Once more - why are we there?

What’s been missing from the discussions about our post-2011 role is the reality that not only will Canada be training an army under the command of one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, but also that it is a government ridden with warlords and held together only by military support and money from the West. This is not a government with independent staying power.

In all likelihood, the exit of Western troops in 2014 will precipitate a countrywide civil war that will see the Afghan army fractured into militias controlled by warlords battling for roads, opium fields, mineral resources and cities, while the Taliban attempt to take over the country or disintegrate into violent, squabbling factions.

The United States and NATO have been providing the Afghan army with world-class weaponry: assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine-guns and armoured vehicles. With the weapons, and tactical training to date by Canadians and other NATO troops, the national army is an increasingly formidable force, though plagued by desertion, poor discipline and drug abuse.

Canada’s future training of these well-armed Afghan troops will ratchet up the torque on a war machine that appears destined to blow apart.

If we were actually doing something to help establish a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan for the people of Afghanistan and offering aid which would directly encourage the establishment and maintenance of a society concerned about human rights and a fair system for all, that would justify some Canadian presence there, but training troops to fight under a corrupt government that will fragment into a bunch of corrupt groups further ripping the country apart and killing civilians in their bid for power...what the hell are we doing that for? We can't afford the dollar cost of this war, and the cost in lives is beyond measure, certainly not justified.

This is not a criticism of our troops, but of our own corrupt, dishonest government and its utter disregard for the lives of its own soldiers.

harper  and BFF

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.