When the US attacked that country it was purportedly to capture terrorists specifically, Osama bin Laden, and remove the Taliban from power.
The reason bin laden is free today is that instead of putting troops on the ground right away the US initiated the bombing of Tora Bora. It was during this senseless bombing that bin Laden and other terrorist leaders fled the country. US troops easily defeated the Taliban but instead of consolidating their hold on the country they diverted their forces and focus to the invasion of Iraq. America under George W. Bush has a very short attention span.
One of the primary reasons Canadian troops are in Afghanistan is because the Americans left the job incomplete and now the Taliban are resurgent.
What is happening in Iraq is also another compelling reason Canadians have registered a vote of non-confidence in this mission. Iraq was supposed to be a quick, easy liberation but it has proved to be the very opposite. The situation is worse than ever as the country is now on the verge of civil war.
Here the problem was not the prompt deployment of troops but their deployment in sufficient numbers. Even though the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was advised by his generals it would take at least a quarter of a million troops. He knew better. The reason Iraq is not secured and will remain so is that troops were never deployed in sufficient numbers. The same will most certainly apply to Afghanistan.
The US is desperately short of ground troops and this is the reason Canada and other NATO countries have been conscripted to make up the short fall.
Canadians, along with Americans, no doubt suspect that their governments are going to be making ever increasing demands for troop deployments as it is obvious in both Afghanistan and Iraq troop levels are not sufficient to do the job at hand. In the US, this short fall might well lead to the draft being initiated once again; and already there has been a scandal in the US surrounding recruiting techniques and the quality of recruits the army is accepting.
What is happening in Afghanistan and Canada’s role in it can not be seen in isolation, though our political elites would prefer we do.
The invasion of Iraq was a fraudulent and illegal war perpetrated on the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He had none. And still further, it has since been revealed that the US knew this before they attacked.
As the US perpetrated the big lie to justify the attack on Iraq, it is perpetuating yet another in how the war will end. Americans are being led to believe that once the country is pacified US troops with withdraw and Iraq will be left to happily celebrate its new democracy. No so! The US has already built 14 air bases in the country and it is abundantly clear the country’s autonomy will be carefully constrained in Washington. There will eventually be a major drawdown in the number of troops there, but Iraq is to be an outpost of the empire and a staging area for U S domination of the Middle East. It will no longer act through Israel as its surrogate, and it will no longer offend Saudi Arabia by maintaining bases on its territory (a pivotal issue for Osama bin Laden). This may explain why the Iraqi resistance is so tenacious- they know that if they fail the US will have established a major beachhead in the Arab world.
Similarly, in Afghanistan the purpose is not liberation, but pacification and the maintenance of a puppet regime.
The Afghanistan mission provides yet another window on American hypocrisy. Saudi Arabia is run by a repressive theocracy similar to the Taliban, fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals, and allegations that funding came from within the House of Saud have never been investigated. Having oil and close connections to the Bush family
has earned it immunity from devastation.
It is an interesting historical footnote that one of the casualties of 9/11 was a former FBI man (a security agent in the Twin Towers) who quit in frustration that his agency was blocked by the US Department of State from pursuing its investigation of Saudi connections to terrorism and the activities of Osama bin Laden.
When Canadian General Ray Henault states that Afghanistan is going to need help for ten years he is being less than candid. The country by its very nature; its rugged terrain, harsh climate and tribal culture, will be very difficult to pacify, and will most certainly require a permanent military presence to maintain a semblance of stability.
He was also quick to quip “It’s not your granddaddy’s NATO.” He is ever so right! Conceived as a North Atlantic defense alliance during the Cold War, it has now been conscripted into America’s war on terror – a gambit as it pursues global hegemony.
It is now the stated policy of the US that it will conduct continuous, preemptive and simultaneous warfare when and where it sees fit. But problems with this policy are already emerging. The perceived threat has to have been credible; in Iraq it was not. For a subsequent war to be credible the previous war has to have been brought to a successful culmination-in Iraq it has not. Given what is happening in Iraq even the most casual observer has to question the real motives and ultimate success of the Afghan mission. As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan fester, the US is threatening Iran.
For Canadians, there can be no doubt, the UN is conspicuously absent in Afghanistan. Our country has a proud tradition of foreign peacekeeping under the auspices of the UN. Its absence is not coincidental as the US has a history of using and abusing the UN as it sees fit. The present US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton is a ferocious ideologue out to destroy the world body. For Bolton, and his neo-conservative buddies, the UN is an impediment to US global hegemony.
In her devilishly witty and caustic critique on the Bush administration, Bushworld, Pulitzer Prize winning, New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd comments:
As the brazen Bush imperialists try to install a new democracy in Iraq, they are finding the old democracies of our reluctant allies inconvenient.
Canada is one of those “old democracies” and our quisling political elites are determined to sell out the country as they too find our own democracy inconvenient. Dowd’s comment though, not only applies to America’s allies but to America itself! Under the Bush administration there has been an alarming erosion of that country’s democratic values and civil liberties.
***
If we are tempted to dismiss the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as foreign wars in far off lands that will have little impact on our lives, we fool ourselves with the same wattage our politicians deceive us. As these two conflicts fester onward the US is developing a whole new generation of strategic weapons. Even though it has overwhelming global military superiority in strategic weaponry, enough is never enough. It is developing a whole new generation of fighter bombers, nuclear weapons, ships at sea and of course the utterly absurd missile defense system. The modest little question has to be: How is all this strategic weaponry going to be used to fight terrorism?
Dwight D. Eisenhower, a distinguished two-term US president, and Supreme Allied Commander in World War II--every inch a military man-- took the occasion of his last radio broadcast to the nation in 1961 to warn of the perils of the military industrial complex. He warned that it was potentially a hydra-headed monster that could get out of control, like a cancer that could infest America. Eisenhower’s prophecy has come to pass, the monster is out of control--Dr. Strangelove is alive and well and living in Washington and his first name is Donald.
US defense spending is budgeted at just under half a trillion dollars for 2006, but the Pentagon is requesting “emergency” funding in addition. Even though the Senate and Congress are controlled by Republicans, they are protesting this profligate spending. The US government is now running record debt and deficit. Expenditures on the Iraq war alone to date are estimated to be a quarter trillion dollars. It seems foreign adventurism comes at a heady price and the question is: How many generations will it take to pay down this debt? And how much debt, human and financial, will other countries assume in being conscripted into this subterfuge?
Why all this reckless spending? It could be said the US is still fighting the extinct Cold War; or that it simply refuses to collect the peace dividend. It can also be seen as corporate welfare for the military industrial complex. But the actual reason is much more ominous. The game is global domination; the target is China--even though it has no apparent imperialist ambitions, though it is practicing a phenomenal economic imperialism. This may be in-part what is motivating America’s exorbitant militarism. The desire to advance democracy globally, confronting the "axis of evil" and the war on terrorism are smoke screens for a larger agenda.
It is no coincidence the US president is visiting Pakistan as the US has signed military alliances with both Pakistan and India--important allies--pursuant to a possible war with China. China, for its part, is forced to arm itself: thus we have a new arms race.
Many observers are making the very dangerous assumption that America’s brazen behavior will abate when George W. Bush leaves office, but he is only the puppet; the puppet masters are smarter more sinister men. They are masters of connivance. The ultra right neo-conservative domination of US politics is well entrenched. When Bush leaves office it may only be the names will change. In the US, as in Canada, the two major parties have merged, leaving voters no real choice.
America’s brazen behavior has left the global community cowed, and little wonder. If it decided to use its strategic weapons with the same wanton belligerence it uses it conventional weapons the planet earth would be a nuclear wasteland. America may never use its overwhelming military capability on a broader basis but it is clearly a nation out of control and it is clearly out to establish global hegemony- when it says democracy it really means satellite puppet regimes.
Lesser nations may feel powerless, but collectively they could be very powerful in confronting the American bullyboy- and bullies must be confronted. There are numerous economic, diplomatic and political avenues open to let America know its behavior as the world’s pre-eminent rogue state is unacceptable to the global community.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, for example--if he really wants to exercise his Churchillian fantasies in a much more meaningful and upstanding way, he could take a second and more critical look at his sycophantic relationship with Washington. Blair still has the opportunity to earn redemption and avoid going down in history as Bush’s poodle.
Canada’s political elites have fallen on hard times. They are drowning in the effluent of their feeble self-deceptions. We can never be more than a minor player in global affairs but we diminish ourselves even further by being cowardly collaborators in a monumental subterfuge.
One modest way we can protest is too refuse to participate in America’s self-aggrandizing wars that are being fought for less than altruistic reasons. We can let it be known that our sovereignty is not some mere give away as our political elites indulge in their self-inflicted emasculation.
There has been considerable speculation as to how Osama Bin Laden has eluded capture for so long and so successfully. Could it be the US does not want him captured? His capture would largely debase the raison d'être for the war on terror- a ruse that must be maintained. Meanwhile, he is off in some remote hideaway chortling with glee as Western neo-imperialists squander their human and financial resources on wars they cannot win and adventurism that is ultimately ruinous.
Post Script: Even as this piece is completed I read in the Independent UK that the neoconservative allies (the “puppet masters”) who demanded George W. Bush attack Iraq have deserted him, and admit they were wrong. This throws the Bush administration policies in the Middle East, including Afghanistan, into a shambles; but another reason Canadian troops should not be there.
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 10, 2006]
you just did!!
Question
Do you believe thoughts occur in a vacuum.
I do not!
I believe that there are many who have similar thoughts with regard to a parallel organisation
As I was making my late, late lunch and thinking about a different topic, one that leads to the involvement of what is now called “law” law that legislators draft /create refine and then present to parliament for “discussion” and in some cases eventual passage it came to me that it is this concept of how “law” comes about that ought to be on trial.
The idea of a citizen’s assembly is not that far fetched
The use of computers is an aid
Schools, libraries, rec centres have access and other options can be created as well.
I’m in!
