News   Jul 11, 2024
 90     0 
News   Jul 11, 2024
 289     0 
News   Jul 10, 2024
 588     0 

Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)

^ We have to be patient. It's not a perfect system but let's not forget that it's only been a few decades since segregation ended in the US for example. We really can't expect the Afghans who have very little to begin with to all of a sudden drop their battle for survival and place human rights on top of the agenda. It takes time to build a society and judiciary from scratch. Developing the judiciary is actually a part of our assistance to Afghanistan. Till the systems develops to our liking, our diplomats do apply pressure on cases like this. Rulings like these do usually get revoked quietly down the road by the President later.

human rights should be the top of the agenda. the lack of basic human rights is one of the reasons why we're there in the first place. restrictions of human rights is what allows groups like the taliban to have so much control and influence.

and what's this on the news about wanting to reach out to moderate taliban members? what exactly is a moderate taliban? one who attacks women with a weaker acid?

i know there's been progress but why do we need to keep putting pressure on this government to stop sentencing people to death for such trivial things? do they not get it? they're wasting their court resources for bullshit. when they're sentencing a person to death for women's rights propaganda they can be convicting terrorists and acid throwers, etc.

it just seems to me sometimes that our troops are getting killed in vain.
 
human rights should be the top of the agenda. the lack of basic human rights is one of the reasons why we're there in the first place. restrictions of human rights is what allows groups like the taliban to have so much control and influence

....

i know there's been progress but why do we need to keep putting pressure on this government to stop sentencing people to death for such trivial things? do they not get it? they're wasting their court resources for bullshit. when they're sentencing a person to death for women's rights propaganda they can be convicting terrorists and acid throwers, etc.

Cheese eating surrender monkey! Just kidding.

Again, keep context in mind. We are not there to bring western style democracy to Afghanistan despite what various governments (both Liberal and Conservative) have said. Our national interest lies in a democratic Afghanistan because it's less likely to harbour anti-western groups and more likely to remain stable. In as far as human rights are concerned, promoting them, together with a sound justice system are in our interests because they ensure the stability and cohesion of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious (various versions of Islam) state. To that end we are doing things like training judges, prosecutors, corrections staff, etc. But these things take time. Imagine building our present justice system from scratch. But keep in mind, this is also a muslim country with its own legal codes and constitutions (written without western interference). So they will have rules, norms and penalties different from what we would tolerate. Should we overrule them just because we don't like their rules. I don't believe so. That would make us Imperialists. If we are going to impose that standard on Afghanistan, we had better be willing to hold the rest of the 1.5 billion residents Muslim world up to the same standard.

I would say that patience will win the day. Canada has undertaken similar judicial reforms efforts elsewhere and we have had success. It takes time though. In China, CIDA has had success with judicial reforms at the local level. In areas where CIDA has mentored they no longer hand out death sentences like candy and corruption has gone down, etc. Afghanistan is no better or worse. It'll come with time. It took something like a decade or more to achieve the progress we did in China. And they are still far from perfect. It's unfair to expect Afghanistan to become a western style paragon of human rights over night when the folks there are more concerned with day to day survival than media freedoms, women's rights, gay rights, religious freedoms, etc.

and what's this on the news about wanting to reach out to moderate taliban members? what exactly is a moderate taliban? one who attacks women with a weaker acid?

There's a lot of folks who get labelled 'Taliban' who are really just local warlords who have sided with the Taliban for various personal interests, ie. Political power, business interests, etc. They have no real interest in the Taliban's extremist agenda. These are people who can be swayed. There are efforts underway to give some of these folks amnesty, help work out their issues (ie where appropriate help protect some of their influence and/or business interests), and to help them turn away from growing poppies. Ie. Pursue alternative and lucrative crops.

The western media does a poor job of conveying the picture in Afghanistan. Anybody who shoots at NATO gets labelled Taliban. The reality is far more complex. Warlords, drug barons, various ethnic clans all have their own interests and reason to or not to cooperate with the Afghan government (and their subcontracted security provider, NATO). Peeling some of those folks away where compromise is possible, would dramatically weaken the Taliban. And trust me, this is an effort the Taliban is trying very, very hard to prevent coming to fruition. Get this right and we've won the war.

Before anyone misinterprets what I've written here. This does not mean that we compromise on our principles. This means working to accommodate concerns of individuals and groups where possible. For example, we have persuaded warlords to disarm by giving them satellite phones and direct access to a heliborne quick reaction force that flies out to protect them in case of a Taliban attack. That's one example, but there are many, many ways we can win people over. The first step is dropping the labels imposed by the western media.
 
Last edited:
my friend you are blind...

Western Govts would support any govt that is somewhat friendly to them even though are backwards in nature...


Its "as long as they aren't committing genocide its all good..." way of thinking...
 
