Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[observor 69]

Offensichtlich, brauche ich ein "spellcheck" auf Deutsch!

http://translate.google.com/translate_t

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

I've enlisted in the canadian army to work for canada's best interest and pay the ultimate price if necessary(i've put *the necessary*, in case my boss reads this and orders me to explode myself into talibans).

None of the media answered the BASIC QUESTION that everyone asks himself if he has to do something that could end or begin(half empty or half full eh?) in your death.

WHAT'S IN IT FOR CANADA? and incidentely: my community, my family, my children and me, etc...

Lower the terrorists attacks toward Canada???
Giving driving courses in quebec would reduce the deaths greatly than that...(and anyone that passed across quebec and passed through montreal can testify that).

Hahahaha...

I'd like some media to answer real questions and stop to bullshit me with afghan freedom and crap.
That country is been at war for centuries, i don't think they want peace anyways, we can't just stand there vitam aeterna to police them, can we?

But don't get me wrong, if i'm asked to go i will go with all my enthusiasm.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Afstan: The "Q" word
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/afstan-q-word.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[annamarie temple]

Please post all responses to The Afghanistan Debate here.

I wish to think many Canadian will soon be saying HARPER BRING OUR TROOPS HOME. All Canadians are very supportive of all our Brave Man and Woman, but in a war that has been raging in their land for centuries it is time they decided their destiny for themselves.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wish to think many Canadian will soon be saying HARPER BRING OUR TROOPS HOME. All Canadians are very supportive of all our Brave Man and Woman, but in a war that has been raging in their land for centuries it is time they decided their destiny for themselves.

With respect, that’s exactly what we are trying to do.

We, the minority amongst us who actual think about what we are trying to do and why, are not trying to make Afghanistan into any sort of Westernized liberal democracy.  Only the terminally stupid – which includes several serving and former cabinet ministers – believe that is possible, or even desirable.

We are trying to give the Afghan people the peace and security necessary to make their own decisions about their own country in their own way – with only one caveat: we will not tolerate Afghanistan (or any other country) turning itself into a base for al Qaeda and its fellow travellers.

Why not?  If the Afghans want a fundamentalist, anti-Western theocracy why should we object?

Answer: because al Qaeda has declared war on us.  It has declared itself to be our deadly enemy.  It has several fellow traveller type allies with the same aim.  We have a natural right to defend ourselves against our enemies and that includes a right to deny our enemies safe haven.

In a way our operation in Afghanistan tries to send a message to the whole world: we (the ISAF nations) do not seek enemies; we are willing (and able) to help you if you do not ally yourselves with those who have declared war on us.  If you make the wrong choices then we will come to your country (after we have helped your own people overthrow an unwelcome government) and we will destroy our enemies there, too.

We are fighting in Afghanistan in pursuit of our own national interests.  Two are most important:

First: we want to deny our enemies the firm base (that’s what al qaeda means, by the way – 'the base') in Afghanistan.  To do that we need to help the lawfully elected government of Afghanistan exercise its mandate all over the country.  The Taliban does not want that to happen.  It wants to defeat the elected government and install a theocracy and, probably, invite al Qaeda back; and

Second: we are trying to restore our former (‘50s and ‘60s) position as a leader in the world.  We want to have a strong voice in matters which affect our security and our prosperity.  That comes with a price – we are paying it in Afghanistan.  France, Germany, Italy and Spain need not take risks and help us because their voice is secure, their vital interests are taken into account by virtue of their leadership positions in the EU.  We have a tougher row to hoe.

Both of those objectives are worthy and, I dare say, worth the price.

No one wants to bring the troops home more than soldiers.  Those young men and women who are dying are our friends, our colleagues, members of our tightly knit regimental families.  We grieve every death and every wound but we do not want to dishonour ourselves and our country by leaving with the jobs undone.

We respect the fact that many Canadians support the troops even when they disagree with the war.  That’s their right – a right paid for with the lives of over 100,000 of our best young men and women.  With respect, we disagree.  We think shouting “HARPER BRING OUR TROOPS HOME” is misguided, at best, and, at worst, involves giving aid and comfort to our enemies.


Edit: (typos) "... fundamentalist, anti-Wester4n theocracy ..." and "... don not seek enemies ..."

 

[GAP]

Very well explained ER

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell: Well said.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

Remember the fear that if Vietnam was to fall, the domino effect would take place?
Well as it happens things didn't work out as predicted after the Americans pulled out.

Aren't there a number of benign, from an international nations perspective, scenarios possible for Afghanistan? A return to a Taliban/Muslim controlled government but less rigid based on the experiences of the past.  A narco state simply controlled by the warlords, a la Colombia.

If it's export of terrorism by Islamic extremists, aren't there enough converts in Pakistan already to carry out international attacks. Not forgetting home grown extremists ref UK, Canada US.

 

[Flip]

Anna Marie and Sig_22_QC

Nice post ER!

I think it's really important to point out that the Taliban and their like are
not simply an alternative form of government. We might have given them
the benefit of the doubt before 9-11, but obviously ignoring them doesn't help.

By the way - the USA was the largest aid supplier to Afghanistan before 9-11.

I think it's best to describe them as a criminal organization.
Would it be good to let the Mafia run Sicily?

Our form of government is to them a crime.
Our form of banking is a crime.
Our form of civil law is a crime.
Our form of criminal law is a crime.

They seek to influence world events to suit their tastes - fine we all do.
Except EVERYTHING we call "civilization" has to go.

I could go on.

Where this bunch of goons has influence - the neighbourhood slides back into the bronze age.  These places are not limited to the middle east, include the Phillipines and Indonesia etc.  This is a global movement.

If there is crime on your street - you call the cops.
If there is crime in a foreign country - somebody( the UN ) calls NATO.

I'm not thrilled with the "world cop" model the US and allies have been thrust into either.
But the price of ignoring this global movement is just too high.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is from today’s Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=2d5659df-a7a9-4f32-be3a-00d21af2f07e

War is hell, Afghanistan is worse
When we lose eight smiling young men, couldn't someone somewhere just say -- out loud -- 'What a terrible and meaningless waste of lives'

Janice Kennedy, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Sunday, April 15, 2007

Cliches are like convenience foods -- easy, predictable, often bland. We stuff them into our mouths gratefully when we don't feel like thinking.

No news is good news. Look for the silver lining. Chalk it up to experience. Who ever said life was fair?

We hear cliches and we see them in print. They spring up, weed-like, every time we pick up a newspaper and find a story about someone who has "struggled with addictions" (apparently without success, we think uncharitably) or a person "struggling to come to terms with" some fresh grief.

But cliches do more than save time and effort. They are also effective screens. When an ugly truth needs to be disguised, there's no better mask, ironically, than a threadbare cliche.

The masking cliches have been bombarding us during the past week. Ever since the latest disaster in Afghanistan and its grim timing during the Vimy memorializations, cringe-making cliches have been pouring out of the mouths of politicians, military brass, media types and -- because the words have become molecules in the very air they breathe -- those who knew the eight young men killed last week.

We have heard endlessly about "the fallen" (and its variation, "fallen heroes"), a quaint phrase informed by Victorian imagery instead of modern reality -- in this case, unwitting targets in a vehicle blown up by an unseen device set by unseen enemies. Martial mythology notwithstanding, the "fallen" in Afghanistan have mostly been unfortunate victims. And while some may indeed have been heroic young men (or "great, great Canadian soldiers," according to one officer), the incident that took their lives resounded less with heroism and great Canadianness than with terrible tragic timing.

Justifications for war, particularly catastrophic ones, are often embroidered with empty phrases that ring with an authoritative and stoic nobility. In the Canadian disaster that is the current mission, they're all about "the price of freedom," "firm resolve" to do "the job," and "making a difference" to the people of that ancient, sad place.

"If we stop everything and we don't focus on the job that has to be done over there," said Col. Ryan Jestin, commander of the Gagetown base, "the Taliban will have won."

I have nothing but admiring and grateful respect for our troops. In our name, they do hard things most of us could never do, and they pay dreadful prices. Supporting the troops is not the issue (despite the simplistic party line that tells me I can't support the troops and criticize the mission. I can. And I do.) What appalls me are the insidious cliches that blur the unacceptable and try to pass it off as a good thing.

