But seriously, I think Babble debates on this topic so far have been informative, civil, for the most part, and maybe even productive - as in permitting those of us who hold different viewpoints to find some common ground. So I'd like to start a thread by absolutely recognizing the truth of the arguments of those who oppose our Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This article from CounterPunch,Despair and disappointment in Afghanistan by Phil Gasper pulls no punches in depicting a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, enumerating the crimes of America in creating the Taliban and so forth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yeah, you'd think people would begin to understand the phrase; "Afghanistan is not your country," if it was repeated enough, but that doesn't seem to penetrate.

---

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Same old tired warmongering jingoistic nonsense, Brett. These countries will soon find an excuse to leave in utter wretched defeat - trying to do some damage control along the way - the same as they will do in Iraq. What will you say then?

---

That's unfair and narrow-minded.

I'm dead-set against the mission in Afghanistan, but appreciate the care Brent takes to articulate his case for it. Additionally, I appreciate the opportunity to re-evaluate my own position based on new information.

Those who can make a case for the invasion of Afghanistan, on humanitarian grounds, should be allowed to say their peace. Although most are only able to regurgitate a few word-bytes, Brent takes the care to flesh out and articulate his position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, you know as well as I do that this is a spurious point, as the boundaries of the Pashtu tribal areas bridge both countries. Unless of course you are actually suggesting that Wharistan is not actually part of Pakistan, and the Pakistani national army should probably not be there, as it is "not their country." then I might concede your point.

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

No. Not the Pashtun presence on both sides of the Durand Line and their presence in Balochistan.

Rather the ingrained belief in Pakistani military and political circles that they were shortchanged in 1947,sabotaged by India regarding the Bangladesh debacle in 1971 along with the ongoing Kashmir dispute and threatened by the Baloch tribesmen.

Having been asked to provide an alternative, I did. Did it have the slightest inpact on the ignorant drivel that Brett spews? None whatsoever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

No. Not the Pashtun presence on both sides of the Durand Line and their presence in Balochistan.

Rather the ingrained belief in Pakistani military and political circles that they were shortchanged in 1947,sabotaged by India regarding the Bangladesh debacle in 1971 along with the ongoing Kashmir dispute and threatened by the Baloch tribesmen.

A destabilised Afghanistan makes for less political difficulty in Pakistan.Pakistan's strategic objective is not an equitable resolution. Keeping Afghanistan unstable is an end in itself.

---

Be that as it may, it is clear though that Wharistan, Balochistan et al, are not adjutant to some Islands off the coast of Newfoundland settled by the Scots or the Acadiams.

Edited to include the proper quote from the proper poster.

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
This is Brett Mann. He asks me what "we" should call "Islamcists" if not "Islamicists," when he means people like OBL, and the "terrorists" I say, "Salafist Radical" would be more appropos, as it is an exact term describing more or less how people like OBL see themselves, and in fact it would be a term that OBL would underatand. I argue of course that "Islamicists," is a word invented in the west by Neo-conservatives and nothing at all to do with Islam and only serves to group the governement of Iran in the same bag as the government of Saudi Arabia, whom any cogent observer knows are enemies long before they might be friends.

Having been asked to provide an alternative, I did. Did it have the slightest inpact on the ignorant drivel that Brett spews? None whatsoever.

So what is the point?

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann wrote:
Because the international community will become even more involved in this project.

---

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

I'm dead-set against the mission in Afghanistan, but appreciate the care Brent takes to articulate his case for it. Additionally, I appreciate the opportunity to re-evaluate my own position based on new information.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
Because the situation is changing, NATO forces are making much greater efforts to spare civilians, and to engage the local people, and American shootfirst policies seem to have taken a back seat for a change.

---

Afghanistan is a big place and American forces are in more places than the provinces where the Canadian media is focussing. The above may be true from what we are seeing reported, but it may not tell enough of the whole story to make a judgement that things there are leading to the kind of results that the official rhetoric tells us we are working for.

quote:

---

Because a (shrinking) majority of Afghans do not want foreign troops to abandon them to the Taliban at this point.

---

I can't figure out why a shrinking number of people wanting us there helps your argument?

quote:

---

Because I'm reading many stories by ordinary Canadian soldiers in or returned from Afghanistan who seem to firmly believe their efforts are valued by local Afghans.

---

That is to be expected whether it is true or not. Troops want to believe that they are doing something worthwhile. The problem is that troopers usually only see a small part of the picture and it is the big picture that counts. I can tell you from experience that you can have one local success after another and in the greater scheme of things it means little or nothing.

Troops saying they are valued is no remarkable, but take note when they start questioning the mission.

quote:

---

Because the Taliban is allied with international terrorists, and all nations have an interest in suppressing terrorism.

---

Actually, the Taliban were willing to give up the terrorists but the offer was refused.

In any event, the allied powers too, are international terrorists. The first step in suppressing international terrorism for Canada is to stop cooperating with the US and its foreign policy and become a neutral nation.

quote:

---

Maybe as Europeans see a different approach in Afghanistan, they will become more supportive.

---

I can't see the Europeans wanting to spend the money to increase their commitment, nor take more risks with the lives of their troops that could cause domestic political backlash.

What one must keep in mind about Afghanistan is that we have interjected ourselves into a civil war between religious nuts and drug lords. Attacking religious nuts means supporting the opium trade (which is booming), and attacking opium production drives people into the arms of the religious nuts.

We would have been better off leaving the Taliban in control and attacking them indirectly through economic and cultural means. The changes in Afghanistan have to come from within without being tainted by foreign boots on the ground there. Being tainted by Afghans who have economic incentives for change and who have been corrupted by progressive, secularist culture is a different thing.

quote:

---

Resisting The Canadian
Capital In South Asia

By Harsha Walia
07 October, 2006
Countercurrents.org

...Afghanistan has been the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid with almost $1 billion allocated from 2001-2011, while at the same time one of the most visible manifestations of the Canadian presence in South Asia is Canada’s increased military involvement in Afghanistan as part of its “War on Terror”.

As written by J.W. Smith in The World’s Wasted Wealth, “Politics is the control of the economy… It is the military power of the more developed countries that permits them to dictate the terms of trade and maintain unequal relationships.” U.S. President Woodrow Wilson recognized this “Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down.”

In the spring of 2006, Canada began a major military role in “Operation Enduring Freedom”, with a battle group of more than 2,300 soldiers based around Kandahar. In May 2006, Parliament voted to keep Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan for two years longer than previously planned. Rick Hillier, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, outlined his vision for the troops “We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.” In May 2006, CIDA launched the “Confidence in Government” initiative in the Shah Wali Kot district of Afghanistan. In a May 22 Globe and Mail article, Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of Canada's provincial reconstruction team stated “It's a useful counterinsurgency tool."

A July 10, 2006 Canadian Press report details an agreement between the Afghani and Canadian governments stipulating, “Afghan civilians who are accidentally injured or killed, or whose property is damaged by Canadian soldiers, have no legal right to compensation.” According to an in-depth CBC backgrounder, Canadian Forces instructors were in Kabul to train members of the Afghan National Army. Canadian troops are also training Afghan soldiers in Kandahar and the RCMP has a commitment to train Afghan police officers. The Department of National Defence has admitted that Canada's secret special forces have been operating in Afghanistan.

