It is surreal to read some of the Soviet opinion about their Afghan war that ended in 1989. And don't forget the Brit Afghan war before that. How the U.S.A. and Canada allowed themselves to get into the same situation the Soviets were in, in the 80's, will be one of the great ironies of history. Peacenik would love to search the newspaper archives to read some of the contemporaneous U.S. and Canadian opinion about the Soviet attack on Afghanistan. The U.S. and Canada were so outraged that they did not compete in the Moscow Olympics. And now, like the Soviets, the U.S. and Canada are spending money they cannot afford on a war they cannot justify, while their social saftey nets are torn to shreds and eliminated. Bring the troops home now.
Washington, the Pentagon, and the U.S. military need to enter rehab for their addiction to waging war and empire across the planet.
If, as 2011 begins, you want to peer into the future, enter my time machine, strap yourself in, and head for the past, that laboratory for all developments of our moment and beyond.Just as 2010 ended, the American military’s urge to surge resurfaced in a significant way. It seems that “leaders” in the Obama administration and “senior American military commanders” in Afghanistan were acting as a veritable WikiLeaks machine. They slipped information to New York Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins about secret planning to increase pressure in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, possibly on the tinderbox province of Baluchistan, and undoubtedly on the Pakistani government and military via cross-border raids by U.S. Special Operations forces in the new year.
In the front-page story those two reporters produced, you could practically slice with a dull knife American military frustration over a war going terribly wrong, over an enemy (shades of Vietnam!) with “sanctuaries” for rest, recuperation, and rearming just over an ill-marked, half-existent border. You could practically taste the chagrin of the military that their war against... well you name it: terrorists, guerrillas, former Islamic fundamentalist allies, Afghan and Pakistani nationalists, and god knows who else... wasn’t proceeding exactly swimmingly. You could practically reach out and be seared by their anger at the Pakistanis for continuing to take American bucks by the billions while playing their own game, rather than an American one, in the region.
Read on...
Showing posts with label Canada's Afghan mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada's Afghan mission. Show all posts
1/6/11
11/25/10
U.S. warns Ottawa about fallout from pending WikiLeaks release
The Wikileaks has already shown the wars were promoted with lies. Wikileaks has already confirmed indiscriminate killing. War Crimes. Torture. And nothing shook Harper's solidarity with the Obama/Bush warmongers. But maybe, just maybe, the new Wikileaks will have some juicy quotes from high ranking U.S. military and political leaders. Maybe they think Harper is a twitt. Or an asshole. Maybe they say mean things about Harper behind his back. Maybe they don't respect Canada's contribution. Heck if Harper's feelings get hurt it might change his whole mindset. Too bad Canada has to hang it hopes for withdrawal on such a slender thread. They already probably call him an asshole to his face. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.
OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
The U.S. government has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage American relations with allies around the world.
OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
The U.S. government has notified Ottawa that the WikiLeaks website is preparing to release sensitive U.S. diplomatic files that could damage American relations with allies around the world. U.S. officials say the documents may contain accounts of compromising conversations with political dissidents and friendly politicians as well as activities that could result in the expulsion of U.S. diplomats from foreign postings.
U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson phoned Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon to inform him of the matter, a foreign affairs spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Melissa Lantsman said the Canadian embassy in Washington is “currently engaging” with the U.S. State Department on this matter.
11/17/10
Liberals accuse NDP of ‘hypocrisy’ on Afghanistan
Peacenik emailed Ignatieff and asked him to not support the extension of Canada's role in Afghanistan. Ignatieff didn't respond. Peacenik has voted for the Liberals strategically in the past. Peacenik will not be voting for the Liberals ever again. The Globe's view is that "leaving Afghanistan entirely after years of brave service would be foolish." Peacenik's view is that staying in Afghanistan is insane. But Harper, Ignatieff, Nato, and the U.S. cannot admit a mistake. Has Canada beat the USSR's record for occupying Afghanistan yet? A record of futility and stupidity. Bring the troops home now.
1. Divide and conquer. Without the Conservatives to attack, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals are gunning for Jack Layton and the NDP, accusing them of adopting a position on Afghanistan that is “simply not credible.”
The Liberals support the Harper government’s decision to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan after the scheduled July pull-out; the New Democrats do not – playing right into the Tory strategy of splitting the opposition.
The criticism of the NDP is contained in a series of talking points issued by the Grits to their supporters Tuesday.
