HELP! LOSING the fight in AFGHANISTAN?

[Quag]

It's not a parliamentary style debate.  Regardless, the judge is the professor.  What can I say other than most academics have narrow minded views when it comes to things like war.  I don't care about winning so much (albeit I would like to win haha), I just want to drive home some facts and perhaps get some of my peers to step back and look at this situation in a different light.  Education is the best tool.

 

[Roy Harding]

... What can I say other than most academics have narrow minded views when it comes to things like war.  ...

I would go so far as to say that MOST academics have NO view when it comes to things like war.  MOST (and I emphasize that because there are exceptions - the particular phenomena that I allude to is mostly prevalent in the Arts - Science and Technology types seem to travel a different road to professorship) academics unwittingly put blinders on early in their lives.  They elected to go from high school, to university (as undergrads), to university (as post-grads), to university (as professors).  This is, as you know, known as the "Ivory Tower".  They have no experience in the "real" world, and most would be unable to cope there (here).  They are not even aware that they are wearing blinders which render them incapable of seeing anything which doesn't fit into their own narrow focus.

Having said that - don't forget that these folks ARE repositories of valuable knowledge - take what you need from them, and forget the B.S. associated with them - they aren't worth the effort.

Good luck with the debate - I look forward to reading your perspective regarding it.


Roy

 

[Quag]

How would one counter-argue these statements (much of the oppositions material is from this resource).

http://acp-cpa.ca/en/M172007.htm

In Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, a country which was already ravaged by 30 years of war, the situation is also very bleak after more than five years of 'allied' military occupation. According to Human Rights Watch, more than half of the Members of Parliament elected in September 2005 are linked to armed groups, guilty of past human rights violations; the illegal growing and processing of poppies has again become the main economic activity of the country (Afghanistan provides more than 90% of world heroin). According to Amnesty International, thousands of Afghans have been tortured by the US army or armed Afghan groups under its control. According to the UNHCR, there are still more than 3,000,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and approximately 120,000 internally displaced in Afghanistan. Finally, according to WOMANKIND Worldwide, after five years and contrary to media-fed illusions, it is imperative that the media, donor governments, international organisations and the Afghan government acknowledge the lack of progress in the domain of women's rights and immediately take action in key areas of education, the legal system, security services, healthcare, and livelihoods to transform paper rights to rights in practice.

In Canada, the simultaneous announcements by ministers Peter McKay and Josée Verner of projects totalling about 20 million dollars in Afghanistan -10 million to pay police salaries, 8.8 millions for landmine removal and 1.9 million to stimulate community development in Kandahar - are mere crumbs when one remembers that Canada wastes more than one billion dollars per year to continue its war in that country...

----Wasn't there a recent announcement of a commitment to much more funds for Afghan relief and not the war effort specifically?

 

[Roy Harding]

How would one counter-argue these statements (much of the oppositions material is from this resource).

http://acp-cpa.ca/en/M172007.htm

In Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, a country which was already ravaged by 30 years of war, the situation is also very bleak after more than five years of 'allied' military occupation. According to Human Rights Watch, more than half of the Members of Parliament elected in September 2005 are linked to armed groups, guilty of past human rights violations; the illegal growing and processing of poppies has again become the main economic activity of the country (Afghanistan provides more than 90% of world heroin). According to Amnesty International, thousands of Afghans have been tortured by the US army or armed Afghan groups under its control. According to the UNHCR, there are still more than 3,000,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and approximately 120,000 internally displaced in Afghanistan. Finally, according to WOMANKIND Worldwide, after five years and contrary to media-fed illusions, it is imperative that the media, donor governments, international organisations and the Afghan government acknowledge the lack of progress in the domain of women's rights and immediately take action in key areas of education, the legal system, security services, healthcare, and livelihoods to transform paper rights to rights in practice.

In Canada, the simultaneous announcements by ministers Peter McKay and Josée Verner of projects totalling about 20 million dollars in Afghanistan -10 million to pay police salaries, 8.8 millions for landmine removal and 1.9 million to stimulate community development in Kandahar - are mere crumbs when one remembers that Canada wastes more than one billion dollars per year to continue its war in that country...

----Wasn't there a recent announcement of a commitment to much more funds for Afghan relief and not the war effort specifically?

The very fact that our intervention was prefaced by "30 years of war" would seem to imply that "5 years of 'military occupation'" aren't enough.  The term "military occupation" is disturbing - try pointing out that we are NOT "occupying" - we're there at the behest of, and in support of, the legal government of Afghanistan - no "occupation" involved.

ALL fledgling governments are filled with the previous "bad guys".  Our own Sir John A. MacDonald was certainly no saint.  George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (to name but TWO) would not be "acceptable" in today's society.