---
to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge-
This is mental illness
Lao-Tzo
this what I originaly had in mind to post
"In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
Rockefeller Foundation Director of Charity,
Frederick Gates, 1913
How're all you right wing clones liking yer position?
---
to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge-
This is mental illness
Lao-Tzo
Repeat as required...
Dio
Why do people consent to their own enslavement?
humans are free by nature.
The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
(abridged and edited from the Harry Kurz translation)
Part I
For the present I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him.
Surely a striking situation!
Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them.
A weakness characteristic of humankind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger.
Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve as a clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants, one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.
Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life.
It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it.
Therefore, if the inhabitants of a country have found some great personage who has shown rare foresight in protecting them in an emergency, rare boldness in defending them, rare solicitude in governing them, and if, from that point on, they contract the habit of obeying him and depending on him to such an extent that they grant him certain prerogatives, I fear that such a procedure is not prudent, inasmuch as they remove him from a position in which he may do evil.
Certainly while he continues to manifest good will one need fear no harm from a man who seems to be generally well disposed.
But - in the pursuit of understanding - I ask you!
What strange phenomenon is this?
What name shall we give it?
What is the nature of this misfortune?
What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation?
To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility?
Not ruled, but tyrannized over?
These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own.
They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Sampson, but from a single little man.
Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman!
Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice?
Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted?
If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable.
In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice?
When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that?
Is it cowardice?
Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go.
Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom.
What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?
Place on one side fifty thousand armed men, and on the other the same number; let them join in battle, one side fighting to retain its liberty, the other to take it away; to which would you, at a guess, promise victory?
Which men do you think would march more gallantly to combat - those who anticipate as a reward for their suffering the maintenance of their freedom, or those who cannot expect any other prize for the blows exchanged than the enslavement of others?
One side will have before its eyes the blessings of the past and the hope of similar joy in the future; their thoughts will dwell less on the comparatively brief pain of battle than on what they may have to endure forever, they, their children, and all their posterity.
The other side has nothing to inspire it with courage except the weak urge of greed, which fades before danger and which can never be so keen, it seems to me, that it will not be dismayed by the least drop of blood from wounds.
Consider the justly famous battles of Miltiades, Leonidas, Themistocles, still fresh today in recorded history and in the minds of men as if they had occurred but yesterday, battles fought in Greece for the welfare of the Greeks and as an example to the world.
What power do you think gave to a mere handful of men not the strength but the courage to withstand the attack of a fleet so vast that even the seas were burdened, and to defeat the armies of so many nations, armies so immense that their officers alone outnumbered the entire Greek force?
What was it but the fact that in those glorious days this struggle represented not so much a fight of Greeks against Persians as a victory of liberty over domination, of freedom over greed?
It amazes us to hear accounts of the valor that liberty arouses in the hearts of those who defend it; but who could believe reports of what goes on every day among the inhabitants of some countries, who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty?
Who would credit such a report if he merely heard it, without being present to witness the event?
And if this condition occured only in distant lands and were reported to us, which one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented, and not really true?
Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself.
It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.
If it costs the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak.
I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases.
What then?
If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?
Everyone knows that the fire from a little spark will increase and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood to burn; yet without being quenched by water, but merely by finding no more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and is no longer a flame.
Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy.
But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
To achieve the good that they desire, the bold do not fear danger; the intelligent do not refuse to undergo suffering.
It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature.
A longing common to both the wise and the foolish, to brave men and to cowards, is this longing for all those things which, when acquired, would make them happy and contented.
Yet one element appears to be lacking.
I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude.
Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would claim it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.
Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good!
You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives.
All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose "greatness" you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death.
He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.
Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves?
How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you?
The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own?
How does he have any power over you except through you?
How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?
What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves?
You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest "privilege" he knows - to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check.
From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
---
to realise our knowledge is ignorance is a noble thought.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge-
This is mental illness
Lao-Tzo
(Is this not becoming more and more similar than that other escapade of the 20th Century - the V word? (for Vietnam)
Afghanistan is somewhat of a side-show. Canada and many other nations (not as a "coalition" (what a dirty word) but as members of the United Nations) are only there with a noble task - that of peacekeeping. When that job is done, there is never a going home with tails between legs.
Please concede after almost three years: The sovereign nation of Iraq was "attacked". Going home from there (whenever that happens) will be with tails between legs, because even after that, the problem will not be solved.
And that is why I am glad that Canada is not involved at all in Iraq. If there is one statement from Jean Chretien (whose party I have never voted for) that I can agree with, it must be: "Canada does not have an appetite for war."
Little boy Bush will not be lord and master that long. He is already saying "The president who follows him should continue on in the fight against terrorism......etc.." In the mean time, Bush is under pressure to get out of Iran. He will not do it gracefully. Perhaps another war will give him an excuse. No one has to wonder who's next. Will Canada then send troops to Iraq under the clock of "peace keeping. The "civil war" in Iraq are the American generals words. Similar to Canadas supposed reason for being in Afghanistan. Bush just has to give Canada those words Canada will react to. The Taliban, terrorists or soon the Iranians.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.