Tell me again why we are in Afghanistan....

[mcrit]

Hairdo, I'm sure the Taliban asked politely if the Afgan people wanted their religion or politics or public beheadings....

...yeah there was a referendum on it......then an court case to clarify the question on the referendum.....

[sky's the limit]

bmc wrote:
...It's not. He's a banner tower and part time super hero with a cape and secret decoder ring.


No. I'm a part time banner tower and a full time super hero. As a matter of fact, I just got back from playing superhero.
If you want to debate the finer points of eating an MRE or a baby-wipe shower I'm certainly an expert.

But it seems to me you want to debate my credentials not the fact that we are in Afghanistan.

First,

While Nark and I have famously disagreed on a number of issues over the years on here, I fully respect him for having the courage and conviction to stand up for what he believes in - even if I disagree with him on many of these beliefs. To show him disrespect is not going to accomplish anything, and while I fully agree his sense of humour needs a bit of work , he adds a valuable perspective here.

STL,
By the sounds of it, being 'in country' and all could you elaborate at what our purpose is, all I ever get is just bits and pieces of media on the issue. This is a serious request, I look up Afghanistan on the internet and there seems to be no economic gain or anything of value, it seems to be a dried up country. So, could you educate me, if its not for the preservation of peace, I have not the foggiest idea why we are there. I am man enough to realize when there are more educated people then me, so please share your point of view, I would love to hear it.

rdj200,

An explanation to get started - this will be long post... sorry, no other way.

You say "all I ever get is just bits and pieces of media on the issue" This is the ONLY reason I went, and it is the reason why I am going back - to educate myself on this issue beyond books, media reports, or second hand information. This issue is so pertinent that it was the first one I needed to address when I got home, so I wrote - a lot. To the CBC, to newspapers, the works. The profession of "journalism" has become seriously lost and distorted in my opinion, and the true extent of their abdication to inform us, the general pubic, became frighteningly apparent almost the moment I arrived. I actually have an interview tomorrow about my trip, and I'm hoping to get somewhere with that one, as it is an independent news source who is willing to print things mainstream media is not.

The media is almost wholly subservient to both the political leadership of various nations, as well as their corporate owners who dictate what is printed, what language is used to describe events/people, and when or if things are printed at all. Six companies own almost 85% of news outlets in Canada - they have the control, and they use it. There are many reasons for this subservience, I won't bother going into them all, but suffice it to say, job security is not an insignificant factor. The "media" in war zones has now been trained by Government and military to be afraid, and that fear leads to Embedded reporting. I have a huge issues with this - so I applied for, and was accepted to two Embedded Reporting programs to see for myself. I believe that if a person is going to take issue with something, they had better educate themselves on that issue. I have a hard drive full of photos and writings that will never see the light of day, I signed a contract to that effect. If I were to disregard that, not only would I be open to prosecution, I'd NEVER be accepted back, killing my "journalism" career. Fortunately, I don't care about a journalism career as I'm a pilot, and do not depend on "reporting" to pay my mortgage. This is a critical distinction, and one that is freeing.

I also spent time outside the Embedded programs in Kabul and surrounding area to see for myself what is going on - I'm still somehow alive, much to the disbelief of most Military personnel I talked to... so, Avcanada will have to put up with me for a while yet. This was a very important step in learning about the process, and while there are a number of journalists working outside the Military control, they still must publish in mainstream media, running into the "mortgage payment" issue, so much of their reporting is watered down, and/or biased, and in some cases, outright propaganda. We are very effective at propaganda, drumming up national pride, and using incomplete or misleading information to obscure the true issues. There are real, pertinent stories everywhere you look there, yet we hear none of them, I hope to change that in some small way.

On to your next question.

"I look up Afghanistan on the internet and there seems to be no economic gain or anything of value, it seems to be a dried up country. So, could you educate me, if its not for the preservation of peace, I have not the foggiest idea why we are there."

Afghanistan is a remarkable place, and it does hold value. It is an ancient place with cultures, traditions, and people who have managed to live in one of the harshest environments one can imagine, with a significant portion of the last 3000yrs fighting invaders and occupiers. Much as they are doing now. These people need to be given respect, and we do not. There are MANY different types of "Afghans." The Taliban are but one, and they only arose after the collapse of the Socialist Gov't several years after the Soviets were kicked out by the Mujaheddin in 1988. We, the West, left with the Soviets showing zero interest in the country, with the exception of the Stinger Missile "buy-back" program, until 2001. Then we invaded. There are 5 million Afghans starving this winter, and one guess who is providing them with food, wood, and money? Not us. This is why the Taliban enjoy almost 65% popular support....