“Jack Layton has called for a ‘massive civilian deployment’ to provide stability in Afghanistan, but you can’t achieve this in the midst of conflict without providing Afghans with the tools to protect their security and their democracy,” the memo says. “Liberals firmly support ending the combat mission in Afghanistan as scheduled in July 2011 and we support the new post-combat training presence as outlined by the government today.”
11/11/10
PM plans ‘inside the wire' Afghan role while U.S. presses for riskier one
Its bad enough that Obama has sided with Wall Street against mainstreet. He's backed down on almost every policy initiative that got him elected. Now he is twisting the arm of a very pliable Stevie Harper to continue Canada's combat role in Afghanistan. Obama is a George Bush acolyte. He is a warmongerer. As is Harper. Peacenik wants to puke. Bring the troops home now.
The United States is asking Canada to take on a more robust – and risky – role after the planned 2011 pullout of combat troops from Afghanistan, including risking enemy fire outside of bases to mentor Afghan security forces in the field.
The push comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to announce next week the government's new plan for Afghanistan – a plan that will likely keep Canada “inside the wire.”
But the United States wants more. The Americans are seeking greater Canadian participation – a role “outside the wire” – and are hoping for such an announcement before next week's NATO summit in Lisbon.
Read on...
11/8/10
Ottawa talks of extending Afghan mission
Peacenik doesn't have the will to go back and document why it is crazy for Ottawa to extend the Afghan mission. Everyone knows all the arguments. There is no mission being a major one. There can be no victory. Torture and war crimes are part of everyday life in Afghanistan. Canada can't afford to be pissing money away in Afghanistan. But lies, propaganda and irrelevancies will be used to bang the drums for more war. The Conservative Party of Canada is addicted to war. And the other parties are too gutless to say enough. Bring the troops home now.
Bowing to intense pressure from the United States and other allies, the Harper government now acknowledges that hundreds of Canadian troops could remain in Afghanistan years after its long and bloody combat mission officially ends in 2011.
Bowing to intense pressure from the United States and other allies, the Harper government now acknowledges that hundreds of Canadian troops could remain in Afghanistan years after its long and bloody combat mission officially ends in 2011.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Ottawa is looking at the possibility of keeping a significant number of soldiers “behind the wire” in the war-torn country to help train the Afghan army and local police.
“Knowing that the mission in Afghanistan has work that is yet to be done, we are now considering this,” Mr. MacKay told reporters in Halifax Sunday at the conclusion of an international security conference.
“Training is an option and it’s something we’re very good at, quite frankly.”
10/12/10
Canada loses bid for UN Security Council seat
Peacenik can only chuckle and shake Peacenik's head. Our great neo con Prime Minister, Stevie Harper, humiliated at the U.N. Nine years of ass kissing in Afghanistan and the U.N. slaps Canada's face. Good for the U.N. Unfortunately this will probably inspire Harper to redouble our warmaking efforts. Let's add some useless tanks, and some weapons of mass destruction to Canada's arsenal, then maybe Canada will get the respect Harper so clearly desires. Fiasco. Boondoggle. Fuck up. Bring the troops home now.
OTTAWA - In a stunning swipe Tuesday at Canada's foreign policy shift under the Conservative government, United Nations voters rejected Canada's bid for a seat on the prestigious Security Council.
After trailing in two rounds of balloting at the UN General Assembly in New York, Canada withdrew its bid for a Security Council seat.
As recently as two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pitched Canada's candidacy for the Security Council to the 192 member countries at the UN.
But despite depositing bottles of maple syrup on the desks of voters Tuesday and bringing in some uniformed Mounties as part of a last-minute pitch for support, UN voters soundly rejected Canada's bid for a seat.
Read on...
OTTAWA - In a stunning swipe Tuesday at Canada's foreign policy shift under the Conservative government, United Nations voters rejected Canada's bid for a seat on the prestigious Security Council.
After trailing in two rounds of balloting at the UN General Assembly in New York, Canada withdrew its bid for a Security Council seat.
As recently as two weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pitched Canada's candidacy for the Security Council to the 192 member countries at the UN.
But despite depositing bottles of maple syrup on the desks of voters Tuesday and bringing in some uniformed Mounties as part of a last-minute pitch for support, UN voters soundly rejected Canada's bid for a seat.
Read on...
10/6/10
Canadian pullout could threaten Afghan mission, senior NATO officer says
Shouldn't all these military types just shut their collective pie holes. Peacenik thought civilians ran the military. Peacenik has lost track of how long NATO has been in Afghanistan. One day was one day too many. Canada's departure could threaten the Afghan mission. What mission was that? There is no mission. There never was a mission. Just one big boondoggle. Bring the troops home now.
Canada's plan to bring its troops home from Afghanistan next year has the potential to hurt NATO's chances of success in Kandahar, a senior officer with the coalition said Wednesday.
Col. Dave Bellon, who is the chief of operations for NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan, indicated that the United States would be left picking up the slack after the Canadian withdrawal.
Canadian soldiers are scheduled to begin returning home in July 2011, which Col. Bellon said would be at a critical juncture in the mission.
10/16/09
Get Out of Afghanistan Now
Sounds like a plan to Peacenik. Nothing positive can be accomplished by the occupation of Afghanistan. The idea that the west could impose a western democracy on Afghanistan is as ridiculous as the idea that the Soviet Union could impose a communist government.
Unfortunately countries sometimes get the governments they deserve. Does Canada deserve the present Harper government? Canada doesn't but, if the sheeple don't wake up, and if the Liberals or NDP or Greens don't get their act together Canada might end up with more of Harper. But Afghanistan has always been tribal. And looks like it always will be. Get out of Afghanistan now. Bring the troops home now.
By G. Pascal Zachary, In These Times. Posted October 15, 2009.
The case for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Saigon being evacuated
For all the talk of polarization and partisanship in U.S. politics, what's remarkable is the extent to which President Obama has continued policies and practices of his predecessor, George Bush, in domestic economics and military affairs.
Economically, Obama has continued the bailout of Wall Street, maintained Bush-era tax cuts, pursued "stimulus" through large deficit spending and re-appointed Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman who was a Bush favorite.
In defense, Obama has broken with Bush on a few critical matters, notably by canceling expensive weapons systems and dropping (in September) an aggressive plan to impose a "missile shield" in Eastern Europe that Russia intensely opposed. Yet Obama has carried over Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates; essentially stuck with Bush timetables on Iraq; and maintained historically record levels of Pentagon spending. The president has continued the war in Afghanistan, raising the number of American combat troops. In a speech on August 17, Obama even tried to construct a moral basis for the war, described it as "not a war of choice," but "a war of necessity." And as a necessary war, "a war worth fighting," Obama has declared that only through the democratization of Afghanistan can the terrorist threat to the United States--in the form of al Qaeda--be eliminated from the country.
Read on...
Unfortunately countries sometimes get the governments they deserve. Does Canada deserve the present Harper government? Canada doesn't but, if the sheeple don't wake up, and if the Liberals or NDP or Greens don't get their act together Canada might end up with more of Harper. But Afghanistan has always been tribal. And looks like it always will be. Get out of Afghanistan now. Bring the troops home now.
By G. Pascal Zachary, In These Times. Posted October 15, 2009.
The case for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Saigon being evacuated
For all the talk of polarization and partisanship in U.S. politics, what's remarkable is the extent to which President Obama has continued policies and practices of his predecessor, George Bush, in domestic economics and military affairs.
Economically, Obama has continued the bailout of Wall Street, maintained Bush-era tax cuts, pursued "stimulus" through large deficit spending and re-appointed Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman who was a Bush favorite.
In defense, Obama has broken with Bush on a few critical matters, notably by canceling expensive weapons systems and dropping (in September) an aggressive plan to impose a "missile shield" in Eastern Europe that Russia intensely opposed. Yet Obama has carried over Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates; essentially stuck with Bush timetables on Iraq; and maintained historically record levels of Pentagon spending. The president has continued the war in Afghanistan, raising the number of American combat troops. In a speech on August 17, Obama even tried to construct a moral basis for the war, described it as "not a war of choice," but "a war of necessity." And as a necessary war, "a war worth fighting," Obama has declared that only through the democratization of Afghanistan can the terrorist threat to the United States--in the form of al Qaeda--be eliminated from the country.
Read on...
10/7/09
The Human Cost of War: The Images the Corporate Media Doesn't Want You to See
You can follow the link in this article and watch Greenwald's, Rethinking Afghanistan documentary. Peacenik didn't follow the link. Peacenik doesn't like seeing images of dead people. The neo cons don't like Peacenik seeing images of dead people either. The neo cons don't want anyone seeing the consequences of war.
Ironically Obama isn't getting out of Afghanistan. Isn't withdrawing troops. He is trapped. And Canada better start thinking about what Canada's role in Afghanistan will be if Harper gets a majority government. That promise to end offensive military operations. Peacenik doesn't believe it.
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 2:30 PM on October 5, 2009.
Robert Greenwald's Rethink Afghanistan brings you jarring images of civilian suffering. Not surprisingly, the NY Times isn't on board.
This past weekend, AlterNet had the privilege of hosting a screening of Robert Greenwald's important new documentary, Rethink Afghanistan, in New York City. It was just one of several screenings to kick off an impressive nationwide campaign by Brave New Films to spread a crucial message about the war in Afghanistan: This is not the "good war" as we have been told by so many for so long. This is a losing battle, and it is costing us dearly: in billions of dollars, in thousands of lives, and in the eyes of the rest of the world.
And of course, it is costing the people of Afghanistan more than anyone. Perhaps one of the most jolting things about watching the film is seeing image after terrible image of civilian suffering: desperate families mired in refugee camps, pain-stricken schoolgirls attacked with acid by the resurgent Taliban, countless injured men, women and children who are the "collateral damage" from errant U.S. bomb strikes. It is a punch-to-the-gut reminder of just how sanitized this war -- which Obama has always called the "right front" of the so-called war on terror -- has been.
Read on...
Ironically Obama isn't getting out of Afghanistan. Isn't withdrawing troops. He is trapped. And Canada better start thinking about what Canada's role in Afghanistan will be if Harper gets a majority government. That promise to end offensive military operations. Peacenik doesn't believe it.
Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 2:30 PM on October 5, 2009.
Robert Greenwald's Rethink Afghanistan brings you jarring images of civilian suffering. Not surprisingly, the NY Times isn't on board.
This past weekend, AlterNet had the privilege of hosting a screening of Robert Greenwald's important new documentary, Rethink Afghanistan, in New York City. It was just one of several screenings to kick off an impressive nationwide campaign by Brave New Films to spread a crucial message about the war in Afghanistan: This is not the "good war" as we have been told by so many for so long. This is a losing battle, and it is costing us dearly: in billions of dollars, in thousands of lives, and in the eyes of the rest of the world.
And of course, it is costing the people of Afghanistan more than anyone. Perhaps one of the most jolting things about watching the film is seeing image after terrible image of civilian suffering: desperate families mired in refugee camps, pain-stricken schoolgirls attacked with acid by the resurgent Taliban, countless injured men, women and children who are the "collateral damage" from errant U.S. bomb strikes. It is a punch-to-the-gut reminder of just how sanitized this war -- which Obama has always called the "right front" of the so-called war on terror -- has been.
Read on...
9/11/09
Obama's Quagmire Looks a Lot like Vietnam
Afghanistan. Iraq. Vietman. And on and on and on. The Taliban are not al Qaeda. Canada's security is not affected by Afghanistan. There is no longer any rational or valid reason for Canadian forces to be in Afghanistan. Canada's federal deficit just topped $50 billion. Canada cannot afford a costly misadventure in Afghanistan.
An election in Canada appears to be imminent. Where does each party stand on Canada's role in Afghanistan? Peacenik is afraid to find out. Peacenik is already demoralized by Canada's role in Afghanistan. Nothing good can come from Canada's continued participation in Afghanistan. Can't any politician stand up and convince an average Canadian voter that Canada should bring the troops home now? Is it that hard of an argument to make? Does Don Cherry make Canada's foreign policy?
By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted September 11, 2009.
The way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency
True, he doesn't seem a bit like Lyndon Johnson, but the way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency. LBJ also had a progressive agenda in mind, beginning with his war on poverty, but it was soon overwhelmed by the cost and divisiveness engendered by a meaningless, and seemingly endless, war in Vietnam.
Meaningless is the right term for the Afghanistan war, too, because our bloody attempt to conquer this foreign land has nothing to do with its stated purpose of enhancing our national security. Just as the government of Vietnam was never a puppet of communist China or the Soviet Union, the Taliban is not a surrogate for al Qaeda. Involved in both instances was an American intrusion into a civil war whose passions and parameters we never fully have grasped and will always fail to control militarily.
Read on...
