[jade_lee]

Canada spent half a decade taking their guns away and getting them to learn to rely on local law enforcement, Aghan security forces and NATO for security. Now the yanks want to give the guns back. Yikes![/QUOTE] KEITHZ


The Americans are in-charge of the NATO mission and we will do what they tell us to do.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Americans are in-charge of the NATO mission and we will do what they tell us to do.

If that's the case then why are you so opposed to our participation in Afghanistan? Since you think the Americans are dictating the terms of the mssion and you obviously think Obama is the cat's meow, wouldn't you want us to sign on for his great adventure through central asia? We can start by launching our own bombing campaign of Pakistan (if Obama says it right it must be right).

 

[jade_lee]

If that's the case then why are you so opposed to our participation in Afghanistan? Since you think the Americans are dictating the terms of the mssion and you obviously think Obama is the cat's meow, wouldn't you want us to sign on for his great adventure through central asia? We can start by launching our own bombing campaign of Pakistan (if Obama says it right it must be right).

This war was a foolish idea, a knee jerk reaction where diplomacy should have been the first option and not the reactionary one that is now taking place. Commenting that I think Obama is starting to rethink the mission means I support a fresh start because there really are not too many options left and it's far too late to abandon Afghanistan now because it's far more dangerous now to do so. Let the talks begin.
Iraq on the other hand is a far more sophisticated society and most likely will be able to pick up the pieces broken by a ridiculous war started by the Bush administration based on paranoia and lies.

Do you really believe that America is not in charge of the Afghan mission? Bombing in Pakistan eh, go ask the Indian government what good that has done.

Do you think Harper is the cat's meow?

 

[Hydrogen]

This war was a foolish idea, a knee jerk reaction where diplomacy should have been the first option and not the reactionary one that is now taking place.

Diplomacy with al-queda after they murdered nearly 3,000 people, an organization that is not a government, not even a quasi-government or even an "organization" that is open to thoughts beyond their zealot ideology?

Diplomacy with the Taliban? A tribal chieftan "government" that, for example, viewed women as nothing more than baby machines not worth educating.

If that's your idea of who should be negotiated with, then may I invite you to go knocking on their door first. What you constantly miss jade_lee is that these two "organizations" have brought misery to many people around the globe, and your approach toward them is appeasement.

How about approaching the people that these two groups have subjugated? You never mention them. They don't seem to rate for you. It's quite clear that they rate as nothing more than an abstraction in your blindered attacks on any effort to remove the likes of the Taliban and al-queda from oppressing them. For all I know, you don't even view the rule of the Taliban as oppressive. For all I know, you have no issue with al-queda exercising mass murder. They are ideologues, religious zealots who lack the capacity to weigh issues out with nuance. Nuance and subtlety bother some people, particularly those prone to making sweeping and vastly over-generalized statements (like you).

How about demanding change from the Taliban? How about demanding that al-queda abandon mass murder as a means to merely stating (and never achieving) dubious ideological ends. If you want negotiation, that'd be a place to start.

 

[jade_lee]

Diplomacy with al-queda after they murdered nearly 3,000 people, an organization that is not a government, not even a quasi-government or even an "organization" that is open to thoughts beyond their zealot ideology?

Diplomacy with the Taliban? A tribal chieftan "government" that, for example, viewed women as nothing more than baby machines not worth educating.

If that's your idea of who should be negotiated with, then may I invite you to go knocking on their door first. What you constantly miss jade_lee is that these two "organizations" have brought misery to many people around the globe, and your approach toward them is appeasement.

How about approaching the people that these two groups have subjugated? You never mention them. They don't seem to rate for you. It's quite clear that they rate as nothing more than an abstraction in your blindered attacks on any effort to remove the likes of the Taliban and al-queda from oppressing them. For all I know, you don't even view the rule of the Taliban as oppressive. For all I know, you have no issue with al-queda exercising mass murder. They are ideologues, religious zealots who lack the capacity to weigh issues out with nuance. Nuance and subtlety bother some people, particularly those prone to making sweeping and vastly over-generalized statements (like you).

How about demanding change from the Taliban? How about demanding that al-queda abandon mass murder as a means to merely stating (and never achieving) dubious ideological ends. If you want negotiation, that'd be a place to start.