As one Afghan told me, "we are survivors first a foremost." That means going with the winning team - right now, that's the Taliban.

If you take a close look at the area surrounding Afghanistan, you will find Iran to the west, a destabilized and nuclear armed Pakistan to the East, India slightly further east, China to the north east, and a newly confident and aggressive Russia a stones throw to the north. Three of those five are Islamic States, four if you include the Islamic Republic Of Afghanistan (its real name) in the mix, and the other two have governments with distinctly non-American government philosophies. This is one very important piece of ground, make no mistake. To have a 60,000 strong, soon to be 90,000 strong, battle hardened, western Force smack in the middle is a MASSIVE part of why we are there. The "reconstruction" is window dressing for the public, more on that in a minute.

"If its not for the preservation of peace..." It is, most certainly, quite the opposite. What becomes plainly obvious while there is that we have NO intention of stopping this war, not for a minute, nor do the Pakistanis as they are terrified of a stable, armed, and India friendly Afghanistan next door. But that is another issue, back to us.

The Americans spend more on their armed forces than any other nation on Earth, by several times. This is no accident, as it has been well documented by others that it is a mainstay of the US social support system, both for injections of cash into the economy, and for job training among other things. Fully 1/3 of personnel at BAF (Bagram Air Field), JAF (Jalalabad Air Field), and KAF (Kandahar Air Field), are Contractors. This war is BIG business. Very big, and there are a number - albeit small - of people making astronomical profits off this. Modern war is now more corporate than ever before. The costs associated with the Afghan War are staggering, as are the profits from it. For every 100,000,000 spent, 7,000,000 goes to Afghanistan. This is barely enough to run Gov't, much less rebuild.

The Karzai Government is massively corrupt, as I found out first hand in an interview with the son of a high ranking Gov't Minister. Yet we do nothing to stop it. In 2001/2002 there were promises made to certain people, mainly Warlords from the Northern Alliance who were used to oust the Taliban in lieu of significant NATO forces (the Americans were saving for Iraq). These promises have lead to heavily armed, well financed War Lords supporting the corruption, and profiting off the violence. It is a self-perpetuating cycle they have no intention of breaking. The Taliban are not the only ones making Afghanistan unstable. So far we have four sources for that, Pakistan, the War Lords, NATO, and the Pakistanis. There are others, albeit smaller interests at play. I'll leave that for now.

This has NOTHING to do with "helping Afghans." A state of perpetual war benefits nobody who lives there, the opposite is very much in evidence. The country is in far worse condition than in 2002, 2001, or even 2000 for that matter. These are facts. Are women any better off now? NO. Women suffer much greater in war than at any other time, we are maintaining the war, in fact soon to escalate it, not stopping it. Women are not why we are there, despite the political leaders proclamations to the contrary. If we were, we would have stopped shooting already, or at the very least, established security and jobs in 2002 - we failed miserably, but then I doubt we were trying in the first place.

I've spent so much time on this subject the last few months that I sometimes forget what my impressions were before I left. The real situation on the ground is almost polar opposite to what we hear or read in the press, or in political speeches. At first I was surprised, now I just accept that fact, hard as it is at first.

Canada? We're there to support America, little else. We got out of the Iraq debacle, but we needed to "show" in Afghanistan, so we are there. My issue is not so much with Canada's involvement, but that of NATO and ISAF in general. Our troops are sequestered on Bases or in FOB's behind minefields, razor wire, and overhead Predator drones - we do not control Afghanistan, the Taliban do. Outside of Kabul, the Karzai Gov't is almost irrelevant, and it is even bordering on irrelevance on the international stage now. A prime example is Jalalabad, where the main Base JAF, is but 1.5 miles from the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) base. Nobody moves between the two unless there is a full armoured convoy, or they are in a helicopter. Unless of course you are free to take a taxi, like me... Jbad is not even considered overly "hot," Kandahar is quite another story. If you accept my observations above, you will see that this is actually an acceptable situation to NATO/ISAF. Mind boggling.

If a person believes Canada, and by extension NATO/ISAF should be projecting power in Afghanistan, fine. I can argue that one on the grounds of political belief and my thoughts on where the world should be going - I can accept that other people may differ from my views. I cannot however accept or even engage in a debate any longer where the other side's arguments are based on our presence there as a noble, humanitarian cause predicated on "fighting them there instead of here." It simply isn't true. In fact it is so far from the truth that it's hard to believe we buy it to the degree we do as a country.