An election in Canada appears to be imminent. Where does each party stand on Canada's role in Afghanistan? Peacenik is afraid to find out. Peacenik is already demoralized by Canada's role in Afghanistan. Nothing good can come from Canada's continued participation in Afghanistan. Can't any politician stand up and convince an average Canadian voter that Canada should bring the troops home now? Is it that hard of an argument to make? Does Don Cherry make Canada's foreign policy?
By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted September 11, 2009.
The way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency
True, he doesn't seem a bit like Lyndon Johnson, but the way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency. LBJ also had a progressive agenda in mind, beginning with his war on poverty, but it was soon overwhelmed by the cost and divisiveness engendered by a meaningless, and seemingly endless, war in Vietnam.
Meaningless is the right term for the Afghanistan war, too, because our bloody attempt to conquer this foreign land has nothing to do with its stated purpose of enhancing our national security. Just as the government of Vietnam was never a puppet of communist China or the Soviet Union, the Taliban is not a surrogate for al Qaeda. Involved in both instances was an American intrusion into a civil war whose passions and parameters we never fully have grasped and will always fail to control militarily.
Read on...
8/14/09
When the Dead Have No Say
punditman says...In today's Toronto Star, army Rosie Dimanno, who, by recollection, never met a military intervention she didn't applaud, paints a fairly rosy picture of the new Canadian/US/NATO strategy in Afghanistan. The article outlines the admitted problems with the previous undermanned strategy, but now that the Yanks have landed in big numbers, we are led to believe that things are looking up! It's all thanks to a new "...strategic shift ordered by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of all NATO forces in Afghanistan, which puts the emphasis on populated areas in order to separate the Taliban from the people." Just train up those Afghan army units, and stability is on the way.
Sure, in the year 2525.
Unfortunately, with their whack-a-mole strategy, the Yanks have proven—from Vietnam to Iraq—to be piss-poor imperialists. What makes any rational observer think they will somehow get it right in Afghanistan of all places—graveyard of empires? The US and NATO can neither win nor lose in Afghanistan. Is endless war something to cheer about? Don't ask the dead.
by Norman Solomon
www.antiwar.com
Sure, in the year 2525.
Unfortunately, with their whack-a-mole strategy, the Yanks have proven—from Vietnam to Iraq—to be piss-poor imperialists. What makes any rational observer think they will somehow get it right in Afghanistan of all places—graveyard of empires? The US and NATO can neither win nor lose in Afghanistan. Is endless war something to cheer about? Don't ask the dead.
by Norman Solomon
www.antiwar.com
Official Washington is buzzing about "metrics." Can the war in Afghanistan be successful?
Don’t ask the dead.
Days ago, under the headline "White House Struggles to Gauge Afghan Success," a New York Times story made a splash. "As the American military comes to full strength in the Afghan buildup, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a long-promised plan to measure whether the war is being won."
Don’t ask the dead. They don’t count.
The Times article went on: "Those ‘metrics’ of success, demanded by Congress and eagerly awaited by the military, are seen as crucial if the president is to convince Capitol Hill and the country that his revamped strategy is working."
6/4/09
As Wars' Death Toll Passes 5,000, Military Families Urge President Obama to Bring All Our Troops Home Now
Nationwide - June 3 - As the nation awaits confirmation from the Pentagon of the 5,000th death of a U.S. service member in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, members of Military Families Speak Out are mourning the dead and calling on President Obama to honor the sacrifices of these service members and their families and honor all of those who serve by acting swiftly to end both wars.
Warren Henthorn of Choctaw, OK, the father of Army Spc. Jeffrey Henthorn who died in Iraq on Feb 8, 2005, says:
"Way too many have died on all sides of these wars. If I remember correctly, President Obama won the Democratic nomination based on the promise to end the war in Iraq. But, between Iraq and Afghanistan, at the end of this year we will actually have more troops in harm's way then we did at the height of the 'surge.' That's just as bad as we had it under President Bush. These wars now belong to President Obama. The blood is on his hands."
Peacenik says that the Afghanistan invasion was about 8 years ago. Other than death and destruction what has been accomplished? All the promises? Lies. By any and every metric the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are pointless failures. Bring the troops home now.
12/15/08
Anger and grief over war dead
David Bruser
Nicole Baute
STAFF REPORTERS
With a nephew killed in Afghanistan and a son headed for the same war zone, a grieving and frustrated Russell Higgins says Canadian soldiers are being wasted on a foolish mission.
Reached at his home yesterday in Upper Musquodoboit, N.S., Higgins said, "I don't figure our boys should be over there to start with. It's a fight that can't be won. They have been doing the same thing over there since the Crusades. You can't win a war against people that don't mind dying."
