killjoy

Krusty One of the most depressing things about the Western and especially Canadian view of any conflict over the past 20 years, whether we've been involved or not, it seems that to every individual it's somehow 'all about them' and they immediately choose a side and begin playing one of the many roles of our childish self-centred Hollywood-driven world-is-a-stage culture. It's part of ones' fashion, the way they see themselves, almost never about the reality. A lot of it has to do with daydreams of the idealistic '60's, of which most of our population is either a member of, or the spawn of, and the 40's (WWII) which was the last 'real war' of our social conscience. (don't know exactly why Korea always slips under the radar but it does). People hear about Haiti or Bosnia or Rwanda and either it's WWII and we all have to fight or it's Vietnam and either you're a 'support the troops'-type or a 'give peace a chance'-hippie-type (which is ironic since most of those we would identify as 'hippies' weren't responsible for the changes and initiatives that advanced the 60's, it was regular people). Suddenly every conflict no matter how big or small becomes WWII or Vietnam…not the actual wars mind you but the ‘mystique’ of them….the ‘legend’ of them. All one can do is shake their head. Sometimes I wish the public would just turn off the tv and concentrate on domestic issues. We'd probably all be better off. While politicians squirm to align themselves with whatever the neurotic public is 'feeling' about a given situation from week to week they make hasty and bad decisions that affect a mission that will take time but is working. In short what I mean is, for example: It wasn't NATO's fault the mission (over the entire 15 or so years) limped it's way like the Hunchback of notre dame, like the Frankenstein of public opinion it was, almost over the edge into disaster. In fact, imo, it was a disaster we are only now recovering from. It wasn't a disaster because of the "volatile nature of conflict", it wasn't a failure because the armed forces involved we incompetent, it was a failure because it was too little too late and a neurotic fumbling of a 'political will' driven bureaucracy. It's a real sad state when it is the various world military leaderships that, complete with their imperfections, still really do seem to 'know what's best', while all around are clueless. That's very scary. Seriously, what happened to us? Is it just too much information these days with the Internet and such? .

double post. sry.

For purposes of an update, yesterday I said this; We can't force them to choose our democracy or our laws. They choose. That's the idea. That's the difference. It may very well be a 'different' democracy than we envision. I say to that; "good". and this; "I think our image is fantastic in Afghanistan. We need to overcome money however. Money greases the wheels over there and although it sounds harsh and brittle a lot of support is found when you can alleviate some poverty while your at it (fix a bridge, build a school)..." This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: "Canadian program presents alternative to Taliban" ""It's a uniquely Canadian approach," said an official of Canada's provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. "It's never been done before. The whole point is community participation. If an insurgent comes to burn your school, you're more likely to defend it if it's your own school." The program, known as Confidence in Government, is being launched with $900,000 in CIDA funds for Shah Wali Kot district, where the meeting was held yesterday. Local leaders will consult their people on how to spend the money. If successful, the program will be expanded across the province, and it could be emulated by other international donors who are watching closely. While CIDA is talking of schools and medical clinics, the program is equally important to Canadian military commanders, who see it as a way of neutralizing the Taliban threat. "It's a useful counterinsurgency tool," said Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of Canada's provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. At yesterday's meeting, the tribal elders heard their leaders heaping praise on the CIDA program. "This program is totally different: It will be decided by you," provincial council representative Mohammed Qassi told the meeting. "It's not up to us to decide, it's up to you. This is like a seed -- if you help us with this program, others will come, and government programs can be implemented."" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...GHAN22/TPStory/ .

Well actually, Leafless, even under the definitions you put forth with those links it still isn't occuptaion. From your link: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The territory is not under authority of a hostile army. The Afghan government are the ones with the authority. .