The deaths of Canadian soldiers and Afghan civilians are indisputably tragic. But none of the cliches ever answers the tough questions. Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur? Whose freedom are we fighting for, really? How is this achieving it? Why is our commitment so different from that of some other NATO countries? If we're there to help little girls go to school, why aren't we freeing the oppressed girls and women of neighbouring nations?

The questions are as endless as the cliches that mask them. In his speech at Vimy, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Sunday's deaths by saying that it had been "a difficult day" in Afghanistan (brave understatement also goes down well), adding, "Our hearts ache for them and their families. And I know as we gather together on Easter Sunday, our thoughts and our prayers are with them."

Fine words. But while it's a safe bet that the families touched by the tragedy thought of nothing else on Easter Sunday, the vast majority of other Canadians, while momentarily sympathetic, spent most of their day thinking of everything but. The truth behind the cliche of enduring solemnity was probably best summed up Wednesday night, opening night of the NHL playoffs, with Don Cherry's tacky display: an incoherent reference to the breaking news of the two latest deaths, pictures of Sunday's dead soldiers, picture of the dog of one of the dead soldiers, Cherry stumbling over the names, Cherry getting choked up. Then back to the game.

Like that of most Canadians, Cherry's heart may be in the right place. But not for too long.

Still, the cliches of easy sentimentality abound, especially for politicians. Observed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, "The dedication and bravery of these soldiers will be forever remembered." Newfoundland premier Danny Williams said, "Our hearts are broken for the families of those who have sacrificed their lives so tragically and valiantly."

Fallen heroes. Firm resolve. Getting the job done. The price of freedom. Thoughts and prayers. Broken hearts. Valiant sacrifice.

When we lose eight smiling young men, some of them barely out of boyhood, in a bloodbath that is stupid and pointless, couldn't someone somewhere just say -- out loud, for the whole country to hear -- "What a terrible and meaningless waste of lives. It is time to stop this obscenity. Now."

Of course, the timing with Vimy, and its solemn and wholly appropriate memorialization, only enhanced last week's insidious use of masking cliches. The prime minister, the defence minister and the foreign affairs minister all hammered home a simplistic theme of Vimy-Afghanistan continuity. For the prime minister, Kandahar is a contemporary Flanders Fields, and Canadian soldiers are again picking up the torch -- Afghanistan's fallen heroes being but one small remove from Vimy's. The tunes of glory are blaring and the cliches working overtime, all tacitly encouraging a culture of fighting with honour and dying pro patria.

Old men and comfortably safe politicians have always sent the young off to war in their stead, to die or be maimed or survive with scars that never entirely fade. The lust for, and indifference to, human cannon fodder has been a function of ruling-class psychology since the earliest conflicts of the race. Little has changed.

Historians of the Great War have long lamented the terrible loss during those years of the "flower of a generation," including 66,000 mostly young Canadians. But we still mouth the old platitudes. The obscenity continues.

The average age of our 53 Canadian military victims in Afghanistan is 29 years old. More than half were in their 20s. A third were under 25. A couple of the boys still had traces of acne on their faces, for God's sake. What monstrous logic ever judged that acceptable? What twisted politics ever decided that young, brimming lives were a fair trade-off for the sloganeering of a futile and ill-advised cause?

What cliches, seamlessly woven into our cultural fabric, ever inspired 20-year-olds like Newfoundland's Pte. Kevin Kennedy to say that he and his buddies were "really pumped" about upcoming operations? "We've trained for years," he told an interviewer excitedly in March, a month before his death, "and we are finally going to go out and do our job."

That must have been how the lads spoke as they headed overseas during the Second World War -- the difference being that Hitler's Nazis rendered that conflict necessary. But the pumped-up language of cliche remains the same, and it is easy to see how effective it can be, even without a legitimate cause.

Pumped-up imagery is also effective, especially the situational cliches we've constructed, orgies of emotional excess heavy with ceremonial salutes and pipers' laments, glib comments about final journeys and deaths not being in vain, and hollow vows of eternal remembrance (usually followed by more glib comments about "finding ways to move on").

