a long time without an update.
You are a
Social Conservative
(36% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(75% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Republican
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
man this was a long time without an update. Anything new? Well. i'm done school, I wrote the best essay I've ever written (and im still going to do bad).. which you can view here. It's on
With the global-reach of our media, any major event in the world will be noted, and nearly everybody has access to this. However, every day there are more examples of human rights violations in different places in the world. Some of these conflicts have been going on for years, while others have had tensions brewing for centuries. While the media broadcasts the conflicts, it does not guarantee any involvement in the conflict, nor any help to the victims. Sometimes, the media is complicit in what is happening. While it may stir emotions among those living in the global North, rarely are they acted upon. This poses the question: do we, as western citizens, have a role to play in these conflicts? Is intervention a viable route to a better future? To answer this question, we will examine the current situation in Afghanistan.
With Afghanistan’s lost culture and raped lands, it is a country that, for the better part of a century, has always been in some sort of conflict. With the West at the helm of the reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, it provides stability to the citizens living there.
Afghanistan has always had some sort of unrest within its borders. The Afghanistan War of 1979-1989 is the war that took the greatest toll of economic and human toll on the country. The war pitched the USSR-backed Afghanistan government against the mujahidin (Islamic Warriors). While the mujahidin was successful in throwing out the USSR and finally defeating the government in Kabul (1992), it created a large scale problem in the country. The end of the war left a large number of mujahidin warriors in the country, who were unable to unite under a single banner. This led to more civil war, where former influential mujahidin warriors amass their own armies, and attacking the newly formed government. This effectively created a pocket of independent zones each run by a warlord. The most influential, and perhaps the most dangerous, was the Taliban. By 1994 they had become the most powerful group, and despite the government’s attempts to stop them, the Taliban took control of the government in 1996.(D. Pugliese)
This effected Afghanistan’s citizens greatly; the fighting taken place over the decade had caused over one million deaths. And not only has an entire generation grown up knowing only civil strife and war, but the Taliban were notoriously known for imposing a stern, ‘moral’ adaptation of Islamic law: “they imposed a particularly puritanical form of Islamic law in the two thirds of the country they controlled.”(D. Pugliese) By 2001, the Taliban effectively controlled ninety percent of the country. (D. Pugliese)
This also had an economic impact on people. With Afghanistan’s primary export being agriculture goods, wars over the years had marred the already low amount of arable land to down below ten percent. This, in effect was also very damaging to the people conjoined with the drought in west and central Asia, which had been the most severe in Afghanistan (L. Goodson). The only increases in exports were found in opium poppies and hashish. (An interesting fact: the Taliban, while brutal with their laws, were able to crack down on the production and exportation of Opium by enforcing strict laws on opium poppies.) However, the main reason those exports flourished is because they financed and benefitted the warlords. This is a problem because it provided the warlords with money that they can then use to buy arms, despite the economic sanctions against them. By accumulating more arms, the Taliban slowly encroached on other warlords land. This all led to a situation where Afghanistan was ripe for intervention.
There were three different types of intervention available for us to use. The spectrum spans from least expensive with little involvement, to high expense with high involvement. The different ways we can intervene are: diplomacy, economic sanctions, and coercion through force. These interventions can be fairly effective if they are applied correctly, however in many cases they are either not applied correctly or effective. For example, the UN did not recognize the authority of the Taliban while they were in power. This means diplomacy would not work; as they would need to recognize the fact that they are governing entities; which would give them more power. This leaves the West with two possibilities: economic sanctions and coercion through force (military action.). The United States intervened with both forms before the September 11th attacks. For example, when the Taliban was poised to take the capital Kabul in 1995, the US launched a series of cruise missile attacks against major Taliban/Al-Qaeda training camps. They also lead an economic sanction from selling or distributing weapons to the Taliban. (With the only exception being the surviving remnants of the former Afghanistan government.) Also, while they were embargoing the selling of weapons to the Taliban, they sold weapons to the warlords who were contesting the government. Despite these efforts, they had little to no effect. What was needed was more coercion. Enter September 11th.
When Al-Qaeda took the blame for the attacks, it gave the US the rationale to finally intervene in Afghanistan. Since then, several countries including Canada have taken over the responsibility of overseeing the rebuilding of Afghanistan. “…Afghanistan desperately needs the substantial and committed involvement of the international community… if it is to have any hope of breaking out of the national death-trap that more than two decades of ceaseless warfare have created.” (L. Goodson). The results so far have been promising, with a democratically elected government. Despite the democratic process, the warlords do not recognize the government having a legitimate control of the country. This poses a problem: no government can be successful and responsible if the citizens they are governing do not recognize it.
