The "Good Good War" Is A Bad War

We, the women of Afghanistan, only became a cause in the west following 11 September 2001, when the Taliban suddenly became the official enemy of America. Yes, they persecuted women, but they were not unique, and we have resented the silence in the west over the atrocious nature of the western-backed warlords, who are no different. They rape and kidnap and terrorise, yet they hold seats in [Hamid] Karzai's government. In some ways, we were more secure under the Taliban. You could cross Afghanistan by road and feel secure. Now, you take your life into your hands.

- "Marina" from RAWA, in The "Good Good War" Is A Bad War By John Pilger on Znet

Too much aid to Afghanistan wasted on contractors' profits, expensive expatriate consultants and quick-fix projects

Despite more than $15 billion of aid pumped into Afghanistan since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001, many Afghans still suffer levels of poverty rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.

"The development process has to date been too centralised, top-heavy and insufficient," said a report by Oxfam.

By far the biggest donor, the United States approved a further $6.4 billion in Afghan aid this year, but the funds are spent in ways that are "ineffective or inefficient", Oxfam said.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocates close to half its funds to the five largest U.S. contractors in Afghanistan.

"Too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and sub-contractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs," the report said.

A full-time expatriate consultant can cost up to $500,000 a year, Oxfam said.
[...]
Spending on development is dwarfed by that spent on fighting the Taliban. The U.S. military is spending $65,000 a minute in Afghanistan, Oxfam said.
[...]
Violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since last year, according to U.N. estimates, and have spread northwards to many areas previously considered safe.

More than 200 civilians have been killed in at least 130 Taliban suicide bombs and at least 1,200 civilians have been killed overall this year — about half of them in operations by Afghan and international troops.

Oxfam called on the 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan to take greater care not to hurt civilians, particularly in air strikes. The lower number of troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq — less than a third as many in a much bigger country with a larger population — leads to a greater reliance on air power.

There are four times as many air strikes in Afghanistan as in Iraq, Oxfam said. <Common Dreams>

Meanwhile, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been very very generous to private contractors. Here's the top 100 private contractors, 2004-2006. In first place: KBR at $16 billion (2002-2004 they made $11 billion. Next on the list, DynCorp International at 1.8 billion.

Funny (not so much in a ha-ha way), more than $20 billion in contracts went to foreign companies whose identities (at least so far) are impossible to determine. The largest of these contracts is worth more than $6 billion, for "miscellaneous items".

Interview with a Young Afghan Girl: "If I go to school who is going to take care of my little brother and sister? "

Every day her mother makes her some Bolani (Afghan fast food) and sells each one for 5 afg, almost ten cents.

She is 9 years old and wishes to go to school one day. She wishes that one day they'll have food at home and a schoolbag for her brother. She wishes for the day when he will have shoes on his feet. She is tired.

I asked her if she likes to go to school.

"If I go to school who is going to take care of my little brother and sister? Who is going to feed my mother? We don’t have a home, we don't have food, and we don't have money. That is why I am coming to the street to sell Bolani and earn a little money, to buy food for my family", she answered.

I looked down at her feet in the old torn shoes. Her toes came out and were terribly harmed. She suffers from her long walks to reach this place to sell her bread.
"Look I have no shoes to go to school; I walk 30 minutes to get here. And here I am not comfortable also, because the traffic comes towards me, forcing me to leave this place. At night when I go back home I am tired and I can’t play. So I go to sleep and early in the morning I wake up again and take me and my breads back to this place", she said.

Interview by Afghan Lord.

Legalizing education for girls, and even building schools isn't enough to ensure the education of girls (or boys). The ongoing fighting and the resulting lack of stability means little economic activity and much grinding poverty for much of the Afghan population. Poor children, as illustrated here by this interview, cannot attend school, even when it is available. They do what they can to survive. Until the airstrikes and heavy fighting stop, the country cannot truly be rebuilt, poverty and womens rights cannot be dealt with, and things like womens' rights and the education of girls will continue to be only a dream. As I've said before, Canada and the other NATO countries are using the women of Afghanistan to justify their military occupation to their own people. For the Afghan people, the Taliban pose only as much a threat as the warlords pose - the warlords we are allied with.

- Every 30 minutes, an Afghan woman dies during childbirth
- 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate
- 30 percent of girls have access to education in Afghanistan
- 1 in every 3 Afghan women experience physical, psychological or sexual violence
- 44 years is the average life expectancy rate for women in Afghanistan
- 70 to 80 percent of women face forced marriages in Afghanistan
Source: IRIN News, March 8, 2007

Or maybe, as the Fraser Institute thinks, making them pay for education is the answer.

Ungrateful Canadians

... "Just 20 per cent said they 'strongly support' Canada's fight in Afghanistan".

Harumph. At least our BFF has thanked us for our role in Afghanistan, unlike those ungrateful taxpayers. Look what they're making us do! We have to make them pay $104,575 so we can learn how to sell the war to them.

The federal government could significantly boost support for the Afghan mission if it were to emphasize diplomacy and human rights, according to opinion polling compiled over seven months for the Department of National Defence.

Really? You mean emphasizing the needless suffering and civilian deaths doesn't work?

Nik Nanos, president of Ottawa's SES Research, said the government-commissioned survey is "standard ... technique for political campaigns."

"You start introducing content and you measure how you can move the dial," he said.

Right, good to know how best to massage the facts.

The poll, at a cost to taxpayers of $104,575, is the latest to look at how to present Canada's military mission to a skeptical public. Others have warned the government against appearing too militaristic, presenting the mission as payback for the 9/11 terror attacks and aligning itself with the U.S. government. All have underscored the fact that combat remains a tough sell in Canada.

What? We don't want our sons and daughters killing and dying?

Alex Morrison, head of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said the challenge is how Ottawa can be honest about the military's role and still make it palatable to the public. The blame lies with previous Liberal and Tory governments that emphasized peacekeeping to such an extent that Canadian soldiers are now viewed as "simply a bunch of do-gooders," he said.

Ah yes, the eternal struggle of propaganda: how best to manipulate the public, while removing the risk of being caught outright lying. Good thing we can blame previous governments: they were so darn good, they made us look bad.

If You Really Don't Want to Kill Civilians, Perhaps Airstrikes Should be Avoided

It's just, you know, that airstrikes always kill civilians. That's what they do. They aren't that accurate. They can't distinguish between a wee little lad and the big bad Taliban fighter who lives next door. Not to mention, killing civilians doesn't earn us the "hearts and minds" of said civilians.

It's a proud day for Canadians. Murdering Afghan people without justification.

Happy Canada Day.

Lifestyles of the Poor and Displaced (Photo Essay)

Happy World Refugee Day. How shall we celebrate the 10 million global refugees? They don't make a Hallmark card for today. So instead let's go visit some refugee camps, featuring the #1 and #2 sources of refugees: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Iraqi Refugees

Mujahed Mohammed/AFP/Getty
Mosul, IRAQ: An Iraqi boy walks through erected tents at a camp for displaced people in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, 06 April 2007.

Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty
Baghdad, IRAQ: An elderly Iraqi displaced woman weeps inside her tent at a camp for displaced people in Baghdad, 14 January 2007.


Ahmad al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty
Baghdad, IRAQ: Iraqi displaced children play outside a camp for displaced people in Baghdad's al-Karrada neighbourhood, 25 March 2007.
From IraqSlogger

Afghan Refugees

The tents of the camp are crowded together, increasing the likelihood of epidemics of communicable diseases.

Crowded living conditions also prevent the proper drainage of water. Stagnant pools form which can further the spread of communicable diseases.

This picture was taken by a 19 year-old girl who lives at Jalozai with her mother, father and siblings. She was unable to work or study in Jalalabad and thus fled with her family to Pakistan.

This boy and his family spin yarn. He, like many of the people of Jalozai, show strong personal initiative.

This picture was taken by a 26-year-old man who, along with his family, fled the war in Kabul.
From Médecins Sans Frontières

Other large groups of refugees include Sudanese, Somalis, Congolese and Burundians. The 10 Million figure doesn't include Palestinian refugees for some reason, which alone now count over 4 million. They also don't include the 24.5 million internally displaced people.

Who takes in these refugees? Not the wealthy countries, mostly. Map from Worldmapper.

Details

Baby Husband

One often hears about girls being married off at a young age, but here's a situation in which a woman was married to a three-year old boy.

