Sunday, March 8, 2009

New 3-D Strategy for Aghanistan - Depart Depart Depart

The Canadian death toll keeps climbing, with three more dead soldiers recently making their way down our hi-way of heroes. Canadians are now hearing the admission of Stephen Harper (among others) that victory in Afghanistan is not attainable. If victory is not possible why do we remain? We're being told that we don't need to exit Afghanistan, rather we need to change our definition of victory.

The message Harper and others are delivering now is that of a 3-D offensive. The 3 Ds standing for Defence, Diplomacy and Development. In reality we need only one D...departure. Departure before another 112 Canadian soldiers have to make their way down Canada's Trans-Continental hi-way with a flag draped over their coffins. Departure before thousands more civilians are killed either by suicide bombers or coalition led air strikes. And finally departure before work can be started on a long coveted natural gas pipeline through the south, including Kandahar Province.

In my last posting on this topic, 'Why Is Canada In Afghanistan...And Not The Congo?' the point was brought up in the comments about Al-Qaeda and the numerous attacks this group is alleged to have made on western interests. I say alleged only because there has never been a court case convened that followed western precepts based on the rule of law. With that being said I don't doubt for a second that there are extremist Islamic elements, elements who try and have succeeded in causing damage to America and her allies.

When George W. Bush finally agreed to convene an investigation into the events of 9/11, albeit one which was tightly was revealed that the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon and Egypt. Further the commission concluded that the attacks were planned in Hamburg Germany...not in Afghanistan. So why was Afghanistan invaded? Initially we were told it was to get Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive". The ruling Taliban would not hand over their national hero, Bin Laden, who with training and support from the Americans had thwarted the Soviet invasion some 30 years prior.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)
Speed up your PC
It is difficult to talk about the war in Afghanistan without at least touching on the September 11 attacks. Nobody will ever forget the events of that fatal day when 2 planes hit the World Trade Centre's north and south towers and 3 buildings collapsed, along with a plane hitting the Pentagon and another crashing into a million bits in a field in Pennsylvania. That wasn't a mistake on my part about three (3) WTC buildings collapsing. So much happened on that horrible day that many people I talk to have completely forgotten that building 7 basically imploded:

In some respects the September 11th attacks can be viewed as a stroke of luck. A Neo-Conservative think tank called Project For The New American Century or PNAC for short, (with such luminaries of the Bush administration as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Lewis "Scooter" Libby listed among their signatories and contributors) put out a discussion paper entitled:

Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.

In this paper a bold plan of extending America's military reach to areas such as southeast Asia was outlined. However on page 63 it was noted that:

Further, the process of transformation , even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.

The attacks of September 11th gave this cadre of neo-cons exactly such a 'calalyzing event'. One used to launch wars against countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. The goal in Afghanistan has constantly been shifting, from getting Bin Laden, to establishing democracy, to improving human and women's rights, to preventing a potential incubator for terrorists.

Lost in all these shifting reasons has been any meaningful discussion about the long planned TAPI pipeline or the massive deposit of oil in the Caspian basin. For those willing to seek the information out John Foster, lead economist for Petro Canada from 1976-81, authored a comprehensive paper for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, it was published in June 2008.

“A Pipeline Through A Troubled Land: Afghanistan, Canada, And The New Great Energy Game”

Of course in our digital age of sound bytes and 10 second video clips, in depth analysis requiring hours of reading...well it ain't exactly something the masses lap up. Far easier to just affix simple labels like Taliban, Insurgent, Al Qaeda or Terrorist to anyone who opposes us. Just as in Vietnam when over 50,000 US soldiers died to stop the non-existent dominoes from falling... false claims do make some feel the sacrifice is somehow worth it.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.

Back To Canadian SoapBox Home

No comments: