Year End Assessment Of Afghanistan: A Bleak Outlook

From December 19, Bill Moyers of PBS has a very interesting assessment of the situation in the country that talks about rising American casualties, the Taliban insurgency, and the Poppy trade. In the video he interviews the Washington Post’s Sarah Chayes, a former National Public Radio reporter who stayed in Afghanistan as a private citizen since just after 9/11. She has been running a co-op there which employs local Afghans. She speaks of the dangerously corrupt Karzai government that is driving a people who despise the Taliban back into their arms. The website has both the video and transcript. Some of the highlighted problems of the country:

So what we’ve really done is set up a kind of monopoly on the exercise of power. I mean, it’s the opposite of what everything that we consider to be democracy, we’ve allowed an abusive concentration of power in the hands of, in particular, the executives, be it, in particular, on a local level like the provincial governors and their acolytes. Because we’ve convinced ourselves and often we have to – by “we” I mean us and our NATO allies – convince our own public opinion that this is a democratically elected representative government of Afghanistan in order to justify the sacrifices in money and troops and things like that. But the Afghans see it differently.

[...]

We do need more troops. And let me just remind you that the number of troops on the ground per population is pretty much the lowest of any U.S. post-conflict involvement since World War II. And at this point the Taliban kind of military campaign plan is effective enough that, you know, you do need troops to prevent them from making military encroachments that are really dangerous.

You also need troops to protect the population from the Taliban. There are people who don’t like the Taliban but may kind of knuckle under to them because, on the one hand, the government isn’t doing anything better for them. And the Taliban are going to kill them if they don’t visibly divide themselves away from the government.

[...]

There is a direct link between Afghanistan and 9/11. I don’t think Afghanistan is an isolated place. Afghanistan is very connected to its neighbors, in particular to Pakistan. I don’t think that we can afford to leave this region alone to fester.

[...]

So we need to get the knots out of our foreign policy here. It’s very perplexing to Afghans to understand that we are providing $1 billion a year to the Pakistani military which is creating the Taliban.

Sarah Chayes also points out the problem with “reconstruction” efforts and infrastructure being passed through the corrupt channels of the Karzai government. Additionally the key to Afghanistan may ultimately mean figuring out the machinations behind the military intelligence complex of the Pakistani Army and the religious extremism it not only tolerates, but fuels regionally. There have been some very notable critics of the mission in Afghanistan based upon the direction it has taken and under the stewardship of the regime of Karzai. Mr.Chayes also agrees that if we’re not willing to challenge President Karzai on “a manifestly corrupt removal of a perfectly upstanding governor”, then certainly she can understand why western nations wouldn’t want their men and women going there to die for corrupt warlords.

[...]

Also related, a terribly depressing article about selling children in Afghanistan. While girls are relatively worthless, boys are fetching a price on the market, which has also fueled a human abduction and trafficking trade there.

Theatre Of The Absurd

Via Joanne, I was able to visit a Toronto Star article written by James Travers yesterday entitled “An astounding political blunder: At first, Stephen Harper seemed alive to the need for economic stimulus. Then came November.” It isn’t so much the article that is of any interest, but the comments are a bona fide popcorn show:

The deliberate creation of a chaotic and disordered political environment, particularly among opposing parties, was a technique pioneered by Hitler in an attempt to make his party appear reasonable by comparison. and by the way his party achieved about 37% of the vote at its peak – coincidence?

Harper is Hitler? Check.

I would like to give money to my party, but I can’t afford it. With the $1.95 I can help my party a little. The rich have the means to give generously to their political party. Harper cuts taxes which benefit the rich far more than they benefit me. The GST cut of 2% is very small to me, much greater to the rich, so it was a small thing that had big political dividends. The surplus we had under the Liberals would also have been a boon at this time.

Anyone catch the logical black hole in that first statement? I can’t “afford” to give money to my party, so I want $1.95 of taxes going to them. You can’t afford $1.95? How do you take the bus to work? And no, the rich can’t give generously to their political party ever since Stephen Harper cut the size of maximum donations to $1,000 under the Federal Accountability Act.

And then there’s the little problem that the Liberal surpluses were based on a little slush fund called “Employment Insurance”.

You need remedial reading. There is no instance of fiscal responsibility by any Conservative government in Canada since 1900. Mulroney drove our deficit off the rails. This was corrected by Chretien and Martin.

