[I wanted to write this as a letter to a newspaper on Salt Spring Island, but I couldn't find anyway to do so. Instead I posted it as comment to an article I found on the web site of the Salt Spring News (http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article &sid=14781&thold=0&mode=thread&order=0). It's pretty self-explanatory I think.]
So I am curious as to what the author might propose to solve these problems? At least, compared to many on today's self-described left, Bandow accepts post-9/11 American involvement in Afghanistan - though his describing of it as being "not an easy nation to conquer" while accurate is not really appropriate in this context since the majority of Afghans have no desire to be ruled by the Taliban and no country, especially the USA, has any desire to "conquer" it - but he here refuses to draw the seemingly necessary conclusion: Afghanistan needs more Western military support to enable it to free itself from the possibility of a resurgent Taliban.
While on Salt Spring Island this week, however, I found myself confronted by a poster while in Centennial Park in Ganges. Addressed to those concerned about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, the poster consisted of a letter that purported to explain the situation. I wish I could quote from it exactly, but paraphrasing from memory will have to here suffice (those of you on S.S. can easily find the original I'm sure).
According to the anonymous author Canada has no business involving itself in Afghanistan. Afghanis have been fighting each other for centuries, that's just what they do, and us being there will only lead to inevitable attacks on Canadians at home and abroad by Taliban sympathizers so an immediate withdrawal of our troops is urgently called for. The author even quotes a high-level Taliban leader as having said that he was disappointed that troops from Canada and the U.K. were beginning to fight like those from the USA (whatever that means), but that if both were to remove their troops from the country immediately no harm would befall citizens from either country. Describing this as a "generous" offer, the poster's author urged that it should be accepted.
I have always loved the Gulf Islands ever since I first visited them while hitchhiking alone when I was 17 and am therefore saddened to see such rascist and reactionary sentiments expressed in a place that has always seemed to be such a model of progressive thinking in action. That Afghanistan has suffered years of war is unfortunately correct, but to label its people as being inherently warlike - barbarians essentially - is to engage in the most despicable of stereotyping. That what happens in Afghanistan is "of no concern to us" reveals the dangerous results of the unhinged cultural relativism that sadly plagues far too many and that stands in sharp contrast to the progressive left of the past. And that anyone could even think to consider offers made by the Taliban - that pinnacle of reactionary religious fascism under whose rule the majority of Afghanis lived for far too long: music being banned, women as virtual slaves, stonings and beheadings usual punishments for adultery and homosexuality, ancient statues of the Buddha destroyed for "idolatry" among other things - as being anything to consider seriously is truly frightening.
July 17 of this year marks the 70th anniversary of the revolt by Nationalist troops that began the Spanish Civil War that ended in 1939 with the Fall of Madrid and the beginning on Franco's fascist dictatorship. During this time over 40,000 mostly men, but some women, left their homes in countries around the world to fight, and often die, to help save the Republic and stem the rise of fascism. For them, and for the left traditionally, injustice anywhere meant injustice everywhere. For them, one should not hide behind national walls to say "it's none of my business" because people everywhere should be free to determine their own fate. Indeed for them, isolationism and lack of concern for those in other countries were the hallmarks of the very reactionary fascism that the progressive left was meant to oppose. How things have changed.
Is militarism a problem in the world? Most certainly. But one does not intelligently oppose the excessive spending and focus on military means by opposing any military actions whatsoever. It has always struck me as acutely ironic that the majority of whom are most concerned about American intrusions into Canadian sovereignty also seem to be the most against increased military spending; having the practical effect of leaving Canada ever more dependent on America for its defence. As to Afghanistan, this country needs Canada's help in many ways; one being fighting and killing those who wish to again subjugate it to a barbaric, tyrannical regime. There is sometimes no room for compromise, when to fight, kill and perhaps die is the unfortunate but necessary course to take. This is certainly the case with the Taliban as it was against fascism in Germany, Italy and Japan. We forget history at our own peril.
3 comments:
Melvin, a few things.
First, while perhaps too simplistic, it is my opinion that it isn't ethical to call for people to "fight and die" for a cause one isn't, at least in theory, willing to do so oneself.
Second, it's inaccurate and rhetorically and intellectually suspect to appeal to the fetishized WWII bogeyman of "fascism" in reference to Islamic fundamentalist militants. This is the trump card of the neocons and reactionary crank-apologists like Hitchens.
Third, I spoke to a soon-to-be retired Canadian military officer at a pub in Victoria recently. He's spent the last year in Afghanistan (was about to return) and said there are more KBR than military trucks on the ground. "Sometimes you wonder who's even running things," he said.
