heureusement, ici, c'est james

Gwynne Dyer's comments on Iraq and Afghanistan. I stumbled across this thanks to Matt at bastard.logic, and I think it bids some repetition during this time of thickening rhetoric on the subject.

I'd like to echo Dyer's comments with a personal anecdote. On a trip to a conference in Norway, I met an Afghani who was once quite close to the Taliban. But far from personifying the cliché image of a raving religious fanatic, he was a reasonable, progressively-minded individual trying scrape up enough of a savings (and enough of an understanding of Norwegian and English) to get into the economics program at the local university.

His family's association with the Taliban was limited to a business arrangement, since the Taliban were willing to fork out a fair bit of money in exchange for harvested crops (compare that to the American practice of destroying them).

This guy was pretty enthusiastic about meeting a Canadian and he had a very clear message for us:

"I know you’re trying to help," he said to me, "and a few Afghans know this too. But you’re not. It’s not your fault. When the Taliban is paying you to live, and then you see white men with guns walking around, who do you think you’re going to believe? Who do you think you’ll support?"

The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan set off a wave of anti-Americanism and sympathy for the Taliban - not only in Afghanistan, but also in neighbouring Pakistan (though the tide seems to be turning there).

The Taliban earn the support of average Afghans by buying their crops and fighting off "invaders" the same way Conservatives are trying to earn your support by cutting taxes, and fighting off "the Liberal agenda." The Taliban are favoured in political talk around the Afghan "family dinner table."

Though political "favour" around the dinner table sometimes turns into into dangerously blind ideological enthusiasm.

Blind ideological enthusiasm. Sound familiar?

Labels: Afghanistan, Gwynne Dyer

One could be forgiven for assuming that Conservative MPs were all raised as only-children. How else do you explain the ramming of two confidence motions down the throats of Canadians in as many days?

I want my way, and I want it now.

Contrary to the spirit of the Manley report it claims to embrace, the government wants to force an extension of the Afghan mission before having actually secured additional troops. Contrary to the constitution, the government wants to tell the Senate what to do. Contrary to the principles of sanity, we have editorialists and pundits rewarding this infantile behaviour, lauding Harper as a manly "master of strategy."

Do we have confidence in Stephen Harper? Sure. Why wouldn't we have confidence in a government which uses principles of threat and violence to manipulate us?

Labels: Afghanistan, cons, dictatorial tendencies, election

Compare this excerpt of the Manley panel's report:

Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, there was never any hesitation: “We want you to stay; we need you to stay.” Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.

... to this journal article he published three months ago, before he was asked to head the panel:

Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue.

Feels a bit like a smack in the face, doesn't it? Thanks to TSR for some pretty good digging.

For all the reinforced prejudice of its findings, I think the report could indeed be seen as a compromise. Whereas Dion's saying "pull out and force an international rotation," and Harper's saying "stay indefinitely," Manley et. al. are saying "step up the international effort by 1000 troops and stay indefinitely, or pull out."

A pullout isn't without risk. It puts the Netherlands in an even more difficult position and could ignite a domino of withdrawals. But if NATO can't find the 1,000 troops Manley says it needs, as Dion and Manely have both pointed out, this "international effort" might conclusively be seen, sadly, as an exercise in futility.

***Update***

I want to give credit where it's due. Kelly McParland, Politics Editor of the National Post, defied his CanWest brandname and did some great analysis on this, saying that the "Manley report spreads chaos in Punditland." Everyone seems to have interpreted the report based on their preconceived bias:

"So you got that? This is a disaster for Dion, except when it’s bad news for Harper. It’s more of the same, except where it’s a call for change. There aren’t any real solutions, though it’s just what the troops have been demanding"

Labels: Afghanistan, John Manley, Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper

For the all the wind blowing from Conservative and NDP partisans - that NATO serves no purpose but to point guns and shoot - NATO's literature doesn't bend to their argument:

"the fundamental role of NATO is to safeguard freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means," furthermore adding, "The Alliance... recognises the importance of political, economic, social and environmental factors in addition to the indispensable defence dimension."

NATO's new strategic concept (1999) also emphasizes the notion of "common commitment," stating that "The fundamental guiding principle by which the Alliance works is that of common commitment and mutual co-operation" and "no single Ally is forced to rely upon its own national efforts alone in dealing with basic security challenges."

This seems to be at odds with the way a minority of NATO members, Canada among them, have been forced into carrying a disproportionate burden in Afghanistan.

In the face of this public information, Jason Kenney went to bat as the government spinmaster, regardless of his lack of authority on the Foreign Affairs file. In this Toronto Star article, he said: "NATO is a military alliance. When you talk about a NATO intervention, you are clearly and explicitly talking about a military intervention."

After reading NATO's strategic concept, Kenney's comments seem to be a Conservative assumption of NATO's role based on a cold-war hangover. Though Kenney asserts that Dion "doesn't understand what NATO does," it appears that Kenney hasn't done his own homework on the role of the organization, however ineffectively it's been practiced.

For its part, the NDP seem to be taking their PR cues from the Conservative government, as NDP defence critic Dawn Black did little more but echo Kenney's comments.

Labels: Afghanistan, cons, NATO, NDP, Stephane Dion

Dion: "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan."

Read it again - this analysis might not jive with the childish "pro-war" or "anti-war" verbal vomit spewing forth from bloggers everywhere, but there is nothing ambiguous about it whatsoever.

The logic which follows goes like this: if what we are doing in Afghanistan is burdened by futility due to the porous border with Pakistan, it seems perfectly sensible to suggest some kind cooperative diplomatic strategy with Pakistan.

"The point of Mr. Dion's comment was to say that Canada wants NATO to work diplomatically with Pakistan to ensure Pakistan is part of the solution in the region, Mr. Coderre said."

Why isn't this "shift in strategy" coming from NATO officials? Why are there no NATO replacements to speak of? Frankly, because NATO is an ineffective, wasteful dinosaur of an organization that is paralyzed by nationalism and pettiness of its members.

Canada need not be manipulated into submission by NATO, exploited by the international community, or treated like an international janitor - one that spends its time mopping up the floor rather than plugging the leak.

(Obama made simlar comments a few months back - though alluding to military action - and was similarly chided before the establishment came around a few months later.)

Labels: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Stephane Dion