Afghanistan's General Mohammed Daud Daud

[Michael Hardner]

Have you heard of General Mohammed Daud Daud ?

I hadn't, until I read the Globe & Mail article on him this weekend. He is, apparently, yet another example of our pragmatism in dealing with states like Afghanistan. Certainly, with Iraq, we're seeing something different than this - democratic institutions are in their infancy and are hopefully being nurtured towards a better future.

It seems, however, that Afghanistan is being dealt with along the old model. Likewise, our media interest in that region seems to be following the familiar path: only bad news is worth reporting, and the whole of our involvement is anchored to murky objectives, which are often draped in higher ideals in order to dissuade debate.

I happen to think that we should be in Afghanistan, but that we should be working positively towards a new future - rather than making deals with villains in order to maintain order in the short term. And I think that the biggest responsibility falls on those citizens whose troops have been deployed.

While I don't think that it's practical for the government to reveal its tactics and strategies, I think that this type of 'deal with the devil' has been disastrous in the past, and similar deals have been engaged for short-term and political reasons. As such, I think the government owes us an explanation as to what the parameters are in these arrangements.

And, ultimately, we need to constantly watch these situations and demand that our governments respond. Otherwise, we will constantly be confronted only when the situation is at the breaking point.

[Topaz]

Have you heard of General Mohammed Daud Daud ?

I hadn't, until I read the Globe & Mail article on him this weekend. He is, apparently, yet another example of our pragmatism in dealing with states like Afghanistan. Certainly, with Iraq, we're seeing something different than this - democratic institutions are in their infancy and are hopefully being nurtured towards a better future.

It seems, however, that Afghanistan is being dealt with along the old model. Likewise, our media interest in that region seems to be following the familiar path: only bad news is worth reporting, and the whole of our involvement is anchored to murky objectives, which are often draped in higher ideals in order to dissuade debate.

I happen to think that we should be in Afghanistan, but that we should be working positively towards a new future - rather than making deals with villains in order to maintain order in the short term. And I think that the biggest responsibility falls on those citizens whose troops have been deployed.

While I don't think that it's practical for the government to reveal its tactics and strategies, I think that this type of 'deal with the devil' has been disastrous in the past, and similar deals have been engaged for short-term and political reasons. As such, I think the government owes us an explanation as to what the parameters are in these arrangements.

And, ultimately, we need to constantly watch these situations and demand that our governments respond. Otherwise, we will constantly be confronted only when the situation is at the breaking point.

This past week on CNN at the bottom of the TV screen , it said that Obama was planning to send 400,000 troops into Afghanistan, so I can't see how our 2384 troops will be even needed.

[DogOnPorch]

This past week on CNN at the bottom of the TV screen , it said that Obama was planning to send 400,000 troops into Afghanistan, so I can't see how our 2384 troops will be even needed.

17,000 US troops from various sources including Iraq which is barely a weak division's worth. Not 400,000 (equal to the regular US Army in total there abouts). Canada has what amounts to a regiment.

The real combat action in Afghanistan. Forward Combat Bases.

Edited March 23, 2009 by DogOnPorch