The language used by politicians and parroted daily by the Press is intentional in its obscuring of the facts. Blanket terms such as "terrorist," and "foreign insurgents" are thrown around with little regard for the true meanings of the words. The Taliban are for the most part, nasty people. They do not however have ANYTHING to do with Bin Laden and his crowd, and do not subscribe to their ideology of Global Jihad. They were an uneasy marriage at best even in the 90's when the Taliban were "harbouring Terrorists." Bin Laden lubricated that relationship with large sums of money, but that's another story.

You have to be very careful what you believe when you read about this, and other wars. The Americans blanket many groups under the "terrorist" banner, which only serves to marginalize their issues, as "we do not negotiate with Terrorists," leaving little choice in how to proceed for them, and painting ourselves into a corner. The Americans recognize four offical levels of Taliban from extremists to moderates - yet we will not talk to any of them. Of course not, as we have no intention of ending the war anytime soon.

There are nationalist elements who hate the Taliban and who are killing Western soldiers, but you never hear that. The Taliban are Afghans, regardless of ideology. They are fighting on their soil for the country they used to control. They are no more "terrorists" as they are "insurgents." Yet we continue to repeat this endlessly so that people stop thinking about it and accept it as truth.

In US military combat reports, the Taliban are referred to as "AAF," or Anti Afghan Forces. I'm not sure how that is possible when they ARE Afghans... But, it lends credibility to the "insurgency" argument. If it is an "insurgency," it's not a "resistance" which is bad PR. Same language was used in Iraq to obscure the fact that the initial fighting was carried out by Iraqis, NOT foreign insurgents - that came later as a result of American planning blunders.

There are a number of important tangents I neglected to expand on, as I'm tired and I'm sure most will not read this post in its entirety anyway. I tried to touch on most of the main points, but there are SO many others.

I apologize for spelling/etc as it's been a long day and I don't have the energy to go over this too finely.

Hope that helps a bit.

stl

Edit to add:

I just want to make clear that this trip was undertaken at considerable personal cost, in terms money spent, lost wages, and emotional investment - it's not easy to be in places like Afghanistan and not leave something there. I went for my education, and by extension, the education of other people here at home. What I learned was difficult to process at the time, and it is only now coming together more clearly. Reason enough to go back, with any luck, this spring.

People in Afghanistan want nothing more than you and I; to live safely, earn a living, and raise a family. To see that the Taliban - despite their often brutal means - FAR out weigh us in terms of public support, should be one indicator of how bad the situation is on the ground for the average Afghan, and how poorly we are doing in terms of making it better... Without public support, there is no Taliban worth talking about, only marginalized extremists, yet we're failing to even achieve that. This is not a war we can win, but the Generals know that already.

[LH]

..............and therein lies the problem for NATO and others in Afghanistan. The peoples of Afghanistn will do exactly as they wish and there is little, if anything, that the western forces can do about it. Our soldiers go on patrol and walk-by and pass through full-fledged fields of opium crop and now take no notice. That's but one example. So the Americans, Canadians can only build new schools and the like, but otherwise they ain't pushing the Afghanis into anything they don't want to do. That ain't going to change no matter how many billions are spent trying to convince them or however long they stay there. One has a tendency to forget that the Brits ruled that country for over a hundred years and fought many wars there to keep it. Then they had their own Afghani warlords that tried to rule over all of it and failed......and then the Taliban.......and we all know what they had to do to maintain any kind of control at all.

So the West nor any part of the West is going to FORCE any of their culture or beliefs onto the Afghanis. They've been resisting that crap since before the US and Canada were nations.

[hairdo]

Hairdo, I'm sure the Taliban asked politely if the Afgan people wanted their religion or politics or public beheadings....

I never said they did. But I don't recall the Afghani people asking for our help to get rid of them. If they had, I would have no argument about the deployment of our troops to Afghanistan. But if you want to win a war, you have to have the people on your side. It hasn't worked for many other powerful nations in the past, so why would it work for us?

[Four1oh]

The US created and supported the Taliban way back when to help defeat the russians. The least they could do is drive them out after they took over the entire country with their fanaticism. I highly doubt if you'd ask the average afgani who they'd prefer, the answer would NOT be the Taliban.