The case of a woman whose "husband" is a six-year-old child highlights the problems of childhood betrothals in Afghanistan. Gulghoti is a beautiful young woman of 25. Her dark eyes soften, then fill with tears as she looks at Hekmat, a quiet, skinny six-year-old who lives with her.

"I have brought him up since he was three," she said, her voice breaking. "I even used to feed him." The boy is not her child, her brother, or even her stepson. He is her husband. "My life is just one big problem," she said. "Please tell other people not to do this."

Six years ago, Gulghoti, who lives in southern Helmand province, married a young man to whom she had been betrothed since they were both children. Once the parents had agreed on the match and the terms, the deal was almost impossible to break, even after her fiancé was seriously injured in an accident. Her father died when she was young, and her widowed mother did not have the means to resist pressure to honour the contract. Gulghoti duly married her disabled fiance when she was 19, but he died after a year, leaving her a widow.

According to custom in this predominantly Pashtun region, once a woman marries, she remains more or less the property of her husband's family. If she is widowed, she will commonly be married off to a relative of her deceased husband.

"I had to obey these rules, and marry my husband’s younger brother," said Gulghoti. This happened despite the fact that Hekmat was only three at the time. "They forced me to marry this baby," she said. "By the time he reaches adolescence, I will be an old woman."

Hekmat does not understand that the woman who bathes him, looks after him, and prepares his meals is actually his wife. He calls her "khala" - "auntie". He is small and shy, and shrinks away from strangers. He does not attend school – no one in his family is literate.

In Afghanistan, parents sometimes betroth their children almost as soon as they are born. There are cases of 10-day-old children being engaged or even married to each other, despite legal and religious prohibitions against underage marriages. In most deals, a significant amount of money changes hands. The groom's family provides a bride-price, along with gifts of clothing, jewellery, sometimes livestock. The transaction makes it difficult to renege on the contract later on.

The custom is dying out in certain parts of the country, but there are still many instances where people such as Gulghoti and Hekmat are caught in a situation they cannot control. "I will never be happy," said Gulghoti. "I will never be a real wife."

The young woman lives in her husband's home, as is customary, and trembles with fear that he father-in-law might hear that she has spoken to a reporter. "But please give my message to others," she begged. "Tell parents not to arrange marriages for their children when they are babies. It only leads to this kind of catastrophe." [RJ - Paragraph breaks added for easier reading]

Marriage of Inconvenience from Sanjar

Better Messaging? No, we Need to Stop Killing Civilians

When consumers don't buy a crappy product, the answer is more and better advertising, right? Same thing with war. Since the public ain't buying the war in Afghanistan maybe it's time to hire a new ad agency.

So we must find a new way to explain the civilian casualties. Those pesky women, men, and children keep getting in the way of our bombs and bullets, and for some reason, our people seem to care, and we can't have that!

The subject of civilian casualties was the source of intense discussion on Wednesday in Brussels when the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with the North Atlantic Council, the top representatives of the coalition. But the conversation was less about how to reduce casualties, according to participants, than about how to explain them to European governments.

"The Europeans are worried about a lack of clarity about who is responsible for the counterterror mission," said one participant in the debate. "They are worried that if NATO appears responsible for these casualties, it will result in a loss of support" for keeping forces in Afghanistan.

But it is not only the Americans whose practices are being questioned. NATO soldiers have frequently fired on civilians on the roads, often because the Afghans drive too close to military convoys or checkpoints. (NYTimes)

Maybe we should try this messaging: it is the civilians' own fault if they are killed, see:

Do they not have the sense to GTFO of an area where there is an active military campaign?

After all:

Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make themselves refugees, especially in Africa, and all without the assistance of SUV's or any Kabul Hilton to go to. All they usually have is shank's pony, and they manage to do it. Why else are there refugee camps all over Africa? They can WALK!

Thanks to Boiling Point.

See also: A Better Communications Strategy? No, We Need Safe Drinking Water

Humanitarian "Feminism" from Above as a Form of Colonial Control

These interventions by the colonial state against social practices that oppressed women have been described as 'colonial feminism', that is where the colonial government intervened on behalf of women, claiming it was doing so on humanitarian grounds.

