My my, isn't this convenient. We hear rumblings about a possible election hinging on extending Canada's presence in Afghanistan, and looky here: "secret" military statistics show that Canada is "winning" over there. And who says so? Why, a general of course! Not that he's biased or anything.
This is almost as laughable as that stupid poll the Government and its media servants trotted out a while back. Remember? The majority of Afghans who were sufficiently dutiful to answer a survey said foreign troops were helping the country. (Small print disclaimer: that's 51% of Afghans who knew Canadian troops were in their country, which was less than half of those surveyed.) And on that solid "evidence" we're supposed to base the country's foreign policy.
The way the media fawns all over these generals is sickening. Canada is supposed to be a democracy, run by civilians. The military doesn't get to decide what course to take. But a general holds a press conference, and the media lines up to transcribe.
For me, the craziest thing about these efforts to prop up support for the war is how shortsighted they are. Does anyone really believe Canada and NATO are going to wipe out the Taliban as a movement? After the killing stops, why wouldn't the Taliban just continue where it left off? In which case, will Canada stay there permanently, to pick off Taliban supporters - and in turn be picked off themselves?
Enough already. Get out of there.
20 comments:
I think people get caught up in the idea that the Taliban are exactly like the perennial pariah, the Nazis. But they're not. They're not an official party with a real hierarchy or dreams of pushing people into ovens that require a vast state apparatus. All they are is religious conservatives; thousands of guys who basically share a concept of what's right and what's wrong and they're willing to back it up. We can't win against that with weapons. Every time we kill one, some relative of his, who might have otherwise been a moderate, is going to rise up to put an end to what he considers our tyranny.
The Taliban aren't great guys by our definition. But it's not our country. If Afghanistan wants alternatives, they have to come from Afghanistan, and they have to be equally or more persuasive in terms of what the Afghan people want for themselves and their children and grandchildren. And sorry, folks, but that probably isn't a McDonald's on every street corner and women in bikinis washing cars on The Price Is Right.
I agree with you completely, LP. I would only strengthen the word "conservative" as used there.
The Taliban's religious vision is beyond conservative. It's radical. A society where women can't seek medical care, because all doctors are men and women cannot show their bodies to men, is more than conservative.
I do think the Afghan people who don't want to live under Taliban conditions need help in organizing against them. But killing off Taliban sympathizers - and bolstering a US-backed puppet government - is not the answer.
Did anyone define what "winning" means?
The Taliban aren't great guys by our definition. But it's not our country.
It's not really their country, either, though; the US armed them to go up against the USSR, and they took advantage of US weapons to impose themselves on what had been one of the more liberal Muslim states in the Middle East.
Sort of like how the US helped Saddam Hussein to deal with Iran, or is now helping various Iraqi militias to deal with other Iraqi militias.
Did anyone define what "winning" means?
The article defines it, more or less, as a decrease in violence, a secure Kandahar, fewer Taliban. Even by those standards, it's not clear that there's any winning going on.
The Taliban aren't great guys by our definition. But it's not our country.
It's not really their country, either, though
And a lot of people in the country don't want to live under their repression. And they shouldn't have to. But... [repeat last refrain]
It's not really their country, either, though
Well, by "them", I mean Afghans, not the Taliban per se. The Taliban are a subset of Afghans, and whether we like it or not, they have a say in what Afghanistan ought to be. They have to live there; they have some rights in determining the nature of the society in which they live. Our mistake is in assuming that we have the same rights vis-a-vis their country. We don't. But of course, this is not to cede to the Taliban the exclusive right to decide; everyone in Afghanistan has an opinion. Unfortunately, their current method for sorting those opinions out is not as conciliatory as ours. But that's the nature of their culture as it stands; again, it's not our place to even that for them. There are no shortcuts to becoming a democratic society... if that's even what Afghanistan is destined to be. It's not inevitable, however much we might wish it to be.
Did anyone define what "winning" means?
Yeah... "a McDonald's on every street corner and women in bikinis washing cars on The Price Is Right." Tell me anyone out there responsible for sending the troops in had anything else in mind.
