My changing views on Afghanistan
I have never believed in the principles behind "The War on Terror" nor have I believed in any of the lies that led to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. After 9-11, I always thought about Afghanistan a little differently, but after reading an article in The Tyee by Murray Dobbin, I have decided to change my position completely.
In a nutshell, I believe Iraq was invaded for resources. I thought Afghanistan was different, but just this excerpt alone, really makes me wonder (emphasis mine)... In fact, I cannot believe I have not read this before...
"It is important also to revisit the original relationship between the US and the Taliban and the US invasion. The US poured millions into Taliban coffers until, says Margolis, about four months before 9/11. It was only cut off when the regime refused to sign a contract with US oil giant Unocal to build a pipeline south from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan. It is also surely relevant that the Taliban knew nothing of the plan to attack the US. (The plot was hatched in Germany.) Much was made of the fact that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US. But Bin Laden was a national hero wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle -- which the US financed. When the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal upon seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11, the US refused. And then invaded. This was by any international legal standard a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan threatened the US. It is also an illegal occupation."So now we have a situation where I believe, the country was invaded, again under false pretense, and as I would oppose any Canadian involvement in Iraq beyond medical and other rebuilding efforts, I now oppose our involvement in Afghanistan. This is a big statement, but after much thought, I am willing to make it. Further research shows me that Unocal could not move forward with their plans after the invasion until a stable government was established.
"the new Afghan government's head, Hamid Karzai, formerly served as a UNOCAL consultant. Only nine days after Karzai's ascension, President Bush nominated another UNOCAL consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan."
Maybe I was attempting to hold on to some form of muddled logical thought regarding the 9-11 attacks and the "honorable" invasion of Afghanistan, but I should have known better...The big problem now, is that Harper has created an environment where our MPs in Parliament have little choice (oh I know... a free vote and all that) but to have voted for the extension of our mission there lest they be labelled as "political game players" and other such nonsense. Our guys are there until early 2009 now, and NATO wants us to take the reigns in 2008... so I see no end to this mission, just as there is no end to the occupation in Iraq. So now what? Frankly, I can't believe I haven't read about this before, but it makes so much sense now.
I also see the numbers of people who believe that a terrorist attack on our soil is probable increase in my poll, specifically after the vote to extend our mission... Coincidence? Doubtful.
So we have to weigh some heavy things in our minds... Perhaps our troops are doing great things there right now, and the Afghans want us there to help, but by doing this, are we burying our heads in the sand with regard to what Big Brother south of us is doing? Is it worth cleaning up the mess everytime the US decides to invade another country for oil just because we are "doing good" after the fact? I don't think so. I think it's time they cleaned up their own mess.