[sky's the limit]

The US created and supported the Taliban way back when to help defeat the russians. The least they could do is drive them out after they took over the entire country with their fanaticism. I highly doubt if you'd ask the average afgani who they'd prefer, the answer would NOT be the Taliban.

Wrong, they can't, and wrong again.

The US had nothing to do with the creation of the Taliban, or funding it.

They can't "drive them out" as they are Afghan.

The "average Afghan" prefers the Taliban to NATO and ISAF at a rate of 65%....

stl

[Nark]

STL

65% of statistic's are made up on the spot.

The Afgahn people's loyalty goes no further than the village/tribe they live in. They take the word of a man extremely seriously. They do not like the Taliban at all. They do no trust us, NATO, because when we say if you give us information we will protect you. Then the next night the Taliban/bad guys comes back and shoot that man's son; they no longer trust us for our word, despite our best efforts to protect them.

Iraq and Afghanistan are similar in only in they are to two miserable places to be. The people, the war effort and the culture is entirely different.

[sky's the limit]

STL

65% of statistic's are made up on the spot.

This one is not. It is the agreed upon figure in Afghanistan being given out freely, for what that's worth. There is however a large issue with this statistic - that it most certainly does not include either women, or as you allude to below, even many men. The fact remains the Taliban are the favoured group there at the moment, not NATO or ISAF, talk to anyone, they will tell you. It is very simple, we are not doing much to help the average Afghan - urban dweller or village resident - nor are we Afghans. This is huge. The Taliban are buying support through food, employment, fear, and money... because of the education level of the public, and the social structure, it works. We too are dealing with that structure - poorly. The tribal structure is firmly embedded in their culture, as is the Muslim structure - neither work like we do. This is a significant problem as while I heard countless briefings tell me "about" Afghanistan, not one reconstruction policy was based on their understanding of these structures. But hey, we registered 155,000 voters in November, they'll have democracy in no time.

The Afgahn people's loyalty goes no further than the village/tribe they live in. They take the word of a man extremely seriously. They do not like the Taliban at all.

"The Afghan people are survivors, first and foremost, they go with who is winning and will change hats quickly. That is how we have survived for 3000 years, it is not about to change." That from an Afghan's mouth in Kabul. They "like" the Taliban, and give support to the Taliban because the perception is the Taliban are the strength, it is a valid perception. A large part of Afghanistan is effectively controlled by the Taliban now, they have gained immense strength over the past few years.

The Taliban are nothing without local support. We are foreign occupiers, just ask the taxi drivers I had, they'll tell you as much gladly, much to your discomfort. We are not welcome there, and they are prepared to spend three decades removing us if need be. Worked every other time in history, probably will again.

They do no trust us, NATO, because when we say if you give us information we will protect you. Then the next night the Taliban/bad guys comes back and shoots the a farmers son; they no longer trust us for our word, despite our best efforts to protect them.

No.

They do not trust us because we are waging a war there. They do not trust us because the promises made in 2001/2002 have no been kept, not even a little bit. They do not trust us because of the vast amounts of money pouring into the country both militarily and through AID programs and NGO's, only a minuscule portion reaches the people while foreigners become wealthy - they see this every day, just ask them. They do not trust us because we prop up a corrupt Government that is completely ineffective in governance.

We are not trying to protect Afghans. This is just not the case, I'm very sorry to have to admit it. This war is about us, not them, and they know it. Again, just ask.

Iraq and Afghanistan are similar in only they are to two miserable places to be. The people, the war effort and the culture is entirely different.

I don't agree. While they may have differences on the surface, they share much in common.

The two are very similar in that the stated goals are not the real goals, supported by the same foreign policy goals. The projection of US Military Force trumps everything else. Both are taking place in nations populated by peoples who have little more in common than lines on a map - drawn by us long ago. Both are making multi-billionaires out of a few (foreigners) while very little actually gets done to effect positive change for the average citizen. Both are wars where regime change was enforced by us/American policy - unasked. Both now have shiny new constitutions based on - you guessed it - the American constitution. Both have caused immeasurable suffering, and continue to do so. Both were better off in real terms, despite the pre-existig leadership, before our intervention. Neither situation is going to get better anytime soon because the policies guiding them are (if your aren't cynical) deeply flawed, (if you are cynical) frightening in their disregard for human life in the pursuit of their goals.

These are not just my opinions, they are observations drawn from conversations with US Forces, NATO, Afghan Gov't, and locals, and seeing with my own eyes the hippocracy of it all. They don't even try to hide it. Yet Major General Thompson (our Commander) can stand with a straight face and say to me our new Chinooks will "help us spot IED's, and win the war...." Not sure even he believes it, but there you have it, so it must be true.

