superior" culture.

---

That's fine, but they've never been further away from those constitional rights as now, Cueball. The head of the CIA during that time admitted they were meddling in Afghani politics a full six months before the Soviet "invasion" at the invitation of the then Marxist government that had overthrown Prince Daoud's imperialist regime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Never mind the Soviets, Cueball. They couldn't be more absent from the big picture in Afghanistan right now. The Afghani head of surgery at the largest hospital in the country was forced to step down after Kabul fell to the mujihaden]

---

No not "Never mind the Soviets."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

No not "Never mind the Soviets."

You and others here are indicating that the Soviet intervention is evidence that the "interventionism" can be benefical. I am indicating that the Soviet intevention was not helpful.

---

They were in the middle of a civil war inspired by a human rights movement, Cue.

American, Glenn Sacks says it was probably the first civil war in history instigated by a women's rights movement.

Pakistani investigative news journalist, based in London, said that the west's war against the Soviets effectively destroyed progressive secular forces at work in Afghanistan during the
1980s

Deirdre Griswold says more or less the same thing

quote:

---

The Pentagon puts out what it calls country study books on almost every country in the world. They are updated every few years. These books contain basic information for the use of U.S. personnel traveling or working abroad.
There's nothing classified in them. They're available in most libraries.

Afghanistan—a Country Study for 1986 has of course the anti-communist line expected of a Pentagon publication. But it also contains much useful information about the changes instituted by the Afghani Revolution of 1978.

Freeing women and peasants
Before the revolution, 5 percent of Afghanistan's rural landowners owned more than 45 percent of the arable land. A third of the rural people were landless laborers, sharecroppers or tenants.

Debts to the landlords and to money lenders were a regular feature of rural life, says the U.S. Army report. An indebted farmer turned over half his crop each year to the money lender.

When the PDPA took power, it quickly moved to remove both landownership inequalities and usury, says the Pentagon report.

Decree number six of the revolution canceled mortgage debts of agricultural laborers, tenants and small landowners.

The revolutionary regime set up extensive literacy programs, especially for women. It printed textbooks in many languages—Dari, Pashtu, Uzbek, Turkic and Baluchi. The government trained many more teachers, built additional schools and kindergartens, and instituted nurseries for orphans, says the country study.

Before the revolution, female illiteracy had been 96.3 percent in Afghanistan. Rural illiteracy of both sexes was 90.5 percent.

By 1985, despite a counter-revolutionary war financed by the CIA, there had been an 80-percent increase in hospital beds. The government initiated mobile medical units and brigades of women and young people to go to the undeveloped countryside and provide medical services to the peasants for the first time.

Among the very first decrees of the revolutionary regime were to prohibit bride-price and give women freedom of choice in marriage.

Historically, said the U.S. manual, gender roles and women's status have been tied to property relations. Women and children tend to be assimilated into the concept of property and to belong to a male.

Also: A bride who did not exhibit signs of virginity on the wedding night could be murdered by her father and/or brothers.

The revolution was challenging all this.

---

Ok, back to my original question: Where did the current Islamo-fascist imperialists in Afghanistan come from ?.

The point is that Soviet intervention began with the overthrow of Daud, a KGB crime very similar in nature to the Mossadeq overthrow in Iran in the Fifties. The civil war, as you call it, was a direct result of the 1978 coupe.

The point is that it was the coupe, that gave the US the leverage point for its own intervention, and these two things combined resulted in the civil war. The soviets, out of military necessity then destoryed 70 year of peaceful reform and development systematically.

They fought the war they did because it is basically the only way to fight the war. In the process they destroyed the country, overturning 70 years of democratic and social reform.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
They came from Afghanistan.

---

Not all of them, Cue. The Talibanization of Afghanistan came from militia groups who aided and abetted surrogates and mercenaries from as far away as Brooklyn, NYC and Saudi Arabia. Taliban bears little semblance to moderate Peshwar and Pashtun Islam.

Khaled Ahmed Interview: Conversations with History

quote:

---

Interviewer: One gets the sense as a neophyte to the history of your country that there was a major turning point in the eighties with the emergence of the Reagan administration and the Afghan War, the Soviet invasion, and so on, and Pakistan's role through its ISI in that whole process. Would you comment on the extent to which a major downward spiral in your country began in that period?