Fourth, you may be interested to read the recent report of the SENLIS Council: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/013_publication
"Canadian troops and Afghan civilians are paying with their lives for Canada's adherence to the US government's failing military and counter-narcotics policies in Kandahar. The US-led counter-terrorist operations and militaristic poppy eradication strategies have triggered a new war with the Taliban and other insurgent groups, and are causing countless civilian deaths.
To a large extent, it can be said that Operation Enduring Freedom and the related militaristic counter-narcotics policies are significant contributors to the current state of war in Kandahar and the other southern provinces.
Canada and the international community continue to unquestioningly accept America's fundamentally flawed policy approach in southern Afghanistan, thereby jeopardising the success of military operations in the region and the stabilisation, reconstruction and development mission objectives."
That link got cut off, at least in my browser. Just google "Senlis Council" and "afghanistan" to get the site.
Andrew,
Thanks for the comments, though when you left them I have no idea as I've been pretty much ignoring my blog of late. As to the specifics...
Well, "in theory" I actually would be willing to do so myself. I am not a pacifist and if I didn't have other things for which I think myself better suited to accomplish I might well consider going to Afghanistan to do what I could to help fight the Taliban. In an era of professional armies, however, those whose job it is to "fight and die" have made that career choice and are aware of the risks involved. From everything I've read and heard about Canadian military personel in Afghanistan they are glad to the be there using their skills to help bring peace to the country and well aware of the dangers facing them.
You say it's "inaccurate and rhetorically and intellectually suspect" to use the word "fascist" to describe the Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalists. How so? In their hatred of modernity, contempt for democracy, attempt to re-create some mythical past perfection based upon unquestioned dogma, hatred of Jews, and (at least in the case of Hezbollah) glorification of a Leader, they resemble a great deal the various 20th century fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Imperialist Japan among others). As to whether the label of "fascist/fascism" is the "trump card of the neocons and reactionary crank-apologists like Hitchens," well I've certainly read Hitchens' use of the words, but I don't think I've ever come across any of the other so-called neo-cons (Wolfowitz, Kristol, Pearle, Frum ect.) using them - it'd make them sound much too left wing after all. And whether it is a trump card or not, used by whomever, does not in itself negate the accuracy or legitimacy of the term. Hezbollah is, in my mind, unquestionably fascist; Nazi-esque even in its disgusting anti-semitism (in a 1992 statement it declared that "it is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth" - sure sounds like something right out of Mein Kampf to me) cult of the Leader and glorification of war and martyrdom. And "fascism" is now a "fetishized WWII bogeyman"?!? That was what WWII was about and what was thankfully overwelmingly defeated, but still sadly lives on in the world today. I hardly see the aptness of your description.
As to the the degree that KBR is in Afghanistan, I'll take the man's word that it is extensive. They have do have a lot of contracts to do work there; work that would have to be done by someone. I am certainly troubled by the connections between Halliburton (KBR's owner" and Cheney, but then according to Wikipedia "the Army contract which has been so controversial – LOGCAP (Logistical Civilian Augmentation Program) – has, since its inception, been issued under competitive solicitations; of the three LOGCAP contracts, KBR won the first, Dyncorp the second, and KBR the third and current one, dubbed "LOGCAP III". LOGCAP is a contingency-based contract which is invoked at the convenience of the US Army as needed; the orders under the contract are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was) and thus the reason for the confusion. When the contract was invoked during the Balkans crisis there was no controversy and very little scrutiny of the contract. KBR performed under this agreement in the Balkans for over 10 years and still maintains a LOGCAP presence there to this day. It was only after the OIF invasion that the LOGCAP contract became a political issue." And despite its political connections, KBR still managed to lose $1 Billion in the years 2000-2004.
Lastly, you mention the Senlis Council report that I have indeed read. I agree that the OEF emphasis on poppy eradication without providing economic alternatives is not an effective, or wise, strategy and that this is probably exacerbating an already bad situation. In my original blog post, however, I was commenting against those who wish to have Canadian troops out of Afghanistan completely; meaning even those under the ISAF force that the Sentis report you referenced seemingly approves of.
But ultimately, the question of Canadian troops in Afghanistan for me comes down to the desires of the elected (though imperfect) Afghan government: if it desires that Canadian troops remain there then it would be irresponsible for Canada to now withdraw just because some soldiers have sadly lost their lives. War is hell and in it people inevitably die, but sometimes the alternatives are even worse.
Post a Comment