For the families and loved ones, there is no cliche in any of this. The pain is unique and vows of remembrance real. It is the rest of us, revelling in the emotional artificiality, who have cheapened the process and transformed it into self-indulgent, and self-repeating, cliche.

Trite phrases about heroism and the great euphemism known as the fallen may mask reality, but they won't change it. They won't transform into success the failure that is Afghanistan. All those vital young lives solemnly eulogized by busy politicians at carefully staged speaking engagements will remain forever vital young lives wasted on a dusty and unwinnable stretch of distant terrain.

All cliches are lazy, some are dishonest and some are dangerous. When we're talking as a nation and as individuals about our deepest values -- peace, dialogue, our sons and daughters -- it may be time to find fresh modes of expression.

Janice Kennedy is a Citizen senior writer whose column appears here weekly.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

First off: I take Ms. Kennedy at face value.  I believe she does support the troops even as she hates this war.  Perhaps it’s not just this war she hates, perhaps she objects the use of force to e.g. prevent the Taliban from imposing their twisted, medieval social mores on the people of Afghanistan.  In any event I believe her: she does support the troops and she wants to keep them alive.

But she’s not above trotting our clichés and strawmen of her own to bolster her opposition to this mission in that poor, sad, backward, far-away, war ravaged country:

”Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur?” she asks.  Well, Ms. Kennedy, maybe it’s because the United Nations has, over and over again, asked us to go to Afghanistan and to stay in Afghanistan to help bring some peace and some stability to that unfortunate country – just enough to allow the Afghan people to make their own decisions about their own future in their own way without some religious fanatic blowing their brains out if they fail to agree that the 11th century was infinitely preferable to the 21st.  It may be, also, because we are in Darfur – not, to be sure, in the numbers that Sen. Romeo Dallaire and his mob want but that’s because the United Nations has not asked us to do more.  We did not invade Afghanistan, we were invited.  We are not going to invade Darfur, either – we are not accustomed to going about the globe waging aggressive war to pacify the demons of failed military commanders.  When (if ever) the United Nations gets its act together and decides that it needs the Western liberal democracies to do something about Darfur it is highly likely that Canada will be there – even as we stay the course in Afghanistan.

” Why is our commitment so different from that of some other NATO countries?” she also asks.  That’s a good question.  Why Kandahar and not, say, some safe military tourism zone up where the French, Germans and Italians do their good works?  The answer lies back in the Paul Martin regime.  Mr. Martin was prime minister of Canada when NATO asked members to take on a provincial Reconstruction task.  Provincial Reconstruction sounds to so good, so much in the Lester Pearson ’helpful-fixer’ tradition, so peaceful ... so Canadian.  Canada agreed but Prime Minister Martin, it was reported, dithered: “where to go,” he asked and while he was asking and asking other countries – most of the big, well armed European countries, took all the soft jobs leaving Kandahar for us.  We stepped up to the plate, Ms. Kennedy, because Prime Minister Martin, like Prime Minister Harper, wanted Canada to play an active, leadership role, because he understood that during decades of darkness we had neutered ourselves – sacrificing our vital political, economic and social interests on the alter of too many peace dividends.  He committed us to a tough combat mission in Kandahar because that’s what we need to do in our national interest.  We are sending men and women into harm’s way because they, being professional soldiers, are tools of the government, they are being used by the government to advance its (our) global policy interests.  That’s what professional soldiers do, Ms. Kennedy; they fight and kill and die to serve the policy aims set by the ”old men and comfortably safe politicians” who were elected by people just like you and I, Ms. Kennedy.  This is not a great crusade like World War II when the nation takes up arms against a monstrous evil.  The men and women in Afghanistan are ”warriors for the working day” and that’s what they do: they give muscle and voice to the soft platitudes from bureaucrats and politicians and the commentariat in Ottawa.

Finally she asks, ” If we're there to help little girls go to school, why aren't we freeing the oppressed girls and women of neighbouring nations?”  Well, Ms. Kennedy, perhaps because neither they nor the United Nations has asked us for that sort of help.  Maybe the need is not quite as great.  Maybe Pakistan and Uzbekistan do not forbid education for little girls.

