The alternatives (interrelated and non-exhaustive) are:
- Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).
This is a black and white generalization. Since 2002, the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan has gone to great lengths to eliminate warlord influence from Afghanistan. The Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration program and the current Disarmament of Illegally Armed Groups program are both targeted at removing the teeth from warlords. Furthermore, the more notorious warlords have been marginalized politically with almost none still serving in high levels in government. In fact the "warlords" (a highly generalized and subjective description) you speak of are a broad group including some who fought nobly in defence of their people (the Massouds of the world) to some who were down right evil people (the Dostums). What is more, Karzai's cabinet is made up of a broad spectrum of Afghans from all ethnic groups and with a large representation of women. Most are educated and even enlightened leaders who want peace and prosperity for their people (I know this because I have met several of them, have you?) Just so you know, RAWA doesn't know everything and shouldn't be your only source!
- Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.
You realize he was elected by the Afghan people right? You realize that before he was elected he was chosen by a Jirga of elders from across Afghanistan right? You realize that both of these events were UN supported and were deemed legitimate by several monitoring bodies? What are you suggesting, that the US rigged both the Jirga and the election right under the noses of the UN, EU and several other monitors!?
So what if Canadians serve as his advisor. You do realize that he can and does reject our advice, right? You do realize that we are there advising him because he views Canada as a friend of Afghanistan and a country that can be trusted to give impartial, disinterested advice, right? Do you even know what kind of advice we're giving him? I'll give you a hint: it's not political advice and we don't tell him how to run his country.
- Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.
You do realize that we do this, right? You know that one of the principles behind our involvement in Afghanistan is the realization that our abandonment of Afghanistan in 1989 got us into this mess in the first place, don't you? I'm sure then that you also know that Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian aid money then too. Can we do more? Absolutely. However, don't even begin to suggest that this is a worthwhile proposal as anyone who knows anything about Canada's involvement would know this is already happening.
- Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.
This is such an ignorantly rhetorical and polemical statement as to almost defy understanding. The first sentence is essentially a fundraising drive for your sole source of information on Afghanistan: RAWA. To suggest that aid should not be linked to the higher COIN strategy demonstrates two things. Firstly, it shows that you should read more books on COIN as economic development has always been an important tool of defeating an insurgency. Secondly, you really need to get your facts straight and stop making sweeping, generalized statements. The vast majority of Canada's aid does not go through the PRT but rather goes through CIDA to such projects as the National Area Based Development Program, the DIAG program, women's literacy and microcredit/micro finance initiatives. Finally, as someone who was present when both the Afghanistan Compact and the Interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy were developed, I can tell you that the Afghans are very much leading the development planning. Of course the donors have a say as its their money but the way it works is that donors essentially buy into programs initiated by the Afghan government rather than dictating programs to Afghanistan. It wasn't always that way but things are improving every month. You can't take what happened in 2003 and use that as an example of why things don't work today because things have changed dramatically.
- De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers.
Yet another generalized and vague statement. Independent NGOs are under no obligation to work with ISAF and often choose not to. To suggest that the COIN campaign and development are somehow seperate activities that can be de-linked displays a incredible misunderstanding of what is happening in Afghanistan and how COIN campaigns are prosecuted.
- Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).
This is hypocritical and paternalistic in addition to being plain wrong. The vast majority of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran have returned and there is an entire Ministry in the Afghan government that is responsible for resettling and assisting those people. However, what is interesting here is that your proposal is at odds with much of what you say in other posts. You suggest that we should let the Afghans sort things out and fend for themselves but then in the same post you suggest that the only hope for Afghan refugees is emigration to the sanctuary of the West. Please tell me this proposal is a test to make sure we're paying attention.
- Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).
Again, a blanket statement that is condescending and insulting to the thousands of moderate Afghans who are striving for a better life. To make a generalized accusation that all consultants are puppets and all who work for the current Afghan government are fundamentalists is ignorant in the extreme. This statement more than any other shows your true colours and demonstrates for everyone to see that you are not interested in the reality of Afghanistan or the plight of her people. You have an agenda to push and that agenda is to get people you approve of into power in Afghanistan, nothing more. By suggesting that no one is listening to progressives is once again to show your lack of knowledge about how the Afghan government works and what is going on over there. I have attended meeting where the full spectrum of Afghan politics has been in attendence - from former warlords, to feministists, to former communists, to western educated refugees and all were given the opportunity to speak. And this was not just one meeting, I have been to dozens like that.
- Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.
The irony here is that the only person who seems to think we call the entire insurgency "Taliban" is you! Those of us who have been there or who are going know far better than you do that there are many factions with many interests. If you want to give us a history lesson about defeating the Pashtuns, maybe you should give us the whole lesson. The Brits had very little trouble defeating them in the Second and Third Afghan wars with relatively small forces. There is no such thing as an undefeatable tribe and Pashtuns are not all united against the coalition. In fact large Pashtun tribes or sub-tribes are either neutral or supportive of the Karzai government (Karzai himself being a Pashtun).
- Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).
We are? Because after Op MEDUSA and BAAZ TSUKA, we seemed to be winning. So let me see if I get this straight. You - a civilian who has never been to Afghanistan nor fought in any kind of war, are telling us - a group of people who take home paycheques based on their proficiency at all things military, that we're losing the war!? So by reading newspapers and endlessly quoting LGen Leslie out of context, you figure you're qualified to make this assessment?
(For the sake of argument: Imagine if a foreign force, no matter the pretext for their presence, killed a 10 year-old boy, an old man, a taxi driver and other civilians in southern Alberta, or the Okanagan, or Eastern Ontario or the Saguenay. Would the people in those areas have any sympathy whatsoever for the “mission” of that foreign force? Why would we assume any less a reaction by Afghans?)
- Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.
Again, a blanket statement that is insulting to soldiers. I've already addressed the "led by Afghans" canard you keep rolling out but I doubt you'll refute that as you have only RAWA as a reference. I speak a bit of Dari and am learning Pashto. I was in a situation where I was being shot at and I did not return fire for fear of hitting civilians in the crowd. Many Canadian soldiers have been in similar situations and to make generalizations to the effect that we are trigger happy killers who roam the countryside in tanks and APCs looking for a fight will get you in serious trouble. Its good to see you finally showing your true soldier-hating, biased colours though!
Another related question is: Would the Taliban “take over” if Canada left?
Certainly not if support by funds and arms from Pakistan and allies in Saudi Arabia was removed. With the withdrawal of NATO troops, one of the main sources of grievance exploited by the Taliban would be eliminated. As argued by Sonali Kolhatkar (co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan), the Taliban today is stronger than in 2001, not geographically, but in popularity amongst a Pashtun base. NATO troops, and their actions, correlates directly with Taliban popularity. Get rid of those troops, and you remove a huge basis for Taliban popularity. That doesn’t mean the Taliban disappears, but it creates a political situation that deprives the Taliban of their oxygen.
Moreover, it’s a bit a stretch to think that 2500 troops in a vast area of southern Afghanistan, or even upwards of 35,000 NATO troops in the entire country, has “control” of a large, diverse and rugged nation like Afghanistan. Even mainstream military analysts (like RAND) acknowledge that.
What a pipe dream. "Of course it would work if the Taliban weren't there" is the gist of your argument. What pie-in-the-sky daydreaming! I would also like you to prove that the Taliban are more popular now with the Pashtuns than prior to 2001 because as I mentioned before, large groups of Pashtuns are very much pro-Karzai and pro-ISAF (just ask guys who've been there and know first hand).
Another question asked by several folks on this forum: Would a civil war result?
There is currently a civil war, with multiple fronts (including the gender front, with not just the Taliban but warlords defended by NATO attacking the rights and dignity of women). NATO has chosen a side in this civil war (and Western powers, particularly the US, perpetuated the civil war, with money and arms, throughout the 1980s). Canada’s presence does not help this situation.
This is a non answer. Civil war already exists so it's OK if it exists in the future!?
This post constitutes a general answer to the question: what is the alternative? We have not addressed the neo-colonial underpinnings of NATO involvement in Afghanistan, or even delved into the details of the recent history of Western involvement in Afghanistan (which would expose greed, corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest, not some higher calling to “help” Afghans). These are important points, crucial, but usually dismissed on this forum (refer to the responses to: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352 )
The alternatives proposed above mean a radical shift, not just in policy, but in worldview, by government and army officials.
While struggling to make that shift happen (that’s what international social movements are all about), on-the-ground soldiers can refuse to participate in the mission. They can refuse to participate in a mission that: 1) is a cover for US-led counterinsurgency and long-term US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia; 2) kills civilians, and undertakes rules of engagement that allows for shooting at civilians; 3) hands over prisoners to forces – whether Afghan or US – that do not respect Geneva Convention protections); 4) cannot succeed even on its own terms, and perpetuates conflict and misery.
Putting into practice these alternatives (not in isolation, but with other radical shifts in worldwide geopolitics – regionally and globally), can begin to create space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms.
Again, hope this doesn't get heavy-handedly locked down, before we can make more responses to previous questions on the original thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca
