A War of Absurdity

Johnnyanon's comment yesterday captured the absurdity of the Afghan/Iraq war. The U.S. and Canada and NATO went to war against sovereign states because why? Because 100 or 1000 or 3000 criminals attacked the United States. Stateless criminals. And now there are apparently less than 100 al qaida operating in Afghanistan but the U.S. and Canada and NATO are still occupying the country.

Eight years is long enough. But not long enough correct a bad decision. Not long enough to justify a mistake. And too long to suffer the consequences of the mistake. Johnnyanon should be Canada's foreign minister. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.

by Robert Scheer

Every once in a while, a statistic just jumps out at you in a way that makes everything else you hear on a subject seem beside the point, if not downright absurd. That was my reaction to the recent statement of the president’s national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, concerning the size of the terrorist threat from Afghanistan:

“The al-Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

Less than 100! And he is basing his conservative estimate on the best intelligence data available to our government. That means that al-Qaida, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan—so why are we having a big debate about sending even more troops to fight an enemy that has relocated elsewhere? Because of the blind belief, in the minds of those like John McCain, determined to “win” in Afghanistan, that if we don’t escalate, al-Qaida will inevitably come back.

Read on...

Jimmy Carter: ‘Hamid Karzai Has Stolen the Election’

Eight years later and 130 dead Canadian servicemen later and the election in Afghanistan is a fraud. As predicted. Why is Canada fighting a war in Afghanistan and supporting a fraudulent government? What does Don Cherry think about Canadians dying in support of a fraudulent Afghanistan government? Nothing is being achieved in Afghanistan except death and destruction. Peacenik says bring the troops home now.

by Aaron Glantz

Former US president Jimmy Carter pictured during a press conferance following his meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus on June. (AFP/File/Louai Beshara)

ATLANTA -- Former President Jimmy Carter, who has monitored elections in countries across the globe, called the elections in Afghanistan "despicable" Tuesday.

"Hamid Karzai has stolen the election," the former president told a small group of donors to his Carter Center in Atlanta. "Now the question is whether he gets away with it."

Official counts have given the Afghan president, who was installed after a U.S.-lead coalition toppled the Taliban in 2001, 54 percent of the vote. His main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, alleged fraud and a recount is currently underway.

Read on...

Three Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire

The rationality of this article resonates with Peacenik. It seems so obvious. It makes sense. But Canada's and America's foreign policy isn't driven by rationality. Canada is going to help pacify the Pashtuns? Then Canada is going to rebuild their infrastructure? (While Canada's infrastructure falls apart). Then Canada is going to insure civil liberties for women, and education for everyone? (While Canada's education system implodes). Is Canada going to insure that everyone in Afghanistan gets a swine flu vaccination? Probaby. Are Canada's, and America's, priorities all screwed up? Of course. Read Chalmers Johnson's historical summary of Afghanistan. What the fuck is Canada doing there? And why? Bring the troops home now.


Afghanistan

by Chalmers Johnson

However ambitious President Barack Obama's domestic plans, one unacknowledged issue has the potential to destroy any reform efforts he might launch. Think of it as the 800-pound gorilla in the American living room: our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there -- 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.

Read on...

Canadian Military Plans to Spam Afghans This Summer

Canadian military propagandists plan to bombard Afghans' cellphones with texts and contest offers

by Allan Woods

OTTAWA - Canada plans to boost its propaganda reach by tapping into mobile phones in Afghanistan to send text messages, run contests and drive listeners to its military-run, Pashto-language radio station.

It's a fairly crude, transparent tactic in the high science of counter-insurgency, but the military sees it as a way to better connect with local Afghans in a war-torn land where the cellphone is one of the fastest growing, and only reliable, means of communication.

The capability, to be set up this summer, will encourage Afghans to sign up for text-message alerts from defence officials and to enter military-run contests awarding prizes to lucky locals, according to public tendering documents.

Read on...

Ferchrissakes. What is more ridiculous? Waging this propaganda in the first place or publicizing it via a publicly tendered bid? Can someone tell Peacenik what Canada is doing in Afghanistan? Can someone tell Peacenik why Canada is in Afghanistan? Canada doesn't know who the "enemy" is and doesn't know if they are killing civilians or "enemies." Canada can't afford the cost of the war effort. And now the Afspamistan campaign? Give Peacenik a break! Will Tim Horton coffees be the prizes? This is worse than goofy. It illustrates the obvious: Canada should not be in Afghanistan. Bring the troops home now.

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).

Keep Reading...

Media cheerleaders miss story

by Linda McQuaig

To listen to the media tell it, Canada scored a victory last week at the NATO summit. We got the extra 1,000 troops that the Harper government said were needed to continue our involvement in the Afghan war.

