Grumpy
Could hardly agree with you more completely. That Canadian lives are being lost for this man's ego is a tragedy in itself; that we are also enabling the US to continue the kinds of policies which have created terror, death and deprivation for millions of souls in well-known areas all around the world is worse.

I the US took 1/10 of its defence budget every year and put it to some more constructive use (without a reach-around for its own commerce) many of the world's problems and much of its poverty could be ameliorated within a decade.

That a nation with the power to do so much better than it has will be, in the long run, be the decisive testimony to America's failures in the history books 50 years from now - if anyone is still writing history at all – is almost a sure thing.

These problems won’t be solved with guns and bombs. And certainly not by pee wee and his tiny parrot, Hillier.

Which about summarizes it, in an overall excellent piece Lou Dobbs.

First, this has little or next to nothing to do with 9/11. You want to deal with that "act of war", whether you consider it "legal" or not, one has to look closer at the role of Saudi Arabia than that of Afghanistan. All but one of the at least "so-called" attackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals, accepting the

explanations, which I do not necessarily do. The one exception was an Egyptian.

But what 9/11 did do, in terms of Amerika's strategic understanding of their situation in the Middle East, was make them understand that they were overly dependant on Saudi oil supply, and you don't cut off the hand that feeds you until you have another food source. Enter Iraq, the second major oil field in the region, and Afghanistan, not necessarily in that order, with whom there were negotiations going on, even with the Taliban, to build an oil pipeline from the northern 'stan countries (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc.) of the former USSR, THROUGH Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea-, for tanker transport to the Imperial Motherland of The Empire.

This is much of the history as well to which Lou, I assume, alludes also.

The US Empire, from the starting line of support for the "Israeli" occupation of Palestine, has a long history of intervention and manipulation in the Middle East, to bring the region and its corrupt governments under the control of its own Empire hegemony. Indeed, it is this history, assuming it was not an entire US manipulation of its own history, and I do not so assume, which then lies at the root of the cause for the attack on the twin towers of 9/11.

Those aircraft, IF everything is as it has been made to appear, were but the chickens of long US Middle East policy finally returning home to roost.

And the biggest US State Terrorist crime wave since Vietnam continues.

With the aid of even their neoconservative collaborators now in Ottawa and across the country, we have been drawn both into the crime wave itself, as fellow criminals of The Empire, and are about as well to be absorned as victimsinto its Manifest Destiny hegemony ambitions-, as part of a bullshitt North Amerikan Union.

Presuming our "street" allows it. Which I assume is not a given, quite yet.

I'm reminded of a quote from Rudyard Kipling in the mid-1800s when the Brits were messing with Afghanistan:

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier."

I sure hope the 'BS North Amerikan Union' not a given yet. What a horrible mistake that would be!!!

I keep hoping that the one month hold on the softwood lumber deal ends up being a back out on the part of our not-so- smart current govt. I am wondering if Harpo may be beginning to feel the distrust and negative feelings coming from the 'street'?

One would think SOMEONE on his team would recognize the folly of Harpo's actions and the hot water he will soon find himself in.

Dobbin falls into the same fault he accuses Karzai of, "not telling the whole story." And by ommitting any reference to the Pakistani Intelligence services in nurturing the Taliban, or to the UN Security-Sponsored nature of the mission, or the inevitable consequences to Afghan civilians if the NATO force precipitously abandons them, Dobbin fails to advance this discussion meaningfully, and rather views everything through his anti-US imperialism lens.

I am just as much against US imperialism as anyone here, but I don't think reductionist ideological thinking is the best way to combat it. Much of what Dobbin says is indisputably correct and not known widely enough. But viewing the Afghanistan mission at this point as nothing other than another manisfestation of American aggression and hegemony is simplistic and false.

I agree that we cannot just pull out our troops. I do, however, think that in light of the above we could certainly limit the actions of our military in Afghanistan. If it is UN sponsored then we could limit our forces to peace-keeping only. Maybe removing them from where the most fighting is happening and putting them in a safer region where they can actually be of service to the people. let the US forces handle the fighting as it is their mess.

Afghanistan has been, and continues to be the ultimate 'march' region.

The latest incarnation comes as the last 'buffer' 'battlefield' between the eagle and the bear.

