It seems to me that there is a lot missing from the present discussion about Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and what we should do after the present deadline in 2009. The first elephant in the room is the administration that initiated this NATO incursion and the political plan that underlies it.
The George Bush administration did not start the overthrow of the then legitimate regime in Afghanistan in order to improve the country and the lives of its citizens. It seems to my memory that it was purely a reflexive reaction to the 9/11 attack. The motive was almost entirely one of revenge. A secondary motive apparent at the time was the exercise of pure muscle – ‘allow something we don’t like and we’ll swat you down!’ I can’t say that I recall any international consensus that foreign governments should be asked to enter the country in order to alter its political and social systems. That has compromised any attempt to paint foreign presence in the country as beneficent and constructive.
The second part of the American problem – that is, the second part of the intractable problem caused by America – is that US interest in Afghanistan is so transparently an offshoot of its geopolitical ambitions in the region. Why do you suppose the Europeans don’t want to sacrifice their own soldiers? They’re not stupid. The US has always been concerned about the oil and gas production in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and had a plan to link those resources to the ocean (and US oil company customers) by building a pipeline across Afghanistan. Canadians might be willing to send their soldiers to be maimed and killed in Afghanistan out of humanitarian motives, but not to facilitate the business interests of big oil.
So the second elephant is comprised of two national interests – those of Russia, which currently already has commercial agreements to shift that oil and gas to European markets from the old Soviet republics bordering northern Afghanistan – and those of China, that has the same interest in buying that oil and gas, as well as constructing their own road and rail links through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the sea. China is so huge that it’s westernmost transportation links to the sea are shorter south through Pakistan than east through the mainland. Both countries are making political and commercial plans to strengthen their control of these resources and keep the US out – reasonable enough, given the business ethics of big oil. We can be quite sure that both of these giants on Afghanistan’s borders pay a great deal of attention to the NATO activities, and have their own ideas what the final structure of the Afghan nation might be.
The third elephant is clearly Pakistan, the sponsor and supporter of the Taliban regime that the CIA’s war ousted in 2001. There is a great deal of pious blather spread about Pakistan’s willingness or unwillingness to support our humanitarian and political efforts in Afghanistan. The reason is simple – the Pakistanis just want the interlopers – the US and NATO – to get out of their back yard and let the people who have to live with the consequences settle the matter. The Pakistani intelligence services ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) supported the Taliban regime materially and – with a high degree of probability – still supports its survivors today. How else is it possible for them to negotiate truces and cease-fires in the frontier areas (such as the Waziristans) so that the insurgency has a free hand to prepare and conduct actions in southern Afghanistan? Actions like the next Spring offensive in Hellmand and Kandahar that will be larger this year than last. How pathetic for the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada to work out deals about troop deployments between themselves in Ottawa, when the people at the switch are in Quetta.
The fourth elephant? Clearly the last two Afghan neighbours – India and Iran. The Karzai government is encountering much of its political turmoil because it’s said to have closer friends in New Delhi than it does in Islamabad. Much of the warfare and insurgency that kills Canadian soldiers is an extension of the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan that began with partition in 1949. The first group suspected of assassinating Benazir Bhutto was a Moslem Kashmiri resistance group that has been sidelined by the lessening of direct conflict in that region because of diplomatic efforts by the two neighbours. NATO will never have a free hand to create what they want in Afghanistan until the government in Kabul is acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Then we come to Iran – the country with the same interests in Afghanistan as NATO – the country with vital interests in the region to diminish the power of Sunni (Pushtun) terrorist groups on its border – the country most likely to be able to assist in modernizing the backward regions of the country. Iran is Canada’s natural ally for its ongoing involvement in the region, but it’s the one country we don’t communicate with because of the political jackasses in Washington. As long as anyone appointed by the Bush administration, or anyone approved by the Beltway power structure in the US capital, holds any power in the US government, our ability to enter into productive and successful negotiations in or about Afghanistan is compromised. Only by rolling back every action of the Bush administration and removing US troops can peace and order come to either of the countries he invaded – not, because of the chaos he caused, a quick or an easy task to accomplish.
How come we’ve never seen these observations in our North American press? Where did my information come from? Online from a few non-North American news media sources – Der Spiegel, Guardian Online, Peoples Daily, Asia Times Online, Salon.com. Let’s face it – with right wing governments owned and operated by big capital and their media operations – the news sources in both Canada and the US are severely compromised by a combination of direct influence, direct control, and spineless kowtowing to power. Want to read the truth? – it’s as near as a click of the mouse.