Ms. Kennedy, I believe you really support the troops and oppose the war.  I also believe that you are incredibly naive and short sighted.  We all grieve when our soldiers are killed and wounded.  Mostly we wish there was some other place, some other way for us to accomplish our vital national aims in Central Asia.  For the time being, at least, there isn’t.  We’re there because no one else wanted to be.  We’re fighting because the Taliban needs to be contained.  Our soldiers are dying because the Taliban is killing them – because the Taliban is a tough, ruthless, brave, implacable enemy.  We all want our soldiers safe at home – after they have accomplished the mission, after they have served Canada’s vital interests.

 



 

 

[observor 69]

Afghanistan fight will only get tougher
By ERIC MARGOLIS

The death last Sunday of six Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan reminds us of Santayana's famous maxim that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

The soldiers were killed near Maiwand, a name meaning nothing to most Westerners. But there, on July 27, 1880, during the bloody Second Anglo-Afghan War, the British Empire suffered one of the worst defeats in its colonial history.

Two years earlier the Raj (Britain's Indian Empire) had invaded Afghanistan for a second time. The British put Afghan puppet rulers into power in Kabul and Kandahar.

Ayub Khan, son of Afghanistan's former emir, rallied 12,000 Pashtun (or Pathan) tribal warriors to fight an advancing British force whose mission was, in London's words, to "liberate" Afghan tribes and bring them "the light of Christian civilization." Today, the slogan is "promoting democracy." The fierce Afghan tribal warriors routed the imperial force, composed of British regulars, including the vaunted Grenadier Guards, and Indian Sepoy troops, after a ferocious battle. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used a British army doctor who fought at Maiwand as his model for Sherlock Holmes' companion, Dr. Watson.

I recall this epic Afghan victory against British colonialism because understanding today's war in Afghanistan requires proper historical context. A century and a quarter after Maiwand, Pashtun warriors of southern Afghanistan continue to resist another mighty world power and its allies, who have been faithfully following the imperial strategy of the old British Raj.

The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an "anti-terrorist" mission and an effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a noble campaign of "nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women's rights." All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue.

What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people who comprise half that nation's population. Another 15 million live just across the border in Pakistan. What we call the "Taliban" is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle.

ROSY REPORTS CONTRADICTED

Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis Council, found the Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the nation -- roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly contradicted rosy reports of military success and "nation-building" from Washington and NATO HQ.

This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000 interviews. "Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread." Senlis' study concurs with my own findings in South Asia that Pakistan and India have independently concluded NATO will eventually be defeated in Afghanistan and withdraw. The U.S., however, may stay on and reinforce its 30,000 troops there because it cannot admit a second defeat after the Iraq debacle.

The U.S. and NATO are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and they are certainly not winning hearts and minds. They are fighting the world's largest tribal people. The longer the Westerners stay and bomb villages, the more resistance will grow. Such is the inevitable pattern of every guerrilla war I have ever covered.

Western troops stuck in this nasty, $2-billion daily guerrilla conflict will become increasingly brutalized, demoralized and violent. This is precisely what happened to Afghanistan's second to latest invader, the Soviet Union.

Afghanistan's figurehead Hamid Karzai regime controls only the capitol. The rest of the country is under the Taliban, or warlords who run the surging narcotics trade that has made NATO the main defender of the world's leading narco state.

If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better?

Those generals and politicians who claim this war will be won in a few short years ought to study Maiwand.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/04/15/pf-4023666.html


I also support the troops, that is a given, but.....
My question is " If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better? "

 

[Flip]

I also support the troops, that is a given, but.....
My question is " If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better? "

Baden - Im glad you asked that.

The Soviet invasion and occupation was indeed an occupation.
Really, nothing in it for the Afghans.  Afghanistan now has much to gain
from the international community and NATO by getting rid of the Taliban.
To say nothing of the first reconstruction to happen in more than a generation.

The conflict is not NATO vs Afghans or even Northern Alliance vs Pashtuns.
(That's how the Taliban would frame it ).
The conflict is between the legitimate Afghan government - with international support
against  the Taliban,  which could best be described as a criminal organization.

Criminal organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda pose a serious threat to
civilization as we in the west understand it.

If the above were not true, I wouldn't support the mission either.