It's about time we stand up and take some ownership of the bill of goods we've been sold on this. As one Afghan told me, "despite the culpability of the West, Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, and India in our situation, only we Afghans are going to make life better for ourselves, nobody is really helping." Sage advice, perhaps it's time we start looking a bit closer at our own establishment for some real answers on this, and many other issues while we are at it.


stl

[Nark]

It's about time we stand up and take some ownership of the bill of goods we've been sold on this. As one Afghan told me, "despite the culpability of the West, Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, and India in our situation, only we Afghans are going to make life better for ourselves, nobody is really helping." Sage advice, perhaps it's time we start looking a bit closer at our own establishment for some real answers on this, and many other issues while we are at it.


stl

Sage advice indeed. Which raises this point, whom do you trust more, a guy with his word or a guy with a rifle?

We as NATO forces don't play the same game the "taliban" do, and unfortunately it's showing.

Without segueing to Iraq, it took the Iraqi people to turn around the ever present violence there, not guys like me handing out pencils and book paper to kids.

This operation is "winnable", but it's not going to come strictly from NATO, but the Afghan people looking within and choosing who's side they'd rather be on.

Violence is down within the cities, it's the many villages outside the confines of Kabul and Kandahar I worry about.

[sky's the limit]

This operation is "winnable", but it's not going to come strictly from NATO, but the Afghan people looking within and choosing who's side they'd rather be on.

Violence is down within the cities, it's the many villages outside the confines of Kabul and Kandahar I worry about.

I wish I agreed Nark, I really do. I just can't see us "winning" there at all. My partner and I decided about a week in, that we would stop even using the word "win," as it was so far from what is actually happening there.

As for the violence, it's actually up. Kabul is turning into a real mess with bombs, kidnappings, and the like. The briefing reports put out by an independent association to all the NGO's and Gov't offices says it is worse than it has been since 2001.... Sober reading after spending a day out shooting photos...

Anyway, fun as always, but it's late.

stl
PS How was Vangroovey?

[LH]

1) Canada is in Afghanistan because the UN and specifically the Secretary-General pleaded with our PM to aide the UN in that mission. Canada didn't just decide one day to force her western ideas, culture and morals onto Afghanis.


2) The UN is in Afghanistan because the government of Afghanistan pleaded with that organization for help also. Maybe the people didn't, but the government sure as Hell did and I witnessed that with my own eyes and ears.

3) The other countries contributing in Afghanistan are members of NATO and when NATO decided to aide the UN and the ISAF, these countries volunteered help. This, I also witnessed with my own eyes and ears.

Ergo, Canada is in Afghanistan to aide the UN........and that was BEFORE NATO became involved. The other countries are in Afghanistan because they were asked to contribute by NATO and NATO at the behest of the UN.

ALL of the above is a matter now of recorded history and apparently some here were dozing or on some reaal bad drugs while all this was taking place. Whatever the case, please don't try yo make up history to match your personal feelings because none of the above is a matter of my opinion..........it's checkable, verifiable and recorded history.


So if you want to blame somebody or organization for Canada being in Afghanistan, then blame the United Nations, but for Christ's sake get it straight.

[sky's the limit]

ALL of the above is a matter now of recorded history and apparently some here were dozing or on some reaal bad drugs while all this was taking place. Whatever the case, please don't try yo make up history to match your personal feelings because none of the above is a matter of my opinion..........it's checkable, verifiable and recorded history.


So if you want to blame somebody or organization for Canada being in Afghanistan, then blame the United Nations, but for Christ's sake get it straight.

LH,

I'm not sure what you are getting at exactly. Nobody is "making up history."

Why did the UN get involved in the first place...? You seem to have taken a starting point in your analysis that is not representative of the overall sequence of events. Unless I'm missing your point.

stl

[sky's the limit]

At the request of the Bush Administration, the U.N. passed resolution 1373 in Sept. 2001 ostensibly enabling the following attacks by US and British forces in October 2001. The Bush Administration used the significant support and sympathy after the 9/11 attacks to achieve consensus. The same strategy did not work in 2003 with Iraq.