On September 2, Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor publicly stated that Canadian soldiers should be working in Pakistan to fight “Taliban insurgents inside Pakistan.” In an interview with the Associated Press of Pakistan, O’Conner stated, “I suggested that some Pakistan officers be stationed with our troops in Kandahar and Canadian troops be stationed on the Pakistan side." This raises an explosive issue of the presence of Canadian troops in Pakistan, which has already seen major protests at the presence of US troops along the Pakistani border.

This “War on Terrorism”, with its resulting occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, are the most extreme forms of terrorism, making a war on terrorism “profoundly self-contradictory” as stated by Howard Zinn.

Meanwhile, Canadian exports to Afghanistan has increased over 100 fold in the past five years, growing from 167,000 Cnd $ to over 19,000,000 Cnd $, according to Industry Canada statistics. Canadian corporations such as Bell Canada and CAE (one of Canada’s largest defense contractors) have profited immensely: Bell won a 1 billion $ contract with the US military to supply helicopters, while CAE won a $20 million contract to supply combat simulation technology.

The CIDA-funded Women’s Rights in Afghanistan Fund,established by Rights and Democracy (created by the Canadian Parliament in 1988) provides grants to grassroots women’s organizations in Afghanistan. A “non-partisan” Afghanistan backgrounder on the website of the Fund highlights only the historic abuse of women by the Taliban and characterizes the current period as one of “ongoing conflict” without any mention of foreign forces in the country.

Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the Afghan Women's Mission, recently wrote “Despite the best efforts of the Bush and Blair administrations to convince the world that the 2001 war ‘liberated’ women in Afghanistan and that they continue to work in the interests of Afghan women, grassroots women activists reveal a very different picture. With the Taliban regime ousted, Afghan women have not experienced better times.”

Columnist Eric Margolis has written “Afghanistan's complexity and lethal tribal politics have been marketed to the public by government and media as a selfless crusade to defeat the `terrorist' Taliban, implant democracy, and liberate Afghan women."...

---

http://www.countercurrents.org/sa-walia071006.htm

Here is an excerpt from another excellent essay on Canada's foreign policy and military role -- a historic view of how we got to where we are:

quote:

---

Abandoning Hypocrisy
Canada in Afghanistan

by Justin Podur

...Canada was a supply centre, a diplomatic supporter, and a training ground – but it shied away from direct military participation in colonial wars.

That started to change in the 1990s, for various reasons. Canada was in the process of adopting a ‘free trade’ agreement that was integrating the economies of Canada and the US in new ways. Neoliberalism was locking other countries into weakness and dependency on the US. Everywhere, the segment of the elite that sought a degree of independence was weakened.  People who tried to fight back were told they were on the wrong side of history.

There are three stories about Canadian foreign policy in this period that should be shared.

Back in the 1980s, there was a little ‘blip’ in Canadian support for Israel against the Palestinians. During the initial expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948, Canada followed Britain. During the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Canada followed the US. But in the 1980s, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel was crushing the first Palestinian Intifada, some Canadian leaders – Trudeau and Clark – actually criticized Israel. But in the 1990s, when the Oslo Accords brought a phony “peace” to Palestine, Canada was able to return to its hypocritical role: supporting “peace” publicly, while supporting Israel privately – and moving towards increasingly public support, on which more in a minute.

In 1990/1, Mulroney rushed to Bush’s side when Bush started the destruction of Iraq. That’s Bush Sr., by the way. Canada made sure that its warplanes and ships were active, involved in bombing the relatively defenceless Iraqi military and the completely defenceless Iraqi population. That campaign killed hundreds of thousands of people and was followed by sanctions against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands more – sanctions Canada participated in. The sanctions were followed by another invasion that has killed over a hundred thousand more, by conservative and not-very-recent estimates. But we’ll come back to that 2003 invasion.

In 1993, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was sent to Somalia. This one is worth remembering. Here, too, Canada went with the US. The US was there to “Restore Hope”, and killed several hundred (or was it several thousand) Somalis in the process, before leaving ignominiously. Canada went along to support the mission. The story was familiar. Somalia was a “failed state”. Canada had a “responsibility to protect” the people from evil. So Canada set up a base in a town called Belet Huen. A well-supplied base in the middle of a miserably poor country, a country of desperate shortages and starving people. Some of those people started to sneak on to the base and steal supplies. If the Canadians were to lock them up, they’d have to lock up a lot of them. So they came up with punishments. Humiliations – keeping them out under the sun under armed guard. Tying them up. Beating them up. Shooting them. Torturing them. Eventually, torturing a 16-year old child to death over the course of a whole night. There is a picture of the child, Shidane Arone, being held up by the neck, by a baton, by a Canadian soldier. You can find it if you like. It was the first thing that I remembered when I saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. I remembered the photo of Shidane Arone – I was in high school when that photo came out.

If you read the debates and discussions about Canada in Afghanistan you have heard about the moral dilemma Canadian soldiers face when they capture “suspected guerrillas”. Should the Canadians turn them over to the Afghan government, when they might be tortured? The most radical commentators dare to suggest that perhaps Canada should not turn them over to the US, given the US’s record on torture (Maher Arar’s case springs to mind). But can the Canadians turn them over to themselves?

Today Canadian commentators talk about the “Somalia Affair” as a national trauma – for Canadians. It is narcissism. We focus on ourselves, rather than the victims. The same is true in Afghanistan.

[u]Abandoning Hypocrisy[/u]

That was the period of hypocrisy in Canadian foreign policy. That period is over now. The last hiccup of it was the second destruction of Iraq in 2003. Canada performed, and continues to perform, its historical services of supply centre, training ground, and diplomatic supporter. But the US wanted more from its allies, and that meant Canada had to ‘mend fences’. How did it ‘mend fences’? On the bones of Haitians, first – a story I won’t have time to tell here – and on the bones of Palestinians, and Lebanese, and Afghans. Afghans, because everyone recognized that the principal way Canada was going to help the US invasion of Iraq was by relieving the US in Afghanistan. It isn’t much relief: 2,200 troops in a mission that involves some 36,000 troops, including 20,000 Americans. But it goes some way, presumably, to ‘mending fences’.

Canada’s first move towards abandoning hypocrisy was joining the invasion of Afghanistan. But until recently, Canada was pretending that the Afghan mission was of the innocent peacekeeping variety that was done in Somalia, for example.

The second move towards abandoning hypocrisy happened in December 2004, on the heels of the Bush visit to Ottawa. That’s Bush Jr., by the way. Previously, Canada had abstained from several votes requiring Israel to comply with its obligations under international law and withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967. Canada’s Ambassador to the UN at the time, Allan Rock, said that the “value added” of the committees trying to put Palestinian rights on the agenda at the UN was “questionable” and that the process was biased – against Israel. So Canada started to vote against Palestinian rights.

Next, six months later, in July 2005, Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier put the “peacekeeping” and “failed states” story to bed with a rhetorical flourish. Talking about the Afghans on the receiving end of Canada’s military, he said: “These are detestable murderers and scumbags. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties… We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.” Hillier was concentrating his fire directly on the Canadian myth that we are innocent peacekeepers. He was doing that because he wants to see Canada involved in a counterinsurgency that he knows is going to be bloody and brutal. Like Harper, he hopes that by talking tough he can increase people’s tolerance for blood.

These moves by the Liberals preceding the Tories’ rise to power, set Harper up nicely. He was the first to cut all aid to the Palestinians earlier this year, to starve them for the election they held shortly after the one that brought him to power. This summer, when Israel destroyed Gaza’s power plant and massacred hundreds of Palestinians from the air, Harper called the response “measured”. While Israel was massacring civilians in Lebanon, suffering largely military casualties at the hands of Hizbullah, Peter MacKay was calling the resistance “cold-blooded killers” and a “cancer on Lebanon.”

If you listen carefully you’ll notice that something has happened over the past few years: Canada is no longer talking out of both sides of its mouth. Canada has committed itself, openly, to colonialism. And in the process, Canada has talked itself into its own colonial war...

---

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11064

quote:

---

Brett Mann wrote:
There's certainly no guarantee the world community will become more dedicated to Afghanistan, SGM, but I see a few trendlines.

---

I think we're seeing different trend lines.

Here in Canada, the most widely reported calls for greater dedication to Afghanistan by the 'world community' (does this mean NATO, effectively?) have come from a couple of different sources.

One source is the current Conservative government, which largely failed to make its case during the November NATO summit in Riga, Latvia.

The other source has been Liberal leader Stephane Dion, who has said things like this:

quote:

---

''We need to involve the other nations much more. It is really sad what happened because Mr. Harper last spring played the macho the one who will be able to carry us out of Afghanistan. He copied the speeches of Mr. Bush, I think President Bush should request copyright from these speeches,'' said Dion.

---

It's also unintelligible because Dion himself has done little more than echo George Bush on Afghanistan, even as he's mocked Harper for violating 'copyright' on Bush's speeches.

Here, for instance, is Bush, speaking in 2002 on Afghanistan, calling for a certain kind of plan to be implemented:

quote:

---

By helping to build an Afghanistan that is free from this evil and is a better place in which to live, we are working in the best traditions of George Marshall. (Applause.) Marshall knew that our military victory against enemies in World War II had to be followed by a moral victory that resulted in better lives for individual human beings.

---

quote:

---

[Dion] added that he was interested in proposing a multi-nation approach comparable to the Marshall Plan, the U.S. strategy for rebuilding the allied countries of Europe and repelling communism after the Second World War.

---

So what can Dion mean by mocking Harper for echoing the very president he himself has followed in language (not to mention Afghanistan policy substance)?

Dion wasn't just echoing Bush in his call for a multi-nation 'Marshall Plan' for Afghanistan, of course; he was also echoing Pakistani president Musharraf's call for an Afghanistan version of the 'Marshall Plan,' a call Musharraf issued to British PM Tony Blair:

quote:

---

Tony Blair has been urged by the West’s closest Muslim ally in the war on terrorism to change course in Afghanistan and back a “Marshall Plan” to prise the country from the grip of the Taleban.

---

As far as the Americans are concerned, we learn from this story that US aid to Afghanistan is being cut by 30%.

As for Tony Blair's response to Musharraf's call for the large increases in funding a 'Marshall Plan' for Afghanistan would entail--well, here it is:

quote:

---

His spokesman said that the amount of aid was not the problem in Afghanistan, but that the fighting made it difficult to carry out reconstruction. Britain alone had given £500 million while $10.5 billion was pledged at the International Donors Conference in London in January “The problem is not the lack of financial aid available. The problem is getting the physical infrastructure and government infrastructure in place to spend that money,” Mr Blair said. He added that in Helmand province, Britain had built 13 health clinics, 89 reservoirs, 423 wells and eight classrooms.

---

So my question for those who, like Brett Mann, hold out hope that trend lines are pointing to ever greater multinational support for a very different approach in Afghanistan is this: "If the principal military actors in Afghanistan--the US and the UK--have shown themselves unwilling to increase aid funding in a sensible way, or to take a new direction militarily or diplomatically, then why should we expect success from their plans to improve matters in that country?"

[ 29 December 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
...Dion himself has done little more than echo George Bush on Afghanistan, even as he's mocked Harper for violating 'copyright' on Bush's speeches.

---

Stéphane Dion, touted as a careful academic type, appears to me increasingly to be a double-talker par excellence, on issues ranging from Afghanistan to equal marriage to the environment.

In the excerpts you cited, he doesn't actually criticize Bush's speeches on Afghanistan (indeed he apes them) - only Harper for violating copyright.

I guess I should have said something like "albeit, shrinking" majority, to be clearer. But I'm less interested in defending my position at all costs than in acknowledging reality. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'll admit it, even volunteer it.

The value of soldier's testimony - I think we can't have it both ways. If we are willing to accept the accounts of American soldiers of the stark horror and pointlessness of Iraq, we have no right to assume that Canadian soldiers are more indoctrinated or brainwashed, somehow. Quite the reverse, actually.

"the Taliban were willing to give up the terrorists but the offer was refused." That was then. This is now.

"We would have been better off leaving the Taliban in control " - I just don't think anyone who realizes what this would mean to the innocent people of Afghanistan would ever advocate this.

I find both of Laine Lowe's selections rather one-sided and intellectually dishonest. For a much more honest critique of the situation in Afghanistan, see the piece I linked to in my first post. It does not help to conflate Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, although the point is well-taken about the drift of Canada's foreign policy more into the American imperialist orbit. As I have argued, I see our contribution to Afghanistan as offering a way to free ourselves from American domination in foreign policy, and more broadly, for the international community to become more decisive. Strengthening the international rule of law has always been a bedrock of Canadian foreign policy.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
It seems reasonable to assume that NATO's keeping the Taliban tied up there is preventing the Taliban from inflicting more harm in the rest of the country.

---

Of course it could be that where there are no Taliban it is the war lords and drug lords (same lords, probably) that keep the lid on with their repressive means. Since the Taliban have become the designated bad guys the rest of it becomes unremarkable.

quote:

---

If we are willing to accept the accounts of American soldiers of the stark horror and pointlessness of Iraq, we have no right to assume that Canadian soldiers are more indoctrinated or brainwashed, somehow. Quite the reverse, actually.

---

You didn't read my previous statement on this very carefully. It is not about being more indoctrinated but about how local victories and good deeds often do not ad up to success in the big picture. When a soldier thinks that she/he is doing a good job, no doubt they are. But, tactical success does not necessarily equate to strategic success. One can win every battle and still lose the war because there is more to strategic victory than winning battles or hearts and minds. I've been there and done that and observed the dynamic first hand.

When soldiers report success it is to be expected and doesn't necessarily mean much in the broader view of things. When they report disaster that is not to be expected and it is an indicator of things gone wrong.

Also, when it comes to hearts and minds, you can never be sure. People tell you what they want you to hear, particularly if they can profit from it. In these situations your best local buddy at noon could be the same guy laying IEDs at midnight.

quote:

---

"the Taliban were willing to give up the terrorists but the offer was refused." That was then. This is now.