We could insert many organizations in place of the "Taliban" and "Al-queda" references found in your rant. I think your "save the females" rhetoric is wearing thin, and the fact remains that the Afghanis are war weary, where many many citizens have been damaged over there. These people surely matter as much as we do in the Western world. Bombing the hell out of their country has not solved a damn thing. I don't see any of those violent freaks who are fighting back running away from anything NATO is dishing out at them.

Interestingly you never mention the failures of NATO or those of the Bush Administration but not to worry because they have been exposed, you just keep wearing your blinders. Just because Obama says that he has a new plan does not mean that it's going to work but in terms of diplomacy, it has everything to do with speaking with those who have a vested interest in that region and previously the world watched those in power who invaded Afghanistan ignore the very same people who are now leading in the discussions. The military adventure continues to kill many who don't deserve death. Very few hearts or minds have been won over there and that is key to any measure of success in terms of progress.

 

[Hydrogen]

We could insert many organizations in place of the "Taliban" and "Al-queda" references found in your rant. I think your "save the females" rhetoric is wearing thin...

And that's all it is to you: rhetoric. That's because you really don't care about these people in Afghanistan. They are a mere abstraction that grates against your single-minded, one dimensional political vision that anything done there by the West must be bad.

These people surely matter as much as we do in the Western world. Bombing the hell out of their country has not solved a damn thing.

Of course these people matter. That's why Canadian troops are there, as are military personnel from other countries and numerous aid organizations. The people matter and that's why things are being done.

You proclaim that nothing has been solved, but you have never stated in a realistic manner what you think ought to be solved. Yours is a merely a litany of accusations because not one single realistic alternative to help the Afghans has been offered up by you. Instead, you finger-point and complain about the efforts of others. It's not fast enough, it's not perfect enough, it's messy, you don't like it, you hate some of the people involved.

Interestingly you never mention the failures of NATO or those of the Bush Administration but not to worry because they have been exposed, you just keep wearing your blinders.

No jade_lee, more interesting that you have yet again failed to explain how you would carry out "diplomacy" with Al-queda or the Taliban. How about it? Tell us how you would initiate "diplomacy" with these groups - neither of whom ever formed a legal government for the Afghan people. Describe the process for us? And please, no namby-pamby appeals to vague and superficial ideals. If you demand timelines and a zero-error environment, start providing a description already. The litany of complaints is rather vapid.

And it's time to stop hiding behind the Bush administration. Come out from underneath their skirt and tell us what you propose should be done?

The military adventure continues to kill many who don't deserve death. Very few hearts or minds have been won over there and that is key to any measure of success in terms of progress.

So now you are claiming insight into the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Care to share how you acquired such knowledge of their intimate thoughts?

 

[kEiThZ]

...Commenting that I think Obama is starting to rethink the mission means I support a fresh start because there really are not too many options left and it's far too late to abandon Afghanistan now because it's far more dangerous now to do so. Let the talks begin.

Guess who's been doing diplomacy for a while. We've even been using Iranian airspace for transit into Afghanistan. Obama's a bit late to the party.

Do you really believe that America is not in charge of the Afghan mission?

There's a big difference between holding the title and exercising leadership. Until this month the US had been demonstrating very little leadership on Afghanistan. This is one area I am sincerely grateful for Obama's leadership on.

Bombing in Pakistan eh, go ask the Indian government what good that has done.

You're the one who suggested that Obama is our Afghanistan saviour and that we should follow his model. So if you think that's the case, perhaps you should explain how that view squares away with your view that our mission is a failure and we should pull out or how that view fits with Obama's hawkish stance on Pakistan.

So let me get this straight. Obama has been more hawkish on Afghanistan than Bush was but you find that to be okay. Yet, despite your approval of Obama's stance on Afghanistan you still want us to pull out? And how would you feel if as expected, Obama asks us to stay past 2011?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

and it keeps getting worse:

Afghan leader accused of bid to 'legalise rape'

UN and women MPs say Karzai bowed to Islamic fundamentalists before poll

By Jerome Starkey in Kabul

Tuesday, 31 March 2009



Afghanistan's President, Hamid Karzai, has signed a law which "legalises" rape, women's groups and the United Nations warn. Critics claim the president helped rush the bill through parliament in a bid to appease Islamic fundamentalists ahead of elections in August.

