An Interesting Take on Afghanistan

On March 1 an interesting article "The ugly truth in Afghanistan" appeared. It is lengthy, but quite a worthwhile read. I will include multiple links as the paper often removes story links after a while.

Here's a link
This link takes you to the G&M's text version of the article
Here's the Globe & Mail online link

Peering into Afghanistan

I submitted this to the 4 Irving papers. Let's see what happens. Hey - it was published on Feb 14, 15 and 16 in the various papers.


Moore's Afghan history is faulty

Afghanistan is a complex country and we are involved in a complex war. Charles Moore’s partisan attacks (‘Layton’s Afghan history is faulty,’ 7 Feb.) do very little to clarify the situation. ** I was prompted to this reply because of a letter to the editor on 12 February. ** He attacks Jack Layton’s position with vitriol but little research.

Mr. Moore notes that the Afghan defeat of the Soviets (1979-1989) was assisted by significant funding from the United States. This is indeed very true.

However, he fails to mention that the CIA used Kissinger-like tactics when it called upon Afghanis to engage in jihad against Soviet invaders, and so began the mujaheddin or ‘warriors of the Lord.’ This is documented in a 27 March 1995 article by Robert Friedman in New York Magazine (‘The CIA’s jihad’). This article draws a direct connection between the CIA’s tactics during the Soviet invasion and the presence of between 100 to 125 potential Islamic terrorists operating in the New York area in 1995 according to the district attorney’s office.

Mr. Moore ignores the fact that during the Soviet invasion, the U.S. supplied Afghanistan with violence-laden textbooks including primers “filled with talk of jihad and featur[ing] drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.” This story was reported in 23 March 2002 in The Washington Post (‘From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts’). Some of these texts were still in use in 2002 and may still be in use today.

I cite these articles so that people can look them up. Neither the New York Magazine (often mistakenly referred to as the New Yorker in web references) nor the Washington Post is tremendously left-wing or particularly peacenik. However both of these sources present carefully researched articles.

Afghanistan is a truly complex country with a complex history. Likewise, the rise of current radical Islam is a complex issue created, in part, by past U.S. policy.

Poverty, political strife, human rights abuses, tribal conflict, war, drug exports, and a history of past political interference have built the Afghanistan of today. If our decision to enter into a war in Afghanistan was built on flimsy research like that provided by Mr. Moore, then we should have never gone in the first place.

Right on!

A good friend wrote to me today about a new documentary, "Jesus Camp" which highlights the growth of fundamentalism in the US. What follows is my reply.

Hi John;

I've seen part of the movie and some documentaries on the topic. Pretty scary stuff.

I find it odd that we freak out about Islamic madras schools and claim they are a threat to the world when we foster the same thing in North America.

"You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye. Then you will see clearly to remove the piece of sawdust from another believer's eye." - Matthew 7:5.

The Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber clearly show the reality of homegrown, non-Islamic terrorism in the US.

Indeed, it seems lost to America that they invoked the concept of jihad, thereby creating the very thing they now feel called to destroy.

"The Soviet invasion of Kabul in December 1979, attracted the US towards the orthodox Islamic militia's role in forwarding the US policy, and which attracted considerable international attention and coverage in the popular press and academic circles of the time, in projecting what appeared then to be an American love affair with Islamism. It was, as the author points out, consummated in an alliance with the Islamist military dictator of Pakistan. In cooperation with Zia-ul-Haq's military intelligence services, with Saudi finance as well as with Pakistani logistical support, the CIA, managed in raising, training, equipping, paying and sending into battle a mercenary army of Islamist volunteers, against the Red Army in Afghanistan, terming it a 'jihad' or 'holy' war against the Soviets." (http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2001_files/no_2/review/4r.htm)

"When will we ever learn?" - Pete Seeger.

For a good reflection on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "peace speech on Vietnam" (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html), see http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/mlk03.html. I think it is quite appropriate.

Peace,

Rob

PS. Did I ever send you Harper's connections to the US religious right? If not, here are two links: http://dawn.thot.net/harperstiestousa/ and http://dawn.thot.net/ann-porter.html.

Afghanistan - Mission?

Shortly after the Manley report was released, a US report on Afghanistan painted a pretty grim picture of a nation teetering on the precipice of failed statehood and an American military machine that has given little attention to the mission.

People, and indeed the Manley report, have made much of this being a UN-approved mission, but professor of International Law, Francis Boyle points out that the UN security council permits actions to bring 9/11 criminals to justice preferably through extradition and the judicial system. Osgoode Hall law professor Michael Mandel says the mission has "a veneer of UN authority." (see Linda McQuaig, "Keep Pearson out of it" Toronto Star, 5 Feb 2008).