Chriskander.
The George Bush administration did not start the overthrow of the then legitimate regime in Afghanistan in order to improve the country and the lives of its citizens. It seems to my memory that it was purely a reflexive reaction to the 9/11 attack. The motive was almost entirely one of revenge. A secondary motive apparent at the time was the exercise of pure muscle – ‘allow something we don’t like and we’ll swat you down!’ I can’t say that I recall any international consensus that foreign governments should be asked to enter the country in order to alter its political and social systems. That has compromised any attempt to paint foreign presence in the country as beneficent and constructive.
The second part of the American problem – that is, the second part of the intractable problem caused by America – is that US interest in Afghanistan is so transparently an offshoot of its geopolitical ambitions in the region. Why do you suppose the Europeans don’t want to sacrifice their own soldiers? They’re not stupid. The US has always been concerned about the oil and gas production in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and had a plan to link those resources to the ocean (and US oil company customers) by building a pipeline across Afghanistan. Canadians might be willing to send their soldiers to be maimed and killed in Afghanistan out of humanitarian motives, but not to facilitate the business interests of big oil.
So the second elephant is comprised of two national interests – those of Russia, which currently already has commercial agreements to shift that oil and gas to European markets from the old Soviet republics bordering northern Afghanistan – and those of China, that has the same interest in buying that oil and gas, as well as constructing their own road and rail links through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the sea. China is so huge that it’s westernmost transportation links to the sea are shorter south through Pakistan than east through the mainland. Both countries are making political and commercial plans to strengthen their control of these resources and keep the US out – reasonable enough, given the business ethics of big oil. We can be quite sure that both of these giants on Afghanistan’s borders pay a great deal of attention to the NATO activities, and have their own ideas what the final structure of the Afghan nation might be.
The third elephant is clearly Pakistan, the sponsor and supporter of the Taliban regime that the CIA’s war ousted in 2001. There is a great deal of pious blather spread about Pakistan’s willingness or unwillingness to support our humanitarian and political efforts in Afghanistan. The reason is simple – the Pakistanis just want the interlopers – the US and NATO – to get out of their back yard and let the people who have to live with the consequences settle the matter. The Pakistani intelligence services ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) supported the Taliban regime materially and – with a high degree of probability – still supports its survivors today. How else is it possible for them to negotiate truces and cease-fires in the frontier areas (such as the Waziristans) so that the insurgency has a free hand to prepare and conduct actions in southern Afghanistan? Actions like the next Spring offensive in Hellmand and Kandahar that will be larger this year than last. How pathetic for the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada to work out deals about troop deployments between themselves in Ottawa, when the people at the switch are in Quetta.
The fourth elephant? Clearly the last two Afghan neighbours – India and Iran. The Karzai government is encountering much of its political turmoil because it’s said to have closer friends in New Delhi than it does in Islamabad. Much of the warfare and insurgency that kills Canadian soldiers is an extension of the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan that began with partition in 1949. The first group suspected of assassinating Benazir Bhutto was a Moslem Kashmiri resistance group that has been sidelined by the lessening of direct conflict in that region because of diplomatic efforts by the two neighbours. NATO will never have a free hand to create what they want in Afghanistan until the government in Kabul is acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Then we come to Iran – the country with the same interests in Afghanistan as NATO – the country with vital interests in the region to diminish the power of Sunni (Pushtun) terrorist groups on its border – the country most likely to be able to assist in modernizing the backward regions of the country. Iran is Canada’s natural ally for its ongoing involvement in the region, but it’s the one country we don’t communicate with because of the political jackasses in Washington. As long as anyone appointed by the Bush administration, or anyone approved by the Beltway power structure in the US capital, holds any power in the US government, our ability to enter into productive and successful negotiations in or about Afghanistan is compromised. Only by rolling back every action of the Bush administration and removing US troops can peace and order come to either of the countries he invaded – not, because of the chaos he caused, a quick or an easy task to accomplish.
How come we’ve never seen these observations in our North American press? Where did my information come from? Online from a few non-North American news media sources – Der Spiegel, Guardian Online, Peoples Daily, Asia Times Online, Salon.com. Let’s face it – with right wing governments owned and operated by big capital and their media operations – the news sources in both Canada and the US are severely compromised by a combination of direct influence, direct control, and spineless kowtowing to power. Want to read the truth? – it’s as near as a click of the mouse.
Chriskander.