No but it does represent a number of trained modern and well supplied soldiers who couldn't hold Afghanistan. Compared with the 8000+ NATO forces there now (exclusive of the 20000 US troops there as well). Plus the fact we are not receiving up to 50% casualty rates nor are we seeing the kind of force the Taliban used to have. In fact they are unable to use the organized military-style tactics they were originally using, like soldiers. Now they need to turn to the simpler, media-headline-grabbing IED and road-side bombs. It's backfired more than once or twice simply because the terrain doesn’t suit this tactic as well. You just start ignoring the roads. here is a better breakdown: "One month after the invasion there were as many as 40,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and during the first year the occupation forces were reorganized. Some 10,000 of the troops such as the support forces of the 40th Army, its artillery and SA 4 brigades, several FROG battalions, and a tank regiment were useless in a guerrilla war and were sent back to the Soviet Union in mid 1980. These heavy units were replaced by infantry units, more helicopter gunship, and other light forces more appropriate for guerrilla warfare. United States estimates were that there were about 85,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan by late 1980 and about 100,000 by the end of 1981. The Soviets could not reduce troop strength any more than this without risking control of key points in Afghanistan because they could not rely on the Afghan army." Note the year-two comparison is 85000. I also think the last part about the inability to trust the Afghan army is paramount to the point here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...cs-invasion.htm .

Yes, quite the occupation. One foreign soldier for every fifteen hundred people. In order to keep this on a track of reality, let's try just calling it what it is; helping prop up a democraticly elected government in the face of non democratic forces. Just to add a detail; this compares with the 115000 or so Soviet occupiers left over to withdraw from Afghanistan. One should see the numbers to make the comparison, in terms of deciding whether it's 'occupation' or 'help'. If 115000 Soviets couldn't occupy Afghanistan because of the resistance by Afghans then how is it we're still there if they didn't want us there by vast majority? .

It is the useless appendix of our colonial ancestry. Spike it in the heart with a rosewood stake.

Leafless Well like I say I'm not going to get into semantics over the word occupation. We don't have enough troops there to occupy in the traditional sense. Regardless of the meaning of the word or it's relation to what we are doing are you claiming you do not see the difference between what NATO is doing and what, say the Soviet Union did in '79? Or what Hitler and the Soviet Union did to Poland or France? The bottom line is we are not there for keeps and their government is intact. This doesn't strike me as occupation anymore than UN troops are 'occupying' south Korea. What can I say, Leafless? It’s neither my fault or the Afghan peoples’ fault if Harper is unaware of the previously existing democracy in Afghanistan in ‘92 that was overthrown by the Taliban through till 94. Perhaps he is aware and thinks the reporter wants a quick sound byte instead of a decent explaination. We are not trying to install democracy. We are reviving it. .

Leafless Well we can make it a semantic argument over the word occupation but I believe the difference is clear. It is based on the idea of permanent annexation. The occupiers are government. The occupiers are the law. This is contrary to the situation in Afghanistan with NATO. Annexation is not the motive. We do n0ot make their rules or enforce their laws. We know and they know that we don't have a tenth of the manpower to do that. They also know we want to leave soon or later. That's not just something people keep saying. We can't force them to choose our democracy or our laws. They choose. That's the idea. That's the difference. It may very well be a 'different' democracy than we envision. I say to that; "good". Not all democracies are 'Western-style'. India is a great example of a poor and very religiously diverse country that has made a success story out of democracy - their way. Is it Shangri-la? No of course not. Soviet Union on the other hand occupied to annex and create another Bloc-style country. Permanently. .

lol. Yeah I think what he meant to say is that he didn't know Goddard from a hole in the ground until she got killed. Now I'm all over her. There are some hard realizations that must be made if you're gooing to go out into the world and report on it or help it in any way. I agree. Without getting into the details I will say that I have seen the after effects of complete mindless violence. The sort of things you just don't forget and don't relate simply because phrases like 'quad-amputee child' are the equivalent to a verbal assault, imo. But I also don't get into the details because it wasn't these scenes that affected me as much as the realization that morality, law and order and indeed civilization itself is superficial. Civilization - the fact that you can go to your corner store and get some beer without being flogged by police for the colour of your shoes - is like the clothes you wear: on the surface. And as a nation or people you are either wearing Gucci or a loincloth but either way it can disappear in a moment and we're left with our ugly selves. It wasn't my eyes that delivered unwanted memories. That is recoverable. But I never recovered from the realization that what we believe is written in sand, even though we say it's written in stone, waiting to be rewritten with every new tide, and that all any of us really worship in the end is the god of necessity. My world went grey. A lot of reporters are just reporting black or white. Maybe because that's all anyone would believe or maybe it's just easier....fewer details to keep track of. Maybe the world is easier to comprehend with 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. .