So the fact that we're going to continue to fight in Afghanistan — which most Canadians oppose, according to the polls — has been transformed into a victory. We did it! We got the extra troops for a war Canadians don't want! Bravo!

Actually, the media have confused the Harper government achieving its own objectives with the national interest being advanced.

Yes, the staunchly pro-Washington Harper government cleverly manipulated the weak Liberal opposition into supporting the Afghan military venture, largely by presenting it as an international duty mandated by NATO.

In fact, the countries that make up NATO have no more interest in fighting in Afghanistan than the Canadian public does, which is why the 1,000 extra troops are coming from the United States — the one country that is keen to fight over there. But our media turned the situation into a mini-drama: Would Harper succeed at NATO or wouldn't he? It was easy to lose sight of the real story: The U.S. has succeeded in getting Canada to be its lead partner fighting an unpopular counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan.

In fact, the Harper government has recently made two agreements that have quietly moved us into deeper co-operation with the U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy.

Full Article...

Linda McQuaig is a journalist and author. Her most recent book is Holding the Bully's Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire. Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star.

punditman says...In the Full Article link above, Linda McQuaig notes how the media missed out on three very important stories, all directly affecting Canadian policy and sovereignty.

It’s Time to Promote Peace in Afghanistan

By John W. Warnock

Global Research, March 30, 2008
actupinsask.org

In Canada the debate on Afghanistan has had a very narrow focus. The primary concern has been the role of the Canadian Forces in the counter-insurgency war. How many more Canadians will be killed? How long will our forces be in Kandahar province? What will the U.S. government think if Canada withdraws from the southern zone of conflict? If Canada pulls its forces out of Afghanistan, will there be chaos?

It is time for Canadians to consider what the Afghan people want. At the top of the list would certainly be an end to the death, destruction and despair, the other 3-D policy. A variety of surveys show at least 70% of Afghans do not want to see a return of the dreaded Taliban. Yet an even larger percentage supports a negotiated settlement with the Taliban to end the war. The U.S.-NATO policy, supported by recent Canadian governments, perpetuates the war.

Outside of Canada there is widespread understanding that the counter insurgency war is not working. This past year was the most destructive since the U.S. invasion, with at least 6200 Afghans killed, a 24% increase in roadside bombs, and a dramatic increase in suicide bombs. The United Nations, as well as U.S. and U.K. military leaders, report that the zone of operation of the insurgents is spreading. Attacks are now up to 550 per month.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...Unfortunately, Ottawa's prime concern in Afghanistan appears to be the butt-kissing idea of following the failed US strategy of counter-insurgent warfare.

Afghan evils ignored at our peril

by Antonia Zerbisias
The Toronto Star

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.

Keep Reading...

punditman says: Warning: the above link is very disturbing and perhaps not suitable for everyone. Welcome to our Afghan allies: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I doubt very much that those who fall into the idiotic, flag-waving, ribbon-buying, crazily conformist Don Cherryesque category know anything about this story. After all, when it comes to Canada's Afghan mission, they may say they are all in favour of debate, but they actually want no debate at all. They are content to just watch hockey and salute, and keep drinking that Molson's/Coors Kool Aid.

Canadian "Peacekeeping" Troops in Afghanistan: Keep Pearson out of it

By Linda McQuaig

Global Research, February 5, 2008

The Toronto Star

The Harper government's flagging campaign to sell Canadians on extending our combat mission in Afghanistan has clearly found new legs since the release last month of the pro-war Manley report.

The turnaround moment probably came at a press briefing when John Manley, head of the government's advisory panel on Afghanistan, defended the mission by invoking the name of Canadian peacekeeping hero Lester Pearson.

Since Canadians have tended to associate Afghanistan with torture and a cowboy-style "war on terror," the invocation of Pearson's name – from fellow Liberal Manley – was highly potent.

It was also absurd, even preposterous – like invoking Abe Lincoln as a nation-building forerunner of George W. Bush.

Keep Reading...

© Copyright Linda McQuaig, The Toronto Star , 2008

Afghanistan was never Canada's war

January 18, 2008

Thomas Walkom

American Defence Secretary Robert Gates may well be right when he says that Canadian and European troops in Afghanistan are not well equipped to fight a counter-insurgency campaign. But what has been lost in the controversy over his impolitic remarks is that we did not sign on to fight insurgents – there or anywhere else.

The International Stabilization and Assistance Force, which NATO now commands and which includes some 2,500 Canadian soldiers, was set up in late 2001 by the United Nations to do just what its name suggests – stabilize a country emerging from years of civil war and assist the fledgling Kabul government in its redevelopment efforts.

Fighting the Taliban (or, as they were called then, the Taliban "remnants") was a job that Washington insisted on reserving to itself through what it called Operation Enduring Freedom.