The last reason, I could be called on - not in my lane, so to speak.
I would like to think that NATOs professional armys are more skilled, diplomatic and
better equipped than the largely conscript Soviet army of the 80's
NATO troops have force multipliers, communications and skills that
Soviet commanders could not have even dreamed of.  NATO and NGOs have
a desire and inclination to do something positive for the people with a remarkable technical capacity to support these intentions.
Again - I'm a civvy so I don't know.

"Do better?" I think they already have.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Re Ms Kennedy: a letter sent to the Ottawa Citizen:

Why we are not in Darfur

Janice Kennedy, in her column "War is hell, Afghanistan is worse" (April 15), asks "Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur?"  There are very good reasons why.  The NATO mission in Afghanistan has the unanimous authorization of the U.N. Security Council and is there at the invitation of the legitimately elected government of the country.

Meanwhile, the government of Sudan refuses to allow an effective U.N. force to be deployed to Darfur.  Without that permission, peacemaking in Darfur can only take the form of an invasion of Sudan, with no Security Council mandate.  Such an invasion would certainly be bloody and raise the wrath of the Muslim world.  Hence there is no appetite in the international community for such a course of action.

Does Ms Kennedy think that Canada should invade Sudan on its own?  If so, how does she propose that we do it?

Re Mr Margolis: a letter sent to the Ottawa Sun:

Mr Margolis' mythical "oil corridor"

Eric Margolis, in his column "Afghanistan fight will only get tougher (April 15), raises yet again the ludicrous idea that the international effort in that country is all about oil.  He writes: "What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan..."

What nonsense.  Afghanistan in no oil corridor of any sort.  Most Central Asian oil is in Kazakhstan, far to the west and Kazakhstan has no need for Afghanistan as a pipeline route.  Kazakh oil is exported via Russia and to China.  It will now be shipped, following an agreement with Azerbaijan last year, across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and onward by pipeline to a Turkish port on the eastern Mediterranean.  Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, which have much smaller oil reserves than Kazakhstan, equally have no need for any Afghan pipeline should they ever become major oil exporters.

References:
http://www.oilgasarticles.com/articles/195/2/Oil-and-Gas-Infrastructure-in-Afghanistan/Page2.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Kazakhstan/Oil.html
http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.2862.aspx
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caspian/Oil.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is another, Québec based, view of what we are (or are not) doing and why:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070416.wxcogagnon16/BNStory/National/home

A war of diminishing returns

LYSIANE GAGNON
From Monday's Globe and Mail

On Sunday, they were six. On Wednesday, they were eight, pushing the death toll of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan to 53. In Quebec, where opposition to this war is already stronger than anywhere else in Canada, one can expect that the anger will double in August, once the 2,000 soldiers based in Valcartier, Que., are sent to Afghanistan. Inevitably, some of them will be brought home in body bags. The public outcry will be huge.

This is why retired general Roméo Dallaire, arguably the only military figure popular in Quebec, embarked last week on a one-man mission to try to diffuse the anti-war sentiment. "International responsibility is more than foreign-aid money and missionaries," he pleaded in an interview aimed at a French audience. "It also demands sweat, grit and sometimes the blood of our young people."

But his plea might fall on deaf ears. My guess is that many Quebeckers would agree with François Avard's furious reply. In a letter to La Presse, Mr. Avard, a successful screenplay writer, sarcastically noted that indeed, "young people" rather than "old generals" are sacrificed in war, and mocked Mr. Dallaire's Churchillian arguments: "We are not Londoners under the Nazi bombs. Montreal is not burning! . . . Why spill blood to support Hamid Karzai's corrupt government?"

The rest of Mr. Avard's piece is a rehash of dreamy-eyed pacifist theories, but he has a point. Even those who believe that wars can be fought for just causes, that force is the only solution to certain conflicts, are beginning to have doubts about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. This mission reminds me of Albert Camus's masterworks, Le Mythe de Sisyphe.

In his essay on the absurdity of life, the great French writer-philosopher evoked the tragic fate of Sisyphus, a mythical figure of ancient Greece, whom the gods had condemned to push a huge rock to the top of a mountain, only to see it roll down the other side. This he would repeat eternally. "The gods," Camus writes, "knew that there is no worse punishment than performing a task that is both useless and hopeless."