---

It doesn't matter when. It still blows away the idea that we have to fight the Taliban to fight terrorism. They were willing to negotiate, they still might be under the right circumstances. The Taliban are committed to ruling Afghanistan, not the world.

quote:

---

"We would have been better off leaving the Taliban in control " - I just don't think anyone who realizes what this would mean to the innocent people of Afghanistan would ever advocate this.

---

And what exactly does it mean? I am no friend of the Taliban and truly think that they should be reduced to insignificance (same for anybody that believes that any sort of devine authority takes precedence over secular law), but despite some of their atrocious rules they had a rule based society that was relatively stable and secure for those who followed the rules, not the violent disaster area the country is now.

Why is it that non-Taliban Afghans have said more than once things were better under the Taliban?

Ridding the country of the Taliban by invasion and occupation was and is a huge mistake that is doing more harm than good.

quote:

---

I see our contribution to Afghanistan as offering a way to free ourselves from American domination in foreign policy,....

---

I am reluctant to say it, but this is naive. How do we free ourselves from American domination when we join a coalition basically led and controlled by the US?

If we were serious about taking a new direction we would go after those committing war crimes, regardless of which nation they worked for, and we would be dragging them off to the ICC for trial and take action against any country that tried to stop us, including the US who no doubt has people who would be scooped up in such an operation.

quote:

---

I find both of Laine Lowe's selections rather one-sided and intellectually dishonest.

---

The US has also put lipstick on a pig by tranfering a majority of its troops in Afghanistan to ISAF control while simultaneously having a US general as deputy ISAF commander to keep the focus on fighting Taliban rather than helping Afghans.

US tactics of offering aid to Afghans in exchange for ratting out their relatives has thoroughly corrupted the credibility of aid agencies.

Your comments on soldier's viewpoints are good and valid, but again, prove my point, so far at least. As well as paying attention to positive reports, I've had my radar up for negative ones from Canadian soldiers - so far, very few or none.

You're also right that the Taliban are not the enemy per se, and I think that the current ISAF offensive may bring them to the bargaining table - bottom line requirements? - no blowing up stuff and killing people in the rest of the country and lose the al Qaeda affiliation.

I don't think it's naive at all to believe that greater Canadian independence in foreign policy will be achieved by working within existing structures with the US - anybody who thinks otherwise probably hasn't been paying enough attention to the real world of Canada-US relations which are bound by a long shared history, deep economic ties and multitudinous legal agreements and treaties. Simply walking away from things as a response shows the responder hasn't thought much about the issue. I mean, I'd like to do that too, but that's laa laa fairyland.

quote:

---

Brett Man wrote:
This is also my reply to SGM's reasonable question - if the US and the UK have proven they can't handle the Afghan situation, what hope is there for anybody else? I am arguing that it is because of the failure of US and UK policies that the international community has an opportunity to intervene. And a long-term interest in doing so.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann wrote:
I don't think it's naive at all to believe that greater Canadian independence in foreign policy will be achieved by working within existing structures with the US - anybody who thinks otherwise probably hasn't been paying enough attention to the real world of Canada-US relations which are bound by a long shared history, deep economic ties and multitudinous legal agreements and treaties.

---

Speaking of paying attention to the real world of existing structures, I wonder if Brett Mann has read and carefully considered this NATO document?

quote:

---

In the light of recent events, this statement needs to be seriously qualified. For if the "direct application of mechanical and conventional power" takes place on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to city, the basic assumptions underlying the Maoist doctrine of revolutionary war no longer operate. The Maoist-inspired rural revolution is undercut by the American-sponsored urban revolution.

---

I'm saying that the resources and direction may come from NATO and the UN more broadly, from countries such as Canada. It's not just a matter of resources and "direction" - the US has shown an inability to conduct warfare in a way that does not indiscriminately kill lots of civilians. This is why many Afghans want the US out of their country immediately. But the majority do not feel that way about all foreign troops.

Hillier was previously appointed Deputy Commander of the US Army's III Corps, Ft. Hood, Texas. He is thoroughly Americanised and from my POV is the worst choice possible to promote an independent Canadian response to failed state intervention.

quote:

---

I would like to see General Hillier's lips surgically removed from the Pentagon's posterior.

---

quote:

---

the Taliban really are more threatening to peace and stability in Afghanistan and elsewhere than the other corrupt warlords. They have well-earned their designation as bad guys.

---

What is more threatening to peace and stability in Afghanistan and elsewhere is the occupation of Afghanistan by foreign conquerors. Before the invasion Afghanistan was somewhat more peaceful and stable thanks to the Taliban who came to power because they could bring order and the rule of law. (even if we disagree with the law, at least it was a rules based society rather than the rape and pillage based one of the warlords).

The fact that Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan was a negotiable problem, not a military one. And the real threat that the Taliban and Islamic radicals pose is social and cultural, not military. (Many Christian and other groups at home and abroad also pose this threat) Unless one is into mass murder and brutalities rivaling or exceeding those of the Taliban, that problem probably can not be solved by military means which makes this whole enterprise at best a misguided waste of lives and resources.

quote:

---

Your comments on soldier's viewpoints are good and valid, but again, prove my point, so far at least. As well as paying attention to positive reports, I've had my radar up for negative ones from Canadian soldiers - so far, very few or none.

---

The point is that good news from the troops is probably irrelevant. Bad news means things probably have gone really bad. No bad news may mean nothing more than everything is optimistic at the trooper level, regardless of whether the war is attaining its strategic goals or not. I can remember troops clinging to optimism on Vietnam long after it became apparent to most people that it was a mistake.

quote:

---

I don't think it's naive at all to believe that greater Canadian independence in foreign policy will be achieved by working within existing structures with the US....

---

If we do not redefine our relationship with the US we are bound to be absorbed by it, not that we already are not to a large degree.

This is particularly true when the US is run by the neo-cons who share very little in common with most Canadian values. When we do not stand up for things like the ICC and put serious pressure on those countries that do not place themselves under it, we betray our own values.

When we ally in war with a country committing war crimes we betray our own values.

The long standing ties and relationships with the US cut both ways. We are important to them, both their trade and security as they are to us. If we stand up to them they will have to think twice or more about jeopardizing that relationship.

We let them get away with too much, probably because the business community that owns our government is transnational and wants it that way. Wanting to change this is only la la land to those who like it the way it is or lack the courage to oppose it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Of course it could be that where there are no Taliban it is the war lords and drug lords (same lords, probably) that keep the lid on with their repressive means. Since the Taliban have become the designated bad guys the rest of it becomes unremarkable.

---

quote:

---

Free_Radical:
Ah, but by fighting on behalf of the government in Kabul, and supporting its institutions such as the ANA and ANP, Canada's contribution serves to weaken the warlords vis-a-vis the elected central government.

---

The warlords are part of the central government. In the end the ANA and ANP will serve whoever pays them the most.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
But I'm also a realist, and realize that any move in this direction that is not thought through very carefully, with very broad consensus among Canadians, would likely backfire and leave us more dependent on the US than ever.

---

And we need to be aggressively building that consensus, and part of that is to refuse to participate in or with things and organizations that go against our principles.