Sometimes these measures operated simultaneously as forms of colonial control. The colonial authorities were often sympathetic to those interventions that they regarded as a way of transforming the values of societies whose traditions resisted their rule. This was clearest with respect to the French colonial policy of forced unveiling in the Maghreb.

In all cases, it was entirely predictable that such legislative acts would become the focus for nationalist resistance. Yet, paradoxically for women colonial ideology could represent new forms of freedom. As a result, women were much more ambivalently placed in relation both to colonialism and anti-colonial nationalism. This has also meant that while women struggle with the legacies of colonialism in the postcolonial era, they are repeatedly accused of importing western ideas.

Well-meaning interventions by western feminist, human rights groups, and Ford Foundation-funded non-governmental organization can at times end up by making life more complicated for local feminists. Development of all kinds comes best from below rather than being imposed by above.

Interestingly, he also writes about how during anti-colonial struggles, women are often seen as the vessels of culture, "retrieved for the present from the society of the past."

For macho-nationalists, home and the domestic sphere, relatively free from colonial control, was the best guardian of the traditional values, culture, and identity of the new phenomenon they were creating on the Europen model against their European masters, 'the nation'.

Which means women's struggles do not end upon achieving self-determination, but that this is a precondition for a strong and viable feminist movement.

There's nothing new with what we are doing in Afghanistan, nor with the arguments used to justify it. It's been done by colonial powers in the past, and will continue to be done in our name unless we stop it.

Quotations from Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction by Robert Young. Formatting added to make it easier to read.

Inspired by the ongoing conversation here (see comments).

See also Afghan Women: Used by the Taliban, Used by Us.

Fighting Against Occupation Will Not be Tolerated (Unless you're on our Side)

Let's do a little mental experiment.

Let's say the USA was invaded by Cuba for harboring known terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. Many American civilians were killed.

Along with US army, private security contractors, militias, and regular armed citizens join in the popular resistance against the occupiers. Now lets say one of those killed a member of the invading Cuban army. Would that person deserve to be taken to a secretive prison, charged with murder, and potentially receive the death penalty?

What if this American was a teenager: 14 or 15 years old?

15 year old Omar Khadr (actually a Canadian Citizen) was arrested in 2002 because he threw a grenade which caused injury leading to death. He has been in Guantanamo since.

Now, nearly 5 years later he is being formally charged with murder. Originally the process was ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court, and the charges were thrown out, but the law was conveniently changed by Congress.

The message being sent? This is what happens when you resist the great military imperialist juggernaut that is the USA. Resistance is futile. It will not be tolerated.

The truth? The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is the crime. Resisting is not.

Oh yeah, and why do we understand that child soldiers in Africa are victims, who are traumatized and need treatment, while Middle Eastern children are not given the same consideration? Oh silly me. I know why: because of who they kill. If a child soldier kills one us they are evil. If they only kill other Africans we get that it isn't their fault. Read A Child in War: Detaining Omar Khadr Violates Our Moral and Legal Principles

UPDATE MAY 2, 2007
Read this excellent post, and the scary comments that follow

Afghanistan: Canadian is the New Soviet

As I previously mentioned, there are many parallels between what NATO is doing in Afghanistan and what the Soviets did.

From the enjoyable Afghanistanica comes this post on The Other Side of the Soviet Invasion:

[...] the strategy in the north on the part of the Soviet Union was to deliver aid and development projects as a reward for cooperation (or merely not violently resisting).

And also point out that:

[..] there was not universal resistance to the Soviets (I am not claiming that there there was no resistance to the Soviets in the north) and that the Soviets actually did give development an attempt. You can take the example of the Soviet attempt at "winning hearts and minds" and note either the striking similarity to or the stark difference with the present NATO/ISAF effort in Afghanistan.

Nothing in history is exactly the same, but there are definitely echoes to be found.

Via Global Voices

Street Children in Jalalabad: Photo by Afghan Lord

Photo by Afghan Lord

See more photos on Flickr or read his blog. Thanks to Global Voices.

Afghan Women: Used by the Taliban, Used by Us

It drives me crazy when women's rights are used as an excuse for the occupation of Afghanistan. Well, I suppose widowing a woman is one way of liberating her: liberating her from her husband, provider, security, and very possibly from love ...