The Afghan mission seems increasingly entrapped in a similar conundrum. A school is built only to be demolished the next day. The massive efforts to befriend the population are pulverized as soon as Afghan civilians are killed in a fire exchange between military convoys and Taliban insurgents. For each Taliban who falls, there is a young neighbour who picks up his rifle and there are 10, 20, 50 new recruits arriving through the porous border with Pakistan.

The original aim of this war was to eradicate the main source of international terrorism, but reports from U.S. intelligence agencies indicate that al-Qaeda has reconstructed its training camps in Pakistan, in the mountainous regions of Waziristan. It is now widely known that the Taliban can count on powerful allies within the Pakistani military.

And what is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's goal? It is to reinforce the democratically elected Afghan government -- a laudable goal in itself, except that Mr. Karzai's government turns out to be corrupt and inefficient, hated by many Afghans and linked to the warlords who profit from the opium trade.

The height of absurdity was reached recently when one of the Afghan policemen who inquired into the murder of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry asked for asylum in Canada because he had received death threats. Why on Earth would Canada send its young men and women to a country deserted by its own police?

Especially troubling is the fact that for years now, the heavy task of bringing order to the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan has fallen almost exclusively on the Americans, British, Dutch and Canadians, while other countries maintain small contingents in the more peaceful areas of northern Afghanistan and steadfastly refuse to endanger their troops.

Instead of blindly promising to stay in Afghanistan until 2009, the Harper government should put serious pressure on NATO to ensure that all its partners equally share the burden. Then it would be easier to support the Afghan mission.

lgagnon@lapresse.ca

First: kudos to Sen. Dallaire for trying to make the case for this war rather than trying to minimize its importance so that he can maximize his crusade for Darfur.

Ms. Gagnon is right: M. Avard, like his fellow travellers, is full of nothing but ”dreamy-eyed pacifist theories.”  Ms. Gagnon is also wrong: M. Avard does not have a point.  Dreamy-eyed pacifist theories do not constitute a reasoned analysis of Canada’s national interests.

The process of making Afghanistan safe enough for the Afghan people to make their own decisions about their own future in their own way is long and arduous and, indeed, filled with “absurdities.”  It is also worthwhile.  Canada is one of the tiny minority of the world’s 200± nations – we are blessed: rich, safe, sophisticated, modern, democratic, industrialized and (in the UN’s words) militarily capable.  If we do not have a responsibility to protect the wretched of the earth (a category which must include the people of Afghanistan) then who does?  If we will not bear a burden then who will?

I acknowledge that Québecers are out of step with the rest of Canada on this matter.  I’m not sure why that is.  Perhaps it is the same as Québec’s responses to the 20th century wars.  Many, many Québecers were wrong, very wrong – morally wrong, in 1939/45.  They are also wrong in 2007.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Afstan: Three views
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/afstan-two-views.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dshipley]

'Close enough to feel the agony'

Marty KLINKENBERG
Telegraph-Journal
Published Tuesday April 17th, 2007
Appeared on page A1
In the first 48 hours Lee Windsor toured the countryside in Afghanistan, the University of New Brunswick professor was a passenger in two military convoys attacked by the Taliban.

The first time, the Albert County native was riding with soldiers from a CFB Gagetown battle group when they were ambushed in the Arghandab River Valley west of Kandahar.

The next time, a suicide bomber in a taxi plowed into a light armoured vehicle ahead of his, injuring 10 civilians in downtown Kandahar.

"I was close enough to feel the agony, close enough to feel that pain," Windsor, who is embedded with soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, said. "It gave me some sense of what the troops here have to face to deliver the payoff."

The director of the Gregg Centre for War & Society at UNB's campus in Fredericton, Windsor is conducting a research project focused on the Canadian military. He made the long journey to Afghanistan last month to better understand the challenges and measure the success of the NATO-led mission, and to evaluate Canada's contribution.

Oddly enough, Windsor is not critical of what he has seen here, despite almost immediately getting shot at and nearly blown up.

The native of Pleasant Vale, near Elgin in Albert County, says the progress he has witnessed outweighs the setbacks. And coming from a guy who dodged two bullets, that says a lot.