Argis. I hear ya. Of course we wouldn't hear a beep if there was anything else going on. I've got one: A last week some reporter was asked politely to not take photographs of the prisoners while they were being held up for 'mug-shot' photos and searching. The paper (and a couple of others) ran the headline that the military was suppressing certain photos and that they didn't allow reporters to photograph them and that quite possibly the CA was breaking conventions by photographing them themselves. Well the CA photographing the enemy combatants was standard procedure and not at all in contradiction to the Geneva Convention that states (more or less) "that a prisoner may not be held up to ridicule or photographed for the purposes of public ridicule and that they should be protected from this". Well funny thing is, is that is precisely what soldier was doing: protecting the rights of these prisoners by restricting photography from public news sources ('public ridicule') while they were being processed. Funny how the story gets turned around when you piss off some little twit with a camera and a highly inflated sense of self worth. [rant] And of course this “story” has practically evaporated or fallen off the face of the earth a week later, leaving the impression to who had read it that we're running our own little Gitmo down there. I suppose it's the responsibility of the Army or the Government to run around correcting the media every 10 minutes...[/rant] As far as peacekeeping goes well that didn't do crap for Rwanda and it easily could've. All 'we' had to do in Rwanda is be willing to shoot and they would've parted the mobs to let refugees out and stayed clear of any'safe zones'....but what good is a safe zone or escorting refugees if you cant shoot? If it's well known by everyone that you won't? At some point one has to consider the fact that in the best interest of the masses that some people are going to have to get shot. It sucks ....it sucks an awful lot actually. It's not lost on anyone I know that when someone goes down thats also someones little boy or someone's dad. It is still better, far better than the alternative. But of course if we did that no one would know about the 500000 that didnt die. We would only know about the 100 or so we would've had to shoot to get the point across. We would've only heard about the blood on our hands. And of course there would be no 'happy ending'. You'd still (like you do today) just have thousands (is it millions?) of refugees. You often dont hear the success stories because there aren't a million bodies to point to. I do realize I'm probalby saying a lotta crap you already agree with.

Leafless, " Originally our mission there was peacekeeping and advanced (due to an increase in hostility caused by the Iraq effort) to the stage of actual military engagement in pursuit of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Has Canada's image been damaged as peacekeepers who now shoot bullets rather than build bridges? ". This isn't exactly accurate. You speak of the ISAF mission? But right from some of the earliest days to the most vicious fighting in Anaconda and beyond we have had troops engaging very effectively directly against the Taliban. We were involved in the most 'offensive' of the offensives and captured or killed NCND* numbers of enemy combatants. One thing you should know, if you don't mind me saying, about most of the Canadian forces actions in Afghanistan ( and abroad in general), specifically the way it is reported in the news: "NATO/Coalition" forces kill/capture people. "Canadian" forces hand out candy. Even when the two are the same. Same was true in Bosnia. I would point out one positive, imo, about Afghanistan today as opposed to those early days in that we now hand over captured enemy combatants directly to Afghan forces rather than more-or-less handing them straight to gitmo. They are more able and willing to take responsibility for these things all the time, but it still takes time. I think our image is fantastic in Afghanistan. We need to overcome money however. Money greases the wheels over there and although it sounds harsh and brittle a lot of support is found when you can alleviate some poverty while your at it (fix a bridge, build a school)....Where we are right now and for this mission we need to realize everyone is taking a huge risk if they side with us, even if that's what they want to do they need support to go along with it. Americans previously were quite good at this. Elder bribes and such, but we need to also show them we're there because we honour the idea....because we honour them as people. We have to show them we're different than the Taliban or anyone else they see walk into town with arms and numbers. We're not there to push or to order anyone. Our people ride up and simply ask if they are having problems we try and make opportunity for elders to talk to as alone away from the other townspeople. It's a hard mission where Canadians are right now....you have to be ready to shake a hand or pull the trigger. " Is it fair for Canada to participate in something that could be seen as solely an American interest issue?" The thing is, to me, the somewhat simplistic and early optimistic view by corporations to tap Afghanistan gas reserves...How is this only going to benefit Americans? We sell oil&gas to the Americans. Does it only benefit them? S'likely not to benefit Americans too much at all, but in a highly nationalistic, proud, democratic and therefore diplomatic trading society like the one Afghans see themselves as how is it NOT going to benefit Afghans? Would it be better they stick with the poppies or sell some gas and oil? This is the basic problem I have with the view that this is only going to benefit America and the idea that oil and gas is all they have to offer (they are likely to have huge mineral commodities too which would do well for trade with BOTH Pakistan and India) I would also have to disagree that the 'terrorism' is soley an American interest. "Now I know you discounted installing democracy in Afghanistan but it seems Mr. Harper says otherwise-see story: " Did I discount democracy in Afghanistan? Actually I think you mean is I discounted that democracy was 'our' values and not something they wanted to do. Is that right? I'm going to go with that. I read the link but Im not so sure what you wanted me to see, but if it is a difference between my opinion and Harper's rhetoric I'm likely to just pass/concede on that one as I don't take what he is saying too seriously one way or another. Like I say (not being sarcastic) maybe I missed your point there...sry. * NCND = Neither confirm nor deny :-)

"Well, there are certainly huge gas reserves in Afghanistan, and foreign companies would love to get access and control over" This is true. But unfortunately since it's so hard to get to it's not really as great a deal to do all by yourself --- and even then one pipeline doesn’t make for an economy......yes yes I've read all about UNICAL, the Americans turned a blind eye to what the Taliban was doing 92-94 so that they could use Pakistan and Iran to help create the pipeline deal. But so what? Would it not be better for that nation to be in a strong position to make profit on their own gas reserves? I would also like to point out that our definition of "oil producing nations" really needs to change since the US receives 17% of it's oil & gas from Canada and we still have 200 years in terms of reserves, add to that that Mexico supplies another 14% and the entire middle east (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) supplies only 8%. (why not invade Canada?) And for the last time the CIA did NOT CREATE the Taliban, they most assuredly created themselves and received some funding from the US/CIA but mostly during the Soviet occupation. In Tora Bora there are NORAD-style bunkers in the mountain. They are nuke-proof, gas-proof and highly modern....was it the US that built them? I used to think so until I learned it was the Pakistanis. "So as you can see, there is a huge potential for Afghanistan for oil and gas companies to make profits. In addition, because of America's heavy reliance on oil, it is in their best interest to see Afganistan under control of a govt. friendly to them". I agree with 90% of this ( i only disagree on the "huge" part really), and I do not deny that it would be favouable to the West in general and the US specifically to have friendly leadership there. But again i need to ask, so? If it was all about oil they could've done it in 92-94 and had the as much or more backing as anyone would have, instead they tried NOT to 'impose their belief system' on them, and deal with the current Taliban govt. This is monsterious? So they are trying to make deals....seriously: so what? So the reason we went to Afhgnaistan is because after years of attacks against the US all over the world, (our NATO ally and although it may bring the bile to your throat the fact of the matter is it benifits Canada greatly and has for years to be a member), and after years increasing lunacy from the Taliban in regards to their own people, (that never happened because we didnt read about it all the time, mind you :-) ), and then AFTER 9/11 they finally invade and kick the Taliban out in order to....what? Build a pipeline? That was their big plan? I admit big business is always right there like a fly on shit to try and make a prfit from situations like this, but that corporations for you. It's not the reason we're there. (sigh) yeah. Those evil Americans. I dunno. I admit it's a very hard postion to take these days because I in no way intend to defend the actions and apperent complete lack of competence on the part of the current Administration with regards to their mission in Iraq. But then we're not talking about Iraq (are we?). "Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. " --Buddha

Leafless: "What aspect concerning the 'war on terrorism' or 'occupation of Iraq-Afghanistan' or the advancement of 'U.S. world domination' as top cop are you promoting in the way of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to encourage some form of intelligent debate?" I dunno. Did you read it? How about the part where we aren't 'forcing our value system on them with democracy' when it's plain history that the majority was well on it's way to a strong democracy in '92 before foreign-led Taliban decided they 'knew what was best' for everyone. I was rather expecting a reply actually.....I was expecting someone to say, " I agree with this, but when you say 'this' over here you're dead wrong and this is why". 'U.S' world domination? Please. What are you taking about? You mean the way they keep the worlds sea lanes safe for everyone and almost never rub it in or ask for money? You mean dominance the way people and power structures all over the world continually invest in them because they feel they are safe to do so? Who would you rather be next door to instead of the USA? China? Nigeria? Biafra? Oh- wait that nation doesn’t exist anymore. I am tired....very weary of all the knee-jerk relactions in the country to any and all things American. Seems to me in this country we make ALL decisions based on what the US is doing or what it's not doing. If the USA jumped off a bridge we wouldn't, but if they didn't jump off the bridge we probably would and think of it as a sound decision simply because the Americans didn't do it. The real point I was trying to get across is the blatantly false impression we get about the world by listening to the media and yet what else can we do? You'd be stupid NOT to follow the news, and yer stupid (or missing something) if you do follow it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not much different than the US. How about we start with my rant about human perception and the media? Am I wrong? Seriously, ask yourself: When was the last time you read about a reconstruction initiative or the 3000+ schools that have been put back into business? Does that mean it doesnt happen? Well it kinda does. If we dont read it - it doesnt happen and when we do read it, that's ALL thats happening. So when its 50%bad news and 50% good news but all we hear is the bad news then we're not in a real good position to make an 'informed decision', are we? What about the thousands who want our involvement? They are there but we never hear their opinions.... but when a lunitic walks into a cafe and blows himself up and takes 30 peole with him --- oh well now HIS 'opinion' is splattered all over the front page and we can't really be blamed if our perception is that 'everyone' in Iraq (or Afghanistan) thinks like the sucide bomber or (Hudood Ordinance in the case of a car-bomber). It's false. A false impression that leads to false conclusions. I am not anti-media but it is plain fact that it is the media that is the tool of terrorism (Islamic, Irish, whatever doesnt matter) and not 'terror'. We read about it whether we feel 'terrorised' or not. "Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. " --Buddha