In a massive blow for women's rights, the new Shia Family Law negates the need for sexual consent between married couples, tacitly approves child marriage and restricts a woman's right to leave the home, according to UN papers seen by The Independent.

"It is one of the worst bills passed by the parliament this century," fumed Shinkai Karokhail, a woman MP who campaigned against the legislation. "It is totally against women's rights. This law makes women more vulnerable."


The law regulates personal matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance and sexual relations among Afghanistan's minority Shia community. "It's about votes," Ms Karokhail added. "Karzai is in a hurry to appease the Shia because the elections are on the way."

The provisions are reminiscent of the hardline Taliban regime, which banned women from leaving their homes without a male relative. But in a sign of Afghanistan's faltering steps towards gender equality, politicians who opposed it have been threatened.

"There are moderate views among the Shia, but unfortunately our MPs, the people who draft the laws, rely on extremists," Ms Karokhail said.

The bill lay dormant for more than a year, but in February it was rushed through parliament as President Karzai sought allies in a constitutional row over the upcoming election. Senator Humeira Namati claimed it wasn't even read out in the Upper House, let alone debated, before it was passed to the Supreme Court. "They accused me of being an unbeliever," she said.

Details of the law emerged after Mr Karzai was endorsed by Afghanistan's Supreme Court to stay in power until elections scheduled in August. Some MPs claimed President Karzai was under pressure from Iran, which maintains a close relationship with Afghanistan's Shias. The most controversial parts of the law deal explicitly with sexual relations. Article 132 requires women to obey their husband's sexual demands and stipulates that a man can expect to have sex with his wife at least "once every four nights" when travelling, unless they are ill. The law also gives men preferential inheritance rights, easier access to divorce, and priority in court.

A report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Unifem, warned: "Article 132 legalises the rape of a wife by her husband".

Most of Afghanistan's Shias are ethnic Hazaras, descended from Genghis Khan's Mongol army which swept through the entire region around 700 years ago. They are Afghanistan's third largest ethnic group, and potential kingmakers, because their leaders will likely back a mainstream candidate.

Even the law's sponsors admit Mr Karzai rushed it through to win their votes. Ustad Mohammad Akbari, a prominent Shia political leader, said: "It's electioneering. Most of the Hazara people are unhappy with Mr Karzai."

A British Embassy spokesman said diplomats had raised concerns "at a senior level".

source

 

[jade_lee]

The strategy so far to get rid of Karzai prior to the next election in Afghanistan has failed. The Afghani supreme court ruled that Karzai will remain in power until the new election date August 20th 2009. Who might replace Karzai?


"The challengers:

Gul Agha Sherzai

A veteran of the wars against the Soviets, Mr Sherzai (whose name means "son of a lion") is a former governor of Kandahar criticised for human rights abuses. He escaped assassination in 2006.

Dr Abdullah Abdullah

Although half Pashtun, he is considered a leader of Afghanistan's Tajik population. He was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2001 and served until 2006.

Ali Ahmad Jalali

An ethnic Pashtun and former colonel, Jalali joined the anti-Soviet resistance after the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979. He took US citizenship and spent 20 years broadcasting for Voice of America.

Dr Ashraf Ghani

An ethnic Pashtun, he studied in America, at Colombia University. He worked at the World Bank from 1991 to 2001, when he returned to Afghanistan for the first time in 24 years. From 2002-04 he was Finance Minister and oversaw the successful transition to Afghanistan's new currency."

Can we say "Puppet government" all together now? This is the same old sing song coming out of America with respect to the democracy they promote around the world. America knows best but it doesn't always work out for them."

Today at the Hague Iran has offered it's services in the reconstruction process of Afghanistan and criticized spending cash on new troops suggesting that the money could be spent on the Afghan people. The Americans have stated that they want to talk to the Taliban and feel most of the Taliban are not terrorists/extremists but instead are Afghanis who are acting out of desperation.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ I find this ruling as distasteful as the next person. The question is what's the alternative? Should we impose our western standards on Afghanistan or should we allow their democracy to make some flawed decisions and let them learn from their mistakes.

