<strong>Written By:</strong> 4Canada
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-03-13 09:19:03
<a href="/article/171903975-afghan-war-isnt-ours">Article Link</a>

Since time immemorial, when great emperors went to war, they summoned contingents of their vassals and tributaries to their standards. So it was in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, when the U.S. decided to invade those nations and demand its allies join the so-called "war on terrorism."

Under irresistible pressure from Washington to aid its highly unpopular military expeditions in either Iraq or Afghanistan, America's allies and NATO partners opted for the lesser evil, Afghanistan.

That is why 2,100 Canadian troops have ended up in a nation in which Canada has absolutely no strategic, commercial, cultural or emotional interests.

Now, as the number of Canadian military casualties rises, the dismayed public rightly asks, "What are we doing there? We thought it was another peacekeeping mission."

Thank Ottawa and Canada's media for misinforming the public. There was no significant debate in Parliament. The media indulged in flag-waving instead of warning Canadians they were walking into a small, but real, war.


<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0312-33.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0312-33.htm</a>





[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 13, 2006]

   

According to Mr. Margolis, Canada is just an American vassal? But why stop there? We're just a puppet of the Americans, heck we aren't even a realy country anyways! At least that's what we are led to believe. I'm annoyed that foreign ownership is a real problem in this country as are the Americanisation of English Canada and the over-dependency on access to the American markets in the south. But things aren't that bad yet and I refuse to believe that we've reached the point where we can't think for ourselves.

Highly unpopular military expedition? There is no doubt that the Iraq War and its subsequent occupation was and continues to be a grossly unpopular military operation. That war was based on the lie that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. It is very ironic that in the next few years that United States and its allies could face a very real nuclear threat from neighbouring Iran, whose leaders are openly bent on the annihilation of the State of Israel and that of the Jewish people. Underestimated quasi-fascists with nuclear weapons are not a pretty picture.

The operation against the Taliban however was different all together. It was based on the fact that the Taliban were closely allied with Al-Qaeda, who had just attacked the United States on September 11th. In reality the Taliban had been doing far worse to its own people. The Taliban, like Al-Qaeda, adhere to a recessive form of Islam straight out of the Middle Ages.

The Operation in Afghanistan had the broad backing of the international community, much unlike the Iraq Operation did two years later. Nations and international bodies such as the European Union, the People's Republic of China, Russia, Australia, Japan, Korea, Canada, and even to some degree the United Nations and other Muslim countries supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the liberation of Afghanistan. Even the United Nations is involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, again much unlike what is going on right now in Iraq.

And yet, we can't say that Afghanistan has been liberated. The Taliban was bad, but now the Afghan people have something far worse to fear- American imperialism. Being a Canadian it would be very hard for me to say that I think imperialism, British or American, would be good thing for any country. But only a socialist or a neo-Marxist would have you believe that American imperialism is at the same level (or even far worse) than the Taliban. It is ironic, and even slightly pathetic, for socialists and neo-Marxists to staunchly oppose any operation against the Taliban and Al-Aqaeda, given the ultra-fascism indictive of their Islamist ideology.

Mr. Margolis would much rather sell-out us out and compare what is going on now in Afghanistan to what happened during the Boer War in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th century. If comparisons are to be made I would much rather make the comparison with the Spanish civil war which was a struggle against the forces of fascism; today, Wahhabis and Islamists are being bank-rolled by Saudi oil money seeking to impose their own backward (and yes fascist!) ideologies on the Muslim peoples of the world.

American imperialism is bad for not only Muslims, but for countries like Canada as well. Islamic fascism however is far worse. To say otherwise would be a cop-out.

---
"All great truths begin as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw

   

It all depends which one you believe to be the worse of the two evils.

A Taliban regime that enforced it's insane definitions of sharia law on the Afghan people, or a US installed regime that at least allows women to go to school and get an education without having to worry about being hauled in front of a questionably Islamic kangaroo court (assuming they'd make it there alive)?

Even minimal civil liberities are better than none at all, even if those liberties are only a side effect of misplaced US foreign policy that values pipelines more than people.

It's a hell of a bad situation, all we can do is make the best of it.







---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

I think the proper way to describe the operation in Afghanistan would be "police action". To begin, let's accept a essential fact that all governments are protection rackets. As Bertrand Russell once stated about religion, the state " achieves a certain amount of good after doing a great deal of harm ". Afghan women are doing a bit better (for now) but so is the opium trade. Consider events since the beginning of the twentieth century. The dictatorship in Persia (as Iran used to be called) supported originally by the British was replaced by an equally rotten Islamic republic for one simple reason. The fundamentalists were the only functioning centre of opposition to the Shaw. Ditto for Iraq. The mass murderer of Baghdad (originally America's buddy) who gassed the Kurds two decades ago, was not labelled a tyrant UNTIL it became convenient for our own governments (and syncophantic media). Seventy years ago Hitler appealed concurrently to ex-soldiers and the unemployed under roughly similiar circumstances. The British under Mr. "peace in our time" would not aid German regulars in a pincer action against Hitler. The Russians disarmed the KPD. Hitler like Bin Laden simply made use of a situation generated by his enemies. If the German Social democrats and the communists had formed a united front (complete with their own private armies) ... well things might have been different all around. When Australian journalist John Pilger did an interview with Usama, the latter stated that he would " do to the Americans what I did to the Russians ". The Yanks armed their own enemies! (Orwell would have just loved this). Fascism is the rebellion of the hopeless, the gullible and the stupid. And we're financing and arming it.