PART 2 Misconceptions about Afghanistan. All over the net I read opinions about NATO's mission and Canada’s' involvement and I feel I really need to address some details that, IMO are seriously misunderstood by many if not most of the Canadian, American and European public regardless of which side they are on. I would like to list some of what I see as 'common denominator' concerns and address them. In a lot of ways I just want to get it off my chest and I don't suppose it will do much good, which is to be expected. I would point out that my political compass will be hard for most to determine accurately (so dont rush to label me and then hide behind that) and I do not like politicians very much - every election, to me, is a choice of lesser evils that seem to get worse every 4 years. 1. "Afhgans, the Afghan people = The Taliban" There is a really great article here on the genesis of the Taliban sect, and it's origins both in Afghanistan and Iran and Pakistan. The important part to understand for today is that the majority of al-Qaeda and even Taliban leadership is foreign. That is not to say that the sect is foreign but that the leadership has been for decades and this basically forms a foreign leadership of a sect that never controlled Afghanistan to begin with. When people say Afghanistan has never been conquered they're right - they weren't conquered they were hoodwinked into losing their leadership to Iranians, Arabs and Pakistanis. Afghans want it back. from the link: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/396/in4.htm " - One outcome has been the emerging modern notion of political participation, which has come into conflict with the political tradition of single ethno-hegemony. According to Iranian social scientist Changuiz Pahlavan, the modern idea of nationalism which emerged in recent years could no longer be based upon the rule of a single Pashtun ethnic community. The mass of non-Pashtun warriors who fought to oust the Russians from Afghanistan would no longer go home and submit to the rule of the Pashtuns. With the absence of a nationally unifying force, the continuing Pashtun supremacy rendered other ethnic groups even more aware of their identity. At a time when there was a need for a national consensus transcending ethnic divisions, therefore, ethnic loyalties were becoming even stronger. Although the Taliban are by and large of Pashtun origin, their emphasis on Islam as the religion of the nation, and their madrasas, which accept students of all ethnic affiliations, succeeded in giving people a sense of national unity beyond ethnicity. Upon the departure of the Soviets, and before the advent of the Taliban, the coalition of Afghan Mujahidin (consisting of different ethnic groups, both Shi'ite and Sunni) also attempted to build a national consensus, even managing to ratify a Constitution in the early 1990s. The Pashtun leaders again reinstated their dominance, however, thus causing dissent among other Mujahidin and undermining the coalition. Pakistan played a key role in instigating the ethnic dominance of the Pashtuns. Pakistan was adamant that the regime in Afghanistan be both Islamist and Pashtun, as the Pakistani army is largely made up of this ethnic group. The Taliban offered such an opportunity. But Pakistan's backing of the Taliban also had other significant advantages. It would give Pakistan a strategic ally in face of the ongoing conflict with India. In addition, because the US preferred the Taliban to the Mujahidin, the latter being close to Iran, it sought to have the pipeline project which is to bring oil and gas from central Asia to the Persian Gulf pass through Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iran. This project would provide Pakistan with oil and gas resources as well as rent income. UNOCAL, a US firm, and its Saudi partner Delta are bidding to construct the pipeline. Reportedly, UNOCAL has bribed Pakistani army officials and security forces to ensure their backing of the project. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which seeks to support suitable religious groups in the Muslim world, found in the Taliban a force which could undermine Iranian influence in Afghanistan. - The writer is associate professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo. " 2. "Afghanistan is a backwards country of illiterate war-like peasants and farmers who do not want to get along and who essentially aren't very much different, culturally, than the Taliban who ruled them. " It is true that there is a deepening divide between rural and urban Afghanistan, but this is a world-wide phenomenon and not the beginning of a civil war as Im sure the media would wish for. But Afghans are highly nationalistic despite all the hoopla that is made over 'tribal divisions'. However illiterate though they may be I feel frustrated that we never read about the highly masochistic paternal fathers who still want their sons AND daughters to attend school if they can. This is something the people want, yet the Taliban outlawed most of them and continue to burn them down today. With the Taliban it's either the boot on your neck or the rope. So illiterate though they may be they are neither as stupid nor as unaware of the outside world as many seem to think. Nor are they as internally war-like as we are lead to believe. 3. "We're there because of 9/11. The CIA created the Taliban. The created al-Qaeda. It's their problem. Why should we deal with it?" The CIA helped fund both the Taliban and al-Qaeda in modest terms compared with the support and funding they received from Arab/Other nations. They did not 'create' the Taliban, they were already there, but their already strict nature has been hijacked by foreign influence. This can be seen by observing their increasingly ruthless nature towards the people they supposedly govern. If you follow the timeline up to 2001 there is an unmistakable increase in brutality and the killing of civilians prior to 9/11. All the while the puppets of the Taliban having their strings pulled by foreign leaders. link: http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index4.html It also seems to be lost on people that nearly 100% of their arms came/come from the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan or Cambodia. 4. "The British could not occupy them. The Soviets could not occupy them. No can occupy them. Why do we think we can? Also, you cannot impose your belief system on other people. Why are we trying?" 5. "They do not want us there" So many ways to tackle this issue. The idea here I have to believe is that 'imposing' democracy....democracy being 'our values' and that these wild peasants couldn't fathom the idea of democracy let alone use it. This of course overlooks the fact that a democratic consensus had been reached in Afghanistan as well as a draft constitution laid out specifying a democratic nation under Islam - (which of course is a threat to serious Islamic fundamentalists and terror groups alike) and they even held elections in 1992. The Taliban did not concede power and instead started their long road of suppression and dominance of their sect. So they aren't really OUR values at all....this is what the Afghans started for themselves in '92....the fireign lead Taliban wouldn't stand for it. But what about occupation? Well it's really simple; we're not really trying to occupy them and the vast (VAST) majority understand this. I'm not going to try and kid you - they do not like foreigners very much and they do not like foreign warriors, but they are a very practical people and are not really as closed or stupid as people in the west seem to think. We are simply trying to provide the security to let them have the breathing space to decide themselves. Afghans and NATO alike understand that they could rout us. They fear the Taliban more than us, but they are still willing to give us a chance, by in large. Occupation is not the point at all. This seems to be a well-known anywhere inside Afghanistan. This is one of the reasons Canadian bases fly the Afghan flag alongside ours. As far as the Soviets not being able to occupy them, well people love to point out in one breath that the CIA funded/controlled/created the Mujahideen and that they wouldn't have been able to do it without their help, and in the next breath claim the the Afghans alone kicked the Soviets out -- e.g. "So why do we expect ot be able to do it?". So which is it? The Soviets couldn't occupy Afghanistan, or the Soviets couldn't occupy the unwilling Afghans AND the entire US war-machine? The British? Well look, a lot is made of the British colonial army but the truth is spears made them think twice. They were a commerce empire. Again none of it matters because the last thing anyone in NATO wants is to occupy, (i.e. forever, w/100000 troops) Afghanistan. That's not the mission at all and no one Afghans or NATO is going to argue that occupation would be suicidal. This is not the mandate and the only people under any illusions of such are (by in large) outside Afghanistan, thankfully. 6. "The Afghanistan invasion is just for corporate profits" A quick look will show that there is actually very little interest in Afghanistan and they are, in fact, entirely dependant of foreign corporate investment and are having trouble finding takers. I sincerely thank you if you actually read all of this. "Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. " --Buddha