Yes, it bothers me that women under the Taliban were so oppressed. But somehow I have a hard time believing that the best thing for them is killing those women, their sons and daughters, their brothers and husbands. Liberating women by waging war is like curing a paper cut by cutting off the finger.

War is so horrific, and it has a particular set of special consequences that are visited upon women.

The harm, silence and shame women experience in war is pervasive; their redress, almost non-existent. The situation of women in armed conflict has been systematically neglected.
...
Along with the deepening violence women experience during war, the long-term effects of conflict and militarization create a culture of violence that renders women especially vulnerable after war. Institutions of governance and law are weakened and social fragmentation is pronounced. Until the state's security and legal infrastructure are rebuilt, women's security is threatened inside and outside of the home, where they are subject to the rule of aggression rather than the rule of law. (Unifem PDF)

The display of concern for women's rights by the White House, and by our own government is cynical and insincere. This is painfully obvious because they do everything they can to set back the women's movement at home. But they have no problem USING the women of Afghanistan when it serves their purpose.

When it comes to equality for women, Stephen Harper is all for it — as long as the women are in Afghanistan.

Last May, the Prime Minister told Parliament that ensuring equality rights for women was one of the key reasons Canada is waging war in Afghanistan.

Certainly Harper's claims of championing the rights of burqa-clad women have helped him sell that unpopular war to Canadians. (Rabble.ca)

The women of Afghanistan have suffered through decades of war and occupation, the incredible oppression under the Taliban, and now more years of war and occupation by us. An increasing number are turning to suicide because they see no other options. Again and again they are used.

The Taliban used the "women's question" to enforce its own agenda. The imperialist occupation forces have also used the agenda of gender equality to ultimately pursue their own interests: the occupation of Afghanistan for strategic geo-political reasons. (RAWA)

To support women in Afghanistan means recognizing their real needs: short term and long term. Ideally, we'd ask them what they want instead of imposing it. My guess is they need peace first. They also need a rebuilt infrastructure and economy, and support for the courageous women and their indigenous women's movements.

Afghanistan: The Case for Withdrawal

"It is much better for regime-change to come from below even if this means a long wait as in South Africa, Indonesia or Chile. Occupations disrupt the possibilities of organic change and create a much bigger mess than existed before. Afghanistan is but one example."

The Khyber Impasse: The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan

February 27, 2007
By TARIQ ALI

It is Year 6 of the UN-backed NATO occupation of Afghanistan, a joint US/EU mission. On 26 February there was an attempted assassination of Dick Cheney by Taliban suicide bombers while he was visiting the ‘secure’ US air base at Bagram (once an equally secure Soviet air base during an earlier conflict). Two US soldiers and a mercenary (‘contractor’) died in the attack, as did twenty other people working at the base. This episode alone should have concentrated the US Vice-President’s mind on the scale of the Afghan debacle. In 2006 the casualty rates rose substantially and NATO troops lost forty-six soldiers in clashes with the Islamic resistance or shot-down helicopters.

The insurgents now control at least twenty districts in the Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan provinces where NATO troops have replaced US soldiers. And it is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. The situation is out of control. At the beginning of this war Mrs Bush and Mrs Blair appeared on numerous TV and radio shows claiming that the aim of the war was to liberate Afghan women. Try repeating that today and the women will spit in your face.

Who is responsible for this disaster? Why is the country still subjugated? What are Washington’s strategic goals in the region? What is the function of NATO? And how long can any country remain occupied against the will of a majority of its people?

Few tears were shed in Afghanistan and elsewhere when the Taliban fell, the hopes aroused by Western demagogy did not last too long. It soon became clear that the new transplanted elite would cream off a bulk of the foreign aid and create its own criminal networks of graft and patronage. The people suffered. A mud cottage with a thatched roof to house a family of homeless refugees costs fewer than five thousand dollars. How many have been built? Hardly any. There are reports each year of hundreds of shelter-less Afghans freezing to death each winter.

Instead a quick-fix election was organised at high cost by Western PR firms and essentially for the benefit of Western public opinion. The results failed to bolster support for NATO inside the country. Hamid Karzai the puppet President, symbolised his own isolation and instinct for self-preservation by refusing to be guarded by a security detail from his own ethnic Pashtun base. He wanted tough, Terminator look-alike US marines and was granted them.

