Our Glorious Afghan Mission
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
DB.....>by Michael Byers
December 19, 2007
Earlier this month, I received an invitation to appear before the "Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan," headed by John Manley.
My initial reaction was positive. For several years, I've worked hard to sound the alarm about flaws in Canada's counterinsurgency mission and our policies on detainees. Speaking to a panel set up by the government would, I thought, provide a useful opportunity for repeating my concerns.
But then I decided to do some research on the panel.
It quickly became apparent that the word "independent" was a misnomer. It would be difficult to find five people more likely to recommend an extension of the mission than Mr. Manley, Derek Burney, Jake Epp, Paul Tellier and Pamela Wallin.
Canada's mission is as much about Canada-U.S. relations as it is about Afghanistan. So it is probably not a coincidence that all the panel members are avowed supporters of close economic and political ties with the United States.
Mr. Manley, as foreign affairs minister, led the post-9/11 effort to convince Washington that Ottawa was serious about border security. More recently, he co-authored a report that advocates a full customs union between the two countries as well as a common security perimeter – supported by much tighter integration between the Canadian and U.S. militaries.
Ms. Wallin, who served as consul general in New York, played a central role in persuading American opinion-makers that Canada was fully supportive of the "war on terror." She now works as a senior adviser to the Council of the Americas, a free trade-promoting organization that counts some of the largest U.S. corporations among its members.
All five of the panel members have been captured by Big Business. Between them, they sit on 19 corporate boards including Nortel and CIBC (Mr. Manley), CTVglobemedia (Ms. Wallin), CanWest Global and TransCanada Pipelines (Mr. Burney).
The panellists seem to share the view that a strong relationship with our southern neighbour is the sine qua non of economic prosperity and therefore Canadian foreign policy, whatever the decisions of the U.S. administration of the day.
Two of the five panel members have close ties to the Canadian defence industry. Mr. Burney served as president of CAE Inc., the largest Canadian-owned military contractor. Mr. Tellier headed up Bombardier when it was heavily involved in training pilots for the Canadian Forces and other NATO countries.
Three of the five are linked to the Conservative party. Mr. Epp was a cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney's government. Mr. Tellier served as clerk of the Privy Council in the same government. Mr. Burney led the transition team after Stephen Harper's January 2006 election victory.
Most worrying, some of the panel members have already expressed clear views on the very issues they have been asked to examine. Just two months ago, in the journal Policy Options, Mr. Manley wrote: "We often seek to define Canada's role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let's not abandon it too easily."
It cannot be denied that a clear-eyed assessment of Canada's future role in Afghanistan is needed. Seventy-three Canadian soldiers have died, hundreds more have been seriously wounded, and many billions of dollars spent.
But if Mr. Harper really wanted objective advice, he'd have modelled the Manley panel on the Iraq Study Group in the United States.
The ISG was created, and its two co-chairs selected, by a bipartisan group of U.S. congressmen. George W. Bush endorsed the group but did not choose its members.
The members of the Manley panel have been hand-picked by the prime minister.
Logistical and research support for the ISG was provided by an independent think tank, the U.S. Institute for Peace.
The Institute for Peace set up four working groups composed of non-governmental experts from across the political spectrum. It established a "military senior adviser panel" composed of retired rather than serving officers.
The Manley panel is inordinately dependent on the government. Its six-person secretariat is made up of some of the same officials who have been overseeing the Afghanistan mission. Prominent among these are David Mulroney, the current director of the government's Afghanistan Task Force, Sanjeev Chowdhury, the former director of the Afghanistan Task Force, and Col. Mike Cessford, the former deputy commander of the Canadian mission.
The ISG was charged with conducting "a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests." In other words, its mandate was drawn in such a way as to encompass all issues and options, including diplomatic ones.
The mandate of the Manley panel has been focused on recommending one of four set options, all of them featuring continuing roles for the military.
Alternative policies, such as negotiating with the Taliban, have been effectively excluded from consideration. So too have the opportunities for non-military responses to the crisis levels of opium production and the lawlessness in northern Pakistan. And little room has been allowed for serious consideration of whether NATO troops should be replaced with UN peacekeepers.
