Friday, June 16, 2006

Denial is currently a river in Canada

This image was originally posted at Strange Police

The Globe and Mail has a wonderful apologist piece about the recent events in and around Kandahar. Taking the Blame for Afghan Carnage tells it like they wish it were.
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — In the aftermath of the bloodiest attack on civilians that Kandahar city has endured since the renewed insurgency this year, victims' relatives voiced anger at the Taliban but vented even more fury at the Canadian soldiers and other foreigners who promised to improve their lives.
The poor, naive, misguided, but always well-intentioned Canadians thinking they can do any good in that cursed land. They can, by leaving and then encouraging their friends to leave as well.
"For 30 years, we've had this problem: Foreign troops come here and start fights," said Abdul Zahir, 49, gesturing at three of his young relatives as they sweated and moaned in a crowded hospital ward.
"The backlash was the opposite of what the Canadian military expected," but then so many things are going to be the opposite of what the Canadians had expected, if they had expected anything pleasant to come out of our military involvement in Afghanistan. Maybe it's just me, but I think that peacemakers, in the true sense of the word, shouldn't carry guns. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9) but I don't think those ones were packing.
A Canadian military spokesman conceded that the new offensive may have provoked the bloody response, but predicted that the savagery of the attack would turn local people against the insurgents.
But the first paragraph has already informed us that this prediction is a fiction at best, so why include what this important unnamed spokesmen had to say? Why even include this drivel? The upshot of the article informs Canadians that the Afghans have a mistaken view that Canadians are in some way responsible for the violence in Afghanistan. I hope that lets the Canadians sleep well tonight. "Oh Honey, it was all a silly mistake. Tuck in our safe kids, sure glad those sand devils aren't waltzing around our neighborhood cocked." We're currently playing on the wrong team, and I don't think it's the first time.

Foreigners generally, and Canadians specifically, don't have a very admirable track record in Asia. The Tim Horton's was a nice touch, and a hint and a half towards the real intentions here, but let's just leave the nice victimized Afghans to look after their own affairs. We have no business there with guns in our hands.

The latest issue of Ex-pat Magazine, out of Kaoshiung, has this to say about Afghanistan,

Money spent by the US on poppy eradicationn and anti-drug campaigns in Afghanistan last year: US$780,000,000

Price to purchase Afghanistan's entire poppy crop: US$600,000,000
Guns don't solve problems, they create them. The peacekeepers that Jesus spoke of and Matthew wrote about are the people that take the guns out of people's hands, not the people who carry them. Leave the donut shop and get out.


Red A said...

Somehow I don't think buying the whole lot is going to cut down on the growing of opium. Instead the whole country would plant nothing BUT opium.

I'd suggest a cash payment for farmers whose fields are not planted with opium that basically makes up most of the difference that they'd make if they had planted opium.

Sean Reilly said...

I don't think the War on Drugs has ever had much of anything to do with fighting drugs. Soldiers are sent into these areas not to rid us of the drug crops but to be able to send soldiers into those places on a theoretically noble cause.

Like other imaginary causes of our time (terrorism, democracy, Goldstein) it has to do solely with projecting power into hard to reach places (like the Middle East, Latin America and California.)

When they send the black helicopters across the 49th parallel, will it be to control marijuana cultivation or to control the softwood, fresh water and fishing rights situations?