Harper is Right: Death Toll is the Cost of Leadership
Stephen Harper made a few waves when he said that the price Canada was paying in Afghanistan was the price of leadership. If we want these soldiers’ lives to mean anything, we will not let the Taliban destroy what we have helped build.
Nobody knows this more than the soldiers presently risking their lives in Afghanistan. What do they see over there? They see soldiers rebuilding roads, connecting with the local population, getting young women into school for the first time in their lives.
What they do not see are the opportunistic poll readers like Joke Layton and the NDP, who supported this mission until they saw they would gain votes by opposing it.
As a country that prides itself on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how can we, in good conscience, let these rights be taken away from other human beings when we have already promised them we would help?
Does it make some Liberals hypocritical to attack Stephen Harper for eliminating Status of Women Canada but also advocate the withdrawal of our soldiers knowing full well what will happen to status of women in Afghanistan once Canadian troops leave?
par / by Anthony à / at 2:40 p.m.
8 Commentaires:
Fortunately, the majority of Canadians do get it:
Andrew Mayeda, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, October 06, 2006
...It (new poll)shows 57 per cent of Canadians support the use of troops in combat operations in Afghanistan...
80 per cent of respondents believe troops are performing a "vital humanitarian mission" in Afghanistan, while 58 per cent feel the war is winning "well-deserved respect among Americans and the Bush administration."
Well now, Cat and Antonio, with such moving words, I'm sure you're about ready to get on over there yourselves. I'd recommend the two of you go together so you can watch each others back. Seems our allies aren't all lined up like we'd like them to be and .... take a gun with you, seems like our government (that'd be the "new" government of Canada) is kinda shy on the spending.
On the other hand, I'd like to see that survey Cat. The one that says an overwhelming majority of Afghans want us there.
And, if you're gonna negotiate with the Taliban there's two things you got to do;
1. Get Jason Kenny on side 'cause he doesn't believe in negotiating with them islamofascists and since the 'imp' is #2 man after the 'little Devil', negotiating the negotiations would have to occur first and,
2. If you're gonna do the negotiating, check them Taliban fellas for axes. They have a Lizzy Borden like proclivity.
Why has your font become small again. It's much better big.
I agree, and in answer to your final question - yes.
Further, Jack Layton has all but destroyed the NDP to me. It's going to take a very long time til I'll take them seriously again.
Layton hasn't all but destroyed the NDP. He's chosen a policy course that many of us (a majority of Canadians, I believe) grossly disagree with, but it's a view shared by a greater percentage than who voted for him in the last election.
I predict that -- in the short term, at least -- it'll help the NDP. It may draw off some of the left side of the Liberals, especially if Ignatieff gets the leadership.
That isn't to say that it's right, of course.
Herman Melville, the author of 'Moby Dick', published in the year 1851, mentions in page 6 of the book the following newspaper headline on the day "Ishmael" decides to go for a sea adventure:
"BLOODY BATTLE IN AFFGHANISTAN."
That was 156 years ago.
Grit Heart:
Thanks for that. Food for thought. I actually read this passage before and reread it at your suggestion.
Very interesting. I never interpreted it that way.... It could really mean 2 things:
(1) that it is some sort of future prediction, sort of like Nostradamus (highly doubtful)
or
(2) that the conflict over there does not, as current Middle East watchers claim, date from 1967, or 1948, or even the 1920's, but thousands of years, between the same peoples, for the same lands. (More likely)
That second meaning is very depressing, and means that a solution is much more difficult than anticipated. How many peace treaties have been signed and broken in the past 3000 years?, how many wars fought? How many won and how many lost? How many dead and how many massacres?
Would an eventual peace treaty between the modern belligerents be nothing more that that, a temporary reprieve in a perpetual State of War? to be discarded when the current balance of power shifts this way or that? Is the world wasting its time caring and helping? Should they be left to their own devices...? After all, they've been fighting the same battles and speaking the same words for thousands of years...
It's difficult enough making peace between men, nearly impossible making peace with history.
Why do westerners favour the use of force in third war countries. Yes, they become impatient with the graft, inefficiency and inertia. However, there are two syndromes of which one is poorly understood.
The first is “the white man’s burden”. This is a belief that western systems are better, and should be imposed on others. This rationale has led to the imperialism that Murray so detests. And, western imperialism has often been vile.
The other syndrome is less well known. It is the “white man’s folly”. Industrialized countries are integrated and cohesive. Germany and Japan put up a terrific fight in WWII. However, all resistance ended when the capital surrendered. The center defines the whole entity.
White men look at third world countries and see weak societies. The country is not united and the center is not strong. It should be easy to take the place over? The problem is that the center is not meant to be strong. The center is a vacuum that sucks you in.
The British built a huge empire. They found that it was unsatisfactory to be co-rulers with the locals. In the end, they had to take a place over completely and build a colonial administration down to the district level. Yes, it is possible for westerners to prevail in weak third-world country. But, you have to rule personally and invest heavily.
This is something that the Americans failed to do after the fall of the Taliban. There was a vacuum in Kabul and Karazi could not fill it. Today, NATO is still not investing enough for the scope of its mission.
Sometimes, the vacuum becomes a black hole. The Russians were willing to invest heavily. However, the locals were strongly supported by the west and Muslim fighters poured into Afghanistan. The Russians couldn’t be defeated militarily, but they couldn’t win either.
The Russians choose to withdraw their army and support their local allies with money and arms. Eventually, those allies were defeated, and all of Russia’s efforts were lost.
Today, NATO is staring at a black hole. Their inept diplomacy and actions have stirred up resentment and resistance. The center (Afghan government) is weak because it is corrupt and distrusted. The rebels are strongly supported from their strongholds in Pakistan.
What is the most likely outcome of this example of the “white man’s folly”. The west is not going to invest enough. The locals won’t submit unless you crush them. The west will fail, and the Taliban will rise again.
Can this be avoided?
Post a Comment
<< Home