Since the large scale intervention, the land has once again been fractured into warring independent warlords. While this is troublesome, it can be solved, and the quality of life has increased since the Taliban’s reign. The advancement of a form of democracy is one tool we have to overcome the problems plaguing the region.
The warlords, after the funding and supplies from the Americans for years had become very powerful. “In many places, the warlords are the real power on the ground, and there is little realistic prospect that they be displaced (say, by a new national army) any time soon.” (L. Goodson). This puts the ruling government at a disposition: they must not only try and govern, but also try and enforce its authority on the other warlords. This can be very difficult and expensive, both economically and socially, and the risks are very high, with little to no gain. Goodson proposes an idea “one approach might be to work with some among them… in order to develop better local governance and stable regional economics.” This is on the right track. Working with the warlords provides legitimacy to the ruling government without taking away any of the warlords power. Yet we are still trapped in the catch-22 scenario: if you provide the warlords the means to grow economically, they can only grow larger in threat. One idea to manage the warlords that is surfacing is to develop a feudal-like government, where the warlords act as ‘wardens’ and get resources as such; they would only get resources however if they agreed to the terms. These could easily be disarmament, better governance and economic development. This provides a twofold effect. It lends legitimacy to the government, and also makes the warlords much less of a threat: “it would change the game, making it less of a matter of ‘warlords vs. Kabul’ and thereby taking some pressure off of the Karzai government to prove that it’s authority is accepted by every faction.” (L. Goodson) Also, as discussed earlier, with Afghanistan’s primary export being agriculture, it provides a “…focus on economic reconstruction in the countryside, where it is needed.” (L. Goodson) The feudal governing system is the foundation for all of that. As you can see, the political challenges, describes Goodson, are daunting, and that “Afghanistan today faces enormous challenges brought on by long years of warfare, including the Soviet Invasion of 1979-1989 and the multisided factional strife that raged throughout the 1990’s.”
Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister understands the scope of the mission:
“In terms of our commitments, in terms of the risks we are taking, in terms of the leadership we’re showing, the most important thing what we are doing is in Afghanistan.”(Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) This is important because it shows that Canada is committed to helping Afghanistan. (Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) Major Theriault confirms this: “The morale is already very high. The resolve is very high. But I can tell you I’ve been in the military for 20 years now… I’ve never seen the PM, minister of defence, chief of defence all in the same place, the same time. It really shows we have the support of the people back home.” (Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) This shows that the Afghanistan people that we are here to help them and that we recognize and support the local Afghani government. This adds legitimacy to it, and bargaining power when trying to negotiate with the warlords.
Goodson also recognizes that the international community, currently, is dedicated. He does make a point by recognizing the success of Afghanistan’s reconstruction hangs on the balance of the international community. “Afghanistan’s 27 million people who would be watching us---watching and wondering if the world would stay involved this time and help their country rebuild itself.” (L. Goodson). In order for the reconstruction of Afghanistan to continue, the local Afghani government must also be involved. The Afghani government, presided by Mr. Khalid, has commented on the current state in Afghanistan: “…reflected back on 30 years of war in his country and stated that Afghans had had enough. 99% of people in Afghanistan think of peace. They want stability, and they are tired of war.”(Ottawa Citizen, 16 March 2006) This is very important; not only does it provide a backbone on which the Western Force’s can work on, but more importantly it identifies that almost all of Afghanis want help to rebuild their country, and it also shows that international aid is needed to help bring around Afghanistan. It provides justification for the continued intervention. Canadian army spokesperson Major Marc Theriault also speaks on the topic, “…they should see first hand, they should see with their own eyes, what we’re doing for the people, and how small the factions are, trying to disrupt everybody day-to-day life.”(Ottawa Citizen, 16 March 2006) The fact that the Afghanis want Canada and the other members to help reconstruct the nation is a big issue. Of course, this would not be important if the Canadian forces did not want to be involved here.
General Hillier makes the following statement on that issue: “Every soldier, sailor, airman and airwoman you talk to here is excited about the mission. They’re proud to be here. They believe they’re doing something fundamentally good.”(Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006)
Canada has been involved with various things since they intervened with the other Western powers. The work that they are involved in, nation building, it comes to no surprise that they are proud of their work, and believe they are doing someone fundamentally good. Nation building is the rebuilding of vital infrastructure. Currently the roads are vital aspect of the infrastructure that is in disarray.