   

How much is peace worth to us?
Do the western countries, left and right, want a de facto state religion?
Can our default position for right and wrong be based on ancient religious customs we are not familiar with and consider brutal and repressive, which conflict directly with our most cherished principles?
Afganni women were teaching little girls when other women were getting their brains blown out in public executions in blood-stained soccer fields, and they kept on teaching. Others walked for three weeks to vote when the Taliban had put a special bounty on their lives. How can those women seem so much stronger in the face of terror than we do?

Finally the US under Jimmy Carter started giving money to the Mujahadeen. Ron Reagan did too. They, the mujahadeen, were loosely unified tribal warriors fighting the USSR. The US supported Ahmed Shah Masood's faction which they are supporting today. The current president of Afganistan came directly from Masood's ranks. He was the number 2. There was never any money for bin Laden and the Taliban did not exist until 1994.
Bosnia and Kosovo are different though. All the world, Canada included, was paying bin laden there.

   

This adventure should prove interesting, even if costly in Canadian lives. But what an exercise in hypocrisy. If educating women and creating a modern society in Afghanistan is what we are supposedly after, why did the US arm the Mujahiddin, overthrowing the very forces trying to bring about those changes? Until the US intervened, it looked as though the Russians and their secular Afghan allies were winning. Thanks to the US, Osama Bin Ladin got his training. Remember him, the US-backed “freedom-fighter”? The Taliwackers seem to be reviving, an ominous note. But once again, the stench of hypocrisy. After all it was the great US ally, Pakistan that encouraged the Taliwackers in the first place. Then there is that lovely bumper crop of opium . Who is going to get the proceeds from that?

By the way, Eric Margolis is one of those rare creatures – A genuine conservative. For those of you who don’t know what that is, who confuse conservatism with neoconazism, a genuine conservative is someone suspicious of ideologies and crusades, someone who fears concentrated political and economic power, someone who exercises prudence and is aware of hubris and the potential for folly. Wish there were more of these folks!

   

How will the Canadians, or anybody, bring on emancipation for women by driving up and down a road to please the general, who was whisked out of harm's way when somebody shot off a rifle in the distnace, and the heroic PM ?

It would take at least half million soldiers to occupy Afg. I can't remember now how many the Soviets had at any given time, and what casualties they suffered in the 10 years, but if they couldn't "pacify" them, 2200 Canadians won't. Best for them to spend more time in the American owned Tim Hortons, eating off pieces of wax paper. One per table to "save costs".

Ed Deak.

   

when i was 3years old i used to spend time on a neighbours porch listening to his father talk about the boer war.that was 1952 and here i am at 57 years old trying to think back to how many conflicts have been fought since i have been here on this planet.

i'm getting tired of hearing about war.

   

Angus:
>It is very ironic that in the next few years that United States and its allies could face a very real nuclear threat from neighbouring Iran, whose leaders are openly bent on the annihilation of the State of Israel and that of the Jewish people. Underestimated quasi-fascists with nuclear weapons are not a pretty picture.

Remember that the only place that you've ever heard that Iran is building nuclear arms is from the US administration and those they control. All independent investigators have thus far been able to substantiate any of these claims.

Given that the words have come from proven liars, why are we writing this stuff as if it's the undeniable truth?

Regarding the "Bent on the annihilation of the state of Israel", let us also not forget that there have been as many identical comments made by Israeli leadership (past and current) regarding Arabs. To say that there is regional tension is an understatement - but let's at least call it down the middle. Besides, Israel has got its own nuclear weapons. Why is this never mentioned?

Rico AB.

   

Have you been away in the arctic for the last year. The EU has been negotiating with the Iranians for over a year with no success of course. There aim was to have the Iranians not continue with their nuke program. The Americans only appear now as the EU was a failure as expected. I only suggest your error is probably in good faith and not meant to misconstrue the good intentions of our American friends.

   

Toronto:
>Have you been away in the arctic for the last year. The EU has been negotiating with the Iranians for over a year with no success of course. There aim was to have the Iranians not continue with their nuke program. The Americans only appear now as the EU was a failure as expected. I only suggest your error is probably in good faith and not meant to misconstrue the good intentions of our American friends.

My friend, there is no mistake in my statement. The US leadership has claimed that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. The Iranians have said that their programme is for civilian purposes (namely, electricity). To date, there has not been a single bit of evidence that would suggest that the Iranians are lying. According to the non-proliferation treaty, signed by Iran, they indeed have the right to conduct a nuclear policy for civilian purposes, which is all that they're doing (until someone can prove otherwise).

Before suggesting that I have made a mistake, I suggest that you best review the facts to find where the allegations on nuclear misconduct are coming from.

I reiterate. The US leadership outright lied about Iraqi WMDs (amongst other things), only a fool believes the same lie more than once.

Rico AB.