Are you angry yet?

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Excellent article sir...thank you for this I enjoyed it a lot and I hope a lot of people get to read it in newspapers across the land.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Wootan 9: Brilliant.  I mean it. 

Whereas we have essentially partisan political jerkettes and jerks blathering on in our media.  Hurl.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[RangerRay]

Well written, Sir. 

Is this an Op-Ed that will be published, or is it a letter to the editor that you hope gets published?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Outstanding....I hope you send it to as many newspapers as you have time to, and then subsequently send to as many major Canadian political blogs as you have time to.

Absolutely wonderful writing....


Matthew. 

 

[deedster]

Nicely done Wootan 9 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>this is a war the West will never win. The best we can hope for is a lull in hostilities lasting long enough to allow NATO to declare victory and get the heck out.

Sounds familiar.

There is enough print space in the online media for each columnist who cares to comment on such matters to set out as a permanent record an article describing exactly what sort of commitment to conflict she would support - aims, means, duration, etc.  Then for each columnist we could measure his subsequent comments against the statement of principles and decide whether he is arguing from his principles or just stirring pointless sh!t.

 

[PMedMoe]

Here's a draft OpEd that I sent to the "Citizen"...

Well done, sir.   
I certainly enjoyed the times I got to visit you guys in Kabul.  By the way, do you know if they ever got that ROWPU? 

 

[DualCore]

I think this also points out the horrendous lack of war reporting.  What scintilla of factual basis for this editorial comes from a British journalist re-run on an American network.  We have an hysterical leap from a one paragraph recollection (by the editorialist) of a film that almost no-one saw, about an incident for which there is virtually no other information. 

There was no particular victory here, so it is not something the Military is going to publish in a press release, but 100(?) Canadian soldiers build a base, operate it for some time, try to bring some civilization to a dark dangerous corner of wretched country, then shutdown and go back to the main base ... is an event worthy of some journalism -- if the billions we hand out in salaries, subsidies, and monopoly profits to Canadian news organizations does not buy us that journalism, then we need to earmark that money specifically.  Whether hiring British film-makers to tag along with Canadian units, or creating some kind of independent journalist role within the Canadian military, or just instructing the CBC that their mandate includes reporting on Canadian wars -- as shocking as that might be to the gang in the hair-and-makeup room in Toronto.

There is also some debate about the specific facts of the case -- there is some discussion at this link, although the video will not arrive until July 9 -- maybe they are holding out to see if anyone in Canada might be willing to buy and broadcast it. 

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/afghanistan604/video_index.html

 

[CF_Enthusiast]

Great read Wootan. 

 

[atlas]

I agree with the article. 

I read today that 7 boys were killed in a NATO bombing raid.  If those boys have any family members who are stll alive, then I suspect we created dozens of more insurgents today.  If it were my son or brother, I wouldn't give two hoots about NATO's "good intentions".  So the cycle continues and violence begets violence.

Ironically, I've read and heard that development workers and organizations had a better time working in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. (Doctors with Borders, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, UN, etc)  These groups now say their work has become alot more difficult because of the war and their association with the NATO presence in the eyes of locals, so they try to distance themselves now.

This mission is about counter-insurgency.  There are millions of Afghans who oppose our presence.  We may disagree with their dislike of our presence, but it's their country after all, so we should stick to traditional forms of development work in places like Afghanistan. The way things are going, Canadians will demand a pulllout before 2009.


 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Atlas-

Well now, we would not want to inconvenience the NGO's, now would we?  After all, who gives a rat's arse about the 30 million actual Afghan citizens living under a brutal 12th century theocracy so long as a couple hundred MSF and Amnesty International types can "get along" with the Taliban...

:

 

[Good2Golf]

...By the way, do you know if they ever got that ROWPU? 

Yup.  Thanks, Moe.  Wootan especially liked the fresher water.

Boss, good words.  Hope they hit the mainstream.

G2G

 

[Greymatters]

Ive read worse... she's merely one among thousands out there...

 

[atlas]

Before you slight Amnesty International "types", whatever you mean by that, consider that if it weren't for groups like Amnesty International then the outside world wouldn't have even known about human rights abuses occurring in places like Afghanistan in the first place.

NGOs have improved the standards of living in most countries around the world without resorting to warmaking. That's probably why you don't like them, because of the fact their day to day activities destroys the military's non-sensical argument that war is necessary for development and the flourishing of democracy. 

NGO members have been risking their own lives in foreign places, without weapons, for years and at a great sacrifice to themselves.  If you don't believe it, consider the fact that more journalists (many of whom work for NGOs) have died in Iraq than Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan.  Consider that people like Mother Theresa spent her life in disease-infested slums just to care for and feed hungry children.  Consider that Mohatma Gandhi led a pacifist revolution that drove the English from India and gave that country its independence.  All of these people made a difference through non-violence.  If you look at any of the other 194 countries around the world, most of them have much increased standards of living and democratizaton despite the fact that their governments are corrpt, incompetent or just plain callous.  You can thank NGOs for this.

 

[McG]

Well, here was the AI call to push ahead with the expansion of ISAF to where it is now:  http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/0/5c9f31193e89cbb2c1256e66002efe81?OpenDocument&Click=

Also of note:

Last month, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch accused the Taliban of "war crimes" for targeting civilians, or making no effort to avoid civilian casualties in attacking military targets.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2211823c-e0bb-445e-bfae-357f8a670cb7

 

[Greymatters]

Before you slight Amnesty International "types", whatever you mean by that, consider that if it weren't for groups like Amnesty International then the outside world wouldn't have even known about human rights abuses occurring in places like Afghanistan in the first place.

First, we knew about that for decades, but its kind of dangerous to go there under the old regime's when your not invited.  You tend to get killed.

Second, just like everywhere else, Amnesty International is not perfect.  For every shining examples theyve got a moron, for every saint theyve got a corrupt bugger exploiting the locals. 

And for your information, NGOs do not 'improve the standard of living'.  Most of them are fund-raisers and campaingers who encourage other organizations to go out ther and help local populations.

Example:  La Ceiba, Honduras 1999, 500+ Canandian troops, plus helis and water-purification machines. Number of missionary's = 6.  Number of NGO's? Zero.

 

[Good2Golf]

Atlas,

NGOs such as Amnesty International and Medicins Sans Frontiers, etc... most definitely have their place in making the quality of life better in many places around the world, just as do the armed forces of international organizations such as the UN or NATO to reinforce the rule of international law, and facilitate meaningful development for the benefit of the disadvantaged.  Just as there is a range of attitudes between and within the ranks of NGOs, so to will you find that of the components of security or stabilizing forces.  Some may have a more confrontational approach (this is equally applicable to military, GOs and NGOs) and others may have a more participative approach...the intent is always the same, however, to achieve the results that their respective organizations have undertaken to achieve.

I'll gladly give NGOs fair credit for the work they do, so long as you don't tell me that I should not have been on the ground in Afghanistan talking to the locals and working with government and NGOs alike to assist Afghans rebuild their country when conditions did not permit unrestricted, safe access to developers. :tsktsk:


G2G

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Atlas-

The tone and content of your original email made it fairly clear to me that you were more concerned about how easily a few hundred NGOs could cooperate with a government (the Taliban), than what that particular government was doing to it's 30 million countrymen, which therefore neccesitated that need for NGOs.  I got it, loud and clear...

 

[Roy Harding]

Before you slight Amnesty International "types", whatever you mean by that, consider that if it weren't for groups like Amnesty International then the outside world wouldn't have even known about human rights abuses occurring in places like Afghanistan in the first place.

NGOs have improved the standards of living in most countries around the world without resorting to warmaking. That's probably why you don't like them, because of the fact their day to day activities destroys the military's non-sensical argument that war is necessary for development and the flourishing of democracy. 

NGO members have been risking their own lives in foreign places, without weapons, for years and at a great sacrifice to themselves.  If you don't believe it, consider the fact that more journalists (many of whom work for NGOs) have died in Iraq than Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan.  Consider that people like Mother Theresa spent her life in disease-infested slums just to care for and feed hungry children.  Consider that Mohatma Gandhi led a pacifist revolution that drove the English from India and gave that country its independence.  All of these people made a difference through non-violence.  If you look at any of the other 194 countries around the world, most of them have much increased standards of living and democratizaton despite the fact that their governments are corrpt, incompetent or just plain callous.  You can thank NGOs for this.

You know what, you stunned little idiot?  I've had it with you.  I've BEEN to places (ever hear of Bosnia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq) where the NGOs were nobly TRYING to bring their aid (all the while sneering at us armed types). 

Who PROTECTED them in their mission???  I'll give you a hint - it wasn't a war protester.  They (they NGOs) could only practice their non-violent belief  because of the protection afforded them by reluctantly violent men (including me).

Save me your platitudes, you self-absorbed little idiot, and go spread some aid somewhere (I don't care where - Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq) - hell, the world's PLEADING for your intervention - according to you). 

And by the way - when you DO get into trouble, don't bother calling me - I'm retired and I am no longer professionally obligated to give a damn what happens to you.

Good luck to you - call me in twenty years when you've actually DONE something (like Mother Theresa, or Mahatma Ghandi) instead of just parroting what your (equally inexperienced) professors have told you.

Stop talking about it - start DOING what you're all fired up about.  And may God have mercy on your murdered soul - because I sure as hell won't.

Roy

 

[DG-41]

I read today that 7 boys were killed in a NATO bombing raid.  If those boys have any family members who are stll alive, then I suspect we created dozens of more insurgents today.  If it were my son or brother, I wouldn't give two hoots about NATO's "good intentions".  So the cycle continues and violence begets violence.

Atlas, you are quite correct to point this out as a problem, but you've followed this line of reasoning to the wrong conclusions.

Armies, like everything else (including NGOs) are human institutions. As such, they make mistakes. And it takes time and effort to recognize mistakes for what they are , to come up with workable plans and procedures to avoid repeating these mistakes, and to get those new plans and procedures implemented in the field. 

The solution is not to decry the use of all force and demand a pullout, but instead to trust the professionals who employ force to tune their tactics to avoid the problem.

Just because you smack your thumb with a hammer doesn't mean nails are no longer effective construction fasteners or that hammers are evil. The trick is employing the tool properly, and the use of force is just such a tool.

Ironically, I've read and heard that development workers and organizations had a better time working in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. (Doctors with Borders, Amnesty International, the Red Cross, UN, etc)  These groups now say their work has become alot more difficult because of the war and their association with the NATO presence in the eyes of locals, so they try to distance themselves now.

Perhaps this is true. But it was also true that the Taliban allowed Al-Quaida free operation in their country as well, the direct result being the smashing of occupied civilian passenger aircraft into the World Trade Centre. Life is full of tradeoffs.

This mission is about counter-insurgency.  There are millions of Afghans who oppose our presence.  We may disagree with their dislike of our presence, but it's their country after all, so we should stick to traditional forms of development work in places like Afghanistan.

This is not a zero-sum problem. It is not "security OR development" but "security AND development". There is a place for both, and development is entirely dependent on security.

Like it or not, the NGOs cannot operate in the country without security. That means the military mission must continue. The true issue is teaching the NGOs how to better co-operate with the military, and teaching the military how to better provide security without inflicting collateral damage (although I think you'll find that the military is already very much aware of the problem and is working hard on it)

I think the root problem here is the adversarial attitude between the advocates  of reconstruction and the military. Like it or not, we are partners and teammates, and the sooner you learn to deal with that and adapt to it, the better for the people of Afghanistan.

The way things are going, Canadians will demand a pulllout before 2009.

I have more faith in my countrymen, thanks.

DG