Putting Wikileaks to work: Canada's presence in Afghanistan

It's not just gossip, as some would like us to believe in their efforts to trivialize Wikileaks.
 
And while Assange and Wikileaks are stories in and of themselves, they would create not a ripple if Wikileaks did not produce anything that could shake up governments.
 
So, time to look at what's coming out, what floats to the surface as a result, and what that information means.
 
An August 2009 report from Kabul complains that President Hamid Karzai and his attorney general “allowed dangerous individuals to go free or re-enter the battlefield without ever facing an Afghan court.”
 
So let me get this.  Our soldiers face death and maiming capturing insurgents to help Karzai keep power and instill democracy, then Karzai lets them go, as long as they grease his palm, the insurgents go back to the battlefield where our troops face danger again, catch some of them again, hand them over to Karzai who makes more money by letting them go back to the battlefield...


So why are we sending our own to fight in Afghanistan?  Karzai must love it.
 
"We must be prepared for confrontation with Karzai on this issue, he said, or risk losing credibility among our own population if we go along with a rigged election. He argued that a new generation of Afghans is working to run for Parliament and they are watching to see if the electoral changes will happen. 'We can't be seen to collude with it,' (Canadian ambassador Crosbie) said.
 
Right.  Canadians may start questioning why we send our soldiers to face death propping up a corrupt government, a government that stomps all over the democratic process Canadians are told our own are being sent there to instill and defend.


And if enough Canadians kick up a fuss, harper will have to, I don't know, extend the mission anyway, count on the Liberals to back him, and have both parties say that really, a vote isn't needed.  Could happen.

"given what we now know, is there any way that the Karzai regime can be our partner in any Afghan policy that you can support?"
 
Diplomat Perter Galbraith: "the problem is not whether the goals are right or not, it is that they are unachievable because the policy, the military surge depends on having an Afghan government that can provide honest administration and win the loyalty of the Afghan people."

Galbraith goes on to say that this isn't possible because the Afghan government is so corrupt.  He's been saying that for quite awhile, and Hillary Clinton denigrated him, pretty much calling him a liar.  That was until Wikileaks came out with documents that supported all Galbraith had said.
 

So time to really call every politician on the bull-shit about being there for democracy, being there for the women and children.  Propping up a supremely corrupt government that is willing to send our troops out to capture insurgents only to face them again while Karzai gets rich, propping up a government that undermines democracy, propping up a government that doesn't care about stability for its people - these are not things our soldiers should be sent to face death for.

Bring them home now.

Quit lying to us.

Thanks, Wikileaks.