We have all read of the corruption in Hamid Karzai's government and the fact that there's been no decline in the abuse of women in Afghanistan. Today's news points to another failure of Harper's government to stand up for human, let alone Canadian, morals:

"It was only after weeks of international outrage that Canada's House of Commons, in response to a motion sponsored by NDP leader Jack Layton, unanimously voted on Monday to condemn a death sentence faced by an Afghan journalist.

About time, too, although the Harper government still hasn't had much to say about the case, at least not for the record." (see Antonia Zerbisias, "Afghan evils ignored at our peril" Toronto Star, 6 Feb 2008).

Harper's government doesn't know what it is doing in Afghanistan. It has covered-up and obfuscated our treatment of detainees. Harper's government has blamed the military for its own mistakes (e.g., Sandra Buckler). Worse, Harper has dragged Canada's good name around the world through the mud.

I don't think much of Manley's pre-conceived report, but I think a lot of Canadians are saying, on the "spectrum between utility and futility," Harper's government seems to be shifting things toward the futility end.

Let's stop listening to Harper's (or "lil' dubya's") rhetoric and spin, and instead stop fighting and create a truly Canadian mission for Afghanistan.

Again Afghanistan

Today we hear of yet another Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan. Our thoughts are extended to both this soldier's at home family and military family, and to the many that grieve such a loss.

I have been told of a person in the area who at one point in his career found himself in Afghanistan teaching the freedom fighters from Afghanistan how to build IEDs in order to fight back the Russian army. Seems a little ironic. I hope to interview him one day soon.

Harper's hand-picked Afghanistan panel (led by the hawkish Manley who was the Liberal Deputy Prime Minister in Jean Chretien's government) has criticized the Canadian role in Afghanistan yet also called for an open-ended military committment to the effort.

It is the wrong war, led by people who, in my opinion, have a misguided sense of Canada. Indeed the men and women on the ground are doing their best to help a damaged and broken people, but our efforts are misplaced. While critics pan the idea of leaving Afghanistan, the real issue in my mind is should we have gone there in the first place? In my opinion, our motives for moving into Afghanistan were misguided (or largely guided by Bush and Cheney's policy - which is the same thing) so leaving is the responsible thing to do. Then we can refocus and ask some real questions. How should we deal with Afghanistan? Should we be expending our efforts in the Darfur region?

While Harper's government has generally done a poor job on the Afghanistan file (but a pretty good job at spinning the mission) there has been one small success. Today we find out that even Harper has to agree that Canadian-held Afghan detainees handed over to Afghani forces are subject to torture. Apparently a decision has finally been made to halt the transfer of Afghan detainees to local forces. This change in orders was made almost a month ago, but did not come to light until just recently as two human rights groups prepared to take Harper's government to court. I wonder how much money (some of it from taxpayers) was wasted on lawyers and filings when Harper could have made an announcement weeks ago?


Finally, I applaud the ethical stance of the many engineers who have quit their jobs because of the potential sale of MDA makers of the Canadarm (an uncle of mine worked on the original) to US-owned ATK. We are told that among the many military products ATK makes are cluster bombs, depleted uranium rounds, nuclear weapons, and land mines. I hope that Harper's government see's the light on this issue, but I worry that they may try to hide behind NAFTA or some other ruling to accomplish their ideological ends.

Now that I think of it, maybe we should start referring to Harper as "w" or "lil' dubya"!

Our "Mission"

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content


There's a whole lot I feel called to blog about these days, so expect a number of entries.


To date, 77 Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have sacrificed their lives for, what I believe to be, a misguided mission in Afghanistan. Countless more have been injured both physically and psychologically. While I blame two successive governments and a number of senior military staff for the wrongheadedness of our approach, I think our men and women on the ground our doing the best that they can given what they have been told to do. I'll happily chat over my reasoning if people are interested, but I want to comment on recent actions more close to home.

On 16 Jan. 2008, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates was quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying "I'm worried we're deploying [military advisors] that are not properly trained and I'm worried we have some military forces that don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations. ... Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap [a region in Germany]."

77 people lost in a combat role in a war with tactics (mis)guided by the Bush administration against a force that is constantly recharged and refueled by Bush's unilateral and illegal war in Iraq, and Gates has the audacity to claim that our NATO troops, and consequently Canadian soldiers, aren't trained and aren't ready.

Can anyone be ready for the help of an "ally" who creates more of the "enemy"?

