So all of a sudden we are involved in a land war in Asia [1]. How did this happen?
After the little guy from Shawinigan [2] kept us out of Iraq, he needed a bone to toss to the war party in Canada and the USA. Afghanistan [9] was Osama's adopted home and some thirty odd Canadians had perished on 9/11, so going to Afghanistan made a certain amount of sense. It was not immediately apparent, but the deck was stacked before Canadians ever set foot in the country.
The United States has a habit of collecting client states, countries like Pakistan, Egypt or Uzbekistan [9]. Dictators, military juntas, thugs in new suits -- they don't seem to care who the clients are as long as they cooperate with American military and business ends. Following this proclivity and seeking to minimize the number of their own troops on the ground, the American military used the Northern warlords and massive air support to drive out the Taliban in 2001.
These warlords promptly set up fiefdoms which pay only nominal allegiance to the central government of Hamid Karzai. The United Nations has withheld a report [3] documenting the many war crimes committed by these warlords over the last 30 years. Recently the Afghan jurga passed a law [4] exempting them from prosecution for war crimes. Opium production [5] has hit new heights. It is worth noting that although the Taliban are frequently blamed for supporting the illegal opium trade, under their rule poppy farming was almost completely eradicated. The blame belongs somewhat closer to the warlords. These guys are in business for themselves and have no interest in fostering any form of democracy.
The people of Afghanistan have no reason to become engaged with furthering the power of the warlords. This is the fatal flaw in our presence. We are seen as supporting a corrupt political regime because it is friendly to America. And that means there will be no long term political resolution under the Karzai government.
Hot, dry and mountainous with some agriculture in valleys, Afghanistan has long been a nexus of Asian and Middle Eastern communication. In the eighteenth century, the precursor of the modern state [11] took form under Ahmad Shah Durrani who conquered lands including present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of Iran and parts of India [9].
The first interest anyone in the west showed in Afghanistan was defensive. In the nineteenth century, some in Britain were worried about Russia sweeping down into unprotected India, so early in that century, the British established a base in Kabul. In typical imperial fashion, the British drew the Afghan borders, notably the Durand Line [12], through the middle of traditional tribal lands to minimize effective internal dissent. Note that the Russians did the same in defining the states along its southern border -- Tajikistan, Kazahkstan, etc. [9] -- even going so far as to move large segments of the populations beween countries.
As a result Afghanistan has a mix of peoples: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9% and miscellaneous others, [9] even though 'Afghan land' originally meant Pashtun land [8]. Now this would be academic, except that the Pashtun whose territory was divided, pay little heed to the imposed border, which means the Afghan situation is indissolubly linked to Pakistan. And Pakistan is a nuclear power torn by fundamentalist conflict. [Can you say the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?] These are high stakes.
In 1842 the Afghans wiped out the British Kabul garrison, all except for one man, the doctor William Bryden, who was let go to tell the tale [8]. An inconclusive 'Great Game' for control over the the whole of Central Asia was played out by Russia, Britain and the lesser powers. In the 1870's a Second Afghan War was waged by Britain and after a Third War in 1919, Afghanistan was granted a measure of independence. The country became a monarchy, ruled most notably from 1933 to 1973 by King Zahir Shah. In 1973, Zahir was ousted in a bloodless coup which later inspired a Communist counter-coup, and in 1979, the USSR invaded to support the failing regime. A decade long civil war ensued. Now for some ungodly reason, we are emulating the Russians.
"Going to fight the infidel" is a common theme in Muslim culture. The disaffected and the religious, the warlike and the idealistic from many nations travel to Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, [9] wherever the latest hot-spot is, to make war against the infidel. The Americans played on this when they armed the mujahadeen to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Now we are on the receiving end. We have become a self perpetuating part of the problem -- as long as we are there, the fighters will come. And as the death and destruction adds up, the resentment of the Afghan people will grow.
So what are we doing there?
We are sure as hell not peacekeepers. We are an occupying army. On television I have seen Canadian soldiers knocking down doors, threatening villagers, telling them not to support the Taliban -- Canadian soldiers acting just like Americans.
If you listen to the Canadian government or military spokesmen, and, by the way, it is troubling to see the Defense Department running such PR campaigns, they will tell you we are fighting terrorism. This sounds good, but actually means nothing, and is in this sense, ideal propaganda. Terrorism is a tactic that is used by everybody, like sabotage. What are the long term goals of the opponent? What are they trying to accomplish? What is their strategy? That is what we need to consider.
It is worth noting that this discussion is largely absent in the main stream media of North America, ie. what do those suicide terrorists think they are doing? In his book _Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism_ [6], Robert Pape concludes that, contrary to the anti-Islamic propaganda we frequently hear, these people are following a secular strategy. They wish to pressure the developed world to withdraw corporate and military forces from their homelands.
It is notable that Osama's fatwa [7] declaring jihad on Israel and America made precisely the same demand with regard Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Iraq.
How would you react to a major foreign power occupying your land?
Another rationale you will hear for our presence in Afghanistan is that we are fighting for democracy. I don't know how to break it to you, but democracy cannot be imposed at the point of a bayonet or bombed in from 30,000 feet. The vestiges of democracy we have took a thousand years of social development -- legal, economic and political wrangling. The Afghans, and others of the third world, will have to find their own way to democracy. We cannot do it for them. It will not be quick or easy, and what comes out the other end may only vaguely resemble our form of democracy.
"Support the troops" is another piece of war party propaganda you will hear, which if you stop and think about it, you will realize is effectively a recipe for endless war. The misdirection is that the point is rational policy, not blind allegiance or proving loyalty. [If you really want to support the troops, get them out of that hellhole.]
Yet another rationale you will hear is that we are preventing al Qaeda from setting up training camps. This has a surface plausibility until you realize that Afghanistan and Iraq have effectively become nation-wide training grounds for jihadists. Not to mention motivations. Somewhere in a cave, Osama is laughing his ass off at the purblind Americans who did exactly what he wanted by invading in force after 9/11, thereby making al Qaeda the defacto protector of the Muslim people.
So what legitimate business does Canada have in Afghanistan?
None whatsoever.
If America had not invaded Afghanistan, Canada and NATO, who have become an international arm of the US military, would not be there. One therefore has to ask, what are the Americans doing in Afghanistan? As a matter of fact, what are they doing in the whole of the Middle East and Central Asia?
You will look a long way to find a statement of intention on this matter which is not demonstrably false [10]. Catching Osama, introducing democracy, fostering human rights, removing weapons of mass destruction, helping the people -- all of these "good motives" have been proven false by America's subsequent actions. Osama is still free. There were no WMDs. You do not help or democratize a people by bombing them back to the stone age. Or by supporting their dictators with military aid.
So what are the Americans doing in Afghanistan?
The country doesn't have any significant oil or gas, but it is centrally located. And as the old real estate saying goes -- "location, location, location". Sitting on Russia's southern flank, on China's doorstep, just above India, Afghanistan makes an ideal base of operations for the US military. The Americans have dotted the Middle east and Central Asia with military bases for a geopolitical strategy involving controlling the flow of petrolum and monitoring, perhaps threatening, possible enemies, including Russia, China and India.
Nobody, least of all grieving families, wants to hear that Canadian soldiers are dying in vain, but the battle in Afghanistan has been ill starred from the beginning. The simple truth is that Canadian are in Afghanistan as good flunkies of the American Empire -- exactly the same way Canadians fought in South Africa for the British Empire a hundred years ago.
All we are doing is making enemies for American profit. It is time to say "No!" If the United States wants to run a world empire, let them use their own soldiers.
Canada should leave Afghanistan immediately.
Notes
>EOF