kEiThZ
Superstar
I would rather say I don't know than just make it up, or be wrong consistently for 7 years pushing militarism as a solution. Be careful, your posts will be here for years for us to revert back upon. Just like the ones from 6 months ago. If your increase military force scheme does not work will you be prepared to admit you and the leadership have been wrong?
YES! I have issues with how we are working with Afghanistan now and I do voice those opinions to anybody who will listen. Anyway, the plan here is not just mine....I just happen to know more about it because its part of my day job. The plan is one that's been hashed out with Afghan and regional input. One that's supported by NATO and the US military and the US administration. And note that I never said just a military surge. Both the US military establishment and our own have long been advocating for increased aid and development in Afghanistan. Personally I would like to see a doubling of the investment in that country.
I am curious and wonder if you will tell me the truth. Did you support the invasion of Iraq back when it began? Because you are using the same rationale in your Afghanistan arguments that the brokers of that war used. Plus Iraq was firmly in the 20th century with a far better infrastructure that you say we need to build in Afghanistan.
I don't support the Iraq war. It has distracted the US from finishing the job in Afghanistan and if Iraq does work out there will not be a net improvement to either regional security or US Security. As someone who grew up in that part of the world I was sympathetic to the view that in some regions, unfortunately, strong men do help keep the peace. And I didn't see how Iraq was any worse than North Korea or Iran for that matter.
But your effort to tie Afghanistan to Iraq is as misguided as the neo-cons here. The original rationale for the Iraq War was that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and that it possessed WMD. Both of which were patently false of course. Nobody said we are running off to free Iraqis from oppression. That came after the fact. Please don't try and confuse the issue or worse, intentionally misrepresent or misinterpret history.
Yet the Afghan people are asking for security as a top concern because violence has increased.
And who do you think will bring them security? Seriously, what do you think would happen if NATO picked up and left tommorrow. Do you sincerely believe that violence would end and that there would be peace in the region? Do you know how many people would get slaughtered? It'll be quite a busy few months at the soccer stadium in Kabul.
As a left winger of course I want us to end the needless suffering of anyone who lives under oppression. As a pragmatic person I know that is not possible. I am not seeing the use of the military as the main impetus to achieve peace in these situations, I am certainly not seeing it working in Afghanistan after 7 years.
Let's be honest here. You are a pacifist who does not believe in using military force regardless of the consequences period. You don't honestly care what happens to the Afghan people as long as NATO leaves. Just admit the truth. As a pacifist, you are willing to allow the Afghan people to be slaughtered by the Taliban and its okay with you as long as your country is not loosing anybody. You'll be happy as long as we're not part of the big 'neocon agenda' and there are no Canadians or Americans are killed. How many Afghans get killed in the process? Meh, not your problem.
Some want me to make up a plan out of thin air because I point out the current plan is not working, I cannot do that because as you stated democracy is organic it grew from the need and want to have it (hard won), it was fought for by the people who yearned for it in their country. Not because others forced it onto them.
Yes I want you to give an alternative. It's quite easy to be a critic. It's much harder to take a principled stance on a solution. You sir, obviously lack the moral courage to do that. I can respect folks who are principled isolationist or even principled pacifists though I disagree with them. The most useless people in my books are the kind that lack principle altogether.
The West imposed our style of democracy on Germany and Japan after WWII. Nobody seemed to have complained then. We even did it by having show trials of Nazis and promptly executing a few.
That being said, nobody here or in our policy establishment or defence establishment believe in 'imposing democracy' on Afghanistan. That's the kinda uninformed BS people pick up reading 2 paras in the Globe and Mail with their morning cereal. The hope of the UN, NATO, and every NGO that is in Afghanistn is that a somewhat stabilized Afghanistan will at least follow its own develoment path to get there in a century or two.
Lastly, I am sick and tired of people thinking that all of us military folks are warmongers and that all we want is to run off and kill a few Afghans. Most of us genuinely believe in the mission because we have seen the dismal situation that the Afghans live in. We have also seen how cowardly NGOs refuse to do reconstruction in unsecured areas. So that leaves NATO no choice. We have to use military forces to bring security and do reconstruction. Canada has approached this the same way we do other UN missions. In fact, the mission framework is based on a peacemaking/peace enforcement type of mission. We are there to help.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You'll never see any good in risking our lives to help the Afghans and I am rather fearful of how many will die if we suddenly up and leave (the west's inattentiveness can lead to the occassional mass slaughter...think Rwanda).
Before you comment further, please go through this slide deck....notice how violence is rather restricted to a few areas...contrary to your assertion that all of Afgahnistan is run by the Taliban:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090129_afghanwar.pdf
ps. I can't believe you cited ABC News as a credible source.