New Media » Afghanistan

Event. Canadian Sacrifices and Beijing’s Looming Shadow

jnarvey — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 08:48:09 +0000

If you’re a political observer who cares about Canada’s mission in Afghanistan and the role of China in Central Asia – and if you happen to be in Vancouver next week – this is a presentation not to be missed. Be there. I will be.

Canadian sacrifices and Beijing’s looming shadow

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Fraser Institute Boardroom
4th Floor-1770 Burrard St
Vancouver

A conversation with Terry Glavin, author of Come from the Shadows: The Long and Lonely Struggle for Peace in Afghanistan and co-founder of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee

There can be little argument that Canadian troops have played a critical role in Afghanistan, whether driving the Taliban out of Kandahar or providing training to Afghan security forces and helping rebuild needed infrastructure.

But despite Canada’s ongoing commitment to helping the Afghan people find liberty and self-determination, policy vacillation in Washington is creating an opening the Chinese government is all too willing to exploit, says journalist Terry Glavin, author of the book, Come from the Shadows: The Long and Lonely Struggle for Peace in Afghanistan, and co-founder of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee.

After having failed to lift a finger in support on the United Nations action in Afghanistan, Beijing is now rushing in and acquiring vast copper and other mineral leases as well as forming ties with the Pakistani ISI while the United States is prepared to abandon the Afghan people to recurring threats of Islamic violence and oppression. Meanwhile, Canada and other Western nations have failed to stand up to Washington.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On the G20, Afghanistan and a Question of Priorities

jnarvey — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:05:15 +0000

Should the government be spending large amounts of tax dollars to protect diplomats from harassment or protect vulnerable civilians in a far-away land from murderous bandits? Actually, I think we can and should do both. I contrasted the recent security operation for the G20 in Toronto with operations in Afghanistan in The Mark.

An excerpt:

For the G20 conference in Toronto, we had 19,000 security personnel. Crusades have been launched with fewer boots on the ground. The centre of Canada’s most famous metropolis was turned into a passable imitation of the Green Zone of Iraq. The security price tag was around $1 billion for just a few days – and again, to secure only a tiny stretch of downtown.

And what did this draconian exercise achieve? For all that was spent, did this overwhelming force actually manage to prevent every conceivable threat?

Well, yes and no.

First, the no. Everyone’s seen the photographs of blazing police cruisers – oddly, with police standing in rough formation not far away, and seemingly in no rush to stop the spectacle. And a bunch of businesses got their windows smashed in.

Now, the yes. Did the cops achieve their main objective? Sure. No troublemaker got within 300 yards of any G20 leader, diplomat, or economist.

And I suppose that’s the point. The clear aim of the security apparatus was to protect conference attendees. They certainly did that. So what if some cop cars got burnt? That’s what security is for – they take the hit so ordinary folks don’t have to worry about it.

Was it all necessary? By any reasonable accounting, no. But then, how much of a price do we put on preventing the distinguished viceroy of Italy from embarrassment? A broken arm? I suppose it’s somewhere on the lower end between $1 and $1 billion, but I couldn’t tell you precisely what it is.

Now we turn to Afghanistan. Americans are boosting their troop presence in Afghanistan to 100,000 by September. Other countries are upping their commitment in dribs and drabs; the French are shipping in another 250 soldiers. Meanwhile, in the absence of any coherent policy, governments like Canada’s are looking for the exits. How many troops and guns are really needed?

Again, it’s hard to put a number on it. Clearly, better security is needed. This, despite the number of troops currently on the ground and the military training dollars – $27 billion from the U.S. alone – that have to date produced an Afghan Security Force wholly unfit to defend even small pockets of their own sovereign territory.

But again, what is the objective?

We want to prevent assassinations and bombings of key leaders in Afghanistan from the township on up to the President’s office. We want to stop the enemy from going into villages and raping, pillaging, and executing anyone who doesn’t offer up their son for service with the jihad.

We want girls to be able to go to school without worrying about getting burnt alive or having their faces sprayed with acid. And it would be awfully nice if we could ensure humanitarian aid workers and other nice foreign personnel don’t get summarily machine-gunned as “spies” by the Taliban.

And we ultimately want to prevent the country from sliding into a regional civil war that could end the lives of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people.

These are certainly worthy objectives. How much is this worth? Again, I don’t know. Somewhere between $1 and $1 trillion, I suppose – probably closer to the higher figure.

The article elicited the following response from some guy named wsam:

I think it was Jack Layton who first suggested we talk with the Taliban. A suggestion for which renowned military expert Peter McKay and the Conservative caucus ridiculed him. Of course, anyone who has been following the debate in US strategic circles and who consequently understands COIN and the evolution of US strategy under Patreus and McCrystal understands US strategy is based on talking to the Taliban and has been for quite awhile. The problem right now is the Taliban consider themselves to be winning – so why would they need to make deals.

And my reply:

Wsam, it may very well have been Jack Layton who first suggested talking to the Taliban. It makes as little sense as it does now. The Taliban are not a popular resistance movement in Afghanistan. They are murdering thugs with no redeeming platform, except perhaps the part about dying for their cause, which I’m fully on board with.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A Little Self-Interest In Afghanistan Is Not A Bad Thing

jnarvey — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:32:16 +0000

I’ve often attempted to remind readers of the importance of holding the line in Afghanistan for progressive reasons and firm principles: support for the universality of human rights, defense of women and children targeted by the thugs in the Taliban, support for democracy, the institutions of modernity and a better life for people who deserve something more than tyranny.

I’ve noted that this mission is something both in the finer tradition of Canadian interventions on behalf of freedom abroad. It is also a shining example of a United Nations-supported mission that has brought together the brave soldiers, aid workers and resources of dozens of nations in the fight against fascism and darkness.

On this note, the signs coming from Canadian politicians like Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff as well as a growing number of Conservative politicians and commentators about a renewed role for Canada in Afghanistan are very encouraging. Their brave words calling for a public debate on this important issue ought to be heeded by the Prime Minister, and quickly.

But the confirmation of perhaps $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan changes the equation for some people. With reptilian logic, they will point to a conspiracy of international neo-cons and their shadowy corporate masters being the real reason for international intervention — as though 9/11 never happened and Afghanistan had never served as a safe haven for some of the worst examples of thuggery and terror that this planet has to offer.

As any rational thinking person would, I dismiss these conspiracists out of hand. But their cynical response does certainly beg the question: what precisely is wrong about foreign mining companies making a decent profit and employing thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Afghans in good, high-paying jobs that don’t involve the heroin trade or freelance work for the insurgency? And if keeping the insurgency down permanently and avoiding a return of terror bases to Afghanistan also provides some insurance that our trade routes and economies will not be sabotaged into recession, resulting in more financial hardship for both Wall Street and Main Street, what’s wrong with that, either?

I explore these questions further in my latest Mark Op Ed, Self-Interest in Afghanistan:

Ever since the Taliban got turfed out of office by American daisy cutters from above and horseback-riding Northern Alliance fighters on the ground, Al Qaeda hasn’t been able to use Afghanistan as a base to attack our cities.

Critics will point out that the bad guys are still using places like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the odd apartment in Denver, Colorado.

But that isn’t an argument against finishing the job in Afghanistan. On the contrary, it’s an argument for building on our successes and taking down the rest of the terrorist enclaves in failed states, as well as those in middle-of-nowhere, USA.

Other critics will say that the cost of keeping the boys in the black turbans on the run just isn’t worth it. Way more people die from car accidents than terrorist bombs. Besides, if we stay out of their countries, won’t they just leave us alone?

Again, let’s look at it from the perspective of our pocketbook. We’ve just come through a bitch of an economic meltdown. Many of us are still hurting pretty bad. So how do you think it’s going to affect the world economy if the Taliban wins in Afghanistan and an endless stream of “martyrs” the world over are emboldened to carry out even more brazen terror attacks than they do now?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

That’s What The Taliban Is All About

jnarvey — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:13:42 +0000

Killing the country’s future and dragging the country back into the past.