Might Afghanistan been made more secure by a limited Marshall-Plan style intervention? It is, of course, possible that the construction of free schools and hospitals, subsidised homes for the poor and the rebuilding of the social infrastructure that was destroyed after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989 could have stabilised the country. It would also have needed state help to agriculture and cottage industries to reduce the dependence on poppy farming. 90 percent of the world’s opium production is based in Afghanistan. UN estimates suggest that heroin accounts for 52 percent of the impoverished country’s gross domestic product and the opium sector of agriculture continues to grow apace. All this would have required a strong state and a different world order. Only a slightly crazed utopian could have expected NATO countries, busy privatising and deregulating their own countries, to embark on enlightened social experiments abroad.

And so elite corruption grew like an untreated tumour. Western funds designed to aid some reconstruction were siphoned off to build fancy homes for their native enforcers.. In Year 2 of the Occupation there was a gigantic housing scandal. Cabinet ministers awarded themselves and favoured cronies prime real estate in Kabul where land prices reached a high point after the Occupation since the occupiers and their camp followers had to live in the style to which they had become accustomed. Karzai’s colleagues built their large villas, protected by NATO troops and in full view of the poor.

Add to this that Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, has become one of the largest drug barons in the country. At a recent meeting with Pakistan’s President, when Karzai was bleating on about Pakistan’s inability to stop cross-border smuggling, General Musharraf suggested that perhaps Karzai should set an example by bringing his sibling under control.

While economic conditions failed to improve, NATO military strikes often targeted innocent civilians leading to violent anti-American protests in the Afghan capital last year. What was initially viewed by some locals as a necessary police action against al-Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks is now perceived by a growing majority in the entire region as a fully-fledged imperial occupation. The Taliban is growing and creating new alliances not because its sectarian religious practices have become popular, but because it is the only available umbrella for national liberation. As the British and Russians discovered to their cost in the preceding two centuries, Afghans never liked being occupied.

There is no way NATO can win this war now. Sending more troops will lead to more deaths. And full-scale battles will destabilise neighbouring Pakistan. Musharraf has already taken the rap for an air raid on a Muslim school in Pakistan. Dozens of children were killed and the Islamists in Pakistan organised mass street protests. Insiders suggest that the ‘pre-emptive’ raid was, in fact, carried out by US war planes who were supposedly targeting a terrorist base, but the Pakistan government thought it better they took the responsibility to avoid an explosion of anti-American anger.

NATO’s failure cannot be blamed on the Pakistani government. If anything, the war in Afghanistan has created a critical situation in two Pakistani provinces. The Pashtun majority in Afghanistan has always had close links to its fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan. The border was an imposition by the British Empire and it has always been porous. Attired in Pashtun clothes I crossed it myself in 1973 without any restrictions. It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500 kilometre border that separates the two countries. The solution is political, not military.

Washington’s strategic aims in Afghanistan appear to be non-existent unless they need the conflict to discipline European allies who betrayed them on Iraq. True, the al-Qaeda leaders are still at large, but their capture will be the result of effective police work, not war and occupation. What will be the result of a NATO withdrawal? Here Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian states will be vital in guaranteeing a confederal constitution that respects ethnic and religious diversity. The NATO occupation has not made this task easy. Its failure has revived the Taliban and increasingly the Pashtuns are uniting behind it.

The lesson here, as in Iraq, is a basic one. It is much better for regime-change to come from below even if this means a long wait as in South Africa, Indonesia or Chile. Occupations disrupt the possibilities of organic change and create a much bigger mess than existed before. Afghanistan is but one example.

Tariq Ali’s new book, Pirates of the Caribbean, is published by Verso. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

This article originally appeared in Counterpunch.

Via New Socialist
More excellent analysis at James Laxer's Blog

Humanitarian War in Afghanistan?

Readers of this blog know I do not buy the official justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't believe for a second the Harper Government (or the Bush Administration) has altruistic motives.

However, many kind and caring Canadians, even some progressives, support the war in Afghanistan. They are motivated by the pathos of seeing burka-clad women, starving children, and terrified old men in desert-like landscapes. Their line of reasoning goes something like this: if our army can supply security and help the Afghans rebuild, why shouldn't we support it?

Leaving the ethics of invading and occupying another country (even to supposedly help that country), let's address this pragmatically. If we assume our motives are "pure" why are so many Afghan people against our continued occupation?