Given the shifting rationale for western military action in Afghanistan, is there a chance that what we're really there to do is build/protect a transit corridor for Caspian Basin oil?

I mean, I started hearing the foregoing argument from the usual shrill corners in the immediate aftermath of the US invasion, and at the time I wrote it off. But since 2001, the mission's scope/justification seem to have evolved a few times. And now it appears that we're in a substantially similar position to the USSR in the 1980s. This causes me to wonder why we would want to put ourselves in such a tenuous position, which leads me to re-examine some of the explanations that I had dismissed years ago.

So what of it? Surely we must understand that killing Pashtuns is, at best, only going to win us friends with approximately 50% of the Afghan population (while simultaneously making enemies of the other 50%). So we can't really believe that our military action is going to yield long-term stability (unless we totally exterminate the Pashtuns, which no one has been able to do in many centuries of trying).
 
The oil conspiracy theorists always gloss over some major geopolitical and geostrategic realities to reach their conclusions.

First off, why would the US and the west spend that much blood and treasure trying to secure transit rights through Afghanistan for Caspian oil. One could just as easily build an oil pipeline westward. If the Russians can send oil and gas from Siberia to Europe, the challenges to build a line from the Caspian basin to friendly European ports are relatively minor.

Next, the real question to ask the conspiracy theorists: who benefits from Caspian oil. They will flap their gums about this oil company or that one involved in this or that survey (glossing over the fact that western oil companies are usually the most advanced so their expertise is in demand worldwide), but when you look at the realities of any oil investment in central asia it is apparent that the west and the US in particular will not be beneficiaries. The largest investor in Central Asian resource development right now is China. And the next big player coming on line is India. Both countries are competing for resources and influence in central asia. Nobody has yet explained to me why the US would seek to expend lives and resources to make it easier for the Indians and Chinese to extract oil and gas in central asia. How would that benefit the US at all? The pipeline project that's often cited is TAPI. Yet the conspiracy theorists always gloss over the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of this pipeline are Pakistan and India (and possibly China with a spur built through the Himalayas). So their theory rests on some convoluted assertion that the US was expend tens of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to make it easier for the Indian and Chinese to secure the resources they need to feed their booming economies. Anybody ever known the US government to be that generous towards potential strategic rivals?
 
Cheese eating surrender monkey! Just kidding.

Again, keep context in mind. We are not there to bring western style democracy to Afghanistan despite what various governments (both Liberal and Conservative) have said. Our national interest lies in a democratic Afghanistan because it's less likely to harbour anti-western groups and more likely to remain stable.

i don't know about that. less likely, okay, but hamas was democratically elected. i didn't really say anything about bring democracy, i was talking more about individual freedoms. for example, democracy in a country where more than 50% of the population believe that someone should be killed for blasphemy or campaigning women's rights would be a disaster since the irrational majority would impose their views on everyone else. democracy works best in a well educated mostly rational society.







In as far as human rights are concerned, promoting them, together with a sound justice system are in our interests because they ensure the stability and cohesion of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious (various versions of Islam) state. To that end we are doing things like training judges, prosecutors, corrections staff, etc. But these things take time. Imagine building our present justice system from scratch. But keep in mind, this is also a muslim country with its own legal codes and constitutions (written without western interference). So they will have rules, norms and penalties different from what we would tolerate. Should we overrule them just because we don't like their rules. I don't believe so. That would make us Imperialists. If we are going to impose that standard on Afghanistan, we had better be willing to hold the rest of the 1.5 billion residents Muslim world up to the same standard.

i don't know if it takes time for a government to stop persecuting blasphemers and feminists. all it takes is a memo that would say "leave these people alone or lose your job". i don't really care about the beliefs over there. people can have their beliefs if they want but leave other people alone. it has nothing to do whith whether we like their rules or not. not killing someone for blasphemy or caring about women is not something the west invented. it's not a west-centric view, it's a human view.

and yes, the standard should be imposed throughout. i can't wait until the day comes when the west will need not rely on saudi arabia, etc. for energy. that country is far too wealthy for its own good and getting away with pure evil.




I would say that patience will win the day. Canada has undertaken similar judicial reforms efforts elsewhere and we have had success. It takes time though. In China, CIDA has had success with judicial reforms at the local level. In areas where CIDA has mentored they no longer hand out death sentences like candy and corruption has gone down, etc. Afghanistan is no better or worse. It'll come with time. It took something like a decade or more to achieve the progress we did in China. And they are still far from perfect. It's unfair to expect Afghanistan to become a western style paragon of human rights over night when the folks there are more concerned with day to day survival than media freedoms, women's rights, gay rights, religious freedoms, etc.

patience is running thin, especially because our troops are coming back in body bags. these people are making the supreme sacrifice. i know the afghan society has bigger shit on their mind but that's all the more reason to abandon their barbaric practices of condemning people to death for trivial matters. if they got more important things to deal with, then they should deal with them and not worry about enforcing allah's laws. let allah enforce his own laws.



There's a lot of folks who get labelled 'Taliban' who are really just local warlords who have sided with the Taliban for various personal interests, ie. Political power, business interests, etc. They have no real interest in the Taliban's extremist agenda. These are people who can be swayed. There are efforts underway to give some of these folks amnesty, help work out their issues (ie where appropriate help protect some of their influence and/or business interests), and to help them turn away from growing poppies. Ie. Pursue alternative and lucrative crops.

i was under the impression that the poppy business wasn't such a big deal under the taliban?




The western media does a poor job of conveying the picture in Afghanistan. Anybody who shoots at NATO gets labelled Taliban. The reality is far more complex. Warlords, drug barons, various ethnic clans all have their own interests and reason to or not to cooperate with the Afghan government (and their subcontracted security provider, NATO). Peeling some of those folks away where compromise is possible, would dramatically weaken the Taliban. And trust me, this is an effort the Taliban is trying very, very hard to prevent coming to fruition. Get this right and we've won the war.

i do agree that the media doesn't always report accurately. what they referred to as "moderate talaban" could just be the wrong choice of words.




Before anyone misinterprets what I've written here. This does not mean that we compromise on our principles. This means working to accommodate concerns of individuals and groups where possible. For example, we have persuaded warlords to disarm by giving them satellite phones and direct access to a heliborne quick reaction force that flies out to protect them in case of a Taliban attack. That's one example, but there are many, many ways we can win people over. The first step is dropping the labels imposed by the western media.

gadgets and gizmos is a good way to go. heck, it keeps our population inline and going to their shitty 9-5 day after day. :D


p.s, what labels, what are you referring to?
 
It's an irrationally defined war in Afghanistan where the reasons keep changing as to why this occupation started in the first place, nothing more and nobody is winning ....you can talk loads about the wonderful things going on there,,,,,but it's going to get far worse before it gets better and perhaps a new generation will never experience anything other than war there...all the bravado in the world is not going to change this failure of the American dominated NATO war adventure in Afghanistan and I would prefer the Canadian public realize this before we permit the current conservatives to continue spending like drunken sailors on things of no value i.e. helicopters in Montreal warehouses .
I would get the Canadian troops out of Afghanistan......Pakistan is ready to blow. I have always advocated that it was a mistake to be there. A knee jerk reaction of the Bush administration that Harper stepped up here in Canada once elected to his minority status as prime minister in 2006. In 2009, same old sing song.

The soldier values the lives in his country, the country should value the life of the soldier. Should we sacrifice one more Canadian for ancient conflicts, warped religious adherence and the oppression of women that even to this day continues in our very own society? War should always be the very last coping strategy when engaging in other countries business, I mean we take that stance elsewhere! Give needed humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, absolutely, continue to kill people who want you out of Afghanistan?, sounds infantile to me. Time is being wasted, get to the table and speak with those who need to be heard is all we can do in the end. Obama will eventually learn not to trust those who continue to fail hopefully. And why we continue to trust our government with respect to our involvement in Afghanistan is as irrational as it gets.

Others here don't agree with me. It's quite amusing to read what others write. I have not been convinced here to think otherwise.
 
Daniel J. Christie from Canada writes: I'll say this much for Rick Hillier: Just like Buzz Hargrove, General Hillier knew EXACTLY when to get the hell out.

Good point!
 
Wow. You really have a hate on for the military to dredge up this thread.

General Hillier didn't walk out. His term as CDS ended and he retired. And as a general rule, the CDS does not usually extend his/her term unless the government requests it....which they generally don't unless it's an exceptional circumstance. Hillier accomplished all he had to (military transformation wise...nothing to do with Afghanistan) and he decided to retire once he had achieved his goal (restructuring the CF). There's nothing devious about that.

Look up how many years previous CDS have served. You will see that Hillier's term is exactly in line with his predecessors.
 
I certainly don't hate the millitary but I do want them to be accountable to the people who employ them, That is the big difference between our school of thoughts.
 
Well I will suggest to you that it will be the policy after the Nov 4 election that America will leave both Afghanistan and Iraq shortly there after and do you imagine then that NATO will not follow shortly there after? Or even more ridiculous do you think it wise for Canada to remain without significant American help there?

Since you decided to dredge up this thread for reasons unknown I thought I might point out this gem you made on page 3 almost a year ago. With more U.S. troops to be shifted to Afghanistan in the coming months I guess you really had the pulse of America's foreign policy, and with it your logic for pulling out the Canadians, eh? :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top