In reality, none of this has any real effect on the ground. With a poor security situation it's really hard to enforce any of these rules to begin with. Without security and public order it's impossible to have rule of law. That's the first step. After we accomplish that we can start nudging the Afghans along on human rights issues.

Consider the more pressing concerns:
Infant mortality: 20%
Life Expectancy: 43 years
Opium Production: 90% of the world's total production.

All those are UN stats. As you can see, the Afghans have bigger fish to fry. And their failings are starting to impact us here. I was recently chatting with a RCMP counter-narcotics officer who was telling me about how they are finding that an increasing proportion of the opium on Canadian streets originates in Afghanistan. And that's only going to get worse since the Taliban released a message supporting opium production as a form of jihad against the west...further evidence that pulling out of Afghanistan would do more harm to us and the Afghans than staying put and helping them along (albeit at a snail's pace).

I am hopeful that with Obama taking ownership of the conflict that we might start seeing some results. Obama's hawkish stance on Pakistan is a good start. Thus far Pakistan has gotten away with stuff that no other country could. The AQ Khan proliferation network, support to the Taliban, support to anti-India groups, etc. With Obama finally calling them out on their double game, we might start to get somewhere.

 

[jade_lee]

Most learned people agree that the Afghan mission has not made Afghanistan a better or safer place but instead has made it one of the most dangerous places on the planet. I don't expect Obama after less than three months in office to write his Afghanistan policies in stone but I certainly expect that his plans for the mission in Afghanistan will be distinctly different from those of the Bush fail policies.
We might not like what the Americans are about to change in their policies with respect to the Afghan war but Nato will certainly respond accordingly to them.
I see the Obama Hawkish stance as pandering to the right, after all he is a politician first.

 

[Hydrogen]

Most learned people agree that the Afghan mission has not made Afghanistan a better or safer place but instead has made it one of the most dangerous places on the planet. I don't expect Obama after less than three months in office to write his Afghanistan policies in stone but I certainly expect that his plans for the mission in Afghanistan will be distinctly different from those of the Bush fail policies.
We might not like what the Americans are about to change in their policies with respect to the Afghan war but Nato will certainly respond accordingly to them.
I see the Obama Hawkish stance as pandering to the right, after all he is a politician first.

To which "learned people" are you referring to? When you say "most" do you mean a majority? Can you show a source for this statement?

On what basis can you show that Afghanistan is more dangerous than what existed before?

 

[jade_lee]

To which "learned people" are you referring to? When you say "most" do you mean a majority? Can you show a source for this statement?

On what basis can you show that Afghanistan is more dangerous than what existed before?

What is obvious to many many many many many people around the globe confounds you. I can't help you out there.

 

[kEiThZ]

I see the Obama Hawkish stance as pandering to the right, after all he is a politician first.

Having had the opportunity to meet some of the NSC staff, I can assure you that his stance comes out of policy advice not a political stance. Indeed, most Democrats were more hawkish on Pakistan and Afghanistan than Bush was. I don't see that as changing any time soon. One does not deploy an additional 17 000 combat and support troops and 4000 extra trainers simply to appease the other side.

Also, you should note that predator attacks started in Pakistan only after Obama pledged to do so during his campaign. And it was the Obama administration that has promised to expand pred strikes outside the tribal areas and into Pakistan proper in the last few weeks. The Bush administration had pledged never to strike outside the tribal areas.

There's no doubt these are difficult policy decisions with long term ramifications. But Obama is first and foremost the US president. I have no doubt that he would flatten a continent if he had to do so to secure the United States. His hawkish views are in line with his perceptions and publicly stated views on combatting terrorism. The Democrats have long seen Afghanistan as the 'correct' war. And now he is pushing that policy forward. You are severely mistaken if you think the combat portion of the war will be drawing down any time soon in Afghanistan. Failure on Obama's watch could well cost the Democrats the Presidency for a quarter century or more. I doubt they'll be giving quarter to the Taliban any time soon, if there's a risk that it'll be perceived by the American public as 'cutting and running'.

 

[jade_lee]

As far as I am aware the military follows government directions and not the other way around no matter what the guys in military command think. North America is not Pakistan you know!
When the North American public demands all attention be focused on our recession experience, and we tire of the bloated financial efforts towards combat, the governments will most definitely step up their diplomacy effort and in fact that is what Obama appears to be doing now.