What was really unfortunate in the beginning of the Afghan War was that our democracy was overthrown. The process in Pakistan is that democracy becomes extremely destabilized and there are internal disturbances, and then finally the army overthrows the civilian government, and that's what happened at the beginning of the Afghan War. And we had a general running the country who was reacting against what had gone before.

This is General Zia.

General Zia. Together with the religious parties, he thought that he should once and for all extirpate all secular socialist thinking, and to ensure that, he enforced the Sharia in Pakistan.

At the same time, he participated in the Afghan War through an army of surrogates. That was a grave mistake that we made, that our army, which in 1971 had fought in India, surrendering about 90,000 soldiers as POWs, this time fought a covert war -- a deniable war in Afghanistan -- through people who were actually mercenaries. That tended to change Pakistan's society, because these warriors lived in civil society and were exempted from the law because they carried arms and were trained as military people. They were also protected against the normal process of law by the intelligence agencies. That led to a gradual diminution of the writ of the state in Pakistan. Then we reached a point when the state did not exist at all in certain cities. For instance, in Karachi we got used to having no state jurisdiction at all. The "exempted" militias ran the city and also ran the government.

Let's explicate this a little. These warriors, these surrogates, were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Is that how this process begins? And Zia, in terms of his strategic concept, thought that by winning in Afghanistan, he would acquire for his country strategic depth. ...

---

Institute for International Studies, UC Berkeley

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Dude I didn't stick the Durrand line right through the Pashtu community, cutting of Baluchistan and putting it in the British zone of India. You can blame that on Victoria and Czar Nicholas.

Now back to the 1978 coupe.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

The 1978 coupe. The 1978 coupe. The 1978 coupe.

---

quote:

---

CHAPTER FOUR

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PEOPLE

ARTICLE TWENTY SEVEN: ALL THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN, BOTH WOMEN AND MEN, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND PRIVILEGE, HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BEFORE THE LAW.

ARTICLE TWENTY EIGHT: LIBERTY IS THE NATURAL RIGHT OF HUMAN BEINGS, UNLESS IT HARMS OR DAMAGES THE LIBERTY AND DIGNITY OF OTHERS, OR THE BENEFIT AND SECURITY OF THE PUBLIC AND THE NATIONAL INTERESTS. THIS RIGHT SHALL BE REGULATED BY LAW.

ARTICLE TWENTY NINE: EVERY AFGHAN WHO ATTAINS THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF THE LAW.

---

The U.S.-Pakistan proxy war to reverse the revolution made all that change impossible in the here and now.

Jolly good show guys!

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Then again you are not so far removed from Rudyard Kipling are you Fidel? For you its the socialist's burden isn't it. This was clearly displayed by your support of the British Labour party's continued support of imperialism in Singapore untill they got their guy(a leftwing fascist who you seem to love) in there.

Indeed as I mentioned before, your dwindling world view is exactly what got so many indigenous people killed by your red fascism. Those poor primitive communists, lets bring some developement on their ass. Let us get one thing strait, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROGRESS! It is a fixiation, a ghost in bad need of an excorcism.

I'm amazed that people like Cueball and Skdadl continue to even take you seriously.

On a more general point about anti-imperialism, I do find it reactionary for the most part. There needs to be a more openended, non-manichian conception of anti-imperialism. While you should never cheer on the invaders, there's plenty of people in the "resistance" to dislike as well. Take Iraq for example. One of the only groups that probably deserves any support is the Worker Communist party. While I don't share affinity with them, they are at least closest to my type of thinking. Don't be so blind as to give acceptance to the likes of the Sadr boys and such. Leftwing anti-imperialism at its worst continues to do this.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Vigilante ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
They got rid of an imperialist. Happened several times in Europe and America. I doubt there are many fond memories of Prince Daoud, his cousin the King. There doesn't seem to be much of a movement to bring back the Romanovs. I hear King Zog, a one-time Nazi sympathizer, wants his throne back in Albania. And what a shithole it is now

---

Cueball has a point.

I posted a link to a timeline of events in the 1970s in Afghanistan and it's clear to me that the trigger for the entire sad state of affairs in Afghanistan in the late 1980s was petty infighting between Babrak Karmal and then-leader Mohammad Daoud (see this link).

