Harper acknowledges Afghan defeat

I don't think right-wing economists read history books.

Hm, wait a second, what does that mean? 

Multi-billion Dollar Mining Boom: The economics of war and empire in Afghanistan 

Theyre trying to entice Asian partners to join them in colonizing Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a strategic military vantage point and situated in the middle of vast oil and gas deposits in Central Asia. The corporatocracy and their NATO muscle wont want to let go so easily. 

I think there were substanial efforts to justify the war in the name of feminism, right from the get go, and I remember a substanial number of female media personalities jumping on the band wagon almost immediatly in these terms. I don't think its right to make the generalization about the feminist movement as a whole on these terms, since there was also substantial opposition to the invasion from feminists as well, this though was largely ignored in the mainstream press, in favour of those women who were putting forward the idea that the liberation of women would be a natural result of our benign intervention.

That happened more or less right away, as the invasion was taking place.

I was at a meeting organized by some "lefty" organizations where Sally Armstrong (Human Rights Activist, Film Maker & Author) proudly stood on stage and anounced: "Finally, sisters, I can say we have won one!" speaking in support of the invasion of Afghanistan. That was in early December 2001.

To my mind this was nothing less than the recasting of the missionizing spirit in the name of the "white woman's burden". Thankfully several women stood up to question her construction of what was going on.

But this usage of the best ideals of the "international human rights" movement, is not simply limited to Feminism. I feel pretty much the same about a number of human rights campaigners and organizations who seem to see fit to insert the greater good of humanity as side benefit to our imperial campaigns. I would name, among those, "War Child Canada" and even "Human Rights Watch" to a certain extent, both of which became extremely politcized during the Balkan wars of the 90's.

Clearly, women's rights have been manipulated as justification for this war, pretty much from the get go. But to say that Feminists or the women movement as a whole backed the campaign, is clearly wrong as well.

Omigod! You mean he wasn't being sarcastic??

I think Rikardo was paraphrasing the flimsy justifications we've all heard for this occupation by politicians and, like Cueball noted, certain "human rights" organizations. I think your hostility is misplaced.

Afghanistan did have a revolution followed by a "civil war." It was probably the first civil war in history that began as a women's rights movement. And similar to the aftermath of the Russian revolution, from 1918 to 1923, several countries intervened in Afghan affairs.  And similar to what occurred in Russia with 25 international armies and mercenaries working to put a Tsar back on the throne, one country tried to support the Afghan revolution whereas several western countries collaborated to put theocratic feudalists in power by 1992.

Hey people,

What's also interesting about Stephen Harper's CNN interview is how he's lowered the bar on Afghanistan.

The Afghan war started with George W. Bush saying we were going to 'get' Osama Bin Laden. When the Afghan Taliban government refused to hand over Bin Laden, Bush declared war on Afghanistan and said,

"Oh yeah, our mission in Afghanistan is to 'get' Osama Bin Laden, to punt the Taliban out of government and, stand by for more...."

On 7 October 2001 U.S. bombers screamed overhead and started bombing the Afghan countryside.

While hubby was bombing Afghanistan and murdering innocent Afghans, Laura Bush appeared on prime time television and continued the narrative,

<>"Our mission in Afghanistan is to 'get' Osama Bin Laden, punt the Taliban out of power, liberate Afghans so they can elect a democratic government where men and women could live in equality and where their children, girls as well as boys, could get an education. We are going to rebuild their houses so they could have homes in which to live, hospitals where their sick could be healed, dams so their homes could have heating and lighting, irrigation so Afghans could feed themselves and their families, places of worship where they may gather with members of their communities and pray. Please, if you can, donate what you can and join us to restore and rebuild the Afghan economy, so that Afghanistan will no longer be a breeding ground for terrorism and can once again be welcomed into the community of nations, etc.,"

<>Now all we are fighting for is to TRY to achieve some level of stability and to TRY to train the ANA and ANP to take over responsibility for Afghan security - our exit strategy that Harper described shortly after the House voted to escalate the war to 2011.

Yesteryear, this was called "Vietnamization". Today, it's called "Afghanization".

This bit of "conventional wisdom" is actually false.

Hillier's policy was Harper's policy, in that Harper included the Military in his plans for the deep integration of Canada into the American Military Industrial Complex. Harper's red face was simply the result of his control-freak tendencies - Hillier was too much of a loose cannon.

BTW, I completely agree with you about Harper being a war criminal. And I would add traitor to the charges.

Harper a traitor?

Absolutely.