I think the simplest answer is that we have failed in convincing them we are on their side. (Again I'll reiterate: our government's motives are anything but pure, but many regular people support the war for altruistic reasons.)

To growing numbers of Afghans, the NATO-led forces are an enemy similar to the Russians who tore this country apart in the 1980s. People even blame suicide attacks directly or indirectly on the soldiers. (RAWA)

The Soviets used the same sort of rhetoric as does NATO, trying to gain popular support among the Afghan people. They said their invasion was defensive. They said they were providing aid and security, and a better political and economic system (Soviet Communism). We say we are responding to Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack (i.e. our invasion was defensive). We say we are providing aid and security, and a better political and economic system (Democracy and Capitalism).

What the Afghan people saw was the Soviets' illegitimate intervention in their own internal affairs, lack of respect for their culture and customs, and "brutal and clumsy attempts to introduce radical changes in control over agricultural land holding and credit, rural social relations, marriage and family arrangements, and education" which "led to scattered protests and uprisings among all major communities in the Afghan countryside." (Wikipedia)

The parallels are actually quite striking. How can we expect war-weary Afghans to trust us, when we are committing so many of the same mistakes? This is why we cannot "win" this war by military means.

The occupation needs to end, so people have the opportunity to heal their country, but this can't even begin until there is some goal of peace on Afghan terms. We'll need to find a way to provide security and aid - under the direction of the Afghan people themselves, in a format they themselves are comfortable with. We need to really understand what the Afghan people want, and stop pretending we are doing what's best for them.

Listen to an interview with a former Soviet army soldier who fought in Afghanistan, as he compares and contrast Canada's involvement in Afghanistan with that of the Soviet Union.

These Are the Good Guys?

Gul Haider, a commander of the Northern Alliance that swept into Kabul after the Taliban's collapse, makes no apology for owning a mansion in Shirpur.

"We are praying for the poor people to have houses like us," he said. "But everything belongs to God. God knows better who should be given property and who shouldn't. God gave us this property and we built our houses. We are praying that God will look more favorably on the poor." - The Boston Globe, November 11, 2006

Meanwhile, Children work the streets to support families because they are so desperately poor. The favoured economic activity for children is picking soda cans out of the dump to sell.



Meanwhile parts of Kabul have been changed into a "mini-Paris" for better enjoyment of rich people, warlords, drug-lords, NGOs etc., most of them high ranking government officials.



More photos

Politicking Means Never Having to Answer to your Constituents

I recently wrote a letter to our illustrious PM registering my disapproval of our actions in Afghanistan. I clearly stated we should end our combat mission and work towards peace and security for the Afghan people. Here's a selection of what I wrote:

Killing people doesn't win their hearts and minds. We should not be fighting as part of NATO, but should find positive alternatives, such as protecting NGOs who are on the ground working efficiently for reconstruction.

The Northern Alliance (the 'Good Guys' we are supporting) are just as violent and fundamentalist as the Taliban were. The people of Afghanistan are left with little choice and little hope.

We need to stop killing the Afghan people, and start talking. Negotiating. Rebuilding.

Here's the prefab response I received (note the total lack of response to my actual letter):

It is in Canada's national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic and peaceful country. An unstable Afghanistan represents a serious threat to Canada and the world. Canada has assumed an international leadership role by serving in the United Nations mandated, but Canadian led, Afghan security mission.

Canada has a tradition of stepping up to the plate and providing leadership on global issues. The Prime Minister is proud of the Canadian Forces personnel who have put themselves on the line to defend our national interests and to help Afghans rebuild their country. They are standing up for core Canadian values and achieving important victories for the people of Afghanistan.

As you may know, the House of Commons voted to extend the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. If you would like to access further information on this issue I would encourage you to visit the following websites:

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1329
http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/library/karzai_address-en.asp
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

There's some very interesting and subtle manipulation going on. They make it sound like a UN mission, and don't mention NATO at all. They don't use words like "kill", "maim", "fight", or "war". Indeed it sounds like a UN peacekeeping mission.

It's not that I actually expected anything different, of course. I think a simple acknowledgement of my disagreement would have made me feel heard, but that's just not politics.

What Can I Do About the War in Afghanistan?

