8pov

The world can certainly do better than this. Here's why.

Friday, October 3

"Pacify... and see its evolution"

'"I think that's wise. One of the things I disagree with some other Western leaders is that our plan can be somehow to stay in Afghanistan militarily indefinitely," he said during a televised election campaign debate.

'"If we are to truly pacify that country and see its evolution [added bold], we have to train the Afghan army and police so that they are credibly able to take greater responsibility for their own security ... we won't achieve such a target unless we actually set a deadline and work to meet it."'

— Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada


What the West wants it has not achieved in Afghanistan or Iraq. They have not won the ideological war.

What the Western powers want is a "democratic," economic-authoritarian state raised in the middle East. The ideology of the "American-style" free market must prevail and be open to Western interests. This, say NATO and US leaders, is to benefit the lives of people in the Caucasus, Persia, and Arabia — at least in their hearts and minds. To achieve this, America has, some say, provoked two wars, is spoiling to start a third, and has resurrected the Great Bear of Cold War Russia. Not to mention entanglements with Venezuela, Cuba, China, and most of the global system of finance. At the helm of this embattled ship: a neo-Conservative lot of miscreants, power-hungry warmongers, and slick lawyers, accountants, and economists. They who have looted, pillaged, and killed for profit still lead the nation.


The West still leads the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The mission to Afghanistan was to rout terrorist camps, remove the government that supports them (read: execute regime change), and to shift the ideology of the nation to one fundamentally benefitting the global economic system (read: stimulate the US economy). In this respect, two out of three is pretty F'ing horrible. That crucial third step can NOT be achieved with armed forces and can NOT be achieved by training the Afghan army to do the bidding of the West and secure their interests. It can, however, be achieved by brainwashing, torture, and the occasional provocation.


Hence, there can be no said date for the achievement of the objectives of these wars.

The United States, in case you haven't heard, is in the middle of an economic crisis. At $12B per month, the expenses of the war are mounting quickly. Put another way, that $700B (or is it $850B?) bail-out of the criminally-irresponsible yet unregulated banking system — an aforementioned "crisis" that has slowed the frenetic pace of global commerce even for the moment — is the same as "bailing out" the Iraq War every day for three years. Four years and ten months in the case of the $850B estimate.

The Iraq War and the greater War on Terror bleeds the American segment of the US economy even as it stabs itself repeatedly. America relies on debt as the engine of growth. This set-up requires Now, to ensure that the global economy continues to service the needs of the world’s largest consumers, the federal government seeks to nationalize the debts of private companies. This, so that the wars can continue to sap the economic strength of the nation and so Americans can continue to spend into oblivion.

Canada has committed to withdrawing the 2500 troops currently serving in Afghanistan by the end of 2011, completing nearly ten years of Canadian military service there. Funds are to be redirected to peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It is conceivable that peacekeepers and reconstruction efforts could cease in the event of withdrawal. Also, Canada may lose the spoils of war if the mission is not regarded successful. These spoils include trade agreements, treaties, and other actual and potential market considerations.

Further, to believe that techniques and tactics employed by the most powerful armies known to the world as successful in the suppression of violent opposition to the invasions is ludicrous.

Training an army, a police force, a government, and a society to behave as they would if they were "just a little more like yourself" is monstrous. It is social engineering. As policy, it is pacification. Undermining the way of life of a nation's people and consequently subjecting them to the blowback of extremism inherent in any human society, is inhumanity. As policy, it is collateral damage. Taking revenge on those deemed responsible for your suffering is human nature. As policy, it is the Bush Doctrine.


The leadership of the Western world is certainly questionable.

The current "crisis" in global finance is just another example of the failed leadership of Washington. The best and the brightest, elected leaders, and those who vie for the highest office, not only abetted the engineering of this situation, but plan to end the "crisis" in this fashion. They want the chain of bad debts being bought by an ever-increasing chain of dupes to end with the taxpayers. Something tells me that this was the plan all along.

And the failures of the West to maintain solid leadership in something as important as economy can be viewed as an indicator of the leadership shown in other affairs. Military, social, and justice issues have been raised in virtually every corner of the guiding systems of government and commerce.


Perhaps the actions of our enemy should be re-evaluated.

o Now that it is widely known that the invasion of Iraq was initiated by lies.

o Now that Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and numerous "Black Sites" are known to be American gulags.

o Now that Immigration officials within the United States have opened concentration camps.

o Now that we have questioned the depths of corruption plumbed by those in power.

o Now that you are being spied on and don't generally spend any time outside.

o Now that everyone is good and scared.

o Now that many more people are listening and not just hearing.

Now, we get this from Canada’s PM: "If we are to truly pacify that country and see its evolution, we have to train the Afghan army and police so they are credibly able to take greater responsibility for their security,"

Or, "If we are to break their wills and make 'em better than we thought they were, we have to tell the Afghan army and police all the stuff we want 'em to do so they can do it our way to ensure US (and NATO) the protection racket is in place."

This is not being achieved. There are few strategies to achieve this. All of them are ugly. A new approach is needed in Afghanistan. Afghans want to choose their own future. As do Canadians. With words like these, a new approach is needed in Canada as well. Otherwise, we may have to start asking ourselves some tough questions. What does it mean to pacify a state in our world? And what would an evolved Afghanistan be?

What happens when the Chinese stop footing the bill for America’s excesses?