In late 2001, the Security Council authorized the United States to overthrow the Taliban government, as an offensive against the terrorist al-Qaeda organization, said to be based in the country. The Council also authorized the US and its NATO allies to set up the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to provide military support for a newly-established pro-Western government (the United States also continued to run a separate anti-terrorist military operation). In March 2002 the Council established the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA) to manage all UN humanitarian, relief, recovery and reconstruction activities. Despite (or perhaps because of) these military-centered initiatives, Afghanistan has remained a "failed state." The authority of President Hamid Karzai, victor in the presidential election of October 2004, barely extends beyond Kabul's suburbs, warlords have gained back control of most of the country, and opium is now the principal agricultural crop.

2) The UN is in Afghanistan because the government of Afghanistan pleaded with that organization for help also. Maybe the people didn't, but the government sure as Hell did and I witnessed that with my own eyes and ears.

Also, I'm not sure which Afghan Government "pleaded" as you say, with the UN to come to their rescue. Could you please clarify that statement? The Taliban were the effective Gov't in 2001 before the invasion - they were not "pleading" for anything at that point. The UN had already passed punitive resolutions against the Taliban Gov't for several years.


stl

[LH]

It is not ME who has to justify anything except WHERE I got the idea that Canada went to Afghanistan and IS in Afghanistan. That justification comes from the CBC's "The NATIONAL" news report where I witnessed the Secretary-General of the UN litterally pleading to the Canadian PM to aide the UN in Afganistan because no other country would at the time. Obviously, the UN had used Canada before in "peacekeeping duties' before and undoubtedly that was the reason. The Secretary-General was the person who stated at the time that it was Afganistan who asked the UN for help. Whether the Secretary-General was lying or not I do not know. Considering the 'track-record' of this morally-bankrupt organization, perhaps the whole request was a lie. Whatever the case, I know exactly what I heard and witnessed that evening while watching "The National".

Therefore, Canada is in Afghanistan to aide and at the request of the United Nations. They are not there to placate the wishes of their own citizens, G.W Bush, NATO or any other organization.

As a sidenote, Canada was not equipped militarily to conduct any form of long or sustained operations that far from home or in that geopgraphy. If they were going to do so as part of a larger effort and make some form of contribution, than I agreed with that effort. I changed that attitude the minute Canada began shouldering most of the load and losses while other "esteemed" peer nations of NATO put caveats on their participation. Those same nations are the ones whose landscapes are heavily populated with the gravesites of Canadians from two World Wars who gave their lives without any caveats/conditions on their help. When Canada came calling for their help in Afghanistan they had 'conditions". For THAT reason Canada should be out of Afghanistan AND NATO.

Lastly, even our 'esteemed Motherland' had to be shamed into staying and lending us a helping hand and the other nation that Canadians love to kick stones at was also asked by us to lend a helping-hand and they did so.

[Blue Side Down]

In centuries past, par for the economic course was to set sail with a significant fleet, ride the seas to a section of choice real estate, hope that you've arrived with enough support to overpower the local establishment upon or shortly after landing, and then send word for more boats stocked with fellow nationals to follow and establish colony. So went the expansion of empires on the basis of demand for food, goods or influence. Seldom was it pleasant, and seldom was it appreciated by the subjecting populaces. The Spanish conquistadors in Mexico, France under Napoleon, the British empire after 1500, all examples of the history which repeats itself today. Some invaded and occupied by force, some by bearing and sharing exotic disease, and others by control of resources. The story line is always very similar, though the setting varies from age to age. Funny thing is, the invaders of days past had certain advantages to avoid embarrassing media expositions of their misjudgments to the lay public. For starters, day to day life at the time was slightly more labor intensive, leaving less time to quibble over happenings in regions separated not only by miles, but by months. Similarly and for that reason, benefits brought to a culture from aggression were not usually accompanied by a subliminal guilt associated with reaping what you did not sow. Ignorance is bliss, and some things never change.

Fast forward past the civilizing of the western world after World War Two and to the 21st century- the age of instant oatmeal, instant messages and instant news updates, and where it is no longer socially acceptable for one nation of the Western world to overtly coerce another sovereign nation into compliance with demands by military might alone. This apparent value tends to be self-enforced within a group of select Western nations by agreement, or if good will fails, economic sanction. But that's not to say there aren't loopholes, blind eyes and backroom bargains. And so somehow through genius or folly, it became custom to cloak international aggression in a veil of good will, and drag the bandwagon along on such a basis. Luckily enough for society, most subjects of these select nations are so accustomed to their simple and frictionless lives, that they are by nature averse to introducing by choice of their own, thoughts or notions of ideological dissent.