Perhaps the Canadian public should be made acutely aware that our economic ties to the US as presently constituted involve Canadian complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

quote:

---

Afghanistan represents a rare opportunity to co-operate with America without selling our souls, because it is a just war....

---

But, it is not a just war, it is a war of choice, and needless. The US could have had the cooperation of the Taliban in dealing with Al Qaeda, it refused. Accepting that, the maximum even remotely justifiable military action would have been a quick in and out raid that destroyed a lot of AQ's infrastructure. That happened in 2001 but the out part was omitted.

Now we are bogged down in an invasion and occupation of a foreign country with the results that:

[1.] AQ has been given the chance to prove that it has the capability to tie down superior western forces for years, thus increasing their prestige and ability to recruit;
[2.] Afghans have come to realize that life after the Taliban might not be as good as many once thought that it would; and
[3.] A country that was being weaned away from opium production is now producing more than it ever has before and flooding the west with heroin.
[4.] All of this and we haven't even gotten into the area of wasted lives and resources.

quote:

---

....the Taliban must not be allowed to come to power there again, for both humanitarian and security reasons.

---

The Taliban were a target of opportunity, not necessity. The US was perfectly happy to deal with the Taliban (their former agents) until it needed a popular war to build up to invading Iraq, the real target. 911 was a gift to the neo-cons, although in the end it may certainly be proven a Trojan Horse.

Humanitarian justifications for the Afghan War are nothing more than PR gimmicks, and the security argument doesn't hold water given that: A) Al Qaeda probably could have been contained without the war, and B) the war is probably doing more to decrease security around the world than increase it.

The Taliban probably have a better chance of regaining power if they are seen as the legitimate Afghan force opposing foreign occupation than if the occupation ceases and they have to face the warlords alone. Unfortunately for Afghanistan this invasion has probably set back progressive development there by decades. But then, the US may not want a progressive, independent Afghanistan.

The Taliban are not a military problem, they are a social and cultural one.

quote:

---

It also perhaps allows Canada to become a leading voice in shaping the international community's response and gradually swinging international decision-making away from US control,....

---

Ha! Your other statements on US/Canada relationships contradicts this. Rather than a leading voice Canada is a go along, get along kind of partner in this aggression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

The Taliban are not a military problem, they are a social and cultural one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Given that the highest penalty for treason in Canada is death by firing squad, and that surgically removing a person from their brain stem is most often fatal it would seem that both ideas are commensurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Ha! Your other statements on US/Canada relationships contradicts this. Rather than a leading voice Canada is a go along, get along kind of partner in this aggression.

Any strategy for gradual swinging is flawed. It misses the opportunity for significant change. At this point in history the US is seriously over extended and its military is worn down and on the verge of revolt. It needs all of the friends that it can get. Now is the time to stand up to the US and make the price of that friendship very expensive in terms of limiting its power and moving the international order into a more progressive and rules based environment.

---

[ 31 December 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

With respect, Jerry, While I can understand why you choose to live where you do,I do believe that if you wish to exert influence on the Canadian psyche,you must understand that those who choose to run and hide for whatever reason,are suspect.

[ 31 December 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

With respect, Jerry, While I can understand why you choose to live where you do,I do believe that if you wish to exert influence on the Canadian psyche,you must understand that those who choose to run and hide for whatever reason,are suspect.

---

Whatever do you mean? This makes no sense in the context of why I liver where I do, or in what I do. Perhaps you would like to elaborate?

quote:

---

jester:
Whatever. If you wish to be a Canadian, welcome.

---

I guess your nom de web says it all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

I guess your nom de web says it all.

Considering that I am a Canadian citizen, have held public appointment, and have over 14 years service in Canadian Forces, I hope that I am welcome.

---

moc

[ 31 December 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

[ 31 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Building the consensus in Canada that the US is engaged in long-standing crimes against humanity - absolutely we should. Refusing to participate in things that go against our principle - again agree, but I don't believe our action in Afghanistan does go against our principles. Among other things, Canada has sponsored ( I think successfully ) RTP - the Right to Protect - in UN law. Your argument that the Taliban are just one among many equally bad groups, some inside the government, runs up against the problem that the majority of Afghans do not see it that way, and want the foreign troops (well, not the US troops, necessarily) to stay until the Taliban is sufficiently weakened that government troops can handle the situation. So the Taliban are not likely to be seen in the perspective of national liberators by most in Afghanistan. In one fire fight I was reading about, two Canadians were killed with a loss of 72 Taliban - at this rate, I predict it won't be too long until the Taliban come to the bargaining table.

quote:

---

Your argument that the Taliban are just one among many equally bad groups, some inside the government, runs up against the problem that the majority of Afghans do not see it that way, and want the foreign troops (well, not the US troops, necessarily) to stay until the Taliban is sufficiently weakened that government troops can handle the situation.

---

Reviewing the thread, I cannot find an instance where Brett was called an idiot. Overzealous and tedious is as far as I would go.

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

But at this moment, I think Canada has a chance of once again shaping the direction of the international community, as we did in the past. Looking a year or two down the road, we may see a majority Liberal government, a more progressive Liberal government than we are used to, and a Democratic President and congress of a weakened US.

It's not unreasonable to think that efforts to fight international terrorism, solve the Israeli/Palestinian question, promote peace in a partitioned Iraq (and Lebanon?) could begin to be driven by the international community through the UN - so that re-development and social justice goals become part of the fight against terrorism, for example - as the US is forced by financial and public sentiment constraints to retreat into a more isolationist position.

quote:

---

If you refuse to accept the best available evidence, the Asia Times and ABC/BBC recent polls (and I apologize if you are not aware of these, but I thought you were part of a discussion of them) - there's not much more I can do to convince you.

---

It is really quite impossible to test public opinion in Afghanistan through polling. To take an obvious example, do you think the pollsters were welcomed in Taleban controlled areas?

Therefore, I don't think these polls are really "the best evidence". Rather, they are created by the Western powers for the purpose of gaining assent among Western populations for the present policy.

However, even if most Afghans want us there, that would not provide much of an argument for going there, and exposing our troops to casualties.

As far as I can see, there is no possibility that the insurgents will lay down their arms while infidels are occupying Afghanistan. Therefore, we expose our troops to an endless war, with the chance of permanent improvement to Afghanistan's government at about 1%.

Twenty years from now, the problems in Afghanistan will be intractable, just as they will be in 500 other places across the Globe.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
I don't believe our action in Afghanistan does go against our principles.

---

Participating in an unwarranted and unneccesary invasion and occupation of a sovereign country is not against our principles?

Supporting and abetting war criminals is not against our principals?

quote:

---

Your argument that the Taliban are just one among many equally bad groups, some inside the government, runs up against the problem that the majority of Afghans do not see it that way, and want the foreign troops (well, not the US troops, necessarily) to stay until the Taliban is sufficiently weakened that government troops can handle the situation.

---

1. How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is a majority?

2. Even if there is a majority who constitutes it and what power do they have compared to the minority and their power?

3. The kicker. Having seen this before how many of the so called majority want the foreigners to stay because of their connection to them and the ability to milk them and will happily do whatever it takes to keep the situation such that the foreign gravey train continues to feed them, including cooperating with both sides in the conflict?

quote:

---

So the Taliban are not likely to be seen in the perspective of national liberators by most in Afghanistan.

---

There could be a difference between seeking a liberator and just seeking to be rid of foreign domination. Do not confuse cooperation with the Taliban as support for the Taliban.

quote:

---

In one fire fight I was reading about, two Canadians were killed with a loss of 72 Taliban - at this rate, I predict it won't be too long until the Taliban come to the bargaining table.

---

Arrrgghhh!

One may need to learn more about fourth generation warfare, AKA asymetric warfare. This is the same kind of reasoning that gave the US almost sixty thousand fatalities in Vietnam before they pulled the plug.

At the rate of 36 to 1 if only one percent of Afghans were willing to die fighting to oust foreigners that would be about 10,000 foreign casualties, and that is assuming that they have no learning curve and don't adjust tactics for more effectiveness.

What is important in this kind of warfare is that indigenous forces do not have to ever win a battle to win the war. All that they have to do is not quit.

It will take Afghans with modern aspirations and a progressive religious or secular view of life that rejects Shariah, and untainted by foreign dependence to finally put paid to the likes of the Taliban. It will neither be quick, nor easy nor bloodless.

quote:

---

And of course, I think just the opposite - there is large support in Canada now for the military action in Afghanistan - not a majority of support perhaps, but a significant amount.

---

Not a majority of support means more ears are tuned to receive the get out message, not the other way around.

quote:

---

I really think that if an election were called today on the issue of Afghanistan, Harper might well win a majority government. Any attempts to radically change Canada's defence posture and commitments without first building very broad public consensus could backfire very badly.

---

It will all depend on how effective the opposition can frame and diseminate their argument. The real problem is not Harper but the Liberals who are Harper Lite and who committed us to this Afghan mess in the first place. Of course with the Libs and Cons both pushing the Afghan mess they might split the regressive vote between them.

quote:

---

It's not unreasonable to think that efforts to fight international terrorism,....

---

Keep in mind that there is no fight against international terrorism, just a battle between terrorists.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
They say generals are always fighting the last war. Similarly, I think my debating opponents here are skewed in their analysis by unwarranted mapping of colonialist wars on to the mission in Afghanistan.

---

What was the last war? The Balkans? Somalia? Gulf War I? Afghanistan is certainly none of those although there may be some lessons learned from Somalia.

What is the war in Afghanistan if not a modern colonialist war? What the invaders have managed to do is turn a simple hit and run retaliation (which itself was of questionable value) into a neck deep involvement in a civil war between two factions, neither of which is worth supporting. And for what purpose? Certainly nothing do to with the Taliban except that they happened to be the government at the time the US decided to invade. And now that they are out of favour with the west and the drug lords are in, the mantle of opposition to the occupation falls on them.

Had the drug lords been ruling the country and sheltering Al Qaeda in 2001 today we would be allied with the Taliban and providing them with burqas as part of our aid package.

The war in Afghanistan is not about liberating the country but controlling it.

quote:

---

Leftist peace advocates are fighting the last war.

---

I have to smile when I read this, given that one of your indicators of success was the body count.

It is not only those on the left who think that this war is a mistake. Here is a view from the conservative side:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
They say generals are always fighting the last war. Similarly, I think my debating opponents here are skewed in their analysis by unwarranted mapping of colonialist wars on to the mission in Afghanistan. This kind of thinking, this ideologically rigid approach to complicated and changing geo-political realities has its limits. This is not Viet Nam. Leftist peace advocates are fighting the last war.

---

Not according to Zbignew Brezinski, who is not a general, nor a peace activist. He said that the point of the original US intervention on the side of OBL and the Arab Islamic idealogues, against Soviet forces there, was to give the Russian "their own Vietnam." This he did.

Now, the forces arrayed against OBL and the Taliban, have changed. That is all.

Its no skin of my nose if you want to regurgitate Pravdaesque platitudes about bringing civilization and a modern economy to heathen's in Afghanistan, but you won't mind if some people don't chime in with a resounding chorus of "yes, Comrade."

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And what little money goes to Afghanistan for reconstruction is being pocketed by crooked contractors for slip-shod work. I wouldn't trust them to build an outhouse in my backyard. It was all fun and warfiteering in destroying a nation to stop the spread of secular socialism in Central Asia. Millions of refugees in Iran and Pakistan still have nothing to return to after Afghanistan was ripped apart from stern to stem by western aided and abetted militant Islam. Musharaff must wonder who Warshington is pointing to when they accuse him of not doing enough to stem the tide of militant Islam. Lots of finger pointing going on but no real money for reparations. There were more traffic lights in Kabul in the 1980's by comparison. Bee-keeper garb is in fashion again.

[ 01 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
But since the mission has acquired support from the broader international community and UN sanction, it's not about America's dreams of expansion anymore.

---

Broader international community and UN sanction = Suck up to the Americans and get in on the booty.

Canada went in to Afghanistan in the beginning, and did so to cover its butt for not going into Iraq. At least JC was smart enough to pick the least messy aggression.

quote:

---

America's appetite for expansion is waning anyway,....

---

Which begs the question what happens if they fold their tents and go home? According to October data the US had 20,000 troops in the country, the allies about 23,000. Everyone seems to agree that is not enough. A change in US foreign policy would end the Afghan adventure.

quote:

---

It takes pretzel logic to turn this into a "colonialist war" at this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bubbles:
Instaed of getting deeper into a shooting war in Afghanistan, we should maybe set-up new towns sothat the Afghans that are in the refugee camps in Pakistan and elsewhere have a place to return to.

---

Excellent idea. I suggest the new towns be set up on unoccupied Canadian crown land. Advantages:

1. No one has succeeded in bringing democracy to the Afghans - so why not bring the Afghans to democracy?

2. Canada is far from Taliban supply lines to Pakistan.

3. More shore leave for Canadian troops and fewer teary CBC specials on soon-to-be widow(er)s and orphans.

4. It is feasible! Our heroic evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon proved that. I nominate Stevie to do a replay of his escort thingie and go bring the first group over.

5. Economic transition from poppies to weed grow-ops should be easy to implement.

6. Grateful Afghans will soon have right to vote and will give someone a majority government [NOTE TO SELF: Remember to ban Taliban from elections.]

quote:

---

I don't wish to be dismissive, LTJ, but in my mind, the question of whether or not the majority of Afghans want foreign forces in their country has been answered. If you refuse to accept the best available evidence, the Asia Times and ABC/BBC recent polls (and I apologize if you are not aware of these, but I thought you were part of a discussion of them) - there's not much more I can do to convince you.

---

Canada's New Government™ seems to be quite able to make decisions with a mandate from only 36% of Canadian voters. Why would it require more than that percentage of support for its policies from a country that doesn't even get a vote?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
OK, LTJ - if you don't accept these poll results (except in as much as they support your preconceptions) perhaps you could tell us the name of one Aghan individual or organization which is calling for withdrawal of ISAF forces - aside from the Taliban of course.

---

Ridiculous. Any Afghan who made the point that they thought the ISAF should leave would immediatly be identified by the US state department, and Karazi as a "Taliban sympathizer" at the very least, and their opinion would be disgarded.

Try the question in reverse: Name one Afghan who rejects the US intervention who has not been named a Taliban sympathizer?

Your proposition underscores the whole conudrum of your position.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
OK, LTJ - if you don't accept these poll results (except in as much as they support your preconceptions)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
OK, LTJ ...perhaps you could tell us the name of one A(f)ghan individual or organization which is calling for withdrawal of ISAF forces - aside from the Taliban of course.

---

To try to draw from this that RAWA is calling for removal of all international forces, which undoubtedly would threaten a return of the Taliban to the whole nation, is quite a stretch.

For a more optimistic view of developments in Afghanistan, take a look at this Globe and Mail article. Turialai Wafa is returning to Afghanistan, of which he says:

“I can understand why most people in Canada feel as though they're blindly following the United States into war in Afghanistan,” he said on the phone from Washington. “It's their right to interpret the situation like that.

“But this is only looking at the surface of the water, and it's not even the true picture of the surface.”

The RAWA website has a page titled "How Can You Help?" which lists a number of actions suggested by RAWA to be accomplished by those outside Afghanistan. Please note that "lobby your government to demand removal of all international forces from Afghanistan" is not among the suggestions. RAWA - how you can help.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

The RAWA website has a page titled "How Can You Help?" which lists a number of actions suggested by RAWA to be accomplished by those outside Afghanistan. Please note that "lobby your government to demand removal of all international forces from Afghanistan" is not among the suggestions. RAWA - how you can help.

---

Applying your logic, they didn't say "tell your country's leader to send troops to take sides in a tribal war and kill Afghanis" either.

But, in fact, RAWA has not called for removal of International forces. That doesn't mean RAWA supports international forces, however.

quote:

---

Unless the filthy gangs of Rabbani, Fahim, Khalili, Dostum, Sayyaf, Khalis, Ismail, Atta, etc. are wiped off the political scene of Afghanistan, any talk of freeing and legalizing Afghanistan will be just for deceiving our people and the world community. It should also be mentioned that Ismail Khan, by his pharaoh-like rule, wants to deceive the people by constructing some parks and buildings so he can cover his crimes against women. But his claims for freedom and human rights, when seen against the truth of his crimes, fade away.

The continuation of the present chaotic and anarchic situation and the support of the West for the Jehadi terrorists in Afghanistan prove and validate that America and its allies don't give any importance to human rights and women rights' the only values, they consider of importance are their own political and economic interests. Unless the West stops backing the Northern Alliance fundamentalists and starts supporting the independence-loving and freedom-loving forces, it (West) will be haunted by the threat of inhuman incidents like 11th of September by the Taliban, Al Qaida and similar forces.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan asks all freedom-loving forces and people to decisively endeavor and work by whatever means and ways possible to topple the fundamentalists in order to establish and secure democracy and human rights.

---

http://www.rawa.org/dec10-03e.htm

Let's highlight that last sentence:

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan asks all freedom-loving forces and people to decisively endeavor and work by whatever means and ways possible to topple the fundamentalists in order to establish and secure democracy and human rights.

Now, unless I am mistaken, Canadian forces are in Afghanistan expressly to support the fundamentalists who form the Afghanistan government, are they not?

quote:

---

To try to draw from this that RAWA is calling for removal of all international forces, which undoubtedly would threaten a return of the Taliban to the whole nation, is quite a stretch.

---

I give up.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
I take this to be a call for increased military force to combat the Taliban (and other warlords).

---

If you are supporting the idea that Canadian forces should begin immediate action against the Northern Alliance and other warlords, as well as the Taliban, including arresting and transporting to the ICC any allied troops who are aiding said groups or otherwise involved in war crimes, then we may have one point of agreement.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

I consider those who think that Canada can just walk away from Afghanistan without destroying our credibility in the world and betraying those we have promised to protect as "willfully blind."

---

Canada has not promised to protect anyone, not least of all Canadians. Why, I remember, just a few weeks ago, when Canadians were killed by an Israeli invasion of a soveriegn state, their lives were brushed aside in favor of undefined 'interests'. Isn't it those same undefined interests that keeps us in Afghanistan as opposed to any emotional claptrap about human rights and caring?

First of all, it is insulting to my intelligence that everytime someone points out that the government Canadian forces are propping up by warring against civilians, it is said, "we can deal with them later". Bullshit. We have no influence over the Taliban but the government of the warlords depend upon us. Withdraw the support! What is taking so long?

And the human rights nonsense. Show me the money!!! Only one dime of every dollar we spend in Afghanistan is humanitarian. And that includes everything from construction, to health care, to schools, to roads, etc ... It is a pittance. And ninety cents go to weapons which are bought from whom? Canada is merely fullfilling its role as a junior member of the empire. While I will excuse the troops who are there, many of whom are there with the best of intentions, the military and political leadership couldn't give a rat's ass about human rights for Afghanis or they wouldn't be part of the US invasion, they wouldn't be supporting the puppet, war lord populated regime of Karzai, and they wouldn't be turning a blind eye to daily human rights abuses which is exactly what they do.

Jerry West said it best:

quote:

---

If you are supporting the idea that Canadian forces should begin immediate action against the Northern Alliance and other warlords, as well as the Taliban, including arresting and transporting to the ICC any allied troops who are aiding said groups or otherwise involved in war crimes, then we may have one point of agreement.

---

But that is not what you're saying is it? Because it is not part of the mission which is to fight tribal members of the majority Pushtans while maintaining a corrupt, sectarian, but compliant to US interests, regime.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
....the large majority of Afghans, especially RAWA wants this to happen.

---

When a large enough majority of Afghans are serious enough about wanting it to happen it will. Having foreign invaders in their land blowing up their villages and killing their families in an attempt to force them to have it happen is counter productive.

Also, you can bet that if a democratic, progressive force arises in Afghanistan that threatens US and western economic interests it will be attacked, probably more so than the Taliban.

The elimination of corruption and human rights abuses and the war against terrorism are meaningless rhetorical devices used to put a happy face on the drive to control Afghanistan to the advantage of the international corporate system.

The war against the secular government and the Russians in Afghanistan was fought with proxies. There are no longer any proxies in the country available to carry on the fight. The old proxies have gone over to the religious radicals, and the thugs and drug lords that haven't are out gunned by the radicals and can't stand alone. Groups like RAWA are totally unacceptable to the corporate system that the allies are defending. To project the interests of that system we now are stuck in this quagmire.

Which are those Cueball? I'm not being coy. Are you saying that killing Taliban will only create more Taliban fighters because of tribal revenge obligations or increased hatred of the "occupying" military force? Maybe so, among the Pashtuns. But I bet the Taliban thought that by now the whole country would have risen up with them to kick out the foreigners. That doesn't seem to be happening.

We probably have to divide the Taliban fighters into about four or five different groups according to their allegiance to Afghanistan or jihad. The hard core Jihadis (Salafists, if you prefer will obviously never give up, and will try to regroup elsewhere if kicked out of Afghanistan. The elements of the Taliban who are fighting against the central government for tribal reasons will have to move beyond that, while the central government will have to become more transparently free from tribal domination. Pashtuns will have to know that they have a respected place in the new Afghanistan despite the presence, dominance even, of their tribal enemies in the Royal Jirga.

