Peace Movement needs to get way beyond just "Bring Em Home".

We need demobilization of at least 1,000,000 personnel from the bloated US military. Just pushing removal from Iraq and Afghanistan (redeployment) will soon find these soldiers in Bolivia or Venezuela.

The 'peace' or 'antiwar' movement needs to get serious and become a holistic and effective anti-Empire movement.

I have long said:

"The most important question that the American people should be asking of any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the foreign imperialist wars and destruction of domestic liberties and economy are only its biggest and most visible crimes --- so far?"

The fracturing and dividing of any serious protest movement into anti-war (Iraq and/or Afghanistan), anti-spying, anti-torture, anti-ecology, anti-equality, etc. etc. are exactly the strategy that Empires aways use; 'divide and conquer'.

As Hannah Arendt presciently said of the Nazi Empire, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home", and it is this 'corporatist Empire' that has taken over the levers of our country by hiding behind the facade of this two-party 'Vichy' government of paid whores and pimps, that is the singular and seminal source of all these travesties of democracy.

Empires, like rattlesnakes, can best be killed by cutting off the head ----- and the head can only be attacked by American citizens in the US rising up against this 'corporatist Empire'.

IN the 2008 election (and political action movement) it's NOT "the economy, stupid", or even 'the wars, stupid' ---- but we will only win if the 2008 election is based on "It's the EMPIRE, stupid"

In 2008 we very probably have our last chance to non-violently vote for democracy against corporatist-Empire --- beyond which time, our confrontation with Empire will need to become more forceful.

Contrast Rachel Bruhnke and "MM29" (and to some extent, "zzz"): my point is not to ridicule, but to say that some people speak more conventionally than others. Some people's words require more "unpacking" for there to be understanding.
MM29 is very angry, but what is he angry about? What, who, when, where, why, and how? There is no specification. But he's saying he's angry. So someone should ask him what he's angry about. That's why Rachel Bruhnke's suggestion is the best of the lot here so far. She has the right person to lead it, Jimmy Carter. I'm sure Desmond Tutu would help.
Here's what she said, in part, well, obviously, if you got to me, you saw hers.
We should have a "Truth and Reconciliation" forum about this era.

This forum should look as official as possible, and have Russian, American, Afgan, Pakistani participants, as high level/legitimate as possible to discuss the perspectives of their countries at the time, the fears and ambitions that were in play, etc…

We should contact JIMMY CARTER to see if he can make any public comment on this, if he has any regrets, rethinkings of HIS role in the purposeful build-up of religious extremism in East Asia. As such a man of peace, if he can see the BLOWBACK to what he was a part of in the late 1970's….

These steps are necessary in order to make dialogue with the Taliban palitable to the American public....
I see Rachel didn't nominate Carter to lead this, so I will. It's all about grieving in public.

riddimboy,

With a name like that, I can't believe you are stooping to "how old ARE you again ??"

"Dont put words in my mouth"
Like what riddimboy? Which words did I stick in your mouth? Quote me.

Am I putting these words in your mouth?

riddimboy says to keep the troops:
"'Troops out now' alone will not solve the problems. We did create all these problems and we dont just walk away. Maybe our troops along with a host of other troops from other countries can help stem the Taliban onslaught."

Yeah, like maybe some US and NATO forces - oh wait that's exactly what is already happening.

then riddimboy says all must leave:
"Yes I believe ALL US and NATO troops should butt out of there but i dont believe we should wash our hands off. "

How are you not contradicting yourself?

You flippantly asked me, "Also are you actually reading gyptians post"? Yeah, I read it. If you read my responses to you, I never opposed gyptian's other suggestions, did I? In fact, I said I agreed with them. I simply tried to point out that, until your apparent reversal on the issue of troop withdrawal in your last post, you were previously arguing that we keep the troops there, which contradicted to the post you claimed to support.

"Dont put words in my mouth. Doctors Without Borders is not going to solve the problem in Afghanistan."

Don't put words in my mouth,
I wrote "So if you support pulling out the troops now, while sending massive humanitarian aid to Afghanistan through third parties (like Doctors Without Borders, Unicef, and Amnesty International etc…) then we can agree"

To which you responded "Sending Doctors without Borders is not a political solution (its a humanitarian one)"

You were the one who called it a solution, remember?

Then I wrote, "Frankly, I prefer my humanitarian solution to your political one."

I guess I should have put "solution" in quotes.

Never did I say that DWB alone will "solve" Afghanistan. Personally, I think all this talk about the USA "solving" Afghanistan is racist and imperialist.

ok zzz .. your post almost sent me to sleep but here goes ...

riddimboy says to keep the troops:
"'Troops out now' alone will not solve the problems. We did create all these problems and we dont just walk away. Maybe our troops along with a host of other troops from other countries can help stem the Taliban onslaught."

I reiterate removing troops alone will not solve the problems. I do not believe its as simple as 'troops out now' or some such fetching slogan thats supposed to magically bring about peace. Maybe we need to contribute troops along with all the other countries which is kind of what the U.N. used to do before we decapitated that organization.

I do not think removing all outside troops and leaving a vacuum is going to help the Afghan people. Im no expert on this but my concern is clearly not 'how many U.S. troops perish' .. we lost U.S. troops for lesser problems like strengthening Haliburtons bottom line ... it has more to do with providing Afghan people with peace and security.

Massive humanitarian aid is definitely needed but without a secure situation the 'aid' will end up in the hands of the Taliban and further strengthen them. Maybe if you pull your head out of your ass you can attempt to read up a little more rather than shooting your mouth off or nitpicking my admitted lack of knowledge on the subject !

Our imperialistic tendencies and desire for strategic balance created the Taliban and other fundamentalist militias which have caused havoc in the region. We need to take the help of the neighbors as well as the International community to solve this problem and our involvement should rest on a genuine desire to help Afghanistan and not run after alqaeda or some such shit.

As Leon Trotsky once said, what works in India for Gandhi would not have worked for Jews in Nazi Europe. Sometimes you have to fight back. War is not ideal, but we cannot allow a religious movement led by Saudi aristocrats to destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan any more. American political leadership, except for Barack Obama, has looked the other way for far too long.

"McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf"
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/28/mccain_outspoken_in_defense_of.html

"The United States is a democratic government, and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe. Pakistan is no exception."- Pakistan Supreme Court Justice Rana Bhagwandas
www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/world/asia/06pakistan.html

"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland. " - Barack Obama

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510

The United States and NATO are not engaged in Afghanistan to influence the price of natural gas and oil. 9/11 mobilized world opinion against the Taliban and the world came together to oppose them.

"UN Security Council Resolutions 2001"
http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm

The United States and NATO are engaged in Afghanistan because it sits between a nuclear power (Pakistan) and a future nuclear power (Iran). The Taliban are not an indigenous movement (is Osama bin Laden Pashtun?) and they were not elected. They are a religious movement. Defeating them or bringing them into the democratic process are critical to regional stability and global security policies of all nations, particularly those that have been attacked by Al Qaeda.

"Taliban Exploit Sectarian Rift in Siege of Shiites in Pakistan Enclave"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26pstan.html

"Pakistan Marble Helps Taliban Stay in Business"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/world/asia/14taliban.html

Afghanistan needs a government that is powerful enough to stand up to threats from dangerous tribal factions, terrorist groups, and other extremists, but at the same time one that respects human rights and promotes progress for women. They need aid from the West (in exchange for achieving goals of security and human rights). Unlike Iraq, NATO is in command of forces in Afghanistan now. Any negotiations between warring factions there should be led by the UN - just as they negotiated settlements in East Timor and other former war zones. We should not villify NATO presence there. Afganistan was at war BEFORE the US invaded.

Unlike Iraq, conditions ARE BETTER there today than before the US invasion. The occupation there is now a true multinational force (NATO) as it should be - including France, Germany, Spain, UK, etc & other countries that refused to participate or withdrew from Iraq.

Anyone who thinks that Afghanistan would be better without NATO there really has no idea just HOW BAD the situation there was prior to the invasion ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN! There are many other places where women are severely oppressed around the world, but Afghanistan under the Taliban was one of the WORST EVER in history!

Their culture there will not be transformed at the point of a gun, but providing additional security there (while seeking to end the ability of Islamic extremist to operate there) may provide sufficient breathing room for women there (& all Afghanis) to begin to have a brighter future!

HOW CAN ANYONE CALL FOR FEWER TROOPS IN AFGANISTAN, BUT MORE IN DARFUR??? Afghanistan under the Taliban was a genocide against women and non-Muslims as bad as the genocide in Darfur today! You need to ask: What's the difference? And, how best to prevent a new genocide there under a resurgent Taliban? Afghanistan is NOT Iraq! Don't confuse the two. The mission there has value. That war is NOT a war for oil! Al Qaida is our enemy; they attacked us! And, the Taliban are the enemy of all Afghanis!

It was because the USA abandoned Afghanistan (after arming them for a decade under Reagan/Bush to fight the Cold War) that a force as brutal as the Taliban was able to gain power there. People became so desperate there that they were willing to allow any any extemist group to lead if they could stop the decades long civil war and bring order. We have a moral responsibility there to women and to all Afghanis to clean up the mess from the repressive regime that took root there due to bad US policy & abandonment by the West after the Cold War!

riddimboy,
"Maybe if you pull your head out of your ass you can attempt to read up a little more rather than shooting your mouth off or nitpicking my admitted lack of knowledge on the subject !"

I give up. Go insult someone else. When did I insult you?

Medea Benjamin writes:
"How can the Afghan economy be weaned from opium?"
-----
Uh, "weaned"?? Most of the opium in the world comes FROM Afghanistan, and producing it is a labor-intensive process. Anybody who needs MORPHINE would be in a bad, bad way if "the Afghan economy [were] weaned from opium". It seems more likely that the US would like to control ALL of the opium trade, doesn't it?

Still, the best thing Afghanistan has done for the world isn't opium production, but curing the "left"'s infatuation with Kerry clone Obama.

(And how can the US economy, and psychic reality, be "weaned" from antidepressants, hypnotics, and statins -- and what does ANY of that have to do with a military assault on Afghanistan?)
-----
fedupwithpolitics writes:
"The "peace movement" already dropped the ball when it dubbed Afghanistan the "good" war, as opposed to Iraq."

--> Indeed it did: how the collective punishment of the Afghanis was any cure for the 9-11 events was evil and idiotic at the time, and still is. Bin Laden is a corporate guy, and it's darned unlikely that 9-11 was pulled off without corporate associates from the US who are frequent business travelers familiar with every airline process. The US was testing bunker-buster bombs on the only places to which the population could flee.

Obama may have said he opposed the invasion of Iraq.Most of his supporters don't know that his subsequent voting record on war-funding, which has been mostly pro, makes a mockery of said statement. Why keep bringing it up without at least informing folks of that fact.His actions of signing on to war over and over again speak much louder than his words.
Check it out on: votesmart.org.
I do participate in and support Code Pink's activism.

Here's your strategy for the peace movement - vote for a peace candidate. This rules out Obama and McCain. WOW, maybe it's not rocket science after all.

Solutions for Afghanistan? These points have been made previously, but not taken in context.. as they were posted by several different people.

First, get the people's name right! Afghans. As explained in a post, "Afghanis" is their currency. The ignorance of the American people cannot be overestimated. We should not have been called the "Ugly American," rather, as it was meant, but we were too stupid to understand, the "stupid American." Stupid in that we didn't even know enough to know that when in Rome, do as the Romans do; or the Japanese, Iraqis, French. How it is done in America isn't the way it is done in other countries and we are not always right.

Second, "These countries weren't for sale. We had no right to break them. We have no right to buy them." We deserve the hate the thinking citizens of the world feel for us. We were wrong and still won't own up to our mistakes.

Thirdly, "Remember Kennedy's statement: If we make non-violent revolution impossible we make violent revolution inevitable." The greatest fear corporate America has today is that enough of us will discover what they are doing and rise up in unison against the military-industrial-Congressional complex and demand that our government work for us.

The vast majority of us know so little of our own history and next to nothing of the history of the rest of the world that it is not surprising we would invade Iraq. Bombing Afghanistan seemed a natural retaliation to us for the acts of a small group of radicals who happened to be in Afghanistan. (Has anyone questioned what would have happened if Al Qaeda had been in Mexico?)

There is no way to change our form of "influenced" government unless and until the citizens themselves learn the lessons of, at the very least, our own history. In order to accomplish this major feat we must take education back to teaching our children what they need to know in order to survive and thrive in the world, not just on their block. And, yes, there is more history to be taught today than there was when I was in school, but the same has always been true, and yet the school year has remained the same for a hundred years.

When Japan needed to educate their children in a serious way they changed the schooling system. Classes five or six days a week, year 'round (minus the one month off every two months on) and from 8 am to 5 pm. It worked for them.

And it would work for us. Not only would there be time to teach the necessary classes of reading, writing, arithmetic, history, logic, science and civics, but there would be time to include in those classes subsets of information related to the main topics. The "who, what, when, where and why" of particular parts. (Perhaps if our citizens knew that those questions must be answered, our "journalists" would ask them.) We should not have to have a college degree to earn more than the minimum wage!

Fewer students would need to go on to college if they were taught this way. College could go back to being education for educators, scientists, philosophers, lawyers, doctors -- the elite of our society. Woodworking, mechanical engineering, domestic engineering, fabric design and structure, sports and athletic activities would not be college subjects because they could all be learned in the longer school system.

When you enroll everyone in college, college must be dumbed down to meet the needs of the enrollees. This explains why we have unethical lawyers who don't understand why are laws exist. It explains why we have airplanes that develop holes in unexpected places and have buildings collapse that shouldn't. It explains why tainted food poisons hundreds of us every year and why we are fat and lazy. It explains why we are way behind in scientific discovery and that too many of us don't "believe" in evolution. Stupid people should not have college degrees. Non-intellectuals should not be teaching our children. But they do.

An added benefit to the 40-hour school week is that it would match the 40-hour work week that many of us have, thereby leaving less time for fewer children to be left alone with their latchkeys.

Our children must learn how our system is supposed to work. If Civics and Current Affairs had been taught to every child for the past 40 years, then today we would not have 75% of college graduates unable to locate Iraq on a map that is labeled! (Only 6% of high school graduates could find it!)

A grasp of basic mathematics at the high school level used to be enough to know that you cannot spend more than you have. And governments cannot, also. We could ask for an accounting of our tax dollars if we understood that it is our tax dollars that support the government. There are people who haven't a clue as to where the "government's" money comes from.

Millions of us complain about our taxes and yet don't know that $1 Trillion of those tax dollars are supporting our military overseas -- and that figure doesn't include the two wars currently being waged in our names!

When President Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex taking over, I think even he didn't realize the extent to which corporate America could take over, and it has. The military-industrial complex has expanded to the military-industrial-Congressional complex. The flow of money is circular, but not balanced. $1,000 in campaign contributions will get you $1,000,000 in government largesse. Keep in mind that you and I are paying for this money game with our tax dollars.

Public financing of campaigns would be a whole lot cheaper for us. It would, however, limit the power of the corporations over "our elected" officials, and so it would be a battle of citizen involvement against corporate influence to implement public financing.

When the mass media ignores the roots of our misery and distracts us with infotainment and the non-reality of reality game shows we are only one step away from the lions versus the Christians of history. I have hope that the "alternate" media, via the internet, will threaten this trend enough to bring some sense of responsibility back to the mass media. We must be vigilant, however, because corporate America is aware of the potential danger to their interests and is scheming to gain greater control over website content. It was, after all, the invention of the printing press and mass distribution of information that led to the Age of Enlightenment and brought about the demise of the feudal system.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi citizen until he was exiled for his radical activities. He ended up in Afghanistan, as the only Middle Eastern country that would accept him.

Our CIA trained him, and many, many other angry young men, to fight the Russians. They were then left to their own devices after the Russians left in defeat. Young warriors will look for war, or they have no purpose. bin Laden created Al Qaeda and an enemy -- us. He had his reasons, and a study of our imperialistic tendencies over the past 100 years will make it clear that Osama did know our history.

By the way, OBL's demand was that we remove our military from the Muslim Holy Land, Saudi Arabia, and we did that in 2004. He won our war against him four years ago and no one noticed.

The "US never sought the extradition of OBL, even though the Taliban offered . . . twice, while asking for evidence." Bill Clinton used law enforcement methods against terror groups. To his credit, the only foreign terrorist actually proven to be a terrorist was caught, tried and convicted and is in prison because of Clinton's law and order approach.

Had Bush asked for extradition, assuming he had proof of OBL being involved in 9/11, he would have been turned over to us for trial (terrorism is a crime) and we would not have had a reason to bomb Afghanistan or invade Iraq.

This bring to mind two possible scenarios: We had no proof of Osama bin Laden being involved in the attacks of 9/11; or we needed a reason to go to war in the Middle East. As Condoleezza Rice, (Ms. Oil) commented at the time, 9/11 did provide an excellent opportunity......

The Russian attempts at Empire bankrupted the country and that led to the dissolution of the USSR. We really don't have a physical empire to dissolve. We do have a military presence in nearly 200 countries around the world, and more than 800 military bases to support. This costs us (that would be our tax dollars at work) over $1 Trillion a year. It seems strategic locations are costly.

Those who laugh at McCain's rather care-free, offhand remark of being in Iraq for a hundred years does have precedent: Germany -- 60+ years and no end in site. Korea -- 50+ years and no end in site. What is our purpose of being in those two countries? Who can remember? Peace keeping? In Germany? I don't think so.

There exists plans for an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to deliver oil to US. The plans were drawn up before the Russians invaded, and I do believe that is why they invaded, to stop that pipeline... "They want our army in Afghanistan to defend and protect an oil pipeline designed to bring oil through the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan from the Caspian Basin to the Arabian Sea."

"

The fracturing and dividing of any serious protest movement into anti-war (Iraq and/or Afghanistan), anti-spying, anti-torture, anti-ecology, anti-equality, etc. etc. are exactly the strategy that Empires aways use; 'divide and conquer'.

As Hannah Arendt presciently said of the Nazi Empire, "Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home", and it is this 'corporatist Empire' that has taken over the levers of our country by hiding behind the facade of this two-party 'Vichy' government of paid whores and pimps, that is the singular and seminal source of all these travesties of democracy.

Empires, like rattlesnakes, can best be killed by cutting off the head —– and the head can only be attacked by American citizens in the US rising up against this 'corporatist Empire'.

In the 2008 election (and political action movement) it's NOT "the economy, stupid", or even 'the wars, stupid' —- but we will only win if the 2008 election is based on "It's the EMPIRE, stupid"

In 2008 we very probably have our last chance to non-violently vote for democracy against corporatist-Empire — beyond which time, our confrontation with Empire will need to become more forceful. " amacd July 25th, 2008

amacd doesn't tell us how to vote for democracy, other than to imply that neither major-party candidate qualifies.

Way to go Vinnie - well worth reading all the way to the end to find!

This may be the first time I've visited Common Dreams since the disappointing collapse of the Dean campaign 4+ years ago - and it's like coming home to a family I never knew I had. With only a couple of exceptions this discussion reflects the kind of fundamental values and insight that I thought had disappeared from America, since even most nominally progressive organizations seem to have succumbed to the content-free Obama feel-good rhetoric or, at best, to a lesser-of-two-evils mentality.

I hope that CodePink pays attention, because even they sometimes disappoint in this respect. As for people like MM29, I'll happily assure them that I'd welcome as much nuclear terrorism on American soil as it would take to get us out of the parts of the world we have no business interfering with (save perhaps to provide reparations for the effects of our earlier 'assistance'): I'm disgusted with my country for what it's been nominally doing in my name, and given that (as citizens in a democracy) we *all* share responsibility for that after 5+ years without having fixed the situation ourselves I don't consider *any* means too drastic to get us to stop.

Now, that may be just a bit too blunt a way to try to go about recruiting peace support from the incompetent (but we hope at least well-meaning) majority in this country whom we'd like to help educate and I don't begrudge those who are more tactful as long as they don't wind up selling out in the process. But among those of us who already understand which end is up I think it bears mentioning once in a while, if only because someone like Obama after 7 years of blatant tyranny can be so seductive.

So (in belated response to Medea's question) count me in with the 'get out NOW (and start paying major reparations)' voices. Sometimes the right thing *is* just that simple (even if convincing a voting majority of that may not be).

- bill

(1) You do not pay reparations to people who attack you. That is called 'protection payments'. And we don't owe Al Qaeda 'reparations' for shit. Al Qaeda is an anti-communist terrorist group that has attacked and encouraged attacks against Americans, Kenyans, Tanzanians, Spaniards, Britons, Pakistanis, Afghans, Russians, Iraqis, and specifically Shiites- to name a few. None of these people owe Al Qaeda 'reparations'.

"Taliban Exploit Sectarian Rift in Siege of Shiites in Pakistan Enclave"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26pstan.html

(2)"Had Bush asked for extradition, assuming he had proof of OBL being involved in 9/11, he would have been turned over to us for trial (terrorism is a crime) and we would not have had a reason to bomb Afghanistan or invade Iraq."

As if Bin Laden's self-admission is not enough. Give me a break. And if Mexico had attacked us we would be in Mexico. Try 1836. Texan Independence.

And the notion that American imperialism created the Taliban is laughable. The Taliban never ruled all of Afghanistan and were formed post-Soviet withdrawal. And Mullah Omar was certainly not hand selected or funded by any American administration.

Ah, another confused and belligerent conservative (to use the term loosely, though doing so is a significant injustice to traditional conservatives everywhere).

We owe reparations not to Al Qaeda, and possibly (though this is debatable) not even to the Taliban, but most certainly to the Afghan people.

And if you laugh at the idea that we created the Taliban (or at least fueled their ascent to dominance in Afghanistan by acts both of commission and of omission - the latter of explicit commitments we had made), it's simply a reflection of your own ignorance.

By the way, it was quite a while *after* we had rejected the idea of asking for extradition before bin Laden came forward apparently claiming responsibility for 9/11, so you could use a bit more education in that area as well.

Have a nice day,

- bill

Ah, another confused and wishywashy moron (to the use term loosely, though doing so is a significant injustice to traditional morons everywhere).

The United States is rebuilding Afghanistan. Barack Obama is promising more rebuilding. You cannot rebuild a country if you are fighting over it. You have to win the fight first.

Acts of ommission are inside your head, not in reality. Mullah Omar was certainly not hand selected or funded by any American administration.

The notion that the Taliban, an anti-communist organization heavily dependent on bin Laden's money and organization, would 'extradite' him is laughable. Osama bin Laden was clearly behind the 1998 and 2001 attacks and took responsibility for them.

Oh, dear: while I'm hardly wishy-washy (I did just welcome nuclear terrorism if that's what's required to get us to mind our own business, after all), I was sufficiently polite to leave the word 'moron' only implicit in my own post.

But subtlety is wasted on such people, I guess. At least take advantage of a spell-checker if you insist on spewing your drivel around the Net: while of course that in and of itself can't confer competence on it, it at least removes that specific evidence of your lack of it.

- bill

There are strong indications that the shadow governments (the real financial powers behind the scenes) of all the monopoly capitalist countries (the U.S. included) are planning World War III (WWIII). WWIII will come about because Russia and China will need to expand their own empires to prevent the western powers from achieving an insurmountable advantage of captive markets for export capital and cheap labor (and also resources like oil which China and India will both run out of in 10 years or less!) China and Russia (and possibly India) will probably find it convenient to supply terrorists or commandos with small nuclear bombs. These countries have nothing to lose. The Anglo-Saxon/"Aryan" capitalist elites are also deadly serious about reducing the world's population – mainly the populations of the Asian nations that are now their biggest competition! But they won't hesitate to sacrifice a small portion of their own populations.

It should be remembered that both Germany and Japan suffered almost TOTAL DESTRUCTION in WWII, and that they bounced right back. Their big financial capitalists were barely harmed at all. They remained in control of their capitalist empires within their own countries. They can afford to lose a large portion of their wealth as long as they come out on top. U.S. monopoly capitalists know that it will be the same way with them because all the world's monopoly capitalists want to cripple the development of any "upstart" competitors ("developing countries") and destroy the democratic power of the working class. Imperialist governments will cooperate with each other to achieve these ends.

The Sacrifice

For six and a half years the director for the United Nations Demining Program for Afghanistan was a retired Canadian military officer, and he built the program from bloody beginnings until it was the safest and largest demining program in the world. Dan Kelly hired me in the late summer of 2000 to travel with his demining teams in Taliban Afghanistan as a photographer. I continued to work with the demining teams as well as other UN programs in the field off and on through 2003

When Canadian General Andrew Leslie arrived in Kabul to discuss Canadian participation in ISAF, Dan invited me to have dinner with them, because I had been out in the countryside with the Afghan people more and over a longer period of time than anyone else he knew. I had been involved with Afghanistan since the early 1970s, my photography exhibitions about Afghanistan had been to over a hundred public museums and galleries. There were only four of us at dinner; the fourth man was an Australian military officer.

As soon as we sat down, without waiting for any chit chat, General Leslie leaned across the table and said: "Luke, American forces are doing things in Afghanistan every day that no soldier in any modern army should ever be allowed to do." It was such a clear and strong statement, that I stopped and wrote it down word for word. He refused to go into detail, to explain exactly what he meant by that, but we all could imagine. At the time I thought that he had stuck his neck out quite far as it was, so I did not press him.

Then he asked me point blank if I thought that it would be a good idea for Canadian soldiers to join ISAF. I took a deep breath, and thought about it for a minute. This is what I told him, as best I can remember. I may not have spoken in complete sentences then, but I touched on all the same points.