The ISG operated on its own timetable, and chose to delay its report until after the 2006 congressional elections.
In contrast, the Manley panel has been given a deadline of Jan. 31, 2008. This ensures the report will be released before the next election, when it can be used by the Conservatives to buttress their position of extending the counterinsurgency mission for another two years.
So why would Mr. Manley – a Liberal – play into Mr. Harper's hands?
My guess is that he'd feel duty-bound to answer any prime minister's call. Like the many well-intentioned individuals who have agreed to speak to the panel, or submitted written briefs, Mr. Manley wants to make government work.
I suspect it is this intrinsic loyalty to a democratic ideal that Mr. Harper seeks to exploit. He wants the legitimacy that Mr. Manley and other non-Conservatives can provide.
Well, he's not getting any legitimacy from me. Although it pains me to say it, the Manley panel is a sham.
This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and is reprinted here with the author's permission. Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
CONGRATULATIONS!
I disagree with the views of this individual, but you have at least found a source that is credible......not one of the Lone Gunman, wearing hiis tinfoil hat, writing paranoid idiocy from the depths of his bunker....
I'm impressed.
Keep it up.
Colpy, your very far behind the times boy, the "tinfoil" hat dismissive is beyond pathetic, juvenile in fact. You lot all have problems with originality and contemporaneous thought, nasty ethicly challenged sheep the lot of you.
Byers layed out his objections and mine perfectly, this is a corporate war fought on thier behalf, we have a fascist government plain and simple, it barley hides it's contempt for the citizens of Canada. And lest you get the wrong impression the other partys are virtual clones, they all serve the fascist banking monster we call the free market, a thinley disquised fraudulent criminal organization of mass murderer.
Byers layed out his objections and mine perfectly, this is a corporate war fought on thier behalf, we have a fascist government plain and simple, it barley hides it's contempt for the citizens of Canada. And lest you get the wrong impression the other partys are virtual clones, they all serve the fascist banking monster we call the free market, a thinley disquised fraudulent criminal organization of mass murderer.
You have already said you will only listen to people you already agree with. You are a sheep, if you are lucky you might be a sheep following a good shephard. But me, I'll prefer to stick with being a free thinker with the possibility of being misguided than a sheep with the possibility of being on the right path.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Nine Afghan policemen and two civilians 'killed by US forces'[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] Aljazeera.net[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]January 24, 2008
Nine Afghan policemen and two civilians are reported to have been killed in a raid launched by US forces.
More than a hundred people protested on Thursday over the deaths in the Ghazni province of central Afghanistan, Dr Ismail Ibrahimzai, the head of the local public health department, said.
Villagers marched toward Ghazni after the attack, chanting against US troops and the Western-baked government of President Hamid Karzi.
"Nine police, including an officer, two civilians, one of them a woman, were killed in the raid," he said.
A provincial official, Habeb-ul Rahman, also said the Afghans had died in an attack by US ground forces and aircraft.
Helicopter fire
A local policeman told the AFP news agency that he and some of his colleagues had gone to a part of the town where the US soldiers were involved in the early morning raid.
The policeman, who declined to give his name, said: "All of a sudden the Americans opened fire at us and immediately four policemen were killed including our chief.
"Helicopters then came to the area and fired into buildings."
The US military said the raid in Ghazni, about 100km south of Kabul, had been against Taliban fighters.
Civilian casualties
US major Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the US-led coalition, said the reports of the police deaths were being looked into.
Faced with troop shortages, US and Nato-led troops rely heavily on the use of airpower in their fight against the Taliban and other militants in Afghanistan.
Such tactics have caused many civilian casualties in past years, and at times caused friction with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has urged caution and co-ordination with Afghan authorities.
Negative public sentiment against US and Nato forces has built up after continued civilian deaths during foreign operations.
Aid agencies and Afghan officials have said that more than 500 civilians were killed by Western forces in Afghanistan last year, although US and Nato forces say the number of civilian deaths is lower.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial] [FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial][FONT=Verdana,Arial][FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial][FONT=Verdana,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]
Yes, you are a free thinker Zzarchov. Why do you believe that? What do you characterize as free thought? Is it possible to think and be free? What is free? I'll follow my good shepards and you can enjoy your free thinking, OK? I think having good guides and teachers is more valueable than your freedom, but I respect your right to choose to consider yourself a free thinker. Enjoy it while it lasts Zzarchov, someday you may discover something different from what you believe today. That wouldn't hurt you would it?
5
Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan
Jerome Starkey
The Independent
Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:15 EST
: Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides, intelligence sources in Kabul have revealed. The plans were discovered on a memory stick seized by Afghan secret police in December.
The Afghan government claims they prove British agents were talking to the Taliban without permission from the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, despite Gordon Brown's pledge that Britain will not negotiate. The Prime Minister told Parliament on 12 December: "Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating their leaders. We will not enter into any negotiations with these people."
The British insist President Karzai's office knew what was going on. But Mr Karzai has expelled two top diplomats amid accusations they were part of a plot to buy-off the insurgents.
The row was the first in a series of spectacular diplomatic spats which has seen Anglo-Afghan relations sink to a new low. Since December, President Karzai has blocked the appointment of Paddy Ashdown to the top UN job in Kabul and he has blamed British troops for losing control of Helmand.
It has also soured relations between Kabul and Washington, where State Department officials were instrumental in pushing Lord Ashdown for the UN role.
President Karzai's political mentor, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, endorsed a death sentence for blasphemy on the student journalist Sayed Pervez Kambaksh last week, and two British contractors have been arrested in Kabul on, it is claimed, trumped up weapons charges. The developments are seen as a deliberate defiance of the British.
An Afghan go
Wow Beaver, outright lies? Really?
The British were building a training camp for Ex-Taleban soldiers who defected. The furor is over the danger these people may secretly be Taleban still. The british maintain these are those who only joined the Taleban for nationalist reasons , yadda yadda.
But seriously, you only do more harm than good to your own message when you post things like that.
The British were building a training camp for Ex-Taleban soldiers who defected. The furor is over the danger these people may secretly be Taleban still. The british maintain these are those who only joined the Taleban for nationalist reasons , yadda yadda.
But seriously, you only do more harm than good to your own message when you post things like that.
And why else would you join the goddamn Taleban Zzarchov for skiing instruction or driving lessons, it's a goddamn nationalist movement.
Why would you join the Taleban? Because they were the government in the region and you were civic minded?
Even the Gestapo had a large number of people who just wanted to cut down on normal crime like burglary. Thats why low level Nazi's could rejoin German society after WWII.
Not everyone is some single minded machine Darkbeaver.
Even the Gestapo had a large number of people who just wanted to cut down on normal crime like burglary. Thats why low level Nazi's could rejoin German society after WWII.
Not everyone is some single minded machine Darkbeaver.
Canadian "Peacekeeping" Troops in Afghanistan: Keep Pearson out of it
By Linda McQuaig
Global Research, February 5, 2008
The Toronto Star
The Harper government's flagging campaign to sell Canadians on extending our combat mission in Afghanistan has clearly found new legs since the release last month of the pro-war Manley report.
The turnaround moment probably came at a press briefing when John Manley, head of the government's advisory panel on Afghanistan, defended the mission by invoking the name of Canadian peacekeeping hero Lester Pearson.
Since Canadians have tended to associate Afghanistan with torture and a cowboy-style "war on terror," the invocation of Pearson's name – from fellow Liberal Manley – was highly potent.
It was also absurd, even preposterous – like invoking Abe Lincoln as a nation-building forerunner of George W. Bush.
Indeed, Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, argues that Manley's attempt to place Pearson's mantle on the Afghan mission amounts to a "real desecration of (Pearson's) memory and his monumental achievement for world peace."
Boyle says that he's made his students study the UN peacekeeping model devised by Pearson for the Suez Crisis of 1956. "It was the first, and the model for all that came after it ... Pearson richly deserved his Nobel Peace Prize."
"How dare Manley invoke his name," Boyle continued. "The offensive use of military force (in Afghanistan) bears no similarity at all to Pearson's peacekeeping force in the Sinai, which was genuine and legitimate peacekeeping."