The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee’s Terry Glavin talks with CTV news about the scourge of the Taliban and how Afghans know that their children will only have a promising future if these bastards and their nihilistic movement are buried.

Time to take action and start talking about what happens after 2011, my fellow Canucks.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One Way To Deal With The Taliban

jnarvey — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:58:47 +0000

“I put my foot on his neck and I shot him in the head with my AK47.”

Afghanistan requires a multifaceted approach. But at least regarding the appropriate manner of negotiating with the Taliban, best practices are pretty straightforward.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Time to Show Some Leadership, PM Harper

jnarvey — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:28:18 +0000

The Afghans want it. Our allies want it, too. The Liberals are asking for it. Most of all, Canadians need it. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, are you finally ready to publicly discuss a role for Canada in Afghanistan after 2011?

The latest:

Liberal foreign affairs critic and Afghanistan committee member Bob Rae says the MPs’ comments were “a little hyped up.” He’s leaving it up to the government to create a plan for post-2011, but says there eventually must be a debate in Parliament.

“I don’t think we can keep on pretending that these discussions don’t need to take place,” Rae said.

The committee heard a number of ideas about the role Canada could play, including training Afghan security forces, Rae said.

Canada’s parliament did not vote to end our involvement in Afghanistan at the end of 2011. They voted to end our battle group’s role in Kandahar. PM Harper, there is no contradiction with the “will of parliament” in discussing a renewed role for Canada in Afghanistan. Let’s remain engaged just as momentum finally seems to be going our way.

More at the Torch: CF in Afstan post-2011? PM still “the biggest stumbling block”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Taliban Don’t Want Peace. If Karzai Doesn’t Get It Now, He’ll Never Get It

jnarvey — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:53:52 +0000

How many times do “peace” negotiations need to literally blow up in this statesman’s face before he finally gets it?

Once again, Afghan President Hamid Karzai attempts to jump-start peace talks with the Taliban.

And for the umpteenth time, the Taliban tell Karzai and the rest of the world they’re not interested in stopping the violence. And they do it in their usual way: guns blazing, mortars firing, suicide bombers bearing down on unarmed civilians.

When is Karzai going to get it? You don’t negotiate with these people. You hunt the Taliban down and kill every one of them you can find until their last shell-shocked comrades wave the white flag.

Canadians have made huge sacrifices in this country. We have the right to insist the government we’re supporting get on board with a plan for total victory. Completely contrary to what Karzai seems to think, anything less is just going to keep foreign troops in Afghanistan even longer.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

An Indecent Proposal

jnarvey — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:25:13 +0000

“If you don’t marry me I will put a bomb on your body and send you to the police station.”

They do marriage proposals a bit differently in some parts of the world.

H/T to Adrian MacNair

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Time to Update the Red Cross Mandate for the 21st Century

jnarvey — Thu, 27 May 2010 22:36:27 +0000

The Red Cross has provided first-aid kits and training to the Taliban in Afghanistan; yes, those same Taliban who blow Canadians up with IEDs at random intervals.

This may come as a shock to reasonable people who think wounded Taliban ought not to be prevented from letting infection and gangrene take their natural course. Still, it is consistent with the Red Cross mandate.

That mandate is to “protect human life and health, to ensure respect for the human being, and to prevent and alleviate human suffering, without any discrimination based on nationality, race, sex, religious beliefs, class or political opinions.”

Is it not time to update this mandate for the realities we face today? Let’s say we assume (and this is a very debatable premise) that the Taliban represent a legitimate fighting force as opposed to a rag-tag collection of terrorists, bandits and assorted psychotics.

Taliban members are all essentially motivated by an ideology with stated objectives that are completely antithetical to human freedom, happiness and even the right to life (for anyone except a fellow jihadi psycho or their beaten-down family members).

Their leaders, if such an organization can be said to have ones that represent the complete organization (another iffy assumption) have certainly never been a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

Yet according to the IRC’s mandate, they would appear not to have a choice in the matter — they seem obligated to keep helping thugs who have no respect for civil rights or human life.

Simple solution: change the Red Cross charter. Organizational constitutions are not written in stone. They can be amended, usually by a majority or unanimous vote of the executive body. It’s long overdue for the Red Cross to change its mandate to one that does not reward nihilistic aggressors.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Public Discussion On Afghanistan Across Canada

jnarvey — Wed, 12 May 2010 17:57:42 +0000

Canadians need to discuss what our role will be in Afghanistan after 2011. Events taking place across this country over the next week will help communicate what Afghans and Afghan-Canadians would like that participation to look like, how this is consistent with Canada’s objectives and what can be done to achieve success.

The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee is hosting panels this month in Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg and Regina. We’ll be updating the information on our events page, but in the meantime, here’s a quick notice for our members and supporters:

CASC Event in Halifax on May 16

A Panel Responding to the Question: What Should Canada Do in Afghanistan Post-2011?

Date and Time
Sunday, May 16, 2010
7-10 pm

Location
Maritime Conservatory
6199 Chebucto Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Panelists

NAJIA HANEEFI is a founder of the Afghan Women’s Political Participation Committee and is the former head of Afghanistan’s largest women’s organization, the Afghan Women’s Education Centre (AWEC). Ms. Haneefi currently resides in Ottawa.

TERRY GLAVIN is an author of several books and a journalist whose writing from Afghanistan has appeared in newspapers and magazines as diverse as Democratiya, the National Post, the online daily The Tyee and Vancouver Review. He is a co-founder of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee.

LAURYN OATES, a human rights and gender equity activist with CASC and Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WA).

ANDREW BECKETT (Moderator). Resident, General Surgery Dalhousie University and Medical Officer, Canadian Armed Forces.

There is no cost for this event however as seating is limited, we do require advance RSVP via email atlantic@cw4wafghan.ca or message by phone 902-928-1133 (leave your phone number, name and number of seats to be held).

RSVP and media inquiries:
info@afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org

CASC Event in Montreal on May 17

A Panel Responding to the Question: What Should Canada Do in Afghanistan Post-2011?

Date and Time
May 17 from 7-9pm

Location
Atwater Library
1200 avenue Atwater
Westmount, QC

Panelists

ERSHAD AHMADI, Deputy Chief of the Afghanistan Mission to Canada

LAURYN OATES, a human rights and gender equity activist with CASC and Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WA).

STEPHEN SAIDEMAN is Canada Research Chair in International Security and Ethnic Conflict

RSVP and media inquiries:
info@afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org

CASC Event in Winnipeg on May 18

Date & Time:
Tuesday, May 18th
Time: 7-9pm

Location:

Global College
515 Portage Ave
Winnipeg, MB

Panelists
ERSHAD AHMADI, Deputy Chief of the Afghanistan Mission to Canada

LAURYN OATES, a human rights and gender equity activist with CASC and Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WA).

ANNE LONGSTON is an independent consultant working in the field of international education. She served in Kabul as the technical advisor to the Afghanistan Minister of Education.

LASHA TCHANTOURIDZE is a research associate in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies and an adjunct professor in the faculty of graduate studies at the University of Manitoba. He specializes in foreign policy, strategic studies, and politics of the former Soviet Union.

RSVP and media inquiries:
info@afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org

CASC Event in Regina on May 20

Location
Royal Saskatchewan Museum Theatre
2445 Albert Street

Date and Time
May 20, 7 pm-9 pm

Panelists

HIS EXCELLENCY JAWED LUDIN was appointed Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Canada in May,

2009, after serving as ambassador to the Nordic countries, based in Oslo. Prior to his diplomatic posts, Ambassador Ludin served as chief spokesperson for Afghan President Hamid Karzai between 2003 and

2005 chief of staff to the president from 2005 to 2007.

LAURYN OATES, a human rights and gender equity activist with CASC and Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WA).

RSVP and media inquiries:
info@afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org

Refreshments served

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.