Well, by "them", I mean Afghans, not the Taliban per se.
Then I agree with you without reservations. I'd characterize the Taliban a little more negatively and strongly, but the fact remains...
The Taliban are a subset of Afghans, and whether we like it or not, they have a say in what Afghanistan ought to be.
...that this is true.
As I said in my last post on the subject, Canada has no more business in Afghanistan than the US does in Iraq.
Well, by "them", I mean Afghans, not the Taliban per se. The Taliban are a subset of Afghans, and whether we like it or not, they have a say in what Afghanistan ought to be.
On the other hand, if you take a small, violent, fanatical subset of a population and give them lots of weapons, they tend to take more of a say then then really should have...
On the other hand, if you take a small, violent, fanatical subset of a population...
"Small", huh? Oh, well, we'll be beating them any day now. Yes! The light at the end of the tunnel... at last. Again.
Have you considered applying for a job with the White House Press Office? Maybe David Frum could use some assistance?
As for "violent" and "fanatical", well, anyone who fights is by definition "violent". OUR troops are violent. The difference is, they're violent in someone else's country. "Fanatical" is of course the ultimate in subjective calls. The Minutemen were "fanatics" to the British regulars. It all comes down to who you're asking. For me, it's rather more "fanatical" to invade to someone else's country and insist they live according to my whims and preferences than to insist on my own standards in my own country. You may... probably do, given your previous defence of the invasion... see it otherwise.
I'm not out to justify the Taliban. But this begs the question, how much less justification is there for foreign troops to be there doing the same thing?
P.S. Feel free to remind us yet again what "begs the question" used to mean before it came to mean "begs the question". :)
Whoa, Lone Primate, I don't think James's comment is meant to justify Canada's involvement in Afghanistan (although James, if I'm reading you wrong, please correct me).
It's hard to think the Taliban is anything if not violent and fantatical. It's ok to dislike them and call them for what they are. It doesn't follow that anything Canada or the US does is therefore correct.
It's true that any word - fantatical, violent, whatever - can be used elastically, depending on what side you're on. But it's also true that the Taliban are fanatical and violent, by almost any standard.
You may... probably do, given your previous defence of the invasion... see it otherwise.
What defence of the invasion? Where do you see that in this thread?
I'm not sure that an objection to military involvement in Afghanistan need lead to an acceptance of what the Taleban stand for. As far as my - admittedly fairly limited - understanding of the country's history goes, no foreign power has ever managed to 'win' a conflict there. However I hate - and that is a world I rarely use - the Taleban and everything it stands for.
If the rights of women are seen to be a cultural construct it diminishes the rights of women everywhere. We forget that in western culture, until very recently, women were regarded as the property of their husband and had no rights at all. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Afghan women are 21st century women just like me, and they have the right to every freedom that I claim.
Religious conservatism cannot be used as a cover to limit those rights. There are many people who would describe me as a religious conservative - but that is a choice I make as to how to live my life. I am pretty sure, not certain, that the vast majority of Afghan women - if asked - would not want a McDonalds on every corner. All I ask is that they are asked.
I mean no offence to the other commenters, I just think than we can damage the argument against war if we fail to clearly recognise the evil of the 'enemy'.
WER, thanks very much. Your comment could give no offense to any rational person.
I have no problem hating (also a strong word which I do not use often) the Taliban but also condemning Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.
One does not necessarily lead to the other.
What defence of the invasion? Where do you see that in this thread?
I can distinctly recall threads where the suggestion was plain that we were there handing out democracy and All Things Bright and Beautiful over there. I remember it because I was surprised at the narrowness of the vision: the idea that what's right for us is necessarily right for everyone, everywhere. That's the basis for granting ourselves the right to invade and intervene in other countries in the first place, and I have to take issue with it. It's hard, I know, not to rush in and set things "right"; my fear is that the day is coming when others will be in a position to rush in here and set things "right" in their estimation of the word... and what will we say to them, having set the precedent ourselves? That line of thinking has to be resisted; it's chauvinistic in the traditional sense, no matter how well-intentioned. I think we do our best when we set examples to aspire to... South Africa, for example, modeled part of its new constitution on Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But as bad as we thought apartheid was, we didn't go in there and put it down with military force. For all the same reasons, I think it's a mistake to grant ourselves the privilege elsewhere, such as Afghanistan, or Iraq. And I know I've heard James speak in support of that, albeit with good intentions, I admit. But imperialism has always had its missionaries as its friendly face, after all.