Again, slush fund [admittedly, "Alberta Girl" does a pretty good of pointing that out].

And now finally, the voice of reason:

It is infuriating to read yet another column which suggests that the inclusion of the Bloc in the coalition was “dumb” and that Layton and Dion did not NEED the Bloc. Can we add? Please. The Conservatives control 143 seats. Together the Liberals and NDP control only 114. No Governor General in her right mind would grant the authority to govern to a coalition which could not control Parliament. The opposition parties were painted into a corner. They could not support Harper’s Financial Statement; they could not afford to fight another election; they could not form a credible coalition without the support of the Bloc. It was the desperate move of desperate men, but what was the alternative? To defeat the government on a confidence motion and then to limp through an underfunded election campaign only to be faced with a Conservative majority?

Pretty much.

On The Subject Of Socialist Programs: Native Grants

I would assume that the vast majority of my, for lack of a better term, colleagues, will disagree with me on this one, but I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea of turning university grants for natives into repayable loans. And that would be completely inconsistent, incompatible, and possibly even incoherent from my previous arguments against socialist spending programs enacted by the federal government that aren’t entirely egalitarian in nature. What do I mean? Well, I usually oppose any kind of programs that are essentially based on affirmative action, or the more modern term “restorative justice”, in order to endow benefits and assistance to a particular demographic because of an either perceived historical injustice or inequality. But in this case I may have to break faith with my usual ideological stance, and say that this is, overall, a poor idea:

WINNIPEG — The federal government is considering turning university grants for aboriginal students into repayable loans.

A Winnipeg paper said in a report from Ottawa that Patricia Valladao, spokesman for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, confirmed the Post-Secondary Student Support Program is under review.

She wouldn’t say if the department has decided to transfer control of $314 million in student grants for First Nations university and college students to the existing Canada Student Loans Program, administered by provinces.

The review is worrying some aboriginal leaders and university officials across the country.

One Quebec-based aboriginal group, the First Nations Education Council, is circulating a web-based petition against any changes. More than 13,000 supporters have signed it since its launch online Nov. 13.

“Under review” doesn’t mean anything is definite yet, and others have even suggested that the media has got it all wrong, and that natives aren’t being forced to repay loans, only that First Nations university grants are being transferred into the administration of the Canada Student Loans Program. An amalgamation, if you will.

But let’s discuss the idea of victimhood and compensation and federal grants for a moment. I’ve made some comments about natives in the past that haven’t exactly been well received, with my remarks breaking down to the essential point that at a certain stage we have to accept that colonial powers have long ago rendered the concept of a First Nations contemporaneous nation impossible, and so it is perhaps better for them to just integrate. I realize now that that was probably a poor choice of advocacy, but the underlying truth was one of hope for a prosperous future for all Canadians, and not some unfounded suspicion that I dislike natives. Heteronormative racist, I believe, was the term used to describe me.

So how can I hold the simultaneous belief that all peoples should be treated equally and as individuals in this country, and also not want to eliminate federal grants to natives? Well, to answer that question, we need to look at statistical information that forces a more pragmatic approach:

Take four news reports in the last week. The first confirmed the terrible literacy problems in the aboriginal community. A Statistics Canada report found only 30 per cent of off-reserve natives in Saskatchewan had the literacy levels needed to “successfully cope in a complex knowledge- and information-based society.” That’s half the non-aboriginal rate.

The second highlighted the national failure of efforts to deal with the problem. A review of school safety looked at the First Nations School of Toronto, set up to help aboriginal students succeed. Not one member of the Grade 3 class met provincial standards in reading, writing or arithmetic; one-third of the 450 elementary school students had been suspended in the previous school year.

[...]

The third report, based on census results, looked at the rapid increase in the self-identified aboriginal population in Canada. It grew 45 per cent between 1996 and 2006, almost six times the general population growth. One factor was a higher birth rate; 28 per cent of B.C. aboriginals are under 15.

[...]

The fourth report was the latest update on labour shortages in Canada, as the federal government expanded a program that allows foreign workers to fill jobs in every area from construction to hotel housekeeping. Employers say they need to bring in temporary workers because no one can be found within the country to do the work.

Now, the above article is nearly a year old, and the labour shortages in the market are certainly not going to be a problem in a recession, although it’s certainly valid to question the need for temporary foreign labour when we have a large and underutilized labour force in Canada. Essentially the main “barrier to entry”, so to speak, for natives to getting out of the reservations and into the workforce, is education. So in that vein, in that train of thought, it would be illogical to erect another barrier to entry, no matter how much it is based upon the principles of treating natives like “everyone else”. I have two children that I put $300 away from every cheque into an RESP to insure their future education, and unlike some native students, they will not be qualifying for a subsidized education. However my children also will not have to live on reservations with often-times second-rate medical services and amenities, and go through periods of long unemployment, if not chronic generational poverty and misery.

So I feel that anything that encourages natives to participate in post-secondary education, particularly one that is a non-mandatory form of participation and integration into Canadian society and the economy [and that's not to say that natives are not Canadians], can only be a good thing on the whole. The alternative is to perpetuate everything that is wrong with aboriginal policy and the dependence on the reservation-state that maintains a quality of living that no Canadian should endure. This is not to say that natives will then need to leave behind the reservation forever. Natives who succeed in University can return to inspire other young people to enhance their lives and their livelihoods, and this raises the entire bar for the aboriginal community.

Related

Saskboy: Federal Conservatives Fail in First Nations Lead Balloon [Link]

Gaza Reaps What It Sows

Gaza is under the siege of an angry nation. A nation that continues to be targeted by the terrorist arm of the Hamas government of Palestine’s Gaza Strip. And their response has been anything but “disproportionate”. After all, what is Israel to do when time after time, cease-fire after cease-fire, the terrorists continue to launch deadly rocket attacks against Israeli citizens? What is Israel to do when they are endlessly provoked by their neighbours, prodded and nudged each time into action? They do what any nation that protects it’s sovereignty would do: they strike back.

This, naturally, affects the cognitive dissonance of the left, who for reasons unknown seem to support Hamas almost instinctively in these affairs, condemning Israel for responding to terrorist attacks. The main argument is always the same, in that Israel is seen to respond “disproportionately” to the measure of force initially used. But how does that make any sense whatsoever? Is a terrorist’s life worth the life of an Israeli civilian killed in a Qassam rocket attack? Is even 1,000 terrorist lives worth one-one thousandth that of any one of us who cherish peace, order, and the rule of law?

It’s a rather simple and foreseeable consequence that Hamas has brought upon itself, again, and even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas acknowledges this is the fault of the terrorist organization. Mr.Abbas blamed Hamas for not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state, and for disrupting unity talks and provoking Israel. And Hamas, for their part acting every bit the repugnant and resolutely irredeemable terrorists they are, have promised “revenge”.

Revenge? In what twisted and desperate form of cognition could Hamas think they will ever win a war against Israel? The fact that Israel has responded swiftly and brutally, targeting Hamas infrastructure and leaders with accuracy, shows that the Jewish state has been anything but unrestrained in this “war” so far. Truth be told, they have every right to simply march into Gaza and hunt down and exterminate every last terrorist there. And if that means a bloodbath of civilians, then the citizens of Gaza will also have reaped what they sowed, by democratically electing an organization whose sole aim is the destruction of the Jewish state.

The world only pays attention when Israel responds, of course, which makes them the “bad guys”. We always see the counterattacks, the swift response, the “disproportionate force” used. Daily Qassam rockets go unreported by a media that slumbers to the actions of Hamas, but the moment Israel attempts to defend their citizens from wanton murder, the world turns in unison to condemn them. As for the reports of massive civilian casualities, there is “reason to doubt this”:

“Islamic extremists fighting Israel nearly always inflate death tolls. They have even been known to empty morgues and dig up new graves to find extra bodies to add to the carnage at the sites of Israeli attacks.”

This is the theatre of war, only in this theatre it is the Hamas actors playing the victims, rather than the murdering terrorists of civilians they truly represent. Palestine could have chosen nationhood long ago by laying down their weapons, their ties to terrorism, and passively resisting any Israeli attempts to control their path to sovereignty. Unfortunately, instead of following Mahatma Ghandi to defeat a much larger foe by non-violence, they have followed Osama bin Laden, and reaped every reward that such an allegiance with that kind of ideology deserves: death, war, and violence.

Related

Hamas is enjoying their little pity party so much that they refuse to let their own injured people leave to seek medical attention in Egypt.