Saturday, January 24, 2009

Why are troops in Afghanistan?

Well.. the discussion continues with Devin Maxwell over at Maxwell's House, over whether or not we should be overly concerned with Omar Khadr. In fairness to Devin, the fact that we can have this discussion and debate is a testament to what makes our country great - so while I disagree with him, I find the exchange of opinions in a relatively respectful manner to be a wonderful use of the internet and the blogging process.


Anyhow - last response from Devin posed the question, "May I ask you and Roger why you believe our government has sent young men and women to Afghanistan to die?"

Good question - one that deserves a response and a reminder.. and I have responded thusly:

Why our government sent soldiers to Afghanistan? Oh - I don't know - let's start with the Khadr's good friend Osama Bin Laden - and his quest to murder innocent people all over the world who stood in the way of fundamentalist Islam. Let's start with the vision we all shared of planes crashing into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania..

Let us pause for a moment from considering Omar Khadr's plight to think about the last thoughts of those in the planes and the buildings that lost their lives that day.

But don't stop there.. look to the plight of the Afghani people themselves - go look at http://www.rawa.org/wom-view.htm, where they describe the situation for women under Taliban thusly:

"With the coming to power of Islamic fundamentalists in 1992, women’s right to full participation in social, economic, cultural and political life of the country was drastically curtailed and later on summarily denied them by the Taliban. Under the latter, women were totally deprived of the right to education (all girls’ school were closed down), of the right to work (all women were ordered to remain in their houses and employers were threatened with dire consequences for taking up female employees), of the right to travel (no woman could venture out of the house alone and unaccompanied by a prescribed male member of the woman’s immediate family), of the right to health (no woman could see a male doctor, family planning was outlawed, women could not be operated upon by a surgical team containing a male member), of the right to legal recourse (a woman’s testimony was worth half a man’s testimony; a woman could not petition the court directly – this had to be done through a prescribed male member of her immediate family), of the right to recreation (all women’s recreational and sporting facilities had been banned, women singers could not sing least their female voices ‘corrupt’ males, etc.), and of the right to being human (they could not show their faces in public to male strangers, they could not wear bright colored clothing, they could not wear make up, they could only appear outside their houses clad head to foot in shapeless bags called burqas, they could not wear shoes with heels that click [least the clicking sound of their feet corrupt males], they could not travel in private vehicles with male passengers, they did not have the right to raise their voices when talking in public, they could not laugh loud as it lures males into corruption, etc. etc.)

This incredible list could be carried on and on but does not in itself constitute the whole of the tragedy which has engulfed the better half of Afghan society. Women are looked upon as war booty, their bodies are another battleground for belligerent parties. Atrocities in Bosnia pale when compared to atrocities in Afghanistan, but unfortunately for reason which it may not be appropriate to go into in this context, the world community neither heard nor cared about what was going on in Afghanistan. "


I guess it's your call Devin - would the world have been a better place if we had just left well enough alone?

Personally - I think that allowing Taliban and Al Qaeda a power-base in Afghanistan would have been a mistake and that armed intervention was necessary - but again, I'm a "bad guy" for having those thoughts.. but even Ignatieff understands, in his writings, that in dealing with terrorism, violence often needs to be met with violence.

I guess that's a call for all of our consciences, but.. again, I'm ok with what our government and others have done to battle the sickness of extreme Muslim fundamentalism.

2 comments:

Devo said...

First, let me say that I did not even bother to read your entire post. Frankly, I lost interest fairly early on in your recitation of conservative talking points.

That said, let me tell you why I asked the question....

You had indicated that you have lost no sleep over the illegal imprisonment and treatment of Omar Khadr. After suggesting that he was less of a Canadian citizen because of his ethnic origins, you purported to know precisely the events that led to his capture by American troops. You, and another commenter, stated that you didn't care what happened to Omar Khadr.

That's when I asked you why our young men and women are in Afghanistan. Why do we send them to such far away places to die in the name of our values and principles when we can't abide by those same values and principles ourselves.

Canadians are in Afghanistan because, apparently, we are offended by the way the previous government conducted its business and treated its citizens. Time and again we say that we are there to bring 'liberty', 'freedom' and 'human rights' to the poor Afghanis. We are shocked at the fundamentalism of the Taliban and the way women and non-believers are treated in their third world theocracy. Its all so undemocratic.

Yet we abandon our own principles in fighting the Islamic fundamentalists. The fundamentalists have made us reconsider our revulsion of terroristic military tactics and our belief in the rule of law and due process. Our values and beliefs do not seem to apply to the task of spreading our values and beliefs to others.

roblaw said...

Yes - typical "progressive" response to a Conservative they don't agree with - "I lost interest fairly early on in your reciation of conservative talking points"... loosely translated, "I would prefer not to have my position cluttered with contrary facts which make my own arguments weak, so I'll just ignore them".

I note, Devin - still no response to explain the conduct of Irwin Cotler - as a Liberal and past candidate for MP, I would be very interested to hear the explanation.

And I've said at least a few times, I don't support torture, and I believe it demeans us as a society, and I wouldn't have set up a prison and war tribunal outside of the U.S.. but, that being said, I agree with Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and now Stephen Harper that in this case, where the U.S. has taken prisoner an individual who may well be a murdering terrorist.. we do not interfere.

And I love how you and Grit Patriot love to try and pigeonhole me as some racist - suggesting I don't believe in freedom for Muslims or don't believe in freedom for Omar because of his "ethnic origins".

You just betray the weakness of your own position when you build straw men who don't exist.

I believe there are Pakistani and Afghani - particularly the women in RAWA, who are the most noble people on this earth and who I would be proud to call a Canadian citizen.. in point of fact, I have acted on behalf of a former Taliban soldier, who left Afghanistan long before 9-11 and fought against the Russians.. and he was a good and honourable man that I was pleased to have as a client.

To make my position clear, yet again, I don't have sympathy, however, for those who take advantage of our open arms and open hearts to try and destroy the freedom that we have - who are so sick and twisted that they believe they can use God's name to inflict death and terror on others.

Those people have a special place in hell, and while I would not choose to torture them - IF it occurred, I'm not losing sleep over it.