When one is attempting to set up a new government, one must co-opt the previous power-brokers - they have their hands on the levers of power.  This is not always a pretty picture - but it's necessary.

I'd attack that particular argument along those lines - but I'd do more research instead of just talking off the top of my head!!

Who said we're "wasting" one billion dollars per year in Afghanistan?  I'm not quibbling with the figure (although if I were the one debating, I'd look it up - if it's factually incorrect you'll score big points - don't forget that salary costs for the soldiers are FIXED, and not directly attributable to our involvement in Afghanistan - we'd be paying those salaries wherever those soldier were employed), I AM arguing with the "wasting" bit.  That (wasting) is a subjective descriptor - and has no place in an objective debate.

Women's rights and health care will come (and indeed are being implemented)  - but they can't be advanced without a secure environment - this isn't small town Canada we're talking about - this is Afghanistan, where there are people, with guns, in the streets, who want to kill you.

Good luck - I'm pullin' for ya'.


Roy

 

[Quag]

Thanks again Roy...

You have been a huge help in putting this all together.  I'm in the middle of doing research to counteract these arguments.  The biggest mistake this source makes is saying that there has been NO improvement in women's rights.  It's easily proven that this is not the case.

I'll let you guys know Monday afternoon how everything went.

In the meantime, if there is something you want to add, I would greatly appreciate it!

Cheers

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

How would one counter-argue these statements (much of the oppositions material is from this resource).

http://acp-cpa.ca/en/M172007.htm

In Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, a country which was already ravaged by 30 years of war, the situation is also very bleak after more than five years of 'allied' military occupation. According to Human Rights Watch, more than half of the Members of Parliament elected in September 2005 are linked to armed groups, guilty of past human rights violations; the illegal growing and processing of poppies has again become the main economic activity of the country (Afghanistan provides more than 90% of world heroin). According to Amnesty International, thousands of Afghans have been tortured by the US army or armed Afghan groups under its control. According to the UNHCR, there are still more than 3,000,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and approximately 120,000 internally displaced in Afghanistan. Finally, according to WOMANKIND Worldwide, after five years and contrary to media-fed illusions, it is imperative that the media, donor governments, international organisations and the Afghan government acknowledge the lack of progress in the domain of women's rights and immediately take action in key areas of education, the legal system, security services, healthcare, and livelihoods to transform paper rights to rights in practice.

In Canada, the simultaneous announcements by ministers Peter McKay and Josée Verner of projects totalling about 20 million dollars in Afghanistan -10 million to pay police salaries, 8.8 millions for landmine removal and 1.9 million to stimulate community development in Kandahar - are mere crumbs when one remembers that Canada wastes more than one billion dollars per year to continue its war in that country...

----Wasn't there a recent announcement of a commitment to much more funds for Afghan relief and not the war effort specifically?

I wish I had the time to properly rip their numbers apart,  but I am just taking a break from packing my kit up for a weekend of fun.  I love how they have learned how to attack from both sides of the sword.  You're not doing enough ie out of controll poppy production and lack of progress on women's rights and the very next day they'll berate NATO for imposing western values.

I respect the argument that we need to stay there for "compassionate" reasons.  However I remember a slightly different reason why we went in there in the first place.  A member of NATO was attacked.  The people who attacked them were based in Afghanistan, supported by the Afghanistan government and protected by the Afghanistan government.  Not only did they attack in the past, they showed that they had both the capability and the intent to attack other NATO countries.  There was a real and legitimate threat.  We tried peacefull means to resolve the situation in the past to no avail,  including ignoring the problem, but it just kept getting worse.

We are not a race of star-trek-like energy creatures above the petty threats of violence of underdeveloped cultures.  We can be harmed.  We have a legitimate right to respond to acts of aggression and threats against our safety.  Now that we've taken away a large support structure from those who would/have harmed us,  we need to make sure they don't get it back.

Now as to their arguments,  numbers are meaningless unless you know how they were made.  How many refugees were there before - what is the change.  Maybe there are fewer refugees? As for the lack of progress on women's rights - there is progress,  but not as much as they'd like, big surprise there.  I honestly don't think that we can be blamed because Afghan men still view women as lesser creatures.  We're doing what we can (how many public stoneings have there been?)  All we can do is plant the seeds,  and let them grow from there. 

I really have to get a move on - I still need to shave (eep)

 

[retiredgrunt45]

If you look at history and some of the past UN police actions, Korea, comes to mind. What would have happended if China and North Korea were left unimpeded to occupy the whole of the Korean penusula. What would the consequences have been, if they hadn't been stopped. It's not hard to imagine the consequences of non action here. Who would have been next, Japan, Philipines?

The same can be said about Afghanistan, if the Taliban are left to their devices. Here we don't have to imagine what they would do, its quite obvious what they are capable of.

They would pickup exactly were they left off, build new terrorist training camps, kill innocent women and children and bring the country back into the stone age once again. Why is this so important to us here in Canada?

If you seen an accident on the highway and bodies lying on the road and its obvious they were in distress, but no one stopped. Isn't it not the same, your leaving those people to die on the side of the road. Is it so different in Afghanistan. Have we really become that detached and uncaring as a society, that we really don't care anymore, as long as our own little part of the world is good, nothing else matters?

And this isn't just isolated to Afghanistan, but the consequences to the West are just as dire. The question to ask is. Do we want another 9/11? It would be only a matter of time before history repeated itself and these very people who you are debating, will be the first ones scratching their heads, complaining why we didn't do something about this in the first place, when we had the chance

Good luck with your debate and I do hope that you open some eyes.

 

[Loachman]

Women's rights in Afghanistan should not be compared to those in the West (whose values "should not be imposed on Afghanistan") but against those under the Taliban, by which measure there has been huge progress, and which will continue if we stick around and help.

Under the Taliban, women had the right to be kept prisoner in their own homes, to be beaten, to wear burqas in the colour of their choice, to poverty, to ignorance, to fear, to be stoned, to be shot...

Regarding refugees, I can't quote a source, but I remember reading that Afghanistan experienced the largest reverse-migration ever once the Taliban were deposed.

 

[ZBM2]

Quag. You must stdy and understand the Afghan culture (tribal). Learn the History and you wil see

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm nowhere near as eloquent as everyone else already has been, so I'll just share one tidbit, and a couple of sources of documentary info:

2.  Why should we be intervening in Afghanistan as it is not our nation?

To pick only one group, why is it OK to want, say, Canada involved in Darfur:
http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/resources/policyBriefing7Darfur0702.pdf
but it's not OK for Canada to "play the junior partner in the U.S. drive for global domination"?
http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/humanrights/warOnTerror/terrorOfWar.asp#response

Finally, a few humble resources....

1)  UN Mandate
If anyone argues that it's NOT a U.N. mandated mission, here's where to get the hard copy of the applicable UN Security COuncil Resolutions:
http://www.nato.int/ISAF/Update/media_documents.htm

2) Refugees
UNHCR has a reasonably comprehensive page on AFG:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/country?iso=afg

International Org for Migration has more info on AFG as well:
http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/cache/offonce/pid/490

3)  Shameless Self Promo Alert
I collect reports and other material on my own background page on Canadians in Kandahar:
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/CANinKandahar-Bkgnd (Reports at the bottom of the page)

Good luck, and let us know how it goes.

 

[observor 69]

Quag more food for thought. Please don't dismiss this article as just another anti Conservative jab. It speaks to a lot of the serious thinking on what is the role of our military as part of our foreign policy in support of Canada's best self interests.

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/192963

Putting a swagger into foreign policy
 
Under Stephen Harper's watch, Canada's top military man has helped refashion our approach to international affairs

Mar 17, 2007 04:30 AM
James Travers
National Affairs Columnist

Ottawa–Rick Hillier is a splash of colour in an anonymous, grey capital. Outspoken and contentious, he's the toast of the barracks and the first chief of the defence staff in decades to consistently poke his head above the public parapet.

Raised in Newfoundland and seasoned in the base camp hoorah culture of Fort Hood, Texas, Hillier is more than the sum of military clichés. A soldier's soldier, Canada's top general also has what counts in a government town now under Conservative command and control: influence.

Promoted past more cautious rivals in 2005 by then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, Hillier is now the most visible member of the elite group helping Stephen Harper transform this country's international image. They are doing a remarkable job.

Decades ago, Lester Pearson famously commented: "Foreign policy is merely domestic policy with its hat on." Now, when Canadians go abroad they are more likely to wear a helmet.

No longer the good-scout peacekeeper, there's new toughness and even some swagger in the way Harper's government's and Hillier's troops walk through the global village. It was obvious last summer when the Prime Minister abandoned Canada's traditional neutrality and nuances to take one side in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It is even more evident in Afghanistan where reconstruction is the rhetorical sugar coating on a bitter conflict.

See link for the complete article.

 

[GAP]

If the best they can do is trot out Joe Clarks's stammering protest, they need to go back to the drawing board....The Star is back to Bush Bashing..

 

[Quag]

WOW Guys!  I can't thank you enough for all the help, I really was not expecting this much support (I know you would have supported me, but not gone out of your way to dig up facts and materials for me).

What I have done is taken the points I feel would most strongly persuade average Canadians and placed them into groups (Women's Rights, Moral Grounds etc...).  This way, I feel that in the debate I will be more organized, and will be able to "reload" super fast, as I just go down my list (of course making things fit in where they best fit in). 

I can honestly say that with your support and fresh viewpoints, I feel much more confident.  The people who replied to this post, and those that just read it and support it in spirit, can feel great because they will have directly helped influence the minds of some of our ignorant Canadian citizens.  Even if this means just one classroom full, I feel that it still is worthy.

Thanks again!

 

[JohnWayne]

Hey by the time you read this your project here will probably already be over but I figured I can still comment on the idea as a whole. I've never been to Afghanistan, or fought a war yet so consider this just an average guy's opinion. When you have the concept of winning or losing there, the only way to win is to declare an objective and complete it, then leave. It's a Vietnam or Iraq type... these guys will always be fighting if there is a force to attack. It's their home, and they have nowhere else to go. As much democracy and aid you're willing to offer, it's up to them to accept without feeling bad about having to go for 'handouts'. Use whatever the first hand experts have told you about it, but honestly the only way they are going to want what we would define as victory; a good democratic country, is if they overthrow oppression and make it themselves.

Oh yeah, and even if Canada pulls out and it all goes back to the way it was before, these people will still remember the great work that was done. They'll remember how they could live just a little easier, and it might give them a desire for their own overall social reform.

 

[Seyek]

No, if Canada pulls out, and NATO loses, and the Taliban retake control the people won't remember what it was like and they won't try for social reform. The reformists will be tortured and murdered en masse, and the people will remember the sight of Canadian C-130s lifting off into the air with the last remnants of our deployment aboard, never to return. Then they'll remember the taliban storming into their village, slaughting every one who dared to help us, and everyone who had a part in the new Afghan government.

And those young guys, who may have thought of taking up an AK and serving in the ANA, will be brainwashed, and a few years down the road, will have an AK, only this time they'll be on the other side of the battlefield, or they'll be walking down our streets with a bomb vest.

 

[GAP]

Anyone remember the pictures of the last helicopters out of Siagon? Same principle.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Hey by the time you read this your project here will probably already be over but I figured I can still comment on the idea as a whole. I've never been to Afghanistan, or fought a war yet so consider this just an average guy's opinion. When you have the concept of winning or losing there, the only way to win is to declare an objective and complete it, then leave. It's a Vietnam or Iraq type... these guys will always be fighting if there is a force to attack. It's their home, and they have nowhere else to go. As much democracy and aid you're willing to offer, it's up to them to accept without feeling bad about having to go for 'handouts'. Use whatever the first hand experts have told you about it, but honestly the only way they are going to want what we would define as victory; a good democratic country, is if they overthrow oppression and make it themselves.

Oh yeah, and even if Canada pulls out and it all goes back to the way it was before, these people will still remember the great work that was done. They'll remember how they could live just a little easier, and it might give them a desire for their own overall social reform.

Declaring victory and leaving is a way, but I'm not sure its the way or the only way...

You are right that the drive for democracy must come from within for it to have any meaning.  That doesn't mean we can't help the fledgling security forces of Afghanistan in their fight.  We aren't just there because we want to help.  There are lots of easier places we could go help.  We are there for our own security.

 

[Roy Harding]

...

I'll let you guys know Monday afternoon how everything went.

...

How'd you make out??

 

[Quag]

Hey Guys,

I wrote Monday afternoon, but I meant Tuesday afternoon.  Sorry about that.

I am pleased to announce that with all the help you guys gave me, I not only won the debate, but I think was also able to get my peers thinking more critically about the mission in Afghanistan. 

It was easy for me to respond to many of the questions posed by the opposition.  I had the hardest time with some abstract ideas, such as the pipeline, and the fact that we wouldn't be in Afghanistan if we were not achieveing some sort of economic gain.  However, I was able to improvise on the spot and support it with some suggestions you guys gave me.

The look on some of the oppositions face as I quashed their questions were great.  The look on their face when I put them on the defensive was priceless.

I just got back from the debate right now, so my brain is hurting a little.  I can honestly say though, judging by some of the questions posed during the question period, many of my peers were starting to finally understand what is going on in Afghanistan, what our mission is, what we are doing to enact the mission, and why we should be there.

I am in deep gratitude to you guys for all your help and support.  You have helped make Canada more understanding.  The way I see it, if you can change the minds of some, they can change the minds of others, and hence a web starts.

Thanks again

 

[Roy Harding]

Quag:

Well done you!!

Now grab a cold beer and relax.

Roy