I started by saying that this was a question that I could answer in very different ways depending upon the point of view I choose. What is good for the Afghan people may not be the best choice for Canada. My degrees are in religion, and my first allegiance is not to the state. I am duty bound to take the side of the widow and the orphan, the homeless and the oppressed, and that means that if I had to decide this myself, I would choose for the benefit of the Afghans. So, I will say yes, bring in the Canadians.

I only say that because the Americans will bully somebody into sending soldiers here, and from what I know of Canadian military people, and from your reputation abroad, I would expect Canadians be a good choice for occupation troops. Your people will probably kill or brutalize the Afghans less than many others might. Canadians will also be a good choice, because you can talk to the Americans more fluently and subtly than anyone else, and they will be running the show.

However, I am also your neighbor and friend. I have lived in Vermont for twenty years; Montréal was our closest big city. Since Dan has asked me to advise you, I have a responsibility to tell you how I see this deployment from Canada's point of view too. To put it simply: you would be completely out of your mind to bring soldiers here for this if you can possibly avoid it.

The British thought they could come in here and keep control, and in 1842 the Afghans killed them all, seventeen thousand people counting their families and servants, and the Afghans fought hard when Benjamin Disraeli sent British soldiers here again a generation later. Losses in Afghanistan brought down his government. When the Afghans drove out the Red Army it was the biggest army on earth, and losses sustained here helped bring down their government. What makes you think this will be different?

I guarantee you that you will lose men if you come here; the Afghans are not going to play dead, even as destroyed as they are. Oh yes, there will be a peaceful time here at the beginning while the Afghans rip off every program that comes in here, but eventually something will set them off. All the Afghans have ever wanted was to be left alone. The Pushtun tribes will eventually fight the occupation, and there are twice as many Pushtun in Pakistan, on the other side of a border that they do not believe in, a border called the Durand Line that the British put there to divide and conquer.

In the long run this is not going to help the Canadian military as an organization, trying to fight here on the other side of the world in a losing battle, joining a land war in Asia. This is going to be another American debacle like Vietnam, and since it is bound together with the disaster in Iraq, the combined mess will be even worse before it is over. You will not be proud of this escapade decades from now, coming in here and ramming our culture down their throats. Your grandchildren will see it for what it is, another Vietnam or worse, like destroying the tribes of America's Great Plains.

Everyone at this table knows very well that Canada would never consider coming here except to placate the Americans. You would never dream this up on your own. But, you think you have to go fight in Afghanistan now, since you would not fight in Iraq. This buys face for Washington and saves the Canadian economy from vindictive tariffs and other moves against you.

Politicians would call that a compromise. Military men call it taking orders. As a student of religions I would call it human sacrifice, and child sacrifice at that. You are going to bring your young people in here knowing that they will both inflict and receive violent injuries and deaths, in order to avoid unpleasant political and economic consequences at home. You are going to sacrifice some of your own children to appease an angry god to the south. You can ask your citizens to give up a measure of their present affluence when the Americans stall your economy in retaliation for not fighting in Asia, or you can sacrifice a few dozen young people. Whether you sacrifice people with a roadside bomb or tear their hearts out with an obsidian knife on a stone alter, I do not see a real difference.

It has been four years since I spoke with General Leslie about Canadian participation in ISAF. Obviously he and his men did not find a way out of going to Afghanistan and are doing the best they can there now. When we spoke in 2003 we were only talking of Canada's joining ISAF. I would have been considerably more critical of their agreeing to join in the military subjugation of Zabol, Kandahar, and Helmand Provinces as they are now doing. That is just asking for casualties.

Afghanistan has had schools built and miles of roads demined and leveled, but the changes that the average Afghan sees are of another kind. I never once saw or heard of prostitution in Afghanistan before the current regime, but Chinese prostitutes are part of the occupation. The only alcohol I ever saw in Afghanistan in the 1970s was at the home of an American archaeologist, and I never saw opium growing on a large scale anywhere there before the American invasion. The cousins of the Afghans, the Turkmen, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, and Kazaks across the ancient Oxus River in the former Soviet Republics, suffered terrible ecological disasters and persecution of their religion after they were conquered by Russia. Pakistan is not a modern wonderland after a long British occupation. The Afghans are not stupid or naive. They know exactly what they are resisting.

Luke Powell, Liverpool, Nova Scotia, 2008

-------------------------------------------------

This is an article that I sent to the twenty largest newspapers in Canada and to every member of the Nova Scotia legislature. I never received a single reply.