Most of us progressives are opposed to what Canada and NATO are doing in Afghanistan. But what can we do about it?

1. Let Canadians hear your voice. Write letters to the editor of your local paper (tips). Email important independent news articles and commentary to your friends and family. When you hear people offering uninformed support for the mission, challenge them. Ask if they know that The Northern Alliance (the supposed good guys) are just as violent and fundamentalist as the Taliban. Ask them why a civilian man, woman, or child killed is called a "Taliban" by the news?

2. Don't let the government forget there is an active opposition to our war in Afghanistan. Write to your MP. Remind them that it isn't enough to get our troops out - we helped to create this mess, we need to take some responsibility for fixing it. Sign the NDP's "Support our troops; Bring 'em home" petition.

3. Educate yourself. Like any country, Afghanistan has a long and complicated history, which is very relevant to what is happening today. Read independent media. Try to find out and understand what the Afghan people really want. Here's a good article to start.

4. Express solidarity with indigenous groups, like RAWA and The Afghan Women's Mission. The people in these organizations are courageous and are working their hardest - the least we can do is help them. Provide moral support, offer to fundraise , donate a few bucks. It will go a long way. Join Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan

More suggestions? Please add them in the comments section.

War Preparations for Impending Iran-US Conflict: Canadian Participation?

I want to be proud of being Canadian.

Right now it's kinda hard. I'm not proud of what we are doing (and not doing) in Afghanistan. I'm not proud of our role in destabilizing Haiti. I'm really not proud of our current participation in war preparations clearly targeting Iran, including the naval militarization of the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

What's this? Canada is preparing for war with Iran and the government didn't even tell Canadian citizens? Well, we are sending a warship as "part of Canada's campaign against terrorism in the Persian Gulf" (source)

Details:

The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is actively collaborating in this military endeavor.

Canadian foreign policy has been steadily and successively militarized by two successive governments.

The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal) implemented the “three-dimensional policy” of the “3-Ds” (“Diplomacy”, “Development,” and “Defense"), adding a military component to Canadian foreign aid and development assistance.

The 3-Ds brought Canada into performing as more active role in U.S.-led operations in NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Despite the public protest, Canada has become an integral member of the Anglo-American military alliance.

Canada's involvement is not limited to Afghanistan as suggested by the press reports and official statements.

The H.M.C.S. Ottawa has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf, leaving in September, from British Columbia. Officially the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is being deployed as part of Canada's contribution to fighting the “War on Terrorism.” The Canadian vessel is the first publicly known ship to be deployed to the waters of the Middle East in about a year.5 The Canadian vessel is slated to be fully integrated into "Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5), which will be seafaring in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, off the Iranian coast.

From GlobalResearch.ca. Read even more here.

There are a lot of questions about a potential Iranian conflict, chief of which is, will it actually happen? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but as predicted (and I briefly covered here) the aircraft carrier Eisenhower has been deployed, making war "probable".

More on war in the Middle East

"War, War, Rumours of War"

War: Afghanistan
Canadians are at war in Afghanistan (or are we?). Whatever Harper calls it, we are killing and dying to protect a corrupt government filled with fundamentalist warlords against Taliban extremists. Oh good for us, killing bad people to protect other bad people; at least we think we are killing bad people. The Taliban can't be identified by membership cards, skin tone, T-Shirt colour, or any other convenient identity markers, so apparently soldiers are rounding up Afghan men in communities and reporting them as Taliban captured or killed. Well, I guess it's good for our troops. You know, dying is a real character builder.

War: Iraq
What is there to say? Imperialism by any other name is still... Imperialism.

Rumours of War: Iran
Yesterday on Democracy Now, an interesting analysis of Bush's speech at the UN General Assembly and a prediction of how a war on Iran might be played out. Phyllis Bennis tells of reports "in the last couple of days in Time magazine and elsewhere, indicating that there have in fact been orders preparing to deploy U.S. Navy warships towards Iran" with the goal of a naval blockade. She says most Americans don't know this is considered an act of war, so when Iran responds to the blockade (as is their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter), "the Bush administration would very likely call that an unprovoked attack on peaceful U.S. ships and would respond militarily, claiming to be responding in self-defense."

Until the philosophy which hold one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be persued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war
- Bob Marley

Why can't we be more like our cousins?

More on War