The roads had been badly damaged through the years of warfare and needed repair. Also, along with the roads being repaired, they have been removing the thousands of mines that has been there for the decades of warfare. (L. Goodson). The global North has been involved in both, and this is a start, as already we see examples of Afghanis cooperating with Canadian Forces.
Recently, a roadside bomb disguised in a motorcycle (in the foam padding of the seats) was recently found and defused, thanks to a tip off from a local Afghani resident. Yet there is still a lot more that needs to be done.
Farmers should be given crops besides opium poppies that they can grow. (L. Goodson). This should provide an influx to the local markets. This helps weaken the warlords and legitimize the Afghani economy. There also needs to be a revamped effort to rebuild the schools and hospitals. By building schools, and providing them with the correct tools, gunmen available for the warlords to recruit would start to be a rare commodity. Not only would the young ones be able to stay in school, but the opening of the schools and hospitals would provide jobs for what Goodson describes as the “underemployed gunmen”. As you can see, these are the foundations of what Afghanistan will be built on. The problem is however, that outside aid, while it has been pledged, is slow in coming. This can be partly linked to the cycling of funding in the large aid organizations such as Amnesty International. Thus, this has led to some governments pledging millions of dollars to help with the rebuilding of the infrastructure. Even this causes a different kind of problem for Afghanistan as well.
By such large influxes of money, only outside organizations can rebuild the infrastructure fast enough for Afghanistan. This leaves little for Afghanistan led developments, which is going to be crucial in time to come. Goodson recognizes that the problem lies in the fact that any Afghanistan led programs will take too long to complete, and the “...political situation is too ominous to allow policy makers to wait for Afghanistan-led developments efforts to take hold.” But we must not be mistaken: for this is the cradle that will launch Afghanistan from the ashes:
“Post conflict reconstruction (or nation-building) will provide the ultimate hedge against the return of instability and terrorism. In Afghanistan, nation-building means at a minimum rebuilding vital physical infrastructure (starting with roads), removing the hundreds of thousands of mines that have been laid over decades of war, giving farmers crops other than opium poppies to grow, channelling some of the energy that goes into smuggling into legitimate production and trade, and building the basic institutions of governance.” (L. Goodson)
Perhaps the most important thing in nation building is that the reforms that take place must only be infrastructural in nature. For example, the building of hospitals and schools is a great step forward, however we must not be tangled into, and have any visible hand in what sort of textbooks will be available or what will be taught in the schools. Afghanistan’s Islamic values must be preserved if this mission is to have any success. For if anything clashed with the social values of Afghanistan, it will meet friction with the Afghan original culture; this being said, any developments economically or through infrastructure always affects the social values; this is inevitable. However, this also provides us a way to influence from the sidelines.
Harper states this: “I don’t think there’s been a better example in decades of Canada really standing up, going to the frontline, and articulating our values….” (Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) And the seeds for a better future for Afghanistan are coming to reap. An example of such is the Red Devil Inn, located in Gombad. It is a refuge in the middle of the volatile, ‘Taliban’ patrolled areas. The villagers there were forced to support the former Taliban government, and there had been no peace for years. Now, with Canada’s presence, groups of boys hang outside the walls, begging for candy. A Canadian soldier, on location in Gombad, talks about it: “Only in the recent months have people in this town been able to work in the fields, without fear of the Taliban. For years, villagers were coerced into supporting the Taliban. There were no schools, and no aid workers would come to Gombad to work. Now, with the promise of security, life here is slowly getting back to normal.” (Ottawa Citizen, 17 March 2006)
Afghanistan can provide a launching point, an example and equation to the rest of the Middle East. A country, with the conditions quite unfavourable at the beginning, transforms itself into a self-sustaining country, pro-Western, modern government with democratic values in such a volatile region.
To escape from the image of America’s push of democracy in the Middle East, it is important to remember that the advancement of democracy is not the only reason why we are deployed in Afghanistan. Harper, while in Afghanistan, stresses so: “… not only our advancement of democracy… but basic humanitarian value, development, women rights, and education….” (Ottawa Citizen, 17 March 2006) This is important for Canada for several reasons. While the Iraq war was not condoned by many communities of the global north, the Afghanistan mission was, on the other hand, supported by a large amount of the first world nations. In modern society and coffee table discussions, the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan are often clumped together; there are not many distinguishable features for a lot of people between the two. Thus, it is important for us to note the differences between the two. Despite the reasons for going into Iraq, which may or may not be justified (only the future can tell), the reasons for entering Afghanistan are justified, and have no real conspiracy theory behind it: it is a group of countries doing the right thing. It would be along the same lines as the intervention in Kosovo, minus the genocide equation.
The only motive that is visible for us at this moment in Afghanistan is the aftermath of September 11th and the effect it had on foreign and domestic policy (e.g. The US Patriot Act). The intentions when going in, was to help rebuild the country, and capture the leaders of the Taliban government and Al-Qaeda personal. We have succeeded, mostly, in both of those aspects; despite Bin Laden’s elusiveness.
And even though Western efforts are going well, there is still a dark side to post-Taliban Afghanistan: the religious mindset is still there, established by the Taliban.
For example, a story that has recently hit the headlines was that of Abdul Rahman. He was charged with converting to Christianity while he was in Germany 16 years ago. He lived there for 9 years.(Associated Press, 23 March 2006) This has already raised concerns in Italy and Germany; where both have around 2,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan. Despite the government trying to drop the case, it still shows that there is work to be done here. Karzai has said that committed to building “a civil society based on modern democratic principles.” While this is a start, things of this nature must not happen if we are to help rebuild Afghanistan. This is just a glimpse of the responsibility that the global North has for the next few years. The road to success is a long trail.
It must be noted, and with great enthusiasm, that the majority of the Afghanis want a Western army in place. This will pave the road for a greater cooperation between the Afghans and the Western governments. By staying in Afghanistan, and not shying away from any conflict, the West is aiding Afghanistan by providing stability for the future generations to build themselves on. There is little doubt that in the future, Afghanistan will be viewed as a great example of nation-building.
Yet there always will be a sacrifice made for these kinds of involvements. There have been casualties, suffered by all of the armed forces currently in Afghanistan; US, German, Italy, and Canada being the most prominent ones. This is sad, but inevitable. But the issue of Afghanistan sovereignty goes so far beyond anyone. Only now, are we truly able to grasp its nature.
With Muslim people cooperating with the West, and the successes experienced there, Afghanistan can provide a blue print of intervention and success in other parts of the world. By making Afghanistan the model of a successful intervention, it can lead the way into other countries
With Afghanistan’s volatile past, the Taliban’s militant Islamic law, and the neglecting of human rights, Afghanistan has shown to be a perfect candidate for intervention. With over 30 years of warfare, Afghanistan is tired of the fighting and wants peace. The biggest threats to Afghanistan sovereignty are the numerous warlords that pepper the countryside. But, with an elected president, they are going on the right track. An elected individual provides an opening to diplomacy in dealing with them. By staying in Afghanistan, the West provides stability and peace for the residents living there, and through their actions, we are shown that both sides want to provide a better future for the next generation; as the previous one has grown up to learn nothing but warfare.
Bibliography
(13 March 2006). “PM’s Top Secret Mission”, Ottawa Citizen, A1
(15 March 2006) “Stephen Harper praises Karzai, Affirms backing for Mission”, Ottawa Citizen, A1
(16 March 2006) “The Afghanistan Canadian’s Didn’t See”, Ottawa Citizen, A6
(17 March 2006) “Injured solider would go back”, Ottawa Citizen, A8
(17 March 2006) “Red Devil Inn a refuge in the land of the Taliban”, Ottawa Citizen, A7
(22 March 2006) “Canada joins outcry over Afghani’s death sentence”, Ottawa Citizen, A1
Pugliese, D. (2003). Shadow Wars. Ottawa, Ontario: Esprit de Corps Books.
(Pugliese, 2003)
Goodson, L. (2003). Afghanistan’s Long road to Reconstruction. Journal of Democracy, 14(1) 82-89
Invalid source specified.Invalid source specified.Invalid source specified.
It's a bit messy, but thats livejournal's fault and not mine.. and frankly I am too lazy to try and fix it.
in other news i'm started to write a book after a long hiatus. Recently I feel like something is missing from my life.. besides the usual money and fame, which of course is always missing. I'm not really sure what it is but I thought writing again might help.. and it can't really hurt either.
Oh, and go sens go!
- Mike
Social Conservative
(36% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(75% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Republican
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
man this was a long time without an update. Anything new? Well. i'm done school, I wrote the best essay I've ever written (and im still going to do bad).. which you can view here. It's on
With the global-reach of our media, any major event in the world will be noted, and nearly everybody has access to this. However, every day there are more examples of human rights violations in different places in the world. Some of these conflicts have been going on for years, while others have had tensions brewing for centuries. While the media broadcasts the conflicts, it does not guarantee any involvement in the conflict, nor any help to the victims. Sometimes, the media is complicit in what is happening. While it may stir emotions among those living in the global North, rarely are they acted upon. This poses the question: do we, as western citizens, have a role to play in these conflicts? Is intervention a viable route to a better future? To answer this question, we will examine the current situation in Afghanistan.
With Afghanistan’s lost culture and raped lands, it is a country that, for the better part of a century, has always been in some sort of conflict. With the West at the helm of the reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, it provides stability to the citizens living there.
Afghanistan has always had some sort of unrest within its borders. The Afghanistan War of 1979-1989 is the war that took the greatest toll of economic and human toll on the country. The war pitched the USSR-backed Afghanistan government against the mujahidin (Islamic Warriors). While the mujahidin was successful in throwing out the USSR and finally defeating the government in Kabul (1992), it created a large scale problem in the country. The end of the war left a large number of mujahidin warriors in the country, who were unable to unite under a single banner. This led to more civil war, where former influential mujahidin warriors amass their own armies, and attacking the newly formed government. This effectively created a pocket of independent zones each run by a warlord. The most influential, and perhaps the most dangerous, was the Taliban. By 1994 they had become the most powerful group, and despite the government’s attempts to stop them, the Taliban took control of the government in 1996.(D. Pugliese)
This effected Afghanistan’s citizens greatly; the fighting taken place over the decade had caused over one million deaths. And not only has an entire generation grown up knowing only civil strife and war, but the Taliban were notoriously known for imposing a stern, ‘moral’ adaptation of Islamic law: “they imposed a particularly puritanical form of Islamic law in the two thirds of the country they controlled.”(D. Pugliese) By 2001, the Taliban effectively controlled ninety percent of the country. (D. Pugliese)
This also had an economic impact on people. With Afghanistan’s primary export being agriculture goods, wars over the years had marred the already low amount of arable land to down below ten percent. This, in effect was also very damaging to the people conjoined with the drought in west and central Asia, which had been the most severe in Afghanistan (L. Goodson). The only increases in exports were found in opium poppies and hashish. (An interesting fact: the Taliban, while brutal with their laws, were able to crack down on the production and exportation of Opium by enforcing strict laws on opium poppies.) However, the main reason those exports flourished is because they financed and benefitted the warlords. This is a problem because it provided the warlords with money that they can then use to buy arms, despite the economic sanctions against them. By accumulating more arms, the Taliban slowly encroached on other warlords land. This all led to a situation where Afghanistan was ripe for intervention.
There were three different types of intervention available for us to use. The spectrum spans from least expensive with little involvement, to high expense with high involvement. The different ways we can intervene are: diplomacy, economic sanctions, and coercion through force. These interventions can be fairly effective if they are applied correctly, however in many cases they are either not applied correctly or effective. For example, the UN did not recognize the authority of the Taliban while they were in power. This means diplomacy would not work; as they would need to recognize the fact that they are governing entities; which would give them more power. This leaves the West with two possibilities: economic sanctions and coercion through force (military action.). The United States intervened with both forms before the September 11th attacks. For example, when the Taliban was poised to take the capital Kabul in 1995, the US launched a series of cruise missile attacks against major Taliban/Al-Qaeda training camps. They also lead an economic sanction from selling or distributing weapons to the Taliban. (With the only exception being the surviving remnants of the former Afghanistan government.) Also, while they were embargoing the selling of weapons to the Taliban, they sold weapons to the warlords who were contesting the government. Despite these efforts, they had little to no effect. What was needed was more coercion. Enter September 11th.
When Al-Qaeda took the blame for the attacks, it gave the US the rationale to finally intervene in Afghanistan. Since then, several countries including Canada have taken over the responsibility of overseeing the rebuilding of Afghanistan. “…Afghanistan desperately needs the substantial and committed involvement of the international community… if it is to have any hope of breaking out of the national death-trap that more than two decades of ceaseless warfare have created.” (L. Goodson). The results so far have been promising, with a democratically elected government. Despite the democratic process, the warlords do not recognize the government having a legitimate control of the country. This poses a problem: no government can be successful and responsible if the citizens they are governing do not recognize it.
Since the large scale intervention, the land has once again been fractured into warring independent warlords. While this is troublesome, it can be solved, and the quality of life has increased since the Taliban’s reign. The advancement of a form of democracy is one tool we have to overcome the problems plaguing the region.
The warlords, after the funding and supplies from the Americans for years had become very powerful. “In many places, the warlords are the real power on the ground, and there is little realistic prospect that they be displaced (say, by a new national army) any time soon.” (L. Goodson). This puts the ruling government at a disposition: they must not only try and govern, but also try and enforce its authority on the other warlords. This can be very difficult and expensive, both economically and socially, and the risks are very high, with little to no gain. Goodson proposes an idea “one approach might be to work with some among them… in order to develop better local governance and stable regional economics.” This is on the right track. Working with the warlords provides legitimacy to the ruling government without taking away any of the warlords power. Yet we are still trapped in the catch-22 scenario: if you provide the warlords the means to grow economically, they can only grow larger in threat. One idea to manage the warlords that is surfacing is to develop a feudal-like government, where the warlords act as ‘wardens’ and get resources as such; they would only get resources however if they agreed to the terms. These could easily be disarmament, better governance and economic development. This provides a twofold effect. It lends legitimacy to the government, and also makes the warlords much less of a threat: “it would change the game, making it less of a matter of ‘warlords vs. Kabul’ and thereby taking some pressure off of the Karzai government to prove that it’s authority is accepted by every faction.” (L. Goodson) Also, as discussed earlier, with Afghanistan’s primary export being agriculture, it provides a “…focus on economic reconstruction in the countryside, where it is needed.” (L. Goodson) The feudal governing system is the foundation for all of that. As you can see, the political challenges, describes Goodson, are daunting, and that “Afghanistan today faces enormous challenges brought on by long years of warfare, including the Soviet Invasion of 1979-1989 and the multisided factional strife that raged throughout the 1990’s.”
Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister understands the scope of the mission:
“In terms of our commitments, in terms of the risks we are taking, in terms of the leadership we’re showing, the most important thing what we are doing is in Afghanistan.”(Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) This is important because it shows that Canada is committed to helping Afghanistan. (Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) Major Theriault confirms this: “The morale is already very high. The resolve is very high. But I can tell you I’ve been in the military for 20 years now… I’ve never seen the PM, minister of defence, chief of defence all in the same place, the same time. It really shows we have the support of the people back home.” (Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) This shows that the Afghanistan people that we are here to help them and that we recognize and support the local Afghani government. This adds legitimacy to it, and bargaining power when trying to negotiate with the warlords.
Goodson also recognizes that the international community, currently, is dedicated. He does make a point by recognizing the success of Afghanistan’s reconstruction hangs on the balance of the international community. “Afghanistan’s 27 million people who would be watching us---watching and wondering if the world would stay involved this time and help their country rebuild itself.” (L. Goodson). In order for the reconstruction of Afghanistan to continue, the local Afghani government must also be involved. The Afghani government, presided by Mr. Khalid, has commented on the current state in Afghanistan: “…reflected back on 30 years of war in his country and stated that Afghans had had enough. 99% of people in Afghanistan think of peace. They want stability, and they are tired of war.”(Ottawa Citizen, 16 March 2006) This is very important; not only does it provide a backbone on which the Western Force’s can work on, but more importantly it identifies that almost all of Afghanis want help to rebuild their country, and it also shows that international aid is needed to help bring around Afghanistan. It provides justification for the continued intervention. Canadian army spokesperson Major Marc Theriault also speaks on the topic, “…they should see first hand, they should see with their own eyes, what we’re doing for the people, and how small the factions are, trying to disrupt everybody day-to-day life.”(Ottawa Citizen, 16 March 2006) The fact that the Afghanis want Canada and the other members to help reconstruct the nation is a big issue. Of course, this would not be important if the Canadian forces did not want to be involved here.
General Hillier makes the following statement on that issue: “Every soldier, sailor, airman and airwoman you talk to here is excited about the mission. They’re proud to be here. They believe they’re doing something fundamentally good.”(Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006)
Canada has been involved with various things since they intervened with the other Western powers. The work that they are involved in, nation building, it comes to no surprise that they are proud of their work, and believe they are doing someone fundamentally good. Nation building is the rebuilding of vital infrastructure. Currently the roads are vital aspect of the infrastructure that is in disarray.
The roads had been badly damaged through the years of warfare and needed repair. Also, along with the roads being repaired, they have been removing the thousands of mines that has been there for the decades of warfare. (L. Goodson). The global North has been involved in both, and this is a start, as already we see examples of Afghanis cooperating with Canadian Forces.
Recently, a roadside bomb disguised in a motorcycle (in the foam padding of the seats) was recently found and defused, thanks to a tip off from a local Afghani resident. Yet there is still a lot more that needs to be done.
Farmers should be given crops besides opium poppies that they can grow. (L. Goodson). This should provide an influx to the local markets. This helps weaken the warlords and legitimize the Afghani economy. There also needs to be a revamped effort to rebuild the schools and hospitals. By building schools, and providing them with the correct tools, gunmen available for the warlords to recruit would start to be a rare commodity. Not only would the young ones be able to stay in school, but the opening of the schools and hospitals would provide jobs for what Goodson describes as the “underemployed gunmen”. As you can see, these are the foundations of what Afghanistan will be built on. The problem is however, that outside aid, while it has been pledged, is slow in coming. This can be partly linked to the cycling of funding in the large aid organizations such as Amnesty International. Thus, this has led to some governments pledging millions of dollars to help with the rebuilding of the infrastructure. Even this causes a different kind of problem for Afghanistan as well.
By such large influxes of money, only outside organizations can rebuild the infrastructure fast enough for Afghanistan. This leaves little for Afghanistan led developments, which is going to be crucial in time to come. Goodson recognizes that the problem lies in the fact that any Afghanistan led programs will take too long to complete, and the “...political situation is too ominous to allow policy makers to wait for Afghanistan-led developments efforts to take hold.” But we must not be mistaken: for this is the cradle that will launch Afghanistan from the ashes:
“Post conflict reconstruction (or nation-building) will provide the ultimate hedge against the return of instability and terrorism. In Afghanistan, nation-building means at a minimum rebuilding vital physical infrastructure (starting with roads), removing the hundreds of thousands of mines that have been laid over decades of war, giving farmers crops other than opium poppies to grow, channelling some of the energy that goes into smuggling into legitimate production and trade, and building the basic institutions of governance.” (L. Goodson)
Perhaps the most important thing in nation building is that the reforms that take place must only be infrastructural in nature. For example, the building of hospitals and schools is a great step forward, however we must not be tangled into, and have any visible hand in what sort of textbooks will be available or what will be taught in the schools. Afghanistan’s Islamic values must be preserved if this mission is to have any success. For if anything clashed with the social values of Afghanistan, it will meet friction with the Afghan original culture; this being said, any developments economically or through infrastructure always affects the social values; this is inevitable. However, this also provides us a way to influence from the sidelines.
Harper states this: “I don’t think there’s been a better example in decades of Canada really standing up, going to the frontline, and articulating our values….” (Ottawa Citizen, 13 March 2006) And the seeds for a better future for Afghanistan are coming to reap. An example of such is the Red Devil Inn, located in Gombad. It is a refuge in the middle of the volatile, ‘Taliban’ patrolled areas. The villagers there were forced to support the former Taliban government, and there had been no peace for years. Now, with Canada’s presence, groups of boys hang outside the walls, begging for candy. A Canadian soldier, on location in Gombad, talks about it: “Only in the recent months have people in this town been able to work in the fields, without fear of the Taliban. For years, villagers were coerced into supporting the Taliban. There were no schools, and no aid workers would come to Gombad to work. Now, with the promise of security, life here is slowly getting back to normal.” (Ottawa Citizen, 17 March 2006)
Afghanistan can provide a launching point, an example and equation to the rest of the Middle East. A country, with the conditions quite unfavourable at the beginning, transforms itself into a self-sustaining country, pro-Western, modern government with democratic values in such a volatile region.
