RT is shocked:
And those are the “good guys” on whose behalf we are fighting!Is that what liberals really think? That we're fighting on 'behalf' of those monsters? Linear thinking, indeed. I rather doubt that's how our soldiers see it, but then they aren't limited by piety and an insular reality.
It would seem to me that we're tolerating those monsters in order to fight on behalf of a beleaguered and oppressed civilian population.
Red Tory goes on to say:
Quaint notions of “peacekeeping” in such an environment are clearly misplaced.We were never in Afghanistan to 'peace keep'. This is a war. It was never sold as a peacekeeping mission, even by the Liberals. This 'quaint notion' is only held by those who don't keep up on current events. That any of this would come as a shock, is what's shocking.
The trouble with articles like this, and more so the interpretations of people like Red Tory, is the not-so-subtle suggestion that Canadian troops are complicit in torture. They make the black and white connection between our guys handing over detainees and allegations of torture by detainees -- as though the allegations are fact, and as though abuse of detainees captured by anyone other than Canadians is simply hunky-dory. The premature and selective outrage is mind-boggling.
The 'guilt by association' nonsense denigrates our soldiers, which is a concern I've written about before. But beyond that, it pointedly excuses and ignores Western indifference during the years when the Taliban perpetrated all manner of abuse on its own dissenting citizens and particularly its systemic victimization of women, all of which took place long before this war. It also ignores the potential for a return to this regime should we pull out before stability is firmly established.
In the minds of our liberal elites, maybe that torture was okay. It wasn't our people. We knew, yet did nothing to intervene, but because we weren't there -- our hands are clean. Despite news reports coming out of Afghanistan during that time period -- we could turn a blind eye, but have a clear conscience because it wasn't our country and it wasn't our women and it had nothing to do with us.
No, I know. Human rights abuses by the Taliban are not why we went there, but now that we are there, isn't it fortunate for all those women who would otherwise be assassinated in soccer stadiums for simple indiscretions? Isn't it fortunate for all those little girls getting an education for the first time?
The holocaust is not why we entered WWII. Had it remained an internal German problem -- had there been extermination of just Germany's Jews -- we would have allowed it. We would have said that it was not our place to intervene in the domestic affairs of an autonomous country. Had Germany never crossed its own borders, WWII wouldn't have happened. The Allies could stayed at home, witnessed the barbarity and had a clear conscience because we wouldn't have been complicit in the deaths of Jews. That's obscene, but it's the logic of the Canadian left on this one.
Over at RT's they're questioning the financial cost of staying in Afghanistan, and yet they pretend that humanity is the exclusive domain of the left. Humanity is demanding that we stay and finish the job and that the preventing the suffering of civilians, and elevating their potential for a renewed society is our primary concern. It might not be why we went, but it's why we should stay.
We could leave Afghanistan now and watch from a safe distance, and we might even allow ourselves to believe that our hands remain pristine. We could smugly shrug as innocent people are tortured and murdered by their countrymen, while we stay safe in our liberal dreamworld where we'd be comforted by the 'quaint notion' that at least we aren't violating the human rights of captured Taliban fighters.
We can't solve all the world's ills or rescue all of its vulnerable people, but if we were to abandon Afghanistan now, there is no question that we would be complicit in the return to disorder which allowed the Taliban to victimize its most defenseless citizens.
canadianna
20 comments:
An excellent analysis.
What I think is truly appalling about the article RT links to is the tiny paragraph allowing that the reporter was allowed into the detention centre and saw no evidence of torture.
Buried.
Same bunch who advocate pulling out of Afghanistan and go to Darfur instead because it would save more lives and our troops wouldn't be in harm's way because it would be a "UN" mission.
Not a single clue amongst the bunch.
The Lieberals can't say they didn't know what conditions in Afghanistan were like before they committed our troops there.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Those words come from Kiplings "The Young British Soldier" and were written 100 years ago, (plus or minus a few years).
Afghanistan has always been a brutal place, and if us being there helps change things for the better, then I'd say it's worth it.
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/kipling_ind.html
Grumpy Old Man
Very well said.
I think that RT missed the whole point of the article....or just purposely twisted it around as Liberals are wont to do, when the truth hurts.
I believe what Scott taylor was trying to say in his article was that no matter what the good guys are accused of it pales in comparison to the taliban. These same taliban that would rip your eyes out and peel your skin off before killing you want their captors to treat them with the criteria of the geneva Convention. His point, I believe, was that the whole detainee issue was political. Sandra
I agree Sandra. Taylor is presenting what he saw and heard and appears to be leaving the analysis to the reader. The problem lies with the knee-jerk reactions of those who are so adamantly against the Conservative government, that they refuse to see validity and necessity of the mission.
I wrote a rather long comment on your article, and decided instead to publish it on my blog to save space in your comments section. Visit my blog if you wish, or with your permission I can produce it here.
- Raphael
It isn't the simpleminded assertion that our troops are somehow 'complicit' in torture that turned me against this mission. It's that for all the undeniable good we're doing there in Afghanistan, it'll be undone the instant we leave, whether that's tomorrow, 2009, or Last Trump.
This is a war we can not win. We can *think* we're winning it; we can even *think* we've won it. But the people we're fighting against fade back into the hills, just as they did against the Soviets, only to resume their barbarity once it's safe to do so. Short of killing them all...and killing all those who sympathize with them...I see no way to prevent their eventual resurgence.
I emphatically support our troops--I'm not one of those lily-livered 'peacekeeping' types--but I do believe it's prudent to pick our battles, and that this was probably the wrong one to pick.
Excellent post Canadianna. I had one thought though while reading it. Many/some of the taliban's fighters are jihadists from other countries. They ignore national boundaries. To say that Afghanis are torturing their own citizens, well I wonder how many of the captured jihadists, that are alleging being tortured by Afghani forces, are actually from other countries. As such, it would then not be Afghanis hurting their own in such cases.
Well, I guess I'm surprised "you" read.
rafael -- went to your page and it was worth the visit.
ken - you might be right, but right now we have the opportunity to build and to lead by example. Should we throw up our hands at the futility of it all, or should we persevere and hope. I don't know the answer, but I really fear the alternative.
john m reynolds -- I believe you're absolutely right. It's the same in Iraq. The continued destabilization of both countries is important to elements outside their borders.
anonymous -- zing! You got me. I can't believe that someone so clever and witty is such a coward.
It's been some time since I've been interested in anything Red Tory has to say.
*
trying to follow rt's fallacious, twisted, pretzel logic... now that's torture.
*
Hello Canadi-anna,
These fighters aren't just targeting soldiers, they are targeting women and children. Their view of Canadians aside, these people are monsters. They have no problem with wanton murder and destruction. They are not simply the other side of a coin, they are a different breed altogether.
I do agree with you, and I try not to portray myself as some kind of sympathizer. The Taliban and their ilk certainly are a different breed. I was thinking about this last night, actually, concerned that perhaps my comment may have been construed as a Jack Layton kind of support for the Taliban. Of course I have supported the war on Afghanistan since day one, and continue to do so, provided of course, that our presence is required.
What I came to think of was this comparison:
Let us equate the separatists to the Taliban. I do not make this comparison to denigrate the French, but only to make a point.
If we were to fight against the separatists, as we have done, for centuries, we know the war in ultimately unwinnable.
To put it another way, there are three results in conflict. To win, to lose, and to draw. The draw is compromise, and I feel that inevitably we may be forced to compromise. The reason is that just as we cannot extricate the separatists from Quebec, I do not believe we can extricate the element of the Taliban from the Afghanis. I could be wrong, but that's my take...
Do you think I'm wrong? Is this war winnable?
Of course I have supported the war on Afghanistan since day one
Should read : the war in Afghanistan. Of course we are fighting the Taliban, not Afghanistan.
So...torture is acceptable. That's what I read.
What's most fascinating is that the political opposition to the current involvements in the Islamic world, both in Canada and the U.S. of A., would vanish in a moment had the instigators been of the same political persuasion as the current opponents. Simply put, the Democrats in the U.S. and the Liberals/Dippers in Canada would be vociferous in their praise of the mission had it been their idea.
Unprintables.
Anonymous said...
So...torture is acceptable. That's what I read.
No, that's just what you read in. There's a large chasm between what I wrote and what you think you read. Just because you know the words, doesn't mean you've understood what you've read. It's okay though. Comprehension skills can be learned, maybe you could take a refresher at the local high school.
bob -- you can say that again.
Let's fight evil like social workers think they do: make the Taliban watch CBC, read the Charter to them before they lie down in their caves at night, and provide more welfare.
Post a Comment