Higgins' nephew Cpl. Thomas James Hamilton, 26, was one of three Canadian soldiers killed Saturday by a roadside bomb. Pte. John Michael Roy Curwin and Pte. Justin Peter Jones, 21, also died.
Keep Reading...
punditman says...I wonder how many relatives of soldiers killed or wounded in Afghanistan feel the same way but are afraid to express themselves? I wonder how many Canadians are weary of watching Don Cherry's jingoism on display on Saturday nights as he shows the faces of the fallen on Hockey Night in Canada? There is now a pullout date of 2011 for this combat mission--contingent on another NATO country putting more than 1,000 soldiers into the southern province of Kandahar, by no means a guarantee.
Nevertheless, one gets the feeling from those who support the mission that they inhabit a certain obedient personality type; they will support the war from now until hell freezes over, or at least until the government tells them it is over. Call it deference to authority in the face of a very authoritarian Prime Minister.
Speaking of whom, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "This tragic incident demonstrates the considerable risk faced by the exceptional men and women of the Canadian Forces as they work to promote freedom, security and democracy in Afghanistan."
Glowing words of liberty from the man who just prorogued Parliament.
Nicole Baute
STAFF REPORTERS
With a nephew killed in Afghanistan and a son headed for the same war zone, a grieving and frustrated Russell Higgins says Canadian soldiers are being wasted on a foolish mission.
Reached at his home yesterday in Upper Musquodoboit, N.S., Higgins said, "I don't figure our boys should be over there to start with. It's a fight that can't be won. They have been doing the same thing over there since the Crusades. You can't win a war against people that don't mind dying."
Higgins' nephew Cpl. Thomas James Hamilton, 26, was one of three Canadian soldiers killed Saturday by a roadside bomb. Pte. John Michael Roy Curwin and Pte. Justin Peter Jones, 21, also died.
Keep Reading...
punditman says...I wonder how many relatives of soldiers killed or wounded in Afghanistan feel the same way but are afraid to express themselves? I wonder how many Canadians are weary of watching Don Cherry's jingoism on display on Saturday nights as he shows the faces of the fallen on Hockey Night in Canada? There is now a pullout date of 2011 for this combat mission--contingent on another NATO country putting more than 1,000 soldiers into the southern province of Kandahar, by no means a guarantee.
Nevertheless, one gets the feeling from those who support the mission that they inhabit a certain obedient personality type; they will support the war from now until hell freezes over, or at least until the government tells them it is over. Call it deference to authority in the face of a very authoritarian Prime Minister.
Speaking of whom, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "This tragic incident demonstrates the considerable risk faced by the exceptional men and women of the Canadian Forces as they work to promote freedom, security and democracy in Afghanistan."
Glowing words of liberty from the man who just prorogued Parliament.
11/18/08
Operation Enduring Disaster
Breaking With Afghan Policy
By Tariq Ali
November 17, 2008
Afghanistan has been almost continuously at war for thirty years, longer than both World Wars and the American war in Vietnam combined. Each occupation of the country has mimicked its predecessor. A tiny interval between wars saw the imposition of a malignant social order, the Taliban, with the help of the Pakistani military and the late Benazir Bhutto, the prime minister who approved the Taliban takeover in Kabul.
Over the last two years, the US/NATO occupation of that country has run into serious military problems. Given a severe global economic crisis and the election of a new American president--a man separated in style, intellect and temperament from his predecessor--the possibility of a serious discussion about an exit strategy from the Afghan disaster hovers on the horizon. The predicament the United States and its allies find themselves in is not an inescapable one, but a change in policy, if it is to matter, cannot be of the cosmetic variety.
Can someone remind Peacenik what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. Peacenik really hopes that the one silver lining of the current financial crisis is that no one will be able the afford to fight in these crazy wars. What is more important to Canadians? Helping Bush in Afghanistan or having universal health care and a viable social safety net? Peacenik knows where the Harper government stands.
By Tariq Ali
November 17, 2008
Afghanistan has been almost continuously at war for thirty years, longer than both World Wars and the American war in Vietnam combined. Each occupation of the country has mimicked its predecessor. A tiny interval between wars saw the imposition of a malignant social order, the Taliban, with the help of the Pakistani military and the late Benazir Bhutto, the prime minister who approved the Taliban takeover in Kabul.
Over the last two years, the US/NATO occupation of that country has run into serious military problems. Given a severe global economic crisis and the election of a new American president--a man separated in style, intellect and temperament from his predecessor--the possibility of a serious discussion about an exit strategy from the Afghan disaster hovers on the horizon. The predicament the United States and its allies find themselves in is not an inescapable one, but a change in policy, if it is to matter, cannot be of the cosmetic variety.
Can someone remind Peacenik what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. Peacenik really hopes that the one silver lining of the current financial crisis is that no one will be able the afford to fight in these crazy wars. What is more important to Canadians? Helping Bush in Afghanistan or having universal health care and a viable social safety net? Peacenik knows where the Harper government stands.
10/7/08
Seven Years in Afghanistan: From "War on Terror" to "War of Terror"
By GARY LEUPP
October 7, 2008. Seven years ago today the U.S. began the assault on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime and produced the present mess. Abetted by U.S. bombing and commando operations, the Northern Alliance took Kabul on November 13, 2001. This was the initial U.S. response to 9-11, an assault on the U.S. by Saudi Islamist fanatics based in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda attacks killed 3000 people. By March 2002 the U.S. bombing had produced that many Afghan civilian fatalities. This was just the beginning.
The invasion produced little change in the daily life of the average Afghan. Fanatical Sunni leaders who’d had a genuine social base and had been able to control 95 per cent of the country with minimal outside help were driven back to their villages. They were replaced by other fanatical Sunni leaders---those who had toppled the “leftist”
government in 1993, then been overthrown themselves by the Taliban in 1996. These Northern Alliance forces had been nurtured in the duration by India, Russia and Iran as their idea of the better bet among competing Islamist fundamentalists.
But in the seven years since, this collection of tribal-based warlords has been unable to stabilize Afghanistan---even though they’re propped up by tens of thousands of foreign troops who’re told that they’re there to fight terrorism and help create “democracy.” Indeed, its hold on power becomes more tenuous every year, while a resurgent Taliban with no foreign government’s support exacts an ever heavier price
from the foreigners and their local allies.
According to the United Nations, 1,445 civilians were killed in the war from January through August this year---a rise of 39 per cent over 2007. At least 577 of these deaths were due to the actions of pro-government forces. Deaths from air strikes have tripled since 2006. “Mistakes by the US and Nato have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans,” declares Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat with eight years’ experience in Afghanistan, recently noted that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have created “a great deal of antipathy” and the situation in the country is the worst it’s been since 2001. Members of the Afghan Parliament have staged a one-day walkout to protest the civilian casualties.
Keep Reading...
punditman says...
This is a great summary -- both from an historic and present-day perspective. It puts the lie to all the nonsense and mythology about the war in Afghanistan, how we got there and where it is all going. And for Canadians, there's this to consider:
October 7, 2008. Seven years ago today the U.S. began the assault on Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime and produced the present mess. Abetted by U.S. bombing and commando operations, the Northern Alliance took Kabul on November 13, 2001. This was the initial U.S. response to 9-11, an assault on the U.S. by Saudi Islamist fanatics based in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda attacks killed 3000 people. By March 2002 the U.S. bombing had produced that many Afghan civilian fatalities. This was just the beginning.
The invasion produced little change in the daily life of the average Afghan. Fanatical Sunni leaders who’d had a genuine social base and had been able to control 95 per cent of the country with minimal outside help were driven back to their villages. They were replaced by other fanatical Sunni leaders---those who had toppled the “leftist”
government in 1993, then been overthrown themselves by the Taliban in 1996. These Northern Alliance forces had been nurtured in the duration by India, Russia and Iran as their idea of the better bet among competing Islamist fundamentalists.
But in the seven years since, this collection of tribal-based warlords has been unable to stabilize Afghanistan---even though they’re propped up by tens of thousands of foreign troops who’re told that they’re there to fight terrorism and help create “democracy.” Indeed, its hold on power becomes more tenuous every year, while a resurgent Taliban with no foreign government’s support exacts an ever heavier price
from the foreigners and their local allies.
According to the United Nations, 1,445 civilians were killed in the war from January through August this year---a rise of 39 per cent over 2007. At least 577 of these deaths were due to the actions of pro-government forces. Deaths from air strikes have tripled since 2006. “Mistakes by the US and Nato have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans,” declares Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Francesc Vendrell, a Spanish diplomat with eight years’ experience in Afghanistan, recently noted that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have created “a great deal of antipathy” and the situation in the country is the worst it’s been since 2001. Members of the Afghan Parliament have staged a one-day walkout to protest the civilian casualties.