Murray Dobbin wrote:

Keep in mind that that 'government' was placed in power by the army. That army in the 1960's became infiltrated by Soviet sympathizers and flooded with Soviet military equipment and 'advisers'. These were Soviets from the 'stans' to the north and east of the country, so I am not speaking of the white russians of the central Russian river valleys. Emotionally and spiritually these Soviets would be very similar to the Afghanis, and the central planning of the Soviet Union was still dominated by the paranoid Stalinist view of the world.

Not unlike the CIA, I doubt that the Noor Mohammad Taraki was so very much supported by the population - especially given that the population was separated by all the mountain ranges (just as they are now and have always been). The 'tribal' nature of the country is an outgrowth of the physical separation of the people. Never can anyone speak of a single Afghani people, its as foolish as saying that the Inuit are the same as Iroquois since they are both North American Native Indians.

Read up what a 'march' region is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marches

The Soviets had filled up the other 'stans' and so the US decided to pour in supporters of their 'cause' into the region. The Soviets reacted, probably over-reacted so for 2 decades they lost men and equipment at a rate far greater than the amount lost by US supported Mujehedin.

Now we, the west (since this is a NATO mission) are over-reacting, led into the situation by a 'cowboy diplomacy' US president.

No difference, the march region continues with neither side having won over the area, since they cannot ever do this because of the topography.

Andorra went thru the medieval version of this struggle and only ended its 'march' status in the last century after 800 years of struggle.

Afghanistan is not viewed 'officially' as a march region since it is not the nations physically connected that are contesting the control, however in the 'borderless' control over the planet that we face today such nuance can be safely overlooked.

As for Canada's involvemnet in Afghanistan, to win they must sanatise the entire nation, massive attacks, with heavy civilian causulties. Canada doesn't have the manpower or firepower to do this.

The American druglords who rule much of Afghanistan would have much to say about this too.

What is happening now is a limited guerrilla war with a faily well armed and very brave Taliban force. Simple booby-traps and RPG's are defeating a far superior fighting force.

Afghanistan is a losing cause, created by the USA when they failed to finish the job, got greedy and attacked Iraq for its oil.

I do believe they had the right to attack Afghanistan after 9/11, but the idiots never finished the job and now expendable Canadian troops are being lost in an effort to pretend that the war was won.

Harper is too stupid to realise this and anyways his neocon types would rather be americans, rather than Canadians.

Remeber, all through history, any general who calls the opposition cowards, is on the losing side!

The article is a good recap of recent Afghan history, but fails to address some critical points.
Outside forces must shoulder some, but not all, of the blame for the mess in Afghanistan. Is this supposed to be a rational for now abandoning the Afghan people to their fate under the Taliban. Certainly this is a twisted form of logic.
It is easy to characterize the Afghan parliament as a collection of warlords and drug dealers. Some of them are also illiterate. One third of them are women. Can you imagine the courage it would take to put your name forward as a candidate in that election, especially as a woman. Are we prepared to see those women and their families murdered if we withdraw?
Our soldiers were sent to Afghanistan in 2002 by the Liberals with the support of the NDP. The Harper government has been in power for 8 months. It is a stretch to call this Harper's war, as he was one of the few that argued against committing our troops to such a mission. Now that we as a country have made that commitment, do we honour it, or are Canadian soldiers put in harms way on a whim, and their sacrifices and hardships discarded when it is politically expedient. What does that say to our soldiers? What does that say about us as a nation?

As usual, Murray Dobbin offers his ideological slant to events in Afghanistan. Here’s an analytical view. We have two anti-insurgency models; Malaya and Vietnam.

The classic anti-guerilla campaign had been General Gerard Templer’s success in Malaya. The Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) was won in just two years after Templer’s 1952 appointment to Malaya. General Templer in fact coined the phrase "winning the hearts and minds", to imply a conflict beyond the merely military.

Key Success Factors

1) The communist rebels were mainly Chinese in a multi-racial society, and only commanded the allegiance of some of the Chinese community. The colonial government was able to retain the allegiance of the non-rebel Chinese by enacting political reforms and keeping the economy afloat. In 1957, the British government delivered on their promise of independence.
2) The government was able to mobilize the non-Chinese communities. The local army and security forces (predominantly of the Malay community) proved loyal and active.
3) The government isolated the rebels from their supporters by moving squatters away from isolated areas. The resettled farmers were given title to land and decent housing. By 1954, the rebels were isolated politically and logistically. The dwindling rebels remained on the defensive up to the end.
4) Finally, Commonwealth forces totaled 100,000 personnel vs. population of 5 million. Local forces totaled 20,000 to 30,000. In 1952-4, the rebel fighters were outnumbered ten or fifteen to one.

By comparison, the Americans never had enough presence or funding in Afghanistan. The devastated economy was rescued by the opium industry. Karzai (himself a Pashtun) has no loyal segment of the population to back him. Nor reliable local security forces to assist the foreign troops propping him up.

Therefore, the western forces in Afghanistan are doing the antithesis of everything that went right in Malaya. The Vietnam War, on the other hand, is the classic negative model.

The Americans had good intentions, but the rebels won after a blood bath. The struggle was defined in 1959 after the formation of the National Liberation Front; a coalition of anti-government factions. The rebels were opposed to the corrupt, tyrannical and catholic President Diem.

Today, western armies are, once again, attempting to support a weak and corrupt central government by imposing a westernized society on Afghanis. Traditionally, the best safeguard against tyranny has been the decentralized feudal structure. Today, western armies are attempting to change that.

It might be possible to balance a strong central government with a strong civil society. But, that does not yet exist and the rebels won’t allow that to develop. So, it will be a meat grinder. Military action will not win this war unless you use scorch earth policies. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it!”

Peter McKay has made the irresponsible statement that the Canadian army’s length of service in Afghanistan will be determined by General Hillier. The generals don’t have access to substantial reinforcements, money for civil use, nor control over local politics. This policy is a death sentence for our soldiers.

Today, NATO proposes to use a small army of 20,000 in Southern Afghanistan. Kandahar and Helmand provinces, alone, have a population of 2 million and an area similar to New Brunswick + Nova Scotia. For a NATO ten to one superiority, the rebel fighters must number less than 2,000.

In order to win in Afghanistan, NATO has to quickly turn the situation around as Templer did in two years. A ten-year military campaign implies that NATO is not on the side of the angels, and the war will be a fight to the bloody finish.

War is a great cover for opium production.
Think of The Golden Triangle or Lebanon during its civil war. The war in Afghanistan will continue mainly because it is so profitable both to their drug lords and ours. It is not meant to be won. When things are not done appropriately, it is time to start looking for another agenda. If the war were shut down, so would the flow of opium. Since the Taliban did it there is no excuse for opium production after the war, so better to continue it.

To the people who actually run things, we are all expendable especially if there is no political price to be paid by using a multi-national force.

Sooner or later the Taliban are going to have to be negotiated with. There is no other ,reasonable, answer to this quagmire .
Perhaps they should be given a small roll in government commensurate with their numbers .
The Loya Durga (sp) has room for all Afghans.
Just a thought .

Here's a juicy bit from Musharraf:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15203.htm

So, just who is the Taliban anyway and just wHo does one negotiate with?

I think we should ask the Afghan people what they want. Not just the corrupt Northern Alliance or the Taliban or any other group.

Ask the actual people there what society they want. If they themselves say they want the Taliban either destroyed, brought to justice or brought into gov't then fine. If they want the Northern Alliance disarmed and brought to justice we should do that too. If they want Cdn troops there we should keep them there.

We can't say we are there to help them unless we do what they want, not what the US admin wants. Our troops are "guests" in their country and we should act accordingly.

For the history of the poposed oil pipeline from the northern 'stans, there is much online about it, and the role of the US oil giant Unocal, for whom Hamid Karzai once worked as a consultant, after his studies in the US. (Reported by the French newspaper Le Monde. Karzai has denied it.)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news699.html

I don't disagree Frank it is just that the Taliban are the biggest trouble makers and impediment to peace .
Certainly all groups should have a say in the running of their country .
The Northern Alliance are just as brutal as the Taliban .
Packing people into the backs of trucks and driving them hundreds of miles is a favourite NA trick .
Maybe they should be given an autonomous region where they can live in the stone age in peace .

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060921&articleId=3294

This is not about putting down Islamic Fundamentalists, it's about rival drug organizations.

Okay,so what's the answer . Spray all of Afghanistan with agent Orange to eradicate the poppy once and for all .Yea, that's be nice for them polluting their food and water supply for a genertion .
Look how well paraquat worked in Mexico .
The war lords have been using the poppy and to a lesser extent hashish for hundreds of years as a means of income.
Replace it with what ?
They grow their fruits and vegetables in the same fields as the poppies .
Eradication is a drug warrior's [i[e dream . It will never,ever happen .

It's always useful to get some history of Afghanistan and the region for context, especially now that we have so many people there doing good.

But I tend to think that our military in Afghanistan has more to do with politics in Ottawa than with anything that has been going on in Afghanistan.

We always had that USA ambassador 'Buy-more-guns-from-us'Cellucci and whatever supporters he could drum up in Ottawa leading the charge on forgetting about UNO peace keeping and be real men.
But I suspected when the Afghan thing first came up that the Lib gvt and supporters sent some military to Afghanistan to avoid having to get involved in Iraq. So, at first they were in and around Kabul.
Enter Warrior Hillier with his mess hall speeches about how we're going ot kill the bad guys, and a number of other politicians inOttawa saying the same.
Then the Lib gvt sends our troops to Kandahar and starts beefing up hte mission, and we're subjected to all sorts of messages about how we never were peacekeepers, but were always making war.
Conservs came into power and continued the Lib mission, even beefing it up, over there, and with Bushisms over here.

I know we get info about security first, and schools, and whatnot, but somehow I think that our troops being in Afghanistan, pacifying the Pashtuns, has more to do with Ottawa and its politics than with any thing going on in Afghanistan.

(I have an idea that if the Canadians, and even the rest of NATO,including USA, left Afghanistan, that Iran would have troops massed on the Afghan border in no time at all. Especially were the Taliban to take back Kabul.
-And they'd get backup from Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan and Tajikistan,too.)

Nana, you've just made my day.

Quote from "Who benefits from the [narcotics] trade?"

I actually disagree with Frank on this one. The main problem in Afghanistan is the "outsider" US Empire and its "foreign legions", which include Canada now. Everyone needs to get out, at least those forces from the west that are not of the region, and leave these folks to resolve their own problems-, whether we like the way they do it or not. At least the result will be their own, whether actively or passively produced.

This going in "to fix" this problem for one or another country, always some bigger, bully power with its own set of economic and power axes to grind against an invariably poorer and smaller country and people, is just a cover for imperialism, time, time and again. Their "fix" effect is always worse than the original problem, in which everybody bleeds treasure and blood.

The principle that needs to be fought for and won is, that of non-interference in the internal affairs of other and all countries. People need to be compelled to resolve their own problems-, or slide into extinction as a consequence. Yea, that simple.

This "white man's burden" view of the world, which even Frank subliminally reflects here I think, is just a cover for endless imperial war and tit for tat. It's the mask that State Gangsterism wears to hide its real thug interests. And it invites resistance from its victims, such as the attack on the Twin Towers was, certainly to those pilots who flew those planes to certain death themselves.

We should look after our own house, offer what material and food aid is requested and as we can realistically afford, and will actually do any good for others. Other than that, we and they need to stay out of each others internal affairs and look after our own economic, democracy deficit, political and regional problems.

There's too many excuses and weak kneed attempts to provide a "propaganda cover"
for State Terrorist crimes, especially when it involves one's own country.

"Mustn't offend our boys!"

Horse feathers! Pure, unadulterated bullshitt, that too many of us are too quick to buy into-, so long as its someone else's working class kid doing the actual fighting and dying.!

No, Hannibal NATO leaves them alone.
Let the drug trade continue as is....
just make heroin a prescription item.....problem solved.Too many vested interest, so we'll never see it.
Macsas Are you assuming Iran is playing the same power game the US is? Ahmadinajahad is not a crazed fanatic. He's a civil engineer who was mayor of Teheran....he's practical,popular and smart. Iranians are Shia and Talibs were Wahabi Sunni and now they are Pakistani retired ISI and whoever they can hire.
But you're right about the Ottawa/DC relationship and Hillier made my flesh crawl when he did his "bit about kicking some butt."