The notion of the Afghan mission as a moral, legal war pervades the Manley report. Contrasting it to the invasion of Iraq, Manley portrays the intervention in Afghanistan as a law-abiding, UN-authorized venture. But Boyle says that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both illegal under international law, in that neither received Security Council approval.
The Manley report implies that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was endorsed by the Security Council, but Boyle notes that the Security Council resolution cited by Manley in no way authorized military action. Rather, it called for the perpetrators of 9/11 to be brought to justice – suggesting they be dealt with as criminals through extradition and the judicial system, not war.
After invading Afghanistan and toppling the government, Washington won UN authorization for the new government it installed, and for its ongoing intervention through NATO. As a result, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan – like the one in Iraq – now has "a veneer of UN authority," notes Osgoode Hall law professor Michael Mandel.
Manley has long been a proponent of closer relations with the U.S., and he and his panellists met with top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Yet the Manley report avoids any suggestion that Ottawa's involvement in Afghanistan is about pleasing the Bush administration, which is widely disliked in Canada.
Indeed, the Manley report makes Washington all but disappear, emphasizing the UN and NATO, and Canada's role within NATO.
But NATO is just a military alliance ultimately run by Washington. Indeed, since it came into being in 1950, NATO has always been headed by a U.S. general (currently John Craddock).
In addition to NATO forces in Afghanistan, there are another 13,000 U.S. troops under direct U.S. command. This means that all troops serving in Afghanistan are ultimately under commander-in-chief George W. Bush, whose shadow looms large over the country.
But in urging Canadians to keep fighting over there, Manley somehow found it more relevant to mention the name Lester B. Pearson.
©
By Linda McQuaig
Global Research, February 5, 2008
The Toronto Star
The Harper government's flagging campaign to sell Canadians on extending our combat mission in Afghanistan has clearly found new legs since the release last month of the pro-war Manley report.
The turnaround moment probably came at a press briefing when John Manley, head of the government's advisory panel on Afghanistan, defended the mission by invoking the name of Canadian peacekeeping hero Lester Pearson.
Since Canadians have tended to associate Afghanistan with torture and a cowboy-style "war on terror," the invocation of Pearson's name – from fellow Liberal Manley – was highly potent.
It was also absurd, even preposterous – like invoking Abe Lincoln as a nation-building forerunner of George W. Bush.
Indeed, Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, argues that Manley's attempt to place Pearson's mantle on the Afghan mission amounts to a "real desecration of (Pearson's) memory and his monumental achievement for world peace."
Boyle says that he's made his students study the UN peacekeeping model devised by Pearson for the Suez Crisis of 1956. "It was the first, and the model for all that came after it ... Pearson richly deserved his Nobel Peace Prize."
"How dare Manley invoke his name," Boyle continued. "The offensive use of military force (in Afghanistan) bears no similarity at all to Pearson's peacekeeping force in the Sinai, which was genuine and legitimate peacekeeping."
The notion of the Afghan mission as a moral, legal war pervades the Manley report. Contrasting it to the invasion of Iraq, Manley portrays the intervention in Afghanistan as a law-abiding, UN-authorized venture. But Boyle says that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both illegal under international law, in that neither received Security Council approval.
The Manley report implies that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was endorsed by the Security Council, but Boyle notes that the Security Council resolution cited by Manley in no way authorized military action. Rather, it called for the perpetrators of 9/11 to be brought to justice – suggesting they be dealt with as criminals through extradition and the judicial system, not war.
After invading Afghanistan and toppling the government, Washington won UN authorization for the new government it installed, and for its ongoing intervention through NATO. As a result, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan – like the one in Iraq – now has "a veneer of UN authority," notes Osgoode Hall law professor Michael Mandel.
Manley has long been a proponent of closer relations with the U.S., and he and his panellists met with top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Yet the Manley report avoids any suggestion that Ottawa's involvement in Afghanistan is about pleasing the Bush administration, which is widely disliked in Canada.
Indeed, the Manley report makes Washington all but disappear, emphasizing the UN and NATO, and Canada's role within NATO.
But NATO is just a military alliance ultimately run by Washington. Indeed, since it came into being in 1950, NATO has always been headed by a U.S. general (currently John Craddock).