PART 1 Human Perception is a necessity, not a sense. There's no way to say what I'm about to say without pompously sounding like I came up with it myself and none of you ever thought about it before. That's not my intention. The way the brain navigates a universe is NOT by asking questions, but by confirming or excluding preconceived answers. When we do not know the answer to something we create a 'best guess' answer to fill the void and then endeavour to either confirm this guess or exclude it. This is because the human brain CANNOT function without pre-determined answers. When we are completely void of any best guess we almost always think the worst.... grown adults sometimes find themselves scared to open a closet door in a darkened room or seek out the nature of a noise the heard in the forest at night while sitting by the campfire. This illustrates how 'the Unknown' can, (is?) the scariest thing we can face for the very reason that our minds have a lot of trouble dealing without estimates or reliable guess. Or, consider the old "if a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear it?". Now the point of this question is to put a person in a state where their brain accepts that they cannot answer a question. This, supposedly will lead to an almost trance-like operation of the brain known as 'meditation' and is meant as an escape from the tiring and frustrating existence of a mind (all of us) that is, as Morrison put it, "squirming like a toad"....always looking for answers and often never liking them as they may not correspond to the preconceived answer the mind already provided itself with. What does this have to do with Afghanistan or the media? Well, for starters, we're not in Afghanistan and we have questions. Like it or not, and regardless of our willingness to admit it, we do have preconceived answers but as thinking adults we understand these answers are only estimates and guesses so we look for sources of information to either confirm or deny these guesses. Where do we look? The media. Where else? What's wrong with that, right? How does the media work? I'm not a journalist but I do know this: an international reporter is, more often than not, paid by the story. The story does not print, they do not get paid. Subsequently a reporter finds the stories they believe have a high chance of being printed by their editors. This will presuppose that they are stories the editor is interested in publishing. "IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS." I don't intend to argue that the media is 'liberal bias' or that there is some 'anti-war' conspiracy to them. That's silly. But the effect is similar. For example there is issue of how a reporter wants to be viewed. They know that a pro-military operation story will be perceived, as propaganda and butt-kissing, but a negative story seems to imply that the reporter is covering the "hard stories" and finding the "hard answers". Baloney. Because they decide what is newsworthy, they also decide and manipulate (intentionally or not) our perception of Iraq OR Afghanistan. We take their word as gold and yet so many times the journalist hasn't even left the hotel, has paid a soldier or an eyewitness for the story, or has simply arrived at the scene last. Why is this important? Let me ask you: When was the last time you read in the paper or saw on the news a story about the Red Cross and all the good work they are doing in Iraq? (Notice that? I asked a question when I am already fairly certain of one of two answers.) I'm thinking that most people had no idea beyond peripheral assumption that the Red Cross was working in Iraq....until one of them gets kidnapped. Then and only then we learn of the Red Cross and not of all the fine work that they do but rather about how dangerous Iraq is and look here, Red Cross workers were kidnapped....must be a strange violent and uncontrolled place, right? What about reconstruction? When was the last time you read about a reconstruction story? Personally I can't remember the last time I read about one. Does that mean they aren't going on? No, of course not, right? But since we never read about all the Iraqi's helping the Red Cross and all that the Red Cross is doing to help them, or about reconstruction or about the Iraqis or Afghans who are working for democracy or change, but instead only what happens when things go bad. We don’t read about the IEDs that were found and disarmed, we only read about the ones that take life. Then there is the classic "liberal media" or "underground media" like Alternative Radio etc. I listen to them all the time. They are not always 'wrong', but there is no doubt that these people have chosen their "side" and will not tell any stories that do not conform with it (no different than the Bush admin.'s mouthpiece Fox news) They lie. They lie easily as much as any other media source lies or manipulates or makes it up as they go along. They lie for the same reason Fox will: Because they believe they are fighting the "good fight" and that justifies anything. They are the "I told you so" crowd and for most of them reality or the shaping of reality is more about fashion than actual reality. Who would they be to their peers if one day they woke up and didn’t tow the line? They would be excommunicated and their "Rage-Against-The-Machines" girlfriends would leave them. Yes: it is that simple. You will not read about Afghan fathers who want their children (girls as well) to attend school. You will find it hard to read about the people who believe and live for and fight for things like 'freedom', which let's face it, has become a cliché word without meaning. We do not understand because we live with about as much freedom as one can experience in this life or world. We will not read about the kids who are NOT being stoned to death or beaten for playing or singing. You will only read bad news because bad news is all that sells papers. Honestly, if you past a newspaper box with the front page heralding a new construction or government initiative would you bother to read the by-line? But if the headline read, "1000 Afghans killed, 20 Canadian soldiers killed" you'd stop, right? Whether it's 90% good news and 10% bad news or the other way around all you will ever read is the bad news. This shapes our perception to a point that most of us are too proud to admit or realize. Either way we are usually left with a grossly mis-informed and mis-interpreted version of what is going on and end up with a picture that is vstly different from reality.