Worse yet, our own Defence Minister Peter MacKay has worked hard to excuse Gates' comments in the Canadian Press (Times & Transcript, 17 Jan. 2008, C1) arguing that Canada was not singled out as one of the NATO participants in Afghanistan. Given Prime Minister Harper's careful control of his Ministers' comments to the media, one can only link this comment back to Mr. Harper himself.

Why is Canada's foreign policy so dictated by the Bush regime, when it is a regime that is thankfully about to be turfed?

Mr. Bush and Mr. Harper, I am still a Canadian and proud to be one!

More on Afghanistan

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Today we were told of the deaths of two more Canadian soldiers and their interpreter in Afghanistan. Three other Canadian soldiers were injured. Please spare a few moments to think of their sacrifice and the sacrifice of their families. Think of the sacrifice made by all the people - civilian and combatants - involved in this war. If you pray, please pray for a peaceful end to this conflict soon.



See link to CBC article here






Photo from CBC
(Jacques Boissinot/Canadian Press)

Thinking about Afghanistan

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

I sent this in as a reply to a commentary on CBC. I don't believe they read it on air.

Let me preface my reply with the comment that I deeply respect the men and women who, at the request of their government and by proxy their country, are serving in Afghanistan.

That said, I question our government’s justification for the mission.

First, the government justifies the mission using the words spoken by Afghan President Hamid Karzai on his visit to Canada. Access to Information has undeniably shown that President Karai’s speech was drafted by the Department of National Defence. While President Karzai said the words, the Department of National Defence put them in his mouth.

Second, the government regularly tells us of the horrid living conditions in Afghanistan. I do not doubt that this is the case; in fact, it is part of the reason I am working with a group to sponsor a family of Afghan refugees. Still, I question the altruism our government is trying to display when they justify the mission in this manner.

Within Canada, First Nations people live in Third World conditions on reserves. There’s a lack of access to clean drinking water, severely substandard housing, limited access to healthcare, chronic unemployment, limited educational opportunities, and extremely high suicide rates especially among young people. This is clear evidence of severe and systemic poverty.

If the motives for the mission were really altruistic, then surely the government of Canada would send our provincial reconstruction teams to the reserves to help out. Surely the Canadian government would be willing to spend something close to the $7.2 billion that we have already devoted to the military mission in Afghanistan. Even if Canada spent the $3.3 billion of the estimated incremental military cost of the Afghan mission, we would at least start addressing this problem occurring within our own country. In contrast, meeting the Kelowna Accord commitments would have cost about $5 billion and our Federal budget surplus this year will be close to $10 billion.

Unfortunately our government fails to see the hypocrisy in their message. When First Nations people rise up in protest, our government fights back rather than engage in meaningful discussion. We would not accept an occupying force entering Canada to deal with this injustice but our government argues that this is specifically what we must do in Afghanistan in the name of justice.

I, for one, cannot reconcile our position in Afghanistan as being purely altruistic as my government keeps trying to tell me. What then are the real reasons we are in Afghanistan?

NDP Supporting the Conservatives?

This is an Archived Post. Click here to visit the most recent content

Many people have suggested that Jack Layton and the NDP supported Stephen Harper's party when we voted against a Liberal motion to recall the troops from Afghanistan at the end of the mission in February 2009.

Before I try to explain this odd event, let me clearly state that the NDP supports our soldiers but not the mission.

1) The NDP did not support Stephen Harper's party - we voted against the Liberal motion. We want withdrawal to begin immediately. The NDP did not support extending the mission to February 2009 in the first place (neither did Stephan Dion by the way).
2) The NDP has been consistent in its criticism of the Afghanistan mission.
3) As far as I understand, the Liberal motion was not a confidence motion. As such, even if it had passed, Stephen Harper and company could have ignored it just like they are ignoring Kyoto targets.
4) Now just suppose it had been a confidence motion and the 'newish' minority government lost the confidence of the House. A new election would have taken place and we could have seen the Liberals back in power. However, now the NDP would have supported the mission end-date of February 2009 and it would be hard to call for an earlier withdrawal.
5) In reality, on April 26, Jack Layton and the NDP tabled a motion to call for withdrawal to begin immediately.

For more on the War in Afghanistan and the NDP, please visit:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/5211

Before I let you go, I have one final point your may want to consider. We have been told that Canadians fight for peace ... we fight to build peaceful societies and we stand ready to fight in order to maintain peace. If this is true, why then is there no desk or committee for the study of peace in the Department of National Defense (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/sitemap_e.asp#P)?