Keep Reading...
punditman says...
This is a great summary -- both from an historic and present-day perspective. It puts the lie to all the nonsense and mythology about the war in Afghanistan, how we got there and where it is all going. And for Canadians, there's this to consider:
Washington’s reported bid to take over sole command of the Afghan war, cutting NATO out of the command structure, will likely fuel European and Canadian opposition.
9/9/08
Disaster in Afghanistan
by John W. Warnock
It is difficult to find out what is really going on in Afghanistan. The focus of the mass media is almost entirely on the military activities of the Canadian and NATO forces. There is absolutely no coverage of political developments. The news on the economy is limited to the state of the poppy industry. This is no accident. The North American media, including the CBC, has strongly supported the U.S./NATO strategy and the administration of President Hamid Karzai. Contrary to the mainstream message, things are not going well.
Rise in civilian casualties
Over the past few weeks NATO forces have killed civilians in a number of incidents, and popular opposition to the western military effort is increasing. On August 22 the United States bombed the village of Azizabad in Herat province; the result was the death of 91 civilians, including over 60 children. Rockets and missiles were also used. Many homes were destroyed. Local citizens stoned the Afghan army when they tried to distribute supplies. NATO forces in Paktika province launched an artillery attack on a village on September 1 as part of a general sweep-and-destroy mission against Taliban forces. Three children were killed and seven injured. That same day U.S. and Afghan forces carried out an overnight raid in Hud Kheil, east of Kabul. A family of four, including two children, were killed when hand grenades were thrown into their house. In Kabul hundreds blocked the main road out of town protesting the military practices of the international forces.
Afghan government and NATO attacks
In response to the steady increase of civilian deaths this year, the Afghan parliament passed a resolution in August calling on the Karzai administration to negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement with NATO and United States, making it consistent with Afghan and international law. President Karzai’s cabinet demanded “an end to air attacks in civilian areas, illegal detentions and unilateral house searches.” There is growing opposition to the presence of the occupying forces. The Senlis Council reported in June 2008 that in their most recent recent public opinion survey “more than six out of ten of those interviewed ... said that foreign troops should leave.” This is the position taken by many of the democratic parties in Afghanistan. Malalai Joya, the outspoken critic of the Karzai government, has called for all foreign troops to leave the country. She argues that Afghans can settle this dispute better on their own.
The approaching famine
However, the most important current issue in Afghanistan is the drought, the crop failure, and the prospect of famine. This story has received no coverage in the North American media.
Full article...
However, the most important current issue in Afghanistan is the drought, the crop failure, and the prospect of famine. This story has received no coverage in the North American media.
Full article...
punditman says...
I am having a Vietnam flashback (which doesn't make much sense because I was just a kid playing softball and humming Three Dog Night songs in my head in the summer of '69).
Anyway, the flashback has to do with Western powers fighting stupid counter insurgency campaigns, with the predictable media compliance on the home front. A lot of folks fall for it. I suspect that those who dutifully queue up each morning in Tim Hortons drive-throughs with "Support the Troops" ribbons on their cars are part of the 41 per cent who approve of Canada's military action in Afghanistan -- but that they have not done a lot of independent research on the subject. And most probably never will.
It is amazing that in this age of easily accessbile information, so many people have bought into the notion that we are helping Afghans build their democracy. It is true there have been some success stories in the area of development aid, but these are hard to achieve and maintain in the context of the US-led search and destroy campaign. And aid alone does not equal democracy.
As the article points out, not only is NATO killing Afghan civilians at an alarming rate, losing the so-called "hearts and minds" campaign and even pissing off the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai, the US is actually blocking Afghan democratic aspirations. That's right. Blocking it. Read the whole freakin' article from the smart professor if you don't believe me. After all, I'm having a flashback.
5/14/08
Canadians Still Oppose Afghan Mission Extension
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Canada believe the House of Commons should not have extended the country’s military mandate in Afghanistan until the end of 2011, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 54 per cent of respondents disagree with the decision.
When asked if the Canadian government should actively negotiate with the Taliban if this helps the peace efforts led by the elected Afghan government, 48 per cent of respondents reject the idea, while 37 per cent are open to it.
Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.
At least 800 soldiers—including 82 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)