When Jim Flaherty announced the Conservatives' fiscal update and the House had enough and announced that the Harper administration had lost the confidence of Parliament and that the NDP and Liberals with the support of the Bloc had formed a coalition government that was capable of governing should the Tories fall, Harper had a two track response:

1. He ran to the Governor and pleaded with her to save his job.

2. He ran a propaganda campaign against the Bloc, branding them as "separatists" and accusing them of threatening to tear the country apart.

Not only was this an attempt by Stephen Harper to incite separatism in Quebec, but these words, coupled with his comments about "Alberta needs to construct a protective firewall around itself" also incited separatism in the West.

Later that evening, Canada heard of the loss of three more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Harper went to the base in Petawawa to express his condolences. Here's what he said,

"They knew why they were there. They were there to protect Canada's liberty, democracy and UNITY."

It is bad enough when individuals, organizations and political parties (the Western Concept Party is a Western separatist party) advocate separatism. It is unconscionable when the Prime Minister of Canada does.

For the leader of our country to act in such a manner as to tend to toward its destruction is, categorically, treason.

<>To paraphrase Ed Broadbent:

"Harper doesn't care about Canada. Harper doesn't care about our troops. Harper doesn't care about the Canadian economy. Harper doesn't care about the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. All Harper cares about is saving his own worthless political hide (or is that "Hyde"?). There is only one job Harper cares about: His own.

"Only you can prevent a [criminal]." - Smokey the Bear. 

Since when does inciting separatism make one a "traitor"?

That's Harper-talk, not progressive discourse.

Thread drift, but interesting.

Québec has the right to self-determination up to and including secession. Harper (and indeed Canada) must accept that and not stand in the way.

But what if any PM of Canada started discussions with (say) Alberta and B.C., to the following effect: "I'll sign an astronomically favourable deal for transfer payments, subsidies, etc. with you, on condition that you initiate the mechanism for separating from Confederation."

Would that qualify as treason?

It might just be business as usual.

Or it might be treason (though it wouldn't fit the Criminal Code definition of treason, which requires either espionage for a foreign power or using force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province).

But Harper certainly didn't go that far.

... yet.

I think Canada is already transformed into a rightwing Libertarian's dream come true. Canada has become a weak agglomeration of northern territories led by a collection of stoogeocracies, each as subserviant to corporate America's interests as the others. Ottawa's power has been decentralized to provinces, and interprovincial trade superceded by FTA, NAFTA, and now wingnut premiers from BC, Alberta, Ontario and PQ working toward NAFTA-lite deals to make it easier for US corporations to sue Canadian taxpayers. Add our provincial Liberal and Tory premiers and chamelion former Tories in Quebec to the list of traitors. Corporate America would much rather deal with weak and ineffective colonial administrativeships for our resources than a strong central government.

They should all be shot for having been on the take and for treason

Harper recommends the meaning of "victory" be redefined to include losing.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Must+realistic+about+success+Afghanistan+Harper/1361823/story.html 

Is "special envoy" code for political toilet paper?

Actually, the points I wanted to stress were:

1. How Stephen Harper contradicted himself (as he has done so many times in the past.)

2. Stephen Harper's hypocrisy: His intention was to support the troops, but while they are fighting for liberty, democracy and unity in both Afghanistan and Canada, the war is destroying these conditions in Afghanistan. Harper is the most anti democratic Prime Minister Canada has ever had. Ever since he got into power he has worked very hard to undermine liberty and democracy and, at this point in time that I am referring to, Canada's unity as well. If we look at Harper's actions instead of his words, we see that he in fact, does NOT support the troops. He is quite happy to have our soldiers fight his dirty little war in Asia, but other than that, he doesn't give a damn about the troops. 

3. If the troops were aware of my 2nd point, I am sure they would say, "I sure as hell ain't fighting for Harper and the way he's running the country." 

I thought "our" troops were fighting for Karzai and the way he's running the country....?

Thank you for the link M. Spector,

Yes, I was aware that the Afghan Taliban government did what almost all the other governments (and their publics) failed to do: Ask for evidence that Osama Bin Laden was, in fact, linked to 9/11.

I chose my narrative for the sake of simplicity.

What is most important that this site brings up two things:

1. Bush wanted war because of Afghanistan's strategic location and to psychologically prepare America and the world for America's invasion of Iraq in an American Empire's imperial grab for Iraqi oil.

2. Most people belive that Iraq is the "bad war" - it is unjust, immoral and illegal and  Afghanistan is the "good war" - it is a just and legal cause. The article you brought up, causes the reader's mind to focus on the fact that both wars are the children of the parent "War on Terror". Because the War on Terror is immoral, unjust and illegal and because both the Iraq and Afghan wars are essentially the same, both wars are morally unjust and illegal.

Unfortunately, the Afghan war is going to have to drag on longer, more soldiers are going to have to die and more people are going to have ask the question, "What are we fighting for?", before people realize that Afghanistan, too, is an illegal and unjust war.

Pssst, don't tell our troops that. They have been "indoct[rinat]-ed" (when the military "teaches" you something, it is called "indoc") by the government, the military and the sold out corporate mainstream media that they are fighting for the things I attributed to Laura Bush.

<>As Malalai Joya put it, the Karzai government is the same, or worse,

<>than the former Taliban government.

Actually, I don't believe that most USians believe Iraq is unjust, immoral, and illegal, though it is all of those things.

To the extent that they actually oppose the war, in most cases it is because it was a failure. Afghanistan will be a failure also, and will become an unpopular war, but the legality and morality issues of the war itself will not be a factor for most people.

And then herr Harper or his colonial administrative head sucessor in Ottawa will remind Canadians that the troops are there because 30 or so Canadians died in the WTC attacks on 9/11/01. And the latest patsy for that one is still detained at Gitmo and confession tortured out of him after five years of denying everything he stands accused of by the American inquisition. But that's okay, because our colonial administrative heads in Ottawa trust and obey. That's what they do.

Pssst, don't tell our troops that. They have been "indoct[rinat]-ed" (when the military "teaches" you something, it is called "indoc") by the government, the military and the sold out corporate mainstream media that they are fighting for the things I attributed to Laura Bush.

When the war is over and becomes unpopular, there is going to be a backlash from the soldiers who served there and the parents of soldiers who died there (except for the diehard supporters of the war, in both cases) people will talk and documentaries will be made about the illegality and immorality of the war.

What if there's another Islamic gladio attack on America? I think Donald Rumsfeld warned everyone that a repeat 9/11 would instill enough fear in the public all over again to be conducive to another rightwing neocon agenda with warfiteering and random countries bombed first and foremost and slip-shod official investigations happening a lot later.

Fidel,

In Italy during the 1930s and '40s, one would see the slogan "Believe, Obey, Fight!" painted on buildings, houses and walls in the cities everywhere.

The Canadian government's and military's handing over of PoWs to Afghan authorities and to American authorities where they are either detained in Afghansitan, Iraq or GiTMO, Cuba, makes the Canadian government and military leaders war criminals. 

Fidel,

In Italy during the 1930s and '40s, one would see the slogan "Believe, Obey, Fight!" painted on buildings, houses and walls in the cities everywhere.

The Canadian government's and military's handing over of PoWs to Afghan authorities and to American authorities where they are either detained in Afghansitan, Iraq or GiTMO, Cuba, makes the Canadian government and military leaders war criminals. 

You can say that again. Mussolini! I cant believe one of my mature neighbors still has a portrait of that guy in the front foyer of his home. And the guy votes to the left of the two big business parties here in Canada. Fascism is entertaining, a big show. Or something like that.

Fidel,

The next paranoia the government has us hyped up about is a potential terrorist attack on the 2010 Olympic Games. The Army is going to "assist" in providing security.

Another example of Harper's anti democratic facsist nature 

On TV and live around the world. Perhaps we'll get used to seeing soldiers in cities. I didnt mind seeing CF guys driving around Ottawa and PQ during the ice storm in '98. My buddy in the army was helping out hydro guys with downed power lines and stuff. 

I listened to an American geologist on the internet talking about where billions of taxpayer dollars are really being flushed down the toilet. It's too crazy to mention. He says billions have been spent on underground concrete bunkers, and what he says are massive deep underground warehouses big as football stadiums around the US, some of them in really weird locations, too. Too crazy, but the guy claims he was hired by black ops departments. Father and him with verifiable credentials and resumes though. There seem to be plenty of former and current high level military people with lots to say.

The role of our troops has changed abroad as well as at home.

In the past, we engaged in U.N. peacekeeping missions abroad. At home, we engaged in civic humanitarian missions.

Now, we are taking an aggressive stance on 'security' (both at home and abroad). Now we walk with rifles at the ready, live rounds in the chamber and our fingers on the trigger.

Just had a thought. This is different from the discussion drift.

If Harper is serious in his belief that the Afghan war is unwinnable in military terms, then why continue combat operations until 2011?

From the day he made that statement until the day our military engagement ends in 2011, what would be the point of all those soldiers who died during that time?

Why doesn't Harper introduce a resolution in the House on Monday to end Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan as of now? 

I get the feeling Harper has considered that most every other allied country with troops in Afghanistan is reluctant to send more. And now it looks as if Obama will not be sending the 30,000 troops promised during his election campaign. Obama cuts back Afghan force (February)

I think the Taliban are in the driver's seat wrt any possible negotiations, especially with Karzai expected to be defeated in elections this year. But as some Canadian and American independent sources have said, the Taliban have been influenced by Pakistan's ISI in the recent past. And the ISI are known to be an extension of the CIA's "strategic depth" in Central Asia.

When the Afghan Taliban government refused to hand over Bin Laden...

This bit of "conventional wisdom" is actually false.

Not quite, try these:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml [48]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 [49]

justjazz,

the link that M. Spector provided is not contradicted, but in fact supported by both of your links.

The cbs link suggests (what other media reports at the time confirmed) that CIA and Green Beret/Airborne/Scecial Forces armed, funded, provided logistical support for and encouraged northern war lords to attack the Taliban ANA forces with their private armies before the October 7 start of the U.S. bombing campaign.

The Guardian link explains the U.S./U.K. argument as:"Bin Laden is guilty, there is no need for you to question this: Yours is not to question or reason why/Yours is but to do or die."

The argument later changes to "We know Bin Laden is guilty; the violent reaction of the Taliban government's ANA and its war lord allies, and Al Qaeda(?) insurgents and their vague and allegorical threats of vengeance to our violent and unprovoked attacks and invasion of Afghanistan are proof of Bin Laden's guilt."

Such a post de facto argument based on heresay would never hold in an international court of law.

Hey, wait a minute, maybe Gordon O'Connor was right: the Afghan war was payback (vengeance) for 9/11. Yeah, let's wipe those "detestable murderous scumbags" off the face of the earth! Forgetting, of course, we will never pour enough ISAF troops into Afghanistan to match their potential 'labor pool' of insurgents.

www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/mandel.html

makes the argument (among others) that the claim that a country is harboring terrorists or guerrillas who are foreign nationals are insuficient grounds to attack or invade that country.

According to international law, the Afghan war, just like the Iraq war, is illegal. 

 Obama: US should reach out to Taliban moderates

The fix was in long ago. How long before the other flip-flop drops in Ottawa?

It has never been a humanitarian war.  All wars are about money, power and resources.  But wars now are also about carpetbagging.  Well, that's money too, isn't it?

    Time to quit Afghanistan

PM acknowledges a war can't be won, so what are Canadian troops still doing there?

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/03/15/8753311-sun.html

Our propaganda brands these Pashtun tribesmen as "Taliban terrorists." They call themselves warriors fighting occupation by the western powers and their local Communist, Tajik and Uzbek allies.

Al-Qaida's few hundred members long ago vanished.

Fatuous claims we occupy Afghanistan to protect women are belied by the continued plight of Afghan females under western rule. A British report just concluded 100,000 Indian women are burned alive each year for their dowries. Will we now send troops to India?

Only the first step

Admitting the U.S. and NATO cannot bludgeon the Afghan resistance into submission is only the first step. If the war can't be won, then Canadian soldiers should remain in their bases, stop aggressive patrolling and cease attacks on Taliban supporters and civilians. Other NATO members are doing so.

The next step is to understand that wars are waged for political objectives, not simply to kill your enemies.

The U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan have no coherent political objectives. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul has no political legitimacy and commands no respect or loyalty. It is engulfed by corruption and massive drug dealing. The Obama administration is casting about for a new puppet, but so far can't find one who could do any better than poor Karzai. You can't make a puppet into a real national leader.

Worse, as Kabul flounders and the Taliban and its allies are on the offensive, events in neighbouring Pakistan are going from awful to calamitous. The West cannot wage war in Afghanistan without the support of Pakistan's army, air bases, intelligence service and logistical infrastructure. That means keeping a government in power in Islamabad responsive to U.S. demands and that will continue renting its army to Washington.

But Pakistan is in political chaos. After easing former discredited dictator Pervez Musharraf out of power, Washington eased into power Pakistan People's Party leader, Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto. His popularity ratings are rock bottom.

Zardari recently got his stooges on the corrupt Supreme Court to ban Pakistan's most popular democratic opposition leader, Pakistan Muslim League chief Nawaz Sharif, from running for office. Nawaz's brother, Shabaz, also was judicially deposed as minister of Punjab, Pakistan's largest state.

Violent demonstrations against Zardari's dictatorial ploy are shaking Pakistan. It would be surprising if the unpopular Zardari, who is dogged by grave corruption charges, manages to cling to power. But Nawaz also has plenty of skeletons in his closets. The army -- Pakistan's other government -- is watching the nation's descent into bankruptcy and political chaos with mounting concern.

The military fortunes of the U.S. and NATO in South Asia thus rest on political quicksand in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Plans by the U.S. to arm tribes on Pakistan's North-West Frontier are sure to bring even more violence and chaos.

NATO, which has no strategic interest in the region, would be wise to get its troops out of this boiling mess.

CBC TV is reporting four Canadian soldiers killed today, and eight injured, in Afganistan.