I am pretty sure, not certain, that the vast majority of Afghan women - if asked - would not want a McDonalds on every corner. All I ask is that they are asked.
I appreciate what you're saying. But my point is, did anybody come in here to Canada, or the US or UK, pounding the snot out of us to give women those rights? What would our attitude be if they had? Did the Civil War in the US end slavery? Yes... but it also fostered a culture of resentment and retribution and vast ugliness that we've only seen being dislodged in the last couple of generations. I think values have to grow organically. If they're forced from without, I think it often does more harm than good.
Wow
So many levels of complexity here. Way too many to get into seriously before I have to head out to work.
I condemn the invasion of another country, period. Using military force to instigate moral change is immoral, period.
But then, how to support those in other countries who are being repressed?
Women in the US demonstrated, raised their voices, made us look at our policies and recognize the injustice. But they could do so with a fairly strong assumption that they were not going to be executed for doing so. Not necessarily true in Afghanistan.
I still oppose war as a method to achieve justice, I can't really reconcile those 2 concepts, but I'm not necessarily a fan of "mind our own business" in these cases either.
And that barely scratches the surface of the layers of moral issues piling up in the Middle East.
I've gotta go before I start in on Bush's war. I'll be here all day if I do :)
I'm not necessarily a fan of "mind our own business" in these cases either.
Neither am I, but the justifications for the use of military force -- systemic state murder, if you will -- are few and far between, and very murky. But I'm usually pretty sure when it's being misapplied, and in this case I feel it is.
I believe what we ought to do, in nearly every such case is, as I've said, provide an example. People look to countries like ours and use them as yardsticks to improve their lot -- not necessarily in every regard, and we have to accept that; they're free to pick and choose what works and what doesn't (or not at all). We can say to countries with whose policies we do not agree that we will limit discourse, trade, travel, and interaction with them; make things hard for them inasmuch as we're able. Speak against them in public forums. Shine a light on their hypocrisy, their venality. Embarrass their regimes by making the people they persecute legitimate refugees. We did this successfully in South Africa, and to much larger effect in Eastern Europe. We continue to exert a mitigating effect on China. We didn't fire a single bullet, blow up a single home, or end the life of one innocent "collateral damage" to achieve any of that. Why do we assume, then, it's fine to do it whenever a country is too poor, too ill-defended, too un-Judea-Christian, and its ruling class too darkly-complected to concern us? I have a real problem with that double standard.
I can distinctly recall threads where the suggestion was plain that we were there handing out democracy and All Things Bright and Beautiful over there.
There were wmtc threads were people defended Canada's military involvement. But I don't think James ever took that position. The main culprit was Mark from Ottawa, who has since been banned for General Obnoxiousness and constant re-directs (to a military blog called The Torch).
I may be wrong, but I'd be extremely surprised if James defended the war in Afghanistan anywhere on this blog.
And that barely scratches the surface of the layers of moral issues piling up in the Middle East.
Sosock, thank you for your thoughts. Just a note, there's never any need to tackle all the layers of moral issues in the Middle East or elsewhere in order to weigh in on any thread. :)
I may be wrong, but I'd be extremely surprised if James defended the war in Afghanistan anywhere on this blog.
You'd have to go back quite a ways. I seem to recall it was mostly before our guys started coming back down the "Highway of Heroes" in numbers great enough to inspire the name, and around the time Rob was still among us... or at least, not long after he hung up his pen in deference to not having to back HIS horse in public once it started fouling the national stable. >:)
All right then, I'll leave it to James to confirm or deny if he so chooses.
I have the impression you are shadow-boxing here. No one is taking the contrary position.
Post a Comment