Canada helped out in that one too, sending troops to serve under U.S. command in 2002. But in those days, America wanted to keep its sometimes squeamish allies well away from a dark war that was aimed primarily at capturing terror suspects and transferring them to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

It was only after 2003, when the U.S. found itself troop-short and bogged down in Iraq, that Washington changed the rules of engagement for its allies. Gradually, Afghanistan became NATO's war. Washington's plan then was to gradually reduce its 20,000 troop commitment to Afghanistan and switch them over to Iraq.

Which is why, since 2006, Canadian troops have found themselves under fire in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.

It's worth remembering that we keep sending soldiers to Afghanistan not because Canada has been attacked by the Taliban, but because our friends, the Americans, feel they are at war with them.

Keep Reading...

Punditman says: There's just no pleasing those damn Bushies: you fight their wars for them and they complain; you don't fight their wars for them and they complain. By agreeing to going on a fool's errand, Canada is in a no-win situation.

Fresh from their delusionary "success" in Iraq, the US is now turning its' attention back to Afghanistan by sending another 3,200 Marines there this spring to help NATO troops and Afghan security forces. Stay tuned as this renewed debacle spreads into Pakistan.

Amnesty International condemns Canadian probe into alleged Afghan abuses

A new Amnesty International report questions whether Canada really wants to get to the bottom of torture allegations involving Afghan detainees.

The human rights organization said Monday it has concerns that the investigation by Canadian authorities into abuse claims last spring may not have been "competent" or "impartial."

The scathing assessment, part of 51-page report on NATO's overall handling of prisoners in Afghanistan, also accused Canada of blurring the number of insurgents captured and handed over to local Afghan authorities.

Amnesty International "remains gravely concerned that detainees handed over by [NATO] to the Afghan authorities are currently at substantial risk of torture and other ill-treatment," said the report, released Monday in Europe and North America.

"Of the five countries with agreements regarding detainee transfer, only the second Canadian agreement specifies provisions for investigation into allegations of torture or other ill-treatment.

"However, [Amnesty International] fears that investigations by the Canadian government into allegations may not have been 'competent' and 'impartial.' "

Amnesty's Canadian-based expert on Afghanistan said the group's harsh judgment is based on the Conservative government's protracted legal battle to keep government documents on detainee transfers secret.

Keep Reading...

Polling Afghanistan: Questions and Contradictions

From: Canadian Peace Alliance

The Environics poll, conducted by D3 Systems in Afghanistan is being touted as "groundbreaking" research into the views of the Afghan people about the NATO occupation. The reality is that there are as many questions as answers arising from the poll results.

This new poll is not the first of its kind to be done in Afghanistan, but the results are striking because they contradict dozens of comprehensive studies conducted by other agencies. For example a remarkable 73 per cent of respondents in the D3 Systems study said that women's rights were improving in Afghanistan. This contradicts the NGO Womenkind Worldwide which found that attacks against women have actually been on the rise since 2001 and that there had been no improvement in the lives of Afghan women as a whole.

Likewise, a whopping 76 per cent of people said that they have "a lot" or "some" confidence in the Afghan National Army and 60 per cent have faith in the Afghan National Police (ANP). This contradicts countless documents from groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who have consistently found that a majority of Afghans cite the Army and ANP as a chief source of violence. In fact, poll results from December 2006 found 78 per cent of Afghan people believed that the ANP was corrupt and one in four Afghans had to pay bribes to local police for protection. So therefore, the numbers from D3 Systems either represent an astounding turnaround in public opinion or there was some type of flaw in the research.

These strange results aren't surprising given the history of the D3 Systems polling firm. The group, whose former clients include NATO and the RAND Corporation (a virtual who's who of the military industrial complex) is notorious for providing the results that are needed to advance a political agenda.

Tellingly, D3 Systems is the only polling form in the world that was able to consistently show that a majority of Iraqis felt their lives had improved since the invasion of 2003. In 2004 and 2005, D3 conducted polls for media outlets based in the US and found more than 50 per cent of Iraqis were exited about their future. As late as 2006 D3 found a miraculous 64 per cent of Iraqis who felt that their lives were improving.

There are still many other unanswered questions about this survey. For example, did security or military contingents escort the survey teams around the country? If so the results will be terribly skewed, as these types of escorts would have destroyed the impartiality of the surveyors. Also, if 75 per cent of respondents called for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban (a number that has been omitted from most media reports on the survey) how do we reconcile that with the 64 per cent who want us to continue to fight the Taliban. Furthermore, if only 2 per cent of respondents knew that Canada was fighting the Taliban, how did that 64 per cent think that we were doing a good job.

This survey has come out at a particularly fortuitous time for the Conservative government, days after a throne speech advocating and extension of Canada's war in Afghanistan and a week before a pan-Canadian day of action against the war. But as with most of what we hear from the Conservatives, the numbers just don't add up.

punditman says: As the old saying goes, "there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics."