Aug 15 2009
The Taliban Contribution to Afghan Democracy
The Taliban’s latest effort to win over the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan in time for the upcoming democratic elections:
“Bloodied and dazed Afghans wandered the street after the massive blast. Children — many of whom congregate outside the NATO gate to sell gum to Westerners, were among the wounded.”
If I may quote Abraham Lincoln, I believe the Great Emancipator would have an instinctive understanding of the basic situation in Afghanistan today:
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
That’s right. The Taliban bombs children, and we’re the ones who are doing something wrong in the eyes of the so-called “peace” movement.
There are a lot of them who I can’t even begin to take seriously.
We’re up against an enemy that sees civilian casualties as a big plus, while our forces are (quite rightly) under orders to avoid risking collateral damage during operations.
This makes attacking the Taliban a challenge, since their favored firing positions are from civilian homes, schools and mosques (when we can find them). But ultimately, ethical rules of engagement will help us in the long term.
I wouldn’t dream of disputing that.
What I would dispute is the commitment of the so-called “peace” movement to actual peace.
They keep themselves so busy denouncing western involvement in places like Afghanistan that they can’t be troubled to take time out of their busy day to denounce organizations that often directly target civilians.
They insist they favour human rights, but they also advocate a course of action that would place Afghanistan under one of the world’s worst human rights violators.
They have a very twisted sense of their own principles.
We think alike, Patrick. Sounds like you might be a welcome new member to the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee.
Drop by the website, see what we’re about, take the pledge. It only takes two minutes:
http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/user/register
Done and done.
Whose arm has to be twisted to get blogging privileges on the site?
Hey Patrick. Right now, we go through an editorial process — basically, members just send me stuff and I post it (I haven’t had to actually edit anything except one or two typos). I’d love if if you could submit something. We’re always looking for volunteers for the cause.
Send me a post by email at jnarvey AT gmail.com and I can usually have it up within the hour. Looking forward to seeing what you’ve got. Cheers!
Sounds good. My email is ddp316@hotmail.com . Please send me any details I should know before writing — just some general guidelines of what you guys put on the side, and what you would not.
Well NATO commander has assesed the situation so,were staying for the long haul.Cmon we cant support 2500 troops indefinetly overseas?YES WE CAN!(i couldnt resist!).Most of NATO forces take great care before they hit insurgents.Kick the Taliban out and continue communicating with the Pashtun people.
Staying past the agreed-upon departure date would be an indicator of bad faith on the part of the Canadian government, and I believe that would only make matters worse.
If we are trying to help the Afghan people build a democracy, they will need schools, roads, drinking water and other infrastructure – all of which are within Canada’s means.
Yes, let’s keep a civilian presence in Afghanistan after 2011.
But, Canada’s military has other tasks to tackle, not the least of which is in developing some kind of real presence in the Arctic.