In the end, the Afghanistan conflict is no different than hundreds which came before- none of which had aggressors intent on giving more than they were to receive for their efforts. Trouble is, we the lay of a society which will benefit from the proceedings now have enough spare time on our hands to quibble about worries and considerations borne from a herniated sense of compassion. It's no help that we as a group are also bombarded by notions that our society is partaking in actions which are diametrically opposed to the values we formerly believed were held in common across social classes and economic borders. What results is confusion, followed shortly by social impotence.

When it comes down to it, if a country intends to go to war with another, what other motivation is there except that to win and gain benefit from the spoils. It is that motivation that drives the thought beforehand of 'hey, I should probably show up with enough guys and guns to get this thing over quickly'. Judging by the recent events of the past, the drivers of the collection of farces ahem, forces involved in A'stan had neither the thought, nor preceding that, the motivation to take care of what needs to be done in short order to realize success, and hence the occupation has appeared to be complete blundering disaster.

0.02
[/idealistic babble]

[sky's the limit]

Good post BSD.

stl

[ragbagflyer]

Have any of you read "Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism", by Naomi Klein? I haven't yet, but I plan on it.

[sky's the limit]

Have any of you read "Shock Doctrine: the rise of disaster capitalism", by Naomi Klein? I haven't yet, but I plan on it.

Yes,

It will give you something to think about, in a big way.

stl

[LH]

Ahhhhh........... so now Canada goes to the aide of Afghanistan after an urgent appeal from the UN to do so. Canada does just that and it is therefore considered by some 'high foreheads' that Canada has now Declared War on that country as a result of being there. If so, then Canada has also in the past declared war on Eygpt (Suez Canal), Greece & Turkey (Cyprus) & Syria & Israel (Golan Heights).........because all of that was done at the request/appeal of the UN for Canada to do so.

[sky's the limit]

Ahhhhh........... so now Canada goes to the aide of Afghanistan after an urgent appeal from the UN to do so. Canada does just that and it is therefore considered by some 'high foreheads' that Canada has now Declared War on that country as a result of being there. If so, then Canada has also in the past declared war on Eygpt (Suez Canal), Greece & Turkey (Cyprus) & Syria & Israel (Golan Heights).........because all of that was done at the request/appeal of the UN for Canada to do so.

I'm still not sure how you figure an "urgent appeal" from the UN has anything to do with anything. That may have indeed been the public face of it, but I think you'll find if you dig deeper that Bush and Chretien had a number of conversations regarding our involvement there dating back to the very early days after 9/11. Bush also sounded out JC for Canadian involvement in the upcoming Iraq invasion shortly after 9/11, to which JC wisely said "no." The UN was the vehicle to make the US/British invasion of Afghanistan happen legally after an ultimatum was issued to the Taliban leadership - which they of course refused.

We did not "go to the aid" of Afghanistan. We went as part of a post invasion effort that was to effect regime change in order to prevent further "terrorist" training and attacks, what we are really doing is helping secure a very strategic chunk of land in a region that is a source for great concern to the American leadership. The "aid" is something that was sold to Afghans, and us, but has conspicuously not materialized as advertised. What is being done there is largely ineffective as policies refuse to acknowledge the extreme cultural/systemic differences between "us" and "them." Yet, we continue to impose our methods in a nation that clearly does not either want them, or more importantly, is not ready for them. This is why Afghan support for Western involvement is so low.

Our mission there is in no way shape or form a "peace keeping" or "aid" operation.

stl

[Four1oh]

Until the Taliban is defeated, and that won't happen without the help of regular afghanis, there won't be a chance to rebuild the country. Everything we build will get torn down again by the bad guys.

I'm not sure if it's been covered yet or not, but I'm glad the war is being fought over there, otherwise they'd be over here killing our children. If it prevents another 9/11, I'm all for it.

[LH]

sky's the limit --------sir, I know only what I heard and saw via "The National" on CBC. It was spoken by a person identified as the UN Secretary-General and who I also recognized to be the same person. You may supine whatever you wish to, but what I realted in mny post was based on fact. The best that you can do then sir, is call me a liar. I can then research the particular date that the bradcast took place and pass that on for your supposed verification.........but I won't because thousands across Canada also saw and heard the same thing because I'm reasonably certain that I wasn't the only person in this country viewing "The National" that evening. That also states nothing about my reading the same thing in the next day's newspapers. I have no differing 'facts' from any 'inner sanctum' and if I did, I'd keep my mouth shut because there's a very large building in Ottawa with the letters "C.S.E." on it and they would definitely be interested in how I obtained said information.


Four1oh............It is absolute that the Taliban will win the conflict in Afghanistan..........we are stalling that eventuality only. "Regular Afghanis?" He can't afford an AK-47 unless he joins the warlords or the Taliban. In that part of the world, as in some others, things are run by the drug trade, religion, the warlords or all three. It's also absolute because never in the history of Man has a conventional military ever won over an irregular military, They don't 'play' by the same rules that the regular military does and that fact cost the German Army countless Divisions of men and equipment during WW2. Play by the same 'rules' as them and things change quickly, but 'stumbling and tripping' over some damn 'rule book' puts one side at a distinct disadvantage.

[sky's the limit]

sky's the limit --------sir, I know only what I heard and saw via "The National" on CBC. It was spoken by a person identified as the UN Secretary-General and who I also recognized to be the same person. You may supine whatever you wish to, but what I realted in mny post was based on fact. The best that you can do then sir, is call me a liar.

LH,

First off, nobody is calling you a liar. I too remember what you were referring to, however, I am just pointing out that it is not the only fact in the sequence of events, there are many other before, and after, that particular one. All I'm saying is, we need to pull back and examine these things within a greater context.

As for the CBC.... Well, I think I mentioned somewhere above in one of the long posts my thoughts on our media and their absolute subservience. You know how we all feel when we read or watch something about an aviation related incident? Well, I feel the same way - only worse - when I see something about Afghanistan. Yes, it is that bad.

Second, no need to call me "sir..."


Four1Oh

As also stated above in one of my novel like posts, the Taliban have nothing to do with our safety here. They are not interested in anything other than regaining their control of Afghanistan (and a few tribal areas of NW Pakistan). The "fight them there instead of here" idea is a justification based on misleading information, nothing more, nothing less. The issue of Al Qaeda is altogether a separate issue. The Taliban weren't overly fond of Bin Laden and his crowd even in the 1990's, they tolerated his present because he brought some reasonably significant funds with him. They were not about to give him up however, as he is a muslim, and they didn't so much mind what he did for living...

Hope that helps,

stl
PS LH is correct that we will not "win" there. His reasons are sound, and there are many other reasons to add to those he laid out.

[mcrit]

....the Taliban have nothing to do with our safety here. They are not interested in anything other than regaining their control of Afghanistan

...for now. I suspect that left to their own devices they would find a way to get in our hair in the future (just given that they subscribe to an expansionalist doctrine)

[sky's the limit]

....the Taliban have nothing to do with our safety here. They are not interested in anything other than regaining their control of Afghanistan

...for now. I suspect that left to their own devices they would find a way to get in our hair in the future (just given that they subscribe to an expansionalist doctrine)

Their doctrine, if that's even the word anymore, is not Global Jihad, but who knows what may happen in the future. Our actions there are going a lonnnnng way to determining that future, and cultivating as yet unseen threats. It seems Bin Laden has been effectively marginalized now, but there is always the chance someone could take his place - there are no shortage of reasons to do so.

When I was in Jalalabad, where most of the drones are launched for the cross-border raids via Hellfire missiles, and there are a pile of Special Forces Ops going on each night, I spoke to a good number of people from a variety of agencies and the military who were more than happy to show off their array of electronic listening/watching devices, etc. There isn't a "person of interest" in the entire area who isn't having his cell phone, sat phone, and Icom radio listened to. So, I'm fairly confident that we really don't need to be there to establish who is who anymore, much less who may do what, and contain it should something untoward present itself. It is rather impressive to be honest.

Imho, the whole "protection" thing is a sales job. That opinion is shared by many other people too. Pre-9/11 the Americans had ZERO assets in the area, that capability has been more than restored. So, we're back to asking the real question of "why are we there?" And we're back to the same answer: Projection of power, ergo influence in the region. Not to mention the US domestic spending issues.

I don't mind being scared when there is something to be scared about, but I loath fear-mongering to the extreme. All I'm trying to do for myself, and I suppose here, is to ask people to look a lot deeper into these issues, understand how our own propaganda machine works, and then decipher the results in order to make an informed decision. I am also jumping up and down, screaming and yelling to anyone who will listen, that things there are NOT what we are being told they are, nor are the motivations for our occupation being fully revealed in public discourse - even though it's the most poorly kept secret going.

I don't have all the answers, but I'm trying damn hard to find out as many as I can.

stl
PS Anybody know how to prune fruit trees? I have five that need serious work...