Taliban who are fighting for the right to impose their religious views on the rest of the country will have to change or die. Taliban who wish to live their own lives in their own communities according to strict fundamentalist interpretations will be permitted to do so. Foreign jihadis from Pakistan will have to be somehow interdicted.

I don't see how I'm unwittingly supporting principles that strengthen the Taliban. In supporting military force, I'm simply acknowledging that we are in a military situation. If we proceed according to American military doctrine, you are absolutely right, we are doomed. But with the changing nature of the conflict, with Canadian soldiers who are skilled in helping as well as killing, I choose to be optimistic. It will take 10 years or more. More people will die (no matter what happens). Canada will be out in 2009. Either the international community will continue the project at that point, or it will fail. I think it will succeed, and I can point to some places like Cyprus, Yugoslavia, South Korea, ... let me check my old memory banks - I know there's a lot more - where Canadian military intervention in fact resulted in the creation of a lasting peaceful country. Let's be optimistic - it can happen in Afghanistan too - and if you can handle my weird logic - it can lead to a safer world for all of us, a dimunition of American imperialism, an new era of multilateral control over world events, and a safe Afghanistan.

Meaning of course, that it is really hard to have respect for someone who advocates killing other people, who does not have the guts to take the issue into their own hands, but asks that other people do it.

[ 02 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

And for what it's worth, I consider those who think that Canada can just walk away from Afghanistan without destroying our credibility in the world and betraying those we have promised to protect as "willfully blind."

---

quote:

---

It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.

---

Blondie to Tuco "the rat"(from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly): "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.

And,

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
I watch a lot of interviews on tv with old war vets, and none of them will admit to feeling good about killing, no matter how just the cause.

---

I know some from personal experience that flat out looked forward to it, and others that didn't care one way or the other.

Not doubt there are some Canadian troops in Afghanistan that fit those profiles. It is the nature of soldiering, particularly professional soldiering.

quote:

---

Last month, NATO got a new top military commander: American general Brantz Craddock, who formerly ran the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, where terror detainees have been stripped of their most basic human rights.

So Canadian troops, serving as part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan, will ultimately be under the command of a U.S. general who ran a notorious political prison in defiance of international law.

This underlines how far Canada has moved in recent years, abandoning its former role as a leading contributor to UN peacekeeping missions and embracing a new role as a prop for the U.S. in its “war on terror.”

---

Lots to comment on, but I found this paragraph a bit odd:

quote:

---

The biggest threat to rebuilding is continued violence and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda whose principle [sic] mission is to disrupt and prohibit Afghan men, women and children from going about their daily lives.

---

I haven't seen such an external link embedded in an official government press release before: is the Department of National Defence telling us it endorses the content of the linked website?

ETA: Ah, I find this important disclaimer under another link at the bottom of the Backgrounder page:

quote:

---

Hyperlinking Notice:

Links to Web sites not under the control of the Government of Canada (GoC) are provided solely for the convenience of users. The GoC is not responsible for the accuracy, currency or the reliability of the content. The GoC does not offer any guarantee in that regard and is not responsible for the information found through these links, nor does it endorse the sites and their content.

Users should be aware that information offered by non-GoC sites that are not subject to the Official Languages Act and to which Service Canada links, may be available only in the language(s) used by the sites in question.

---

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
The oddity is not the bad spelling of 'principal,' but the hyperlink on Taliban, which takes you to this site, which lays out a translation of something it calls the 'Taliban Codex.'

---

That idea's stayed with me ever since, and though I have no experience farming, I've tried to pay attention to the scattered details that appear in Canadian news stories on Afghanistan that might provide some clues as to how some of NATO's actions might be interpreted by Afghan farmers.

Back in December, for instance, the Globe's Christie Blatchford reported on a meeting between Afghans and CF members:

quote:

---

In one corner of it yesterday, Canadian Sergeant Nathan Ronaldson sat cross-legged on a carpet for almost three hours with about 15 grape-growers engaged in the insane negotiations that are the norm in this country -- all theatre, with the actors variously feigning outrage and storming out of the joint, then making jokes and roaring with laughter.

At one point in the series of such meetings, which have stretched over at least a month and show no sign of coming to a halt, Sgt. Ronaldson, a dimpled reservist with the 48th Highlanders in Toronto, actually had his Afghan interpreter carefully translate "greedy prick" into Pashto.

Yesterday, Sgt. Ronaldson was content merely to tell the farmers, who are seeking (and getting, though not as much as they want) compensation from the Canadians for grape vines that were destroyed during the building of a security road, "You let your wallets control your heads." Haji Agha Lalai, a local leader, acidly replied with a brief harangue on the importance of land to Afghans such that there is an ironic saying here that the man who sells his property "has sold his father's bones."

"If you asked me if that was a success," Sgt. Ronaldson, an emergency room nurse by training, said with a wry grin afterward, "I'd say yes. If you asked me what happened, I'd say absolutely nothing."

---

Or take this story from the Toronto Star:

quote:

---

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 mood improves somewhat after MacBeth explains that NATO forces are here to help build the local economy. What do the people need? It turns out they need a school, as well as some new piping for their irrigation system, and a deeper well.

MacBeth says he will look into all of these matters and also promises to return very soon with some radios – 10 of them, all hand-cranked models that the Canadian troops mean to distribute widely in this area.

[snip]

Later, MacBeth meets Khan, the white-bearded elder.

They examine a broken water pump at the centre of the village.

Sgt. Chris Augustine, an engineer, estimates the cost of replacement parts at 5,000 afghanis or about $120. He hands the cash to Khan, who is pleased with these gestures but remains upset about the Canadians' return the previous night and the damage done to the surrounding fields by their vehicles.

MacBeth says he is satisfied with the mission so far.

"This is good for us," he says later that night, "because this is one more village to the west where we can travel safely."

As for the damage to the wheat fields, that's still a sore point.

---

One of Wiebe's points, as I recall, was that people (any people, not just Afghans) aren't likely to feel secure and safe if they don't feel like they have access to a secure and reliable supply of food: so what if NATO forces are creating 'sore points' by paving over vineyards to build a 'security road' or damaging fields with their LAVs?

Again, I'm sure the money to fix wells was welcome, and perhaps the radios may be welcome as well.

Certainly the distribution of the radios is understandable from NATO's standpoint, given that Canada is launching a new Radio Kandahar project:

quote:

---

The Canadian military launched a new radio station on Saturday, mixing music with a pro-NATO, anti-Taliban message aimed at young people in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

RANA-FM will try to reach people between the ages of 15 and 25 by playing mostly Bollywood and modern Afghan music, and by featuring sports and public affairs programming.

It also gives the commander of the Joint Task Force in Afghanistan an opportunity to talk to the people more directly.

[snip]

Amidst the music, there's a message: regular announcements urging Afghans to reject the Taliban.

Station manager David Bailey admits his station is tightly controlled, but says it's not a puppet of its military masters.

"When you talk about military and radio, the first word is the P word, propaganda, you know. And we're anything but."

---

People can't eat Bollywood music or anti-Taliban broadcasts.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]