Remember when the Afghan mission was going to protect women?

Whoa...for this, we are at war?

I hope the mainstream mediot outlets pick up on this, because it is important to see that we're wasting a lot of lives and money on essentially nothing.

Afghanistan has so many problems, and it doesn't appear that they really want to join the rest of us in the 21st Century any time soon.  If this Karzai is such a 'moderate', there isn't much point in Canadian soldiers putting their lives on the line, is there?

Really? It seems a lot more like the 19th century around here, with all the colonialist garbage that would make Kipling blush.

Let's see... how can we be more condescending to a people and country we destroy and  occupy for no reason whatsoever?

<><><>"My own judgement... quite frankly is we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency." Stephen Harper in a CNN interview March 1 2009.

<><><>If this is what Harper said, then there isn't much point in Canadian soldiers putting their lives on the line until July 2011, is there? 

New Afghan law forcing sex draws outrage from Canada

If Karzai was a staunch feminist, would "we" be more enthusiastic about the "mission"?

This is another thread about white Christian western superiority. "We" invaded Afghanistan because of Osama Bin Laden - remember? Not the women. Or was it the WMD. Or the women. I forget.

Canada must get out of Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to wish swift victory to the Afghan people over Canada and all other superior civilizations. 

I can hardly wait to see what sort of painful and twisted pretzel logic Maggie Wente will employ to apologize for this latest addition to the poor white man's cumbersome burden.

No, I couldn't agree more...it was a tongue in cheek remark from someone who does not and never did support the war or Canada's involvement in it.

Who said the CF was hired to protect womens' rights? Don't be absurd. The reason we are there is so little girls can go to school. That's what the CDS, the Minister, the field commanders, the embedded reporters, and the camp following NGOs have said. What, are the all lying?

Just like in Bosnia and Croatia, I'm sure that many members of the CF has great interest in places where young girls can congregate to learn the facts of life.

Death on the Home Front

The author is speaking about American soldiers, but we can be sure that a similar mindset exists with their hired help from north of the border. Funny how no Canadian media outlet has even begun to examine what's happening here. That would be unpatriotic.

Huh?

"Canada" never had a problem when Malalai Joya was kicked out of the phony parliament.

"Canada" never had  a problem with Afghans torturing detainees.

"Canada" never had a problem when an Afghan journalism student was sentenced to death for blasphemy for circulating a document downloaded from the internet.

"Canada" never had a problem when 700 Afghan children were dying every day for lack of health services.

Now suddenly "Canada" has a serious problem with a law forcing women to have sex with their husbands?

Gee, I guess Stockwell Day had to draw the line somewhere... Does this mean we're bringing the troops home right away?

Read my quote from Harper above.

These clowns can't even see the logical conclusions at the end of their sentences, never mind any other higher order reasoning.

Why is Stockwell Day, Minister of International Trade, in the media spotlight over Afghanistan - (remember he also read the government's abysmal 'progress report' on Afghanistan a few weeks ago)?  

It's also kind of sad if you read the comments after news articles about this.  They're all expressing outrage, and that's good at least, but everyone seems to think the problem is that the people of Afghanistan are barbaric or backwards or uncivilized, etc.  Apparently this couldn't possibly have anything to do with our troops and their mission.

Unionist: This is another thread about white Christian western superiority. "We" invaded Afghanistan because of Osama Bin Laden - remember? Not the women. Or was it the WMD. Or the women. I forget.

It was the WMD. Women Masking Deceit.

"Making progress on human rights for women is a significant component of the international engagement in Afghanistan," sez Harper.   

The NDP is apparently making common cause with the Conservative government in demanding that Karzai repeal the law or face unspecified consequences.

Dawn Black just told Don Newman that if the law isn't "withdrawn" she didn't think President Karzai could "count on the support of Canada" in the future. Which is essentially the same thing Stockwell Day is saying.

Never once did she mention withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, or raise the question of what we are doing there backing up Karzai and his scumbag cronies. The assumption clearly is that we are there, and as such we have a right to make Karzai do what we say.

So now the NDP is in business of giving conditional support to the Karzai regime if it backs down on this law. Like the Conservatives, they are prepared to trade on Canada's military presence in Afghanistan as a quid pro quo for backing off on one of the more egregious anti-woman laws.

I wonder what Black would say if Karzai agrees to kill the law on condition that Canada keep its troops in the country after 2011? 