Hello. Nice forum. First post. PREAMBLE: Thank you in advance for your patience I am a 14-year veteran in the Armed Forces still serving, currently in Edmonton Alberta. I belong to a specialized recce unit attached to the Princess Patricia’s Light Infantry, III Battalion. That's as specific as I'm going to get about that, except to say I am not 'Special Forces' or 'JTF2'. My unit was heavily involved in Operation Anaconda, Shahikot Valley (Task Force Rakassan, TF K-Bar) et. al. I have been involved in various recce and security missions from Rwanda to Somalia to Bosnia since 1992. I don't say that to lord it over on anyone, nor do I enjoy being tested, (but I will pass). I am not here to belittle the concerns or information any of you who are for or against the mission in Afghanistan, and finally, while I do believe I have an important perspective, point of view and information many are not privy to I don't believe that I 'know it all' and I am only interested in the ears of those who are mature or smart enough to believe the same. Unlike my peers I will not heap loads of "support the troops" on you and I will not belittle valid concerns people have about this conflict, even if I do believe they are missing information or the whole point entirely. I believe there are a lot of misconceptions about the state of Afghanistan today, the Taliban and their relationship with Afghans, the will of the majority of people over there and ultimately, the chances of a happy ending. With your patience I really cant do this without it being a two-parter. I'm not a fan of long-winded posts, but better to get as much on the table as I can at the start rather than dragging it out over 30 posts. First I would like to address how the media shapes our perception, and then I'd like to talk about what you never really see/read. If you stay on for the ride I think we can get a really good conversation going. Oh - just to get the ball rolling: A person who lives in Afghanistan can, if you must, be referred to as an Afghan (like the rug), but in any case an Afghani is a unit of their currency.