To escape from the image of America’s push of democracy in the Middle East, it is important to remember that the advancement of democracy is not the only reason why we are deployed in Afghanistan. Harper, while in Afghanistan, stresses so: “… not only our advancement of democracy… but basic humanitarian value, development, women rights, and education….” (Ottawa Citizen, 17 March 2006) This is important for Canada for several reasons. While the Iraq war was not condoned by many communities of the global north, the Afghanistan mission was, on the other hand, supported by a large amount of the first world nations. In modern society and coffee table discussions, the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan are often clumped together; there are not many distinguishable features for a lot of people between the two. Thus, it is important for us to note the differences between the two. Despite the reasons for going into Iraq, which may or may not be justified (only the future can tell), the reasons for entering Afghanistan are justified, and have no real conspiracy theory behind it: it is a group of countries doing the right thing. It would be along the same lines as the intervention in Kosovo, minus the genocide equation.
The only motive that is visible for us at this moment in Afghanistan is the aftermath of September 11th and the effect it had on foreign and domestic policy (e.g. The US Patriot Act). The intentions when going in, was to help rebuild the country, and capture the leaders of the Taliban government and Al-Qaeda personal. We have succeeded, mostly, in both of those aspects; despite Bin Laden’s elusiveness.
And even though Western efforts are going well, there is still a dark side to post-Taliban Afghanistan: the religious mindset is still there, established by the Taliban.
For example, a story that has recently hit the headlines was that of Abdul Rahman. He was charged with converting to Christianity while he was in Germany 16 years ago. He lived there for 9 years.(Associated Press, 23 March 2006) This has already raised concerns in Italy and Germany; where both have around 2,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan. Despite the government trying to drop the case, it still shows that there is work to be done here. Karzai has said that committed to building “a civil society based on modern democratic principles.” While this is a start, things of this nature must not happen if we are to help rebuild Afghanistan. This is just a glimpse of the responsibility that the global North has for the next few years. The road to success is a long trail.
It must be noted, and with great enthusiasm, that the majority of the Afghanis want a Western army in place. This will pave the road for a greater cooperation between the Afghans and the Western governments. By staying in Afghanistan, and not shying away from any conflict, the West is aiding Afghanistan by providing stability for the future generations to build themselves on. There is little doubt that in the future, Afghanistan will be viewed as a great example of nation-building.
Yet there always will be a sacrifice made for these kinds of involvements. There have been casualties, suffered by all of the armed forces currently in Afghanistan; US, German, Italy, and Canada being the most prominent ones. This is sad, but inevitable. But the issue of Afghanistan sovereignty goes so far beyond anyone. Only now, are we truly able to grasp its nature.
With Muslim people cooperating with the West, and the successes experienced there, Afghanistan can provide a blue print of intervention and success in other parts of the world. By making Afghanistan the model of a successful intervention, it can lead the way into other countries
With Afghanistan’s volatile past, the Taliban’s militant Islamic law, and the neglecting of human rights, Afghanistan has shown to be a perfect candidate for intervention. With over 30 years of warfare, Afghanistan is tired of the fighting and wants peace. The biggest threats to Afghanistan sovereignty are the numerous warlords that pepper the countryside. But, with an elected president, they are going on the right track. An elected individual provides an opening to diplomacy in dealing with them. By staying in Afghanistan, the West provides stability and peace for the residents living there, and through their actions, we are shown that both sides want to provide a better future for the next generation; as the previous one has grown up to learn nothing but warfare.
Bibliography
(13 March 2006). “PM’s Top Secret Mission”, Ottawa Citizen, A1
(15 March 2006) “Stephen Harper praises Karzai, Affirms backing for Mission”, Ottawa Citizen, A1
(16 March 2006) “The Afghanistan Canadian’s Didn’t See”, Ottawa Citizen, A6
(17 March 2006) “Injured solider would go back”, Ottawa Citizen, A8
(17 March 2006) “Red Devil Inn a refuge in the land of the Taliban”, Ottawa Citizen, A7
(22 March 2006) “Canada joins outcry over Afghani’s death sentence”, Ottawa Citizen, A1
Pugliese, D. (2003). Shadow Wars. Ottawa, Ontario: Esprit de Corps Books.
(Pugliese, 2003)
Goodson, L. (2003). Afghanistan’s Long road to Reconstruction. Journal of Democracy, 14(1) 82-89
Invalid source specified.Invalid source specified.Invalid source specified.
It's a bit messy, but thats livejournal's fault and not mine.. and frankly I am too lazy to try and fix it.
in other news i'm started to write a book after a long hiatus. Recently I feel like something is missing from my life.. besides the usual money and fame, which of course is always missing. I'm not really sure what it is but I thought writing again might help.. and it can't really hurt either.
Oh, and go sens go!
- Mike