According to shitty CTV news site with video link,

Can Jack Layton and Stephen Harper tell us today why it's Afghanistan's responsibility to be answerable to the Government of Canada at all times?

Also, can Jack Layton and Stephen Harper explain to Canadians how they feel about the scores of other countries that currently do not criminalize marital rape [19], not to mention the thirty-three American states where marital rape is a "lesser crime" than other types of rape?

I heard Dawn Black make some disgusting comment on the radio about how families of soldiers hadn't "sacrificed" their loved ones in the fight for freedom (or whatever) in order to see such a terrible law proposed.

I have long expressed the hope and wish that the shit that comes out of her mouth about Afghanistan does not reflect the NDP's view. The sooner she departs from the federal party to go and pump up her personal ambitions somewhere else, the better.

I think Black and Layton are voicing what a lot of people are feeling: that they have been lied to about this mission.

Funny, that's not what they said.

And it wouldn't be very credible if they did, because they have no excuses for not knowing the truth about what you call the "mission".

Canada became involved in Afghanistan in 2003 or 6 years ago.

Some here are trying to blame the government of Canada for being involved in Afghanistan as if this crap is Canada's fault. I doubt if our Government supports this latest ruling trying to appease the Taliban. Why not lay the blame where it belongs. At the feet of twisted hateful version of one religion.  

Okay, but they are speaking to an audience that is not babble. The fact is this is a wedge for a lot of people. Even a lot of people who don't think we should have ever gone to Afghanistan think that so long as we're there we should make the best of it because maybe we will give them a chance to build a democracy and besides, if we leave now what will happen to the women? This is what might pop those people loose from restraining their criticism and shifting the tide against our continued prescence there.

And it sure as hell is what they said:

"Back came Layton. “Mr. Speaker, this law gives all rights to men on child care, divorce and inheritance. And allows rape. It is a very serious infringement of women’s rights in Afghanistan,” he said. “There are 116 of our soldiers who died for change in Afghanistan. How can the government say that our soldiers died to protect the rights of women when Hamid Karzai passed this law? If Afghanistan is moving forward with this legislation, the Government is prepared to reconsider its approach in Afghanistan, yes or no?”"

And Dawn Black:

“Mr. Speaker, for years now, the government has ridiculed anyone in the House who dared to question what was going on in Afghanistan,” she began. “The government has said over and over again that the underpinning of this mission was to defend women’s rights and to provide education for girls. After all the sacrifices and all that Canadian families have put on the line, could this really end up being what we are fighting for in Afghanistan?”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/01/the-commons-how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-afghanistan/

The security angle was a hard sell to most Canadians, so the government started pushing secondary benefits instead of maintaining the original selling point.  One of the "feel good" secondary benefits has begun to dry up and the security angle's no easier a sell now than it was before.

Oh well.  Trying to transplant foreign values that are inimical to a native culture isn't exactly easy and it's generally a stupid idea.  Of course, when you have closet-cultural-imperialists pushing an agenda of "export Western Liberal Morality under the banner of universal human rights" and a public that's desperate for something more tangible and "righteous" than poorly defined security objectives, it's going to happen.

Of course, the public needs those asinine moral objectives in order to overcome their lack of intestinal fortitude for violence.  It's not so bad if we can point at something shiny and say "....sure, but look at that!" like we did with the decades of ineffectual UN peacekeeping missions - we didn't achieve much but, boy oh boy, did it ever make us feel good to see our troops in ridiculous blue helmets passing out food and medecine to people needing sustenance in their struggle to wage ethnic cleansing upon each other.  Much more palatable than just marching in, killing the offending parties of all sides until they capitulate, and then letting the round-tabling take place.  Not nearly as effective or efficient in lives and resources, but much more palatable.

No government in Afghanistan is going to meet our standards (particularly those of the fringe left).  Anyone that tries to force suffrage and other politically impossible goals down the throats of a population, to which it's as foreign and acceptable as pedophilia is to us, will get turfed out on their ass as soon as we leave.  Any government that tries to strike a balance and liberalize as far as possible without trying to hammer square moral pegs into round cultural holes will lose the support of many of its foreign supporters (AKA the shiny-object-focused Westerners).  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I've really stopped caring - I still get paid (and quite well, IMO), regardless. 

Good to hear that freedom of movement for women is a "fringe left" idea. Also, in case you wondered we are wondering if its worth paying you at all.

Got any input on that score?

Women's rights are not a "fringe left" idea, but it seems to be the fringe left that argues most vehemently that they should have any relevance to Canada's policies on Afghanistan, a country in which misogyny is like oxygen and achieving basic levels of things like literacy and disease prevention is a herculean effort, let alone loftier goals of democratization, suffrage, and other liberalization.

 As for whether it's "worth paying" - were you referring to disarmament?  I can't say it keeps me up at night - it won't happen in this century, and that's a much longer time than I'll be around (or in the military), so my paycheque's secure.  You could not pay your taxes, but methinks you'd find that a difficult position of protest to maintain. 

But give it a shot, if you're so inclined - I'd be interested to see the media banter about it.

Yes, that was more or less the Taliban position in 1999.

Like Dawn Black, Harumph gets his information about Afghan civilization from the invaders who are killing Afghans.

You should have seen Politics where again they equate al'qaida(sp)=taliban.

Yep danced all around what we are actually doing there, Travers almost let it slip. They mention how they have had to repackage to sell it, but don't mention why we are there now. If we went to get rid of Bin Laden and his crew so to speak, why has it turned into a war against the farmers and the Afghan views. If Afghans even within government have the same POV as the people we are killing, how do you make ANY reasonable claim it is for security or womens rights? If we weren't there then I doubt we would be attacked. However I think Canada and esp our con government has given Canada the blackest of eyes and the brokenest bones on the international stage. Hypocrites and warmongers. Proud to be Canadian, got a trident sub in my back yard(Dayglo Abortions)

Funny how the ruling class in this country are so scared of terrorism(I'm looking at you Don Newman) yet there is no evidence to support that fear. I wonder how they ever get to sleep at night worrying about commies and brown peoples lurking under their beds.

Here is the contradiction and the lie that is the Afghan war:

What is war?

War is killing, injuring and destroying.

Of the money (taxpayers' money) that our government is spending on Afghanistan:

10% (gross) goes to reconstruction, development, humanitarian aid. 

90% goes to prosecuting the war. 

What is an army?

An army (in the case of Canada) is an authoritarian organization that exists within a (nominally) 'democratic' society.

How does an authoritarian organization, the Canadian army, 'build democracy' in Afghanistan or anywhere else?

What we are doing in Afghanistan is fucked. It always has been. 

Hmmm...lost my post, anyhow the gist was, I am starting to believe this recent action of Karzai's is just part of a plot to keep us there.

The media appears to be trying to drum up support for our continued stay, as the only way to help women's rights in Afghanistan. CTV this am had a Muslim woman on basically saying it is our duty to insure women's equality rights get met in Afghanistan and indeed around the world.

So my question above becomes all the more pertinent:

Realy doesn't matter does it, as she is now gone from federal politics.

However, what do we say to this in order to combat it?

If Karzai agrees to kill the law on condition that Canada keep its troops in the country after 2011, it will prove that there is a conspiracy between Harper and Karzai because this is exactly what Harper (would/does) want.

Something else we should not forget. The Netherlands is also fighting in the south and will disengage from Afghanistan in 2010.

The U.S. by far is the country that has contributed the most troops individually. I think we are blowing our contribution (and influence) out of proportion.

Our significant contributions: 

1. We were a North American presence when the U.S. and U.S. media was concentrating on the Iraq war.

2. Apart from the U.K., we were/are(?) a North American partner to the U.S. when it comes to cheerleading the Afghan war and putting pressure on other countries to increase their efforts in Afghanistan at NATO summits. Our credibility when it comes to this is (temporarily, at least) reduced by our announced combat disengagement from Afghanistan by 2011.

Combat what? An Afghan law? The Afghan people are perfectly capable of dealing with Karzai. Trust me on that.

I've just blogged on this: 'Canadian media shocked to discover Afghan women not liberated after all'

"After more than seven years of giving scant coverage to the ongoing oppression of Afghan women, the Canadian media have finally had to admit that all is not as they have been telling us it is in occupied Afghanistan..." 

No, no... how do we combat the latest propaganda move to try and keep us there passed 2011. As I am now sure that that is what is going on with this alleged Karzai law.

We could point out that Karzai would fall in a fortnight if the West wasn't propping up his regime with untold billions of our money.

"(...)the law is believed to contain articles that rule women (...) cannot refuse their husband sex."

Gosh, that would put Afghanistan on par with Canada's rape legislation right up to its reform in 1983... and that new disposition has yet to be implemented with actual prosecutions of rapist husbands. (The few cases taken to Court have been where an estranged husband sexually assaulted his ex-partner after breaking in to her home.)

Onward Christian soldiers!...

Derrick what were the other callers saying?

Ah, ok, got it.

I'm coming to the viewpoint that the decision to stay up to 2011 may have been Parliament's, but the decision to stay past then may be the Afghan people's. In fact, I wouldn't rule out the Canadians being chased out of there before then.

I didn't hear any callers who were strongly supporting the war, with many firmly opposed. Several prefaced their opposition by saying that they had initially supported the invasion and were becoming increasingly angry about Canada being there. Not a scientific survey, but the callers and the host's framing of the issue could be taken as another sign that doubts about the war are beginning to infiltrate the establishment...

Well, that is good to hear. Perhaps this move won't work then.

"Seriously then, what to do about the fate of Afghan women? Ending a military occupation through a negotiated settlement among countries in the region, and parties in Afghanistan, is the only way out of this latest adventure in The Long War. Making any future economic or diplomatic assistance contingent upon women's rights to health care, child care, education and dignity should be among the terms for a US and NATO withdrawal. In all seriousness, top US officials in a future Kabul embassy could be feminists linked to Afghan women's groups. Hillary Clinton knows how to be relentless if she choses. The struggle will be long and bitter, won in civil society, not on battlefields. Even if all the Taliban are killed, Afghanistan will be a deeply patriarchal Muslim country where change will emerge from outside and inside pressures.

These progressive initiatives could be advanced today by the Obama administration and Congress as civilian ones, not as cover to solicit support for deeper military occupation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/pentagon-enlists-feminists_b_23...

Lets not forget who dropped Karzai into place to begin with.  It is not the Afghan people who put him there.  The idea that we had created some sort of democracy in Afghanistan was always a fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Zahir_Shah#Return

Zahir Shah was able to govern on his own in 1963[8] [46] and despite the factionalism and political infighting a new constitution was introduced in 1964 which turned Afghanistan into a modern democratic state by introducing free elections [47], a parliament, civil rights [48], liberation for women [49] and universal suffrage [50].[11] [51]

In April 2002, while the country was under NATO occupation, Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan [52] to open the Loya Jirga [53], which met in June 2002.[15] [54] After the fall of the Taliban, there were open calls for a return to the monarchy.[13] [55] Zahir Shah himself let it be known that he would accept whatever responsibility was placed on him by the Loya Jirga.[15] [54] However he was obliged to publicly step aside at the behest of the United States as a majority of delegates to the Loya Jirga were prepared to vote for Zahir Shah and block the US-backed Hamid Karzai.[15] [54] While he was prepared to become head of state he made it known that it would not necessarily be as monarch: "I will accept the responsibility of head of state if that is what the Loya Jirga demands of me, but I have no intention to restore the monarchy. I do not care about the title of king. The people call me Baba [56] and I prefer this title."[13] [55] He was given the ceremonial title "Father of the Nation" in the current Constitution of Afghanistan [57][16] [58] symbolizing his role in Afghanistan's history as a nonpolitical symbol of national unity. The title of the 'Father of the Nation' dissolved with his death.[17] [59]

There was never any intention of allowing Afghanistan to become a genuine functioning democracy.

"One of the most widely-cited advantages of NATO's intervention has been improved conditions for Afghan women. Ms Joya disagrees. 'Just as the US air strikes have not brought security to Afghans, nor has the occupation brought security to Afghan women. The reality is quite the opposite. The now infamous 'Family Law' is but the tip of the iceberg of the women's rights catastrophe in our occupied country. The whole system, and especially the judiciary, is infected with the virus of fundamentalism and so, in Afghanistan, men who commit crimes against women do so with impunity.'"

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/23/afghanistan-s-bravest-woman-b...

Why Is a Leading Feminist Organization Lending Its Name to Support Escalation in Afghanistan?

Afghan elections seen as a setback for women:

http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/08/24/afghan-elections-seen-as-a-setback-fo...

"For women, Afghanistan's recent elections appear to have been more of a setback than a step forward.

Early reports strongly suggest that voter turnout fell more sharply for women than for men in Thursday's polls. Election observers blame Taliban attacks, a dearth of female election workers and hundreds of closed women's voting sites.

Some worry the result could be a new government that pays even less attention to women's concerns in a country where cultural conservatism already restricts female participation in public life."