------------------------------------------------------------------------------------sanch said:There are two perspectives here:
The Humanitarian perspective. Over 2 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan. The crisis for almost 1 million refugees in camps in western Afghanistan has been averted. Many Afghans were able to vote for first time and this includes women who had long been excluded from the public sphere. One only has to imagine how empowering casting this vote must have been for Afghans.
Canadian Soldiers have been an important part of the reconstruction and their effort should be recognized in this vein. Those who died should be recognized for the service they performed in the interests of humanity. This would be my position and I highly value the contribution the soldiers have made.
The political perspective. The critique here on the site is largely drawn from structural Marxism, a paradigm that leaves little room for human agency. There is no importance or significance for the votes cast by Afghans because they only served to elect a puppet regime. There is also no interest in the lives saved through the international intervention because the mission is only seen as part of a structural plot to reinforce existing global relationships. As structures are dominant there is also no interest in historical specificity and so the same general argument can be paraded around the world without contextual modification.
One can go through all the various problems in applying this form of structural analysis to Afghanistan, beginning with the rather obvious fact that the model has no relation to the type of society one finds in Afghanistan. The Soviets tried to introduce reforms and they and their occupation failed because they did not understand Afghanistan. What they thought was feudalism was in reality a variant Marx and Engels identified as an Asiatic mode. The Asiatic mode revolves around the redistribution of resources which need to be managed by an overlord because of their scarcity. If one ignores this history it is easy to see the mechanism of redistribution as corruption which is the rather ethnocentric critique offered here.
I don't think the structural view offered here on global politics is intellectually credible. It's basically a very diluted form of vulgar Marxism. The Canadian troops deserve better in the way of analysis.
A: Capitalism,capital consumption and labour nothing else matters.
B: Voteing for a criminal dosn't count as democracy.
c: The lives taken by the international intervention (cluster bombing and civil war and invasion) far outnumber the saved, and thier really doomed to continued military occupation, freed democratized and saved meaning (military occupation) in American newspeak.
d: It is feudalism variant or not.
e: The mechanism of redistribution is corrpuption, by the democratic standards (freedom & democracy) supposidly being installed by a corrupt puppet regiem. How's that going to turn out?
f: A reinforced global relationship by reinforceing dominant structures is being parraded arround the world by air supriority, marine superiority and superiority of nuclear proliferation those are the only contextual considerations necessary, one size fits all.
I don't think the structural view you've just offered here on global
politics is intellectually honest or credible. IT's basically a very diluted form of capitalism. The Canadian troops deserve the truth.