"What really opened my eyes is how things in Afghanistan have started to change," Windsor, 35, said. "The image Canadians have is that it is complete and utter chaos all of the time.

"I came here like everyone else, imagining I'd run off the plane and be dodging rockets the whole time.

But I've been amazed to see commerce, to see an Internet café, to see highways full of vehicles. I've been struck by the number of people out doing things, living and working.

"It is clear the economy has been kick-started largely because of the police presence NATO provides."

Windsor has spent time outside Kandahar, and has come to realize that most Taliban sympathizers are in urban areas. The provincial Reconstruction Team, which helps Afghanis build schools and roads, restore electricity and lay sewage lines, is largely embraced in outlying areas.

He says that helping farmers grow crops other than poppies, which is used to manufacture opium, will help reverse a cycle insurgents have used to enrich themselves at the expense of peasants.

"The challenge I saw, and the troops and battle group are trying to overcome, is that certain areas are still run by feudal drug lords.

"The misconception is that farmers grow poppies for their own benefit. But I stood outside some of their homes and I can tell you there is no way these people are growing this stuff because they want to get rich.

"The problem is that the cycle of this feudal system is so deep, and people are so gripped by the drug lords, that you have to break those bonds, and that can't be done easily.

"That's why the Canadians are here. These people need our help."

Windsor climbed a mountain last week and found himself peering into a lush, green valley. He believes now that farmers will easily be able to feed the millions here who are suffering if they are simply given a hand.

"When I was out with the soldiers, we got stuck in the mud at one point and I got to get out and see people working in the fields.

"What I realized is how enterprising and ingenious they are. They are working with crude instruments - shovels and buckets and a 1,000-year-old irrigation system - and yet their fields were wet in the middle of the desert with water they had diverted from a riverbed.

"I've been amazed. I expected to see abject poverty and found wonderfully industrious people."

Windsor said the mission here can be accomplished by attacking problems on a variety of levels, starting with the military seeing to it that the Taliban has less and less influence. The latter allows the Provincial Reconstruction Team to help Afghanis get back on their feet after decades of war and abuse. Lastly, he said the Afghan police and military has to be improved, which would eventually allow Canadian soldiers to leave.

"It is important to train the army to the same standards the Canadians are using to get the Taliban, and not innocent people, and that's working," Windsor said. "People who fled to refugee camps are coming back and are working their fields because they understand now that foreign troops and Afghan forces will protect them.

"They want to restore life in their own country."

Windsor has been interviewing soldiers as part of his project and eventually hopes to write a book using the information he collects here.

For the most part, he said is optimistic after what he has found.

"One thing I've recognized after being on the base is that the perceptions Canadians have about the effort here doesn't match the reality.

This idea that the Canadians are shouldering the burden alone is bull.

"Not only are the Americans and Brits here, but in the past few days I have seen German officers and Danes, and the first soldiers from the Polish contingent are starting to arrive.

"The multi-national coalition is growing by the day."

The cost of the war is growing, but Windsor believes it is a good fight.

"The eight soldiers who were killed in operations here in the last week did not die in vain," he said. "They died conducting patrols while trying to bring feudal slaves some hope.

"I just wish like hell that Canadians had as much patience as the Afghanis do. If people want the situation to improve, they should stop saying it is impossible and figure out a way to help.

"I'm convinced. I'm sold."

Marty Klinkenberg is contributing editor of the Telegraph-Journal. He is imbedded with New Brunswickers working as part of the NATO effort against the Taliban. He can be reached at mklinkenberg@rogers.com.

http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/article.php?articleID=128606

 

[observor 69]

[Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]

 

[Armymedic]

[Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]

And thank you for underscoring the lack of understanding Cdn citizens have. Those who never stepped foot into Afghanistan and actually seen what thier Armed Forces are doing there have accomplished in the last yr+, and come out of the closet when ever someone says anything supportive of our efforts.

It actually was a good article, written by a credable acedemic, not a group of people who normally goes out of thier way to defend our mission or the CF.

 

[GAP]

[Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]

That's good press the CF is sorely lacking...do not begrudge it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

[Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]

Alright smart guy.....lets have an expansion of that thought.