The "revolution of 1978" is more accurately termed the "revolution of 1973", since that's when the government of Afghanistan first began taking the notion of female equality seriously.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by solarpower:

I'm at a loss on it. If those women are freed they will likely be killed by family members.

Kids playing there! Reality can be unimaginable at times.

The only hope i have in this is that Canadians will treat them better. Other than that, the best we can do is make as many people aware of this as we can.

I'll be doing my bit.

---

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Unionist quoting Rudyard was simply to illustrate how the logic of imperialists works,not to support him in anyway. Is there no way but down for your intelligence to slide?

---

Oh! A letter to lil ol moi. How nice, V. You flatter me.

Yes, and I always quote Adam Smith or John Locke when arguing from a socialist point of view.
unionist seems to be aware of his mistake in this thread. But when he first posted it in another thread about Afghanistan, it was just a cut and paste job and calling on us to "google Kipling" as if it were self evident that Kipling was condemning white men for their imperialism when, in fact, doing the opposite. Kipling's poem was not written to "illustrate" the logic of imperialists because Kipling was one himself ...ffs. I can think of sixty-four anti-imperialists who provide crystal clear insight into the megalomaniacal minds of imperialists and Islamo-fascists alike.

ETA: In fact. this is similar rightist logic being used to turn Canadian's off of the idea of public health care. That conservatives and liberals have fucked up socialized medicine is supposed to be interpreted by us that ALL socialized medicine must be flawed and in need of "market solutions", doesn't make sense to me and other socialists. And therefore, that the only solution must be American-style health care, makes even less sense based on all evidence that says we don't want their shitty to crappy overall results or price tag. But they refuse to admit that this is what they are proposing when planning to hack off pieces of our medicare and hand them to friends of the CPC and liberal parties. Of course, you and I know that they aren't socialists who've fuqued up socialized medicine in Canada.

In the same way, not all UN peace keeping missions necessarily have to be based on or have the same end results as William McKinley era wars of conquest. I don't follow that logic, neither do many socialists with good intentions for Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, I'm sure.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
The "revolution of 1978" is more accurately termed the "revolution of 1973", since that's when the government of Afghanistan first began taking the notion of female equality seriously.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

---

quote:

---

Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan — U.S. President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Wednesday, flying to the country secretly to support its fledgling government in the face of rising violence from al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

...

Mr. Bush also was to preside over a ceremonial ribbon-cutting for the U.S. Embassy. Before leaving Afghanistan, Mr. Bush was to give a pep talk to troops back at Bagram Air Base.

...

Mr. Bush and his wife Laura stepped off Air Force One under a bright, sunny sky against a background of snowcapped mountains. Secret Service agents were deployed around the plane with automatic weapons.

---

quote:

---

However, seeing how I have yet to see evidence that Canadian troops are "rounding up" gays and others, rather than merely being present where they are imprisoned, I'll have to call Hephaestion's title just a little dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
So.... other than about four of us, this story excites no comment? Everyone else pretty much good with this?

---

I usually avoid these themes because a 40 hour work week of this stuff is enough for me.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
So.... other than about four of us, this story excites no comment? Everyone else pretty much good with this?

---

Apprarently one of us would quote Kipling to the Taliban and mujihaden war lords until the militants realized the err of their Islamo-fascist ways.

Another of us wants to setup wayward camps for downtrodden and abused peasants and process their
refugee applications. Never mind that they'll need some level of security for this safehouse in the middle of 18th century Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:

I usually avoid these themes because a 40 hour work week of this stuff is enough for me.

---

quote:

---

Frustrated Mess

Can you provide any more details on what news station you were watching?

---

quote:

---

I'm at a loss on it. If those women are freed they will likely be killed by family members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Or they could hand out automatic weapons to "endangered women" and gays, and tell them if any male family members meet a sticky end that no questions will be asked.

I daresay you'd see a change of attitude by the male family members right fukkin' quick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
In any case I don't think it's "imperialistic" to insist on basic human decency to others and that includes prohibiting the practice of arresting homosexuals for being homosexual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I'm not sure about that. Death before "dishonour". It think they'd just get better guns, or use poison, or kill them as they slept, or whatever the hell it took.