In addition to NATO forces in Afghanistan, there are another 13,000 U.S. troops under direct U.S. command. This means that all troops serving in Afghanistan are ultimately under commander-in-chief George W. Bush, whose shadow looms large over the country.
But in urging Canadians to keep fighting over there, Manley somehow found it more relevant to mention the name Lester B. Pearson.
©
Yes. And CIA even included a 12.000 DM monthly payment to a group of right wing youth in Westgermany for reanimating Werewulf for the case, that Soviet communists should overrun the sensible "democracy forming" in the western zones. Note, "democracy" was always written with a small "d", despite it is used to write substantives in German language with capital first letter. The Neo-Werewulf got a list of social democrats (SPD politicans), who were to kill in case of a Soviet invasion, since those were suspected being prepared to work with Soviets together.
That militant anticommunism left still its traces in the present search of a coalition out of the Hesse elections. The left party got some 1000 votes over the 5% entrance in the Hesse parliament and the else quite reasonable Mrs.Ypsilanti (SPD) avoids any talks with them. At least any SPD politican can overtake the cabinet in the very moment, when he makes a coalition with the small Left party, even from Mrs. Merkel (chancellor, CDU). But they are still afraid of being called themselfes "communists". They got no permission from Washington for that. (Imagine, Democrats in US would still be afraid to get named "communists" (Barak or Hilary???)
Compare the political landscape in Germany with that of the USA:
But probably all, who support the US style of Afghanistan engagement:
http://www.afghan-german.de/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1060
Judical murder's not a serious cause of death in Afghanistan right now. So you straighten out thier judiciary with your petition, you have to contribute to the blocking of NATO colateral damage storys with your petition mission and thereby contribute to the greater misery of Afghans while you hide behind your pathetic petition. Your supporting Afghanistan? You're an invading occupying force bent on saving the poppys same as Canada, get with the progame. This is serious business we can't have Afghans phucking it up.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148481-Trading-with-the-Enemy-US-AF-serving-Afghani-drug-dealers
trading with the Enemy: US AF serving Afghani drug dealers
David Dastych and Arkady Dubnov
Canada Free Press
Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:33 EST
"Dear David, I badly need your help.
Some time ago a Russian newspaper "Vremya Novostei" published a story written by Arkady Dubnov, one of the best informed Russian journalists on Central Asia, about the alleged role of the US Air Force in heroin traffic from Afghanistan to Europe.
He wrote that the US Air Force transported 85% of heroin produced in Afghanistan. Dubnov quotes anonymous Afghani sources (there are also some accusations of Karzai's brothers who take part in this scheme).
The article also claims Afghan warlords have some deals with local US and British commanders not to liquidate the poppy plantations etc. What do you think about that? Have you ever heard about such possibilities? Best regards, Andrei."
This is a letter I received from my Russian friend, Andrei Soldatov, a respected investigative journalist and the Managing Editor of an Internet Magazine "Agentura.ru". Soldatov is young (in his 30's), not a Putin crony and a very brave reporter (Dubrovka, Beslan, Chechnya, Lebanon war), who had many times clashes with the Russian special services over his objective reporting and publishing. That's why I trust him. The only national economy of Afghanistan is virtually the narco-business--worth some $ 10 billion or more per year. I have been receiving hints since a year or so that the ISAF forces in Afghanistan, the American and the British forces there in particular (at least some units) are deep-rooted in the Afghani narco-business. It seems that the U.S. Government is tolerating it, and the British Government, too. The worse part of the whole dirty scandal is that allegedly some heroin is purchased from Taliban guerillas, in exchange for weapons. Thus, the ISAF (NATO) is selling weapons to the enemy, who later uses them against soldiers of the Alliance in battle. It is exactly the same corrupt practice tha
CIA enters a country and the drug traffic increases dramatically.
No surprise.
And no surprise that it happens without any right wing objections.;-)
No surprise.
And no surprise that it happens without any right wing objections.;-)
Oh... hi, Beaver;
I have heard mentioned the triple C before and wonder WHY CCC? Just now I figured it out: :idea:
Canadian Cauliflower Content
is that right???
:lol: