The Afghan people will win - Part 10

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-wants-20000-more-troops-... wants 20,000 more troops to fight Taliban[/url]

Quote:

The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned....

General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.

But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission....For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.

The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted....

[b]According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012.[/b]

...

The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, [b]a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.[/b]

...

As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come....

Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. [b]However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.[/b]

Diplomatic sources have also revealed that [b]plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US[/b] which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, [b]the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved.[/b] The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.

Would that be friendly fire? You think someone took his weapon and shot him with it?

Maybe attempted suicide.

I usually stay out of these threads, but I thought some might find this interesting.

I was to a fascinating, if somewhat weird speech, by a former American Air Force Lt Col sponsored by our local peace group.  He  commanded a squadron or something like that in Vietnam and then went on to play a role in government.  Anyway he is now a Christian based non-violence peace activist.

He was saying quite clearly that no one can ever win a war of occupation.  Because you are fighting against the people who live there from away.  The tighter you try to control the more 'enemies' you have.  He also spoke about things from a pretty military point of view in ways that made it clear the 'war' can not possibly ever be won, ever.  It was really interesting to hear from a former American military man how the 'strategy' being employed in Afganistan, and Iraq is comptely and totally unwinnable and that the military people in charge have to know it.  He also went after a bunch of other involvements and how Canada is beingled down what he called the primrose path.

Unionist wrote:

Uhhhh, that's what I meant - the ultimate friendly fire.

 

LOL oh sorry.

When you think about it, it is not so surprising. Who are going to be the greatest despisers of war and lovers of peace: The victims of war - civilians and soldiers, or amateur armchair military wannabes/never were/never will be types like Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and their pro war supporters - those who voted Conservative?

If you have the opportunity, watch the documentary DVD "Sir! No Sir!"

Russia wants in on NATO planning sessions on Afghanistan:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aj3SBV9.sFog

Obama is Leading the US into a Hellish Quagmire

http://www.alternet.org/world/142388/obama_is_leading_the_u.s._into_a_he...

"America now has more military personnel in Afghanistan than the Red Army had at the peak of the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country."

NATO war criminals kill another 90 victims

"villagers heard jets before the tankers exploded, but that some of them thought the tankers had been hit by rocket-propelled grenades. He said most of the bodies were badly burned"

8 years too long! End the occupation of Afghanistan!

While the leaders of the world turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, the majority of people in Australia, Britain and the US are opposed to the war.

A poll in March 2009 found that 51% of Australians oppose our involvement in the war and two thirds oppose an increase in troops. These figures are mirrored in Britain and the United States.

It is time for the Australian Government to listen to the Australian and Afghan people and end our support for this brutal war.

On her recent visit to Australia, Afghan women's rights activist Malalai Joya said the only way the Afghan people can fight their internal enemy, the Taliban and "fundamentalist warlords", is if the external enemy (the US and coalition forces) leave.

Unforturnately US President Obama has ordered a further 21,000 troops to go to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of US troops to 68,000. A further 33,000 foreign troops make up the occupying forces.
Australia's federal government has given clear signals that it is likely to increase troop numbers as well.

Action
An action has been called for the Saturday, October 10, following the anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan (October 7).

Organising meeting
Details of the rally are will be finalised at a meeting on Tuesday 8 September, 6.30pm at Trades Hall.

Initial proposal
The initial proposal is for the rally to start at 12noon, at either City Square or GPO and march to the Victorian Army Barracks where we are planning to display photos of the victims of the war on Afghanistan.

Refugee rights activist Pamela Curr, has agreed to speak at the rally in a personal capacity, and we are approaching speakers from the Afghan community, and an outspoken Labor politician.

The demands of the rally include, so far:
1. Troops out of Afghanistan, End the Occupation
2. Guarantee Afghan's fleeing war refugee status and rapid resettlement in the community
3. Genuine reconstruction aid
4. Something on women's rights??

A group of activists is also planning a separate stunt action on the actual anniversary date of Wednesday October 7 which can help publicise the Saturday event.

Sydney is also holding a rally around the anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, but their rally will be on Thursday 8 October. They have the support of the NSW Greens, the Fire Brigade Employees Union and the Maritime Union of Australia.

Initial indications are that there is broad support for an action calling for troops to leave Afghanistan, including from groups which don't have the resources to be part of the organising committee.

If your organisation wishes to endorse the rally, would like to help build it or wants more information please contact Trent on 0407 070 841.

Source: http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/

SparkyOne wrote:

I just read an article in a news paper two days ago. (Standard freeholder, Cornwall) and I don't know what to think.

There was an Afghan man who had his ears cut off and his nose cut off because he was caught by the Taliban carrying a voters card.

There was a picture of him, it was quite sad.  Is that actually a common occurance?

In the context of the violence threatened surrounding the elections, no.

There was also little violence surrounding the 2004 presidential as well as the 2005 national elections.

The Taliban used the threat of potential violence to achieve its aim of reducing voter turnout and thereby reduce the legitimacy of whoever is elected president and who are elected in the provincial governments.

However, once a threat is made, the Taliban need to make a few examples to maintain their credibility and show their power.

Notice how, when we have one gruesome incident of this, the western media 'jumps' all over it, but when we have endemic instances of this perpetrated by average Afghan citizens (non Taliban or insurgent affiliated) from all over Afghanistan - ie., not just Pashtuns but Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, (ie., instances among all the Afghan ethnic groups) - it doesn't get reported? One has to go to RAWA or scour the internet to find obscure sites that cover these stories.

That is because it doesn't fit the 'narrative' (spin) our government, military and mainstream media wants us to hear: U.S./NATO/ISAF troops = "good". Taliban = bad. Our "mission" (of mercy/sanctified by God) is to "help" the people of Afghanistan. As for the "Taliban"? Well, they're "detestable murderous scumbags", remember?

Conclusion

1) Our Northern Alliance allies are just as bad, (often worse) than the Taliban.

2) Because we turn a blind eye or often encourage and support the criminal activities of our Northern Alliance allies, we have sunk to their level    and are as legally and morally culpable and blameworthy as they are.

3) Not all those who fight against us are Taliban or commit atrocities. In fact, among the insurgents, the Taliban and those who commit atrocities, are a minority.

All three points in the conclusion raise the queston: WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN?

U.S. blames Canada for friendly fire

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/628721

"Three years ago today, an American A-10 attack jet inadvertently strafed the soldiers of Charles Company outside of Kandahar, killing Private Mark Graham of Hamilton. Now, newly released documents suggest the U.S. commanders put the attack down to Canadian inexperience."

Quote:

Kucinich renews call for Afghan withdrawal after botched airstrike

Botched? It wasn't botched, it was a complete success.

That pilot will probably get a DFC.

First, Australians had to go to Afghanistan to kill Afghans. Now, there's no need to leave their territorial [url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26029045-601,00.html]...

Quote:

AFGHAN refugees struggling in the ocean in the aftermath of an explosion aboard their vessel off Ashmore reef in April this year were allegedly kicked and fended off by Australian Defence Force members as they tried to climb aboard inflatable rescue boats.

You can't find a more apt metaphor for white civilization than that. Our "allies".

[quote]Well-placed sources who have seen footage of the early-morning disaster say asylum-seekers were repelled from RHIBs, or rigid-hulled inflatable boats, in scenes they describe as "distressing" and "inhumane".[/quote}

M. Spector wrote:

"...the good intentions of NATO forces in Afghanistan..."

Nice one, Dennis!

Don't knock him. He's saying the country that started the war (the U.S.A.) should "end" it (like Vietnam) by leaving. What good is he going to do his cause by rubbing most American's noses in the fact that what we are doing over there is pernicious and obscene?

Besides, he might be speaking to most American's perceptions of the war without subsrcibing to such a view himself: namely, that NATO has quote "good intentions in Afghanistan."

Since we are on the topic of NATO, I have rather good news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6143065/Gover...

"The issue of Nato's approach to the Afghanistan crisis was highlighted by Eric Joyce MP, who last week quit his post as a junior aide to Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, when he called into question the alliance's commitment.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, he wrote: 'For many, it seems that Britain fights, Germany pays, France calculates and Italy avoids. If the United States values each of these approaches equally, they will end up shouldering the burden by themselves.' ....

But many officials in Whitehall remain convinced that Nato's response will be woeful....

One source said: 'We have made repeated attempts to get Nato to shoulder more of the burden in Afghanistan but without any real success.

'There has been some tinkering around the edges but there is no real commitment from any of our partner nations to commit troops to an operation which at best has reached stalemate and at worst is being lost.'

'There is now a sense of resignation over this issue. We approach Nato summits with little or no hope that anything will change.'

Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former infantry commander, said: 'Unless our partner nations start to pull their weight in terms of combat units then Nato is doomed.'"

Uh-oh, NATO screws up again in Afghanistan:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/06/outrage-as-us-forces-attack-afghan-ho...

In Germany there is going to be a national election in a couple of weeks.

In Canada there is going to be (possibly) a national election in a couple of weeks.

If only there could be the kind of debate in Canada that there is going on in Germany:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-germany-...

More Canadians seem to get killed on weekends in Afghanistan than all the other days of the week combined. Wonder why?

Her CBC training obviously comes in handy here..

Unionist

Speaking of politicans in custumes, here are two for you.

Quote:

Alcohol has been banned from Nato's headquarters in Afghanistan in the wake of an airstrike that killed up to 70 civilians.

US General Stanley McChrystal, head of the International Forces in Afghanistan (Isaf), decided to bar boozing after launching an investigation into the bombing in northern Afghanistan.

Quote:

Staff at the Kabul headquarters were 'either [url=http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211736/U-S-forces-... too hungover' to answer his questions.

I didn't know the Jean was the C in C. In that case she could have called in the CAF to defend the constitution last January when Harper and the gang were preassuring her to support their coup of the parlimentary process, such as it is, and for what its worth.

In a nutshell, the Afghan war is the result of Osama Bin Laden's hate and desire to strike a blow against the American Empire and the U.S.A.'s hatred of Osama Bin Laden, his allies and their screaming for vengence over 9/11 with the result that innocent Afghans (whom neither side cares about) are maimed and murdered and their country, villages, homes and lives are destroyed:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/09/07/caught-in-the-crossfire-the-f...

Slumberjack wrote:

No, in actual practice, the GG is the C-in-C.  It is a designated appointment that comes with the office.

 

No, you're wrong. Did you not see where I wrote the Oath of Allegiance soldiers swear states "... to the Queen, her heirs and successors." In the oath, the GG is nowhere mentioned.

The GG as Lieutenant of the Queen (C-in-C) must come from somewhere else like the BNA.

Although the GG has a lot of de jure power; power on paper (in the BNA and the Constitution), the GG has little power in actual practice (de facto) - the result of previous GGs doing very little with their power. In the Westminister model of government, when it comes to powers, if you don't use it, you lose it.

What did the Queen or the GG do or say that caused Canadian troops to be sent to Afghanistan?

Absolutely nothing. It was Cretien and Parliament that sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Why are our troops still in Afghanistan? Because of two war resolutions brought before the House by Prime Minister Harper and passed by Parliament that escalated Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan until at least 2011.

There's no point in pinning your hopes on the GG. The GG, just like the Queen, is a pompous popinjay of a position that in practice has very little power. I wish it were otherwise, because if it were so and she had an antiwar sentiment (which she obviously doesn't), then our troops would have been outta there like yesterday. As it is, the current GG has exercised very little power and the PM used her as a tool to prop up and extend the life of his goverment and to shore up evaporating support for the war.

No, if you want to pin your hope and trust on anything, your best bet is Parliament and the people. If you don't like the kinds of governments our fellow citizens are electing, then I would suggest we all do what we can to inform, involve and inspire fellow Canadians to elect better people and governments to office.

Before we had the Constitution we had Magna Carta and the BNA. Needless to say, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights are not perfect. They (Constitution and Charter of Rights) are at least a little more democratic and egalitarian than Magna Carta and the BNA.

Slumberjack wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

No, you're wrong. Did you not see where I wrote the Oath of Allegiance soldiers swear states "... to the Queen, her heirs and successors." In the oath, the GG is nowhere mentioned.

They swear an oath to the Queen as the head of state, not as C in C.  The cermonial position of C in C has been delegated by the Queen in Canada's case to the GG, whose responsibilities include:

• Appoints the Chief of the Defence Staff on the recommendation of the Prime Minister;
• Acts on recommendations from the Minister of National Defence regarding the appointment of Royal Colonels-in-Chief of Canadian Regiments;
• Approves new military badges and insignia;
• Visits Canadian Forces personnel, at home and abroad;
• Presents new colours to the Canadian Forces;
• Awards military Honours, such as the Order of Military Merit; Meritorious Service and Military Valour Decorations; Peacekeeping and Special Service Medals;
• Signs Commission Scrolls, etc.

Again, the GG position is a de facto relatively powerless pompous position. Military law in Canada consists of the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Perhaps I am confusing the American model with the Canadian. In the U.S.A., the head of state and the C-in-C are the same - the President. The President can declare and wage war (for 90 days, after which Congress must vote to either continue or end the war).

As (symbolic, there's a lot of symbolism involved here) head of state, does the Queen (Crown) have (in theory) the power to declare war for Canada? I realize that this is probably yet another prerogative the Crown has lost due to its lack of use over centuries.

Commander-in-Chief of Canada

The Governor General of Canada is the Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

Responsibilities include:

• Encouraging excellence and dedication in the Forces;
• Visiting military bases across Canada;
• Participating in memorial services for fallen military;
• Welcoming troops home;
• Keeping up morale among those performing peacekeeping missions around the world.

The role of Commander-in-Chief of Canada has been closely linked to the evolution of Canada, as well as to the history of the Canadian Forces.

The migration of monarchs

In 1627, King Louis XIII of France appointed Samuel de Champlain the first Governor of New France.

After the British conquest of New France, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, establishing a foundation for British government in Canada and appointing the first British governor of Canada. A small militia was also present.

The birth of a new nation

After Confederation in 1867, Governors General were authorized to oversee internal matters, but had to acknowledge and respect British policy concerning external affairs. The British North America Act declared that the Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia would continue to be vested in the Queen.

A Governor General as Head of State, a Canadian Militia

The Militia was established by the Militia Act of 1868. In the 1870s, a small militia was based in Halifax under the command of a general officer on loan from the British Army.

In 1904, however, a new Militia Act stated that "the Command-in-Chief of the Militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative." This Act also doubled the permanent force to 4000, to provide a garrison to replace the British in Halifax.

This was an important landmark, as it was the beginning of a truly Canadian force, and it reinforced the role of the Governor General as Commander-in-Chief. In 1905, the change to the Militia Act was legalized and reference to the Office of the Governor General became the Office of the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Militia.

The Militia legislation was passed in the House of Commons August 3, 1904 and came into effect on November 1, 1904.

• In 1905 the "Letters Patent constituting the Office of the Governor General" were amended to read the Letters Patent constituting the Office of the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief.
• In 1910, with the establishment of the Canadian Department of the Naval Service, the Governor General became the Commander-in-Chief of the Militia and Naval Forces.
• After the creation of the Canadian Air Force in 1919, the Governor General became Commander-in-Chief of the Militia and Naval and Air Forces.
• In 1947, the Letters Patent of King George VI transferred all the duties of Head of State of Canada to the Governor General and the new Commission of Appointment referred to the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada.

In 1968, following the unification of the three services, the Governor General became Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces (now, the Canadian Forces).

Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada

Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982