Not that your idea doesn't have appeal.

---

Oh come on, you're all for the proliferation of handguns and boosting the profits of Baretta and Colt Corporation in another thread. What's wrong with passing out a few "persuaders" to those who could rilly use'm ?.

“Can we expect to see Canadian Forces releasing rape victims from the prison that they WILL be administering? (Assuming that these are not one and the same prison. If they are, can we expect to see homosexuals released as well?)”

I honestly can not answer those questions? I would hope that there will be a policy made by the government about these issues that you have mentioned. I think this is more a political issue than a military issue, the government sets the rules that the military has to follow.

I do not know what the PRT (the military side) can do about this issue without direction from Ottawa.

Eventually the Afghans generated the Taliban, who got rid of the warlords, almost. (And the heroin, the irony of which runneth over.) They were progressing into something -- more genial, slack, corrupt -- when the Bin Laden business came up and we came in. The women go back into hiding as the warlords return...and warlordism doesn't lead to anything, unlike charismatic fanaticism.

The practical problem is than in order to win the military battle you must ally with the forces that exist in the country, and to some extent accept their terms. Accepting their terms means to at least a certain extent accept their moral code. If you assert the primacy of your moral code, what you call "decency," you will defeat your military objective by alienating your allies.

The two problems are juxtaposed in practice.

The Soviets had the same problem, they did not make afghanistan a better palce they made it worse. Read the 1976 Contistution as written under President Daud prior to the 1978 communist coupe.

You will find protections for all people in that document. The Soviets destroyed 70 years of relatively peacful step-by-step democratic development, made by the Afghans themselves, without the help of foreign armies.

The foreign armies destoryed all that. Repeatedly here the case that Soviet times were better is made. That is a myth. In actuallity the people who say that are just giving credit to them in error, really the USSR took control of a relatively "decent" Asian state and turned it into a mad house.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
The Soviets, who had some perfectly legitimate ideas (ie what I would call decency), ran roughshod, and fucked up. The Americans, who also had some perfectly legitimate ideas (ie what most of the world would call decent: nationalism & such), ran roughshod, and fucked up. In combination they stirred up warlords, which is what you get anywhere, from South Central LA to China, if all other authority is trashed. Eventually the Afghans generated the Taliban, who got rid of the warlords, almost.

---

Not "they" and not in combination. The US allied itself with an illegitimate militia government in Pakistan led by General Zia whose prime mission statement was to quash secular socialist thought in the region. If it comes down to chicken and egg cause-effect, several Marxist groups came into existence because imperialism was falling out of favour with landless peasants and women who were tired of being sold into bondage. The majority of Marxists felt that allying themselves with western enemies of secular socialist thought was a bad idea. All except Prince Daoud who spent five years as president appeasing Marxist revolutionaries with pieces of paper but no real action on the social justice front.

Pakistan's democracy was overthrown during that time that the CIA-proxy war was fought by mercenaries, surrogates and Afghan warlords against the Soviets in the 1980's. Think Russia 1922 as 16 nation's armies surrounded the Bolsheviks from all directions to put down the revolution. In this instance, the mercenaries were coming from as far away as islamic schools in Brooklyn, NY, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and select tribes of Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Gloom, doom. The whole Afghanistan mission is The Man Who Would Be King (there's your Kipling reference.)

---

Yes, we should refer to a 20th century imperialist to learn that imperialism is wrong. It's all freaky-deaky, and we're jinxed from the onset. We'd better not try - give up because we're no better than imperialists for wanting to help out poor and desperate people living in a country that was Talibanized by foreigners and what amounts to 18th century conditions.

We only have to look at the records of successive imperialist wars of conquest to know that we, too, would fall under Kipling's hypnotic, and somewhat poetic I might add, imperialist power trance when confronted with UN obligations for peace keeping and the promotion of democracy where it is being assaulted by Islamo-facscist imperialists. It's the white man's curse, and our skin is white too, so that makes it double-double toil and trouble.

And once again, the Soviets did not Talibanize Afghanistan. And saying as much would be menacing to the truth. Just thought I'd slide that in there for posterity's sake.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
No they only helped make the taliban possible with the US adding the lit match to the soviet gas of 1978/9.

---