Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Eamonn McCann: Is it worth fighting a bloody war to prop up Afghans’ evil rulers?
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Thinking hard — soldiers must wonder why are they fighting, and dying, in AfghanistanWould anybody around here have a good word to say about Hamid Karzai if he were standing for election in Iran?
But it’s in Afghanistan that Karzai is seeking another term as president today.
So he has the support, if not quite the enthusiastic endorsement, of most of mainstream opinion in the West.
The Russians too, it seems, are hoping that the man in the karacul hat will come out on top.
Three weeks ago, President Dmitri Medvedev, after a meeting with Karzai and Pakistan’s Asif Zardari, declared that he “looked forward to very good relations [with Karzai] in the years ahead.”
Obama, Brown and Medvedev are at one, then, in rooting for the man who, on July 16, officially made it law that a husband can starve his wife for refusing to have sex with him, requires women to get permission from their husbands before working outside the home and gives fathers and grandfathers prime custodial rights over children.
Mothers come third. Except if she’s widowed and marries again, in which case the new husband becomes boss.
Karzai did wilt in the face of widespread condemnation earlier this year and withdrew a proposed clause which would have required women to have sex with their husbands at least four times a week. A spokesman for the president explained, intriguingly, that, “this seemed unrealistic”.
If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had brought in laws along these lines, the clamour for an assault on Iran in the name of women’s rights would have reached ear-bursting levels by now.
Ahmadinejad, moreover, for all his association with a claque of demented medievalists, isn’t surrounded by the repulsive likes of Mohammad Qasim Fahim and Abdul Rashid Dostum.
Fahim is one of two vice-presidential nominees on the Karzai ticket.
In its 2005 report, ‘Blood Stained Hands’, Human Rights Watch named him as commander of the Jamiat-eIslami militia in September 1992 when it conducted an orgy of murder, rape and looting in one of the poorest districts of Kabul, slaughtering about 800 members of the minority Hazara community.
Says Brad Adams, Asia director of HRW: “To see Fahim back in the heart of government would be a terrible step backwards for Afghanistan. He is one of the most notorious warlords in the country.”
Well, he’ll be back at the heart of government by the weekend if US/British/Russian hopes are realised today. Dostum returned to Afghanistan last Sunday from Turkey, where he’d fled in November 2008 following accusations that he’d ordered the kidnap and brutalisation of the family of a political rival.
Karzai invited him back in an effort to shore up the support of the Uzbek minority, whose votes could be decisive in delivering the 50% plus which he needs to avoid a run-off.
On Monday, the US administration “regretted” Dostum’s return. But Karzai seemed unperturbed.
“There was no reason why Dostum could not return home, no legal obstacle at all,” said spokesman Seamak Herawi.
Dostum was implicated in the atrocity in 2001, in which up to 2,000 Taliban prisoners who had handed over their arms in return for what they thought was safe passage, were compressed into sealed metal cargo containers by Dostum’s militia and driven for two days across the Dasht-e-Leili desert to Sheberghan Prison. Almost all were huddled dead from suffocation when the containers were broken open.
Karzai and Dostum were due to address an eve-of-poll rally in Sheberghan last night. Perhaps the Uzbeks of the region will now flock to the polls and deliver Karzai the victory the occupation forces are counting on.
For this, more than 1,300 foreign soldiers and untold thousands of Afghans will have died in the past eight years, and the only clear fact discernible through the fog up ahead, is that there is more death to come.
General Sir David Richards, who takes over as head of the British Army next week, told the Daily Telegraph that Britain’s commitment to the Afghan operation could last for “30 to 40 years”.
“The end will be difficult to define,” he says. “It won’t be neat and clear-cut ... there is absolutely no chance of Nato pulling out. We made this mistake once. Our opponents are banking on us doing it again, and we must prove them wrong.
“We must remember, though, that we are not trying to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland.”
Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth, reacting to the deaths of six British soldiers in one day last month, declared: “What can you do other than back them up and if the public failed to do [so] that would be disgraceful.”
Shadow defence minister Gerald Howarth insisted that there can be no question of withdrawal because pulling out “would not be fair to those who have given their lives for this conflict”.
When the most senior military and political figures in the land cannot explain in comprehensible terms what the war is about, we are entitled to conclude that it’s about nothing worth any more killing or dying for.
Bring the troops home now.
- Text Size
T McC.What authority/court has deemed the Afghanistan campaign (or even Iraq) as 'illegal'? The UN/NATO/international community is legally there (fact) to help a country crippled by tribal warfare and Islamofascism. Bin Laden despises the spread of democracy because it threatens his male-dominated/Wahabi grip on muslim people. He is jealous of the 'popularity' of western ideals, not the ideals themselves. If we leave before we have buttressed the Afghan system of govt/military, then the will of the gun will determine what goes, not the will of the people. The result of that will be more terrorism and more swarms of refugees coming to the UK. By the way, what oil is there in Afghanistan? Finally, re-9/11,you say you 'understand' why it happened; that's just a euphemistic translation for 'I supported it' - the US got what you 'perceive' as they deserved. I 'understand' why serial killers murder, but that doesn't morally legitimise their actions, which is your spurious line, re-9/11.
Posted by bhamilton | 31.08.09, 12:44 GMT
Dear oh dear bhamilton. Clearly you view us in the civilised west to be better at "helping ourselves." Guess we better show those poor saps how to do it then, because nothing says democracy and freedom like an illegal occupation.
Yes they are so very jealous of our "democratic ideals,"which is why they have embraced the puppet governments set up by the invading forces with open arms. Perhaps we should let the people govern themselves and decide their own future instead of forcing our own view of freedom upon them. Although I suppose if they were allowed to govern themselves, they wouldn't need us and that's way too dangerous with all that oil and natural gas is floating around.
By the way in no way do I support 9/11 but I do understand why it happened. If for a moment you adopted the view of the world you might ask yourself, who really are the terrorists?
By the way making yourself sound intellectual doesn't hide your sheer ignorance on the topic.
Posted by Tristan McCorry | 26.08.09, 11:45 GMT
T Mc.Your support and justification for 9/11 is abhorrent. Your hackneyed and generic claims of 'western imperialism' vacuous.Bin Laden/the Taliban are ideologically, not politically-motivated. They care little for their brethren in Palestine and/or elsewhere. Their Wahabi/Sharia doctrine reflects 500 years of Islamic failure and the frustration that goes with it. They are jealous of the spread and popularity of western democratic ideals and technological success. We did not cause problems in the middle east or Africa as left-wing fifth columnists repeat ad nauseam.Ethnic/religious/sunni/shia conflicts were occurring long before the west ever got involved in the sub-continents - that's the precise reason why the British Empire took control of so many places with little effort.The reality is that in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, they do not have the capacity to even help themselves, let alone take the baton of western aid and run with it. That is their fault, not ours
Posted by bhamilton | 25.08.09, 19:11 GMT
bhamilton, it seems the West will actively support and uphold fascists/muderers/torturers when it suits us.
This war was only instigated because it would have been politically unthinkable for the US to ignore those baying for blood.
When will the US realise that they cannot solve a problem by bombing it ?
Posted by Yip | 24.08.09, 16:16 GMT
TJ, I understand your frustrations and appreciate your reply.
Thank you.
Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 24.08.09, 14:06 GMT
bhamilton you clearly have no grasp of current affairs, but hey at least you're not giving into propaganda, oh wait.
Why do you think New York was attacked? It was down to the wests imperialism. These people aren't the mindless terrorists the media and polticians would have us believe, they are angry and rightly so. At no stage has the west been interested in creating freedom, in fact it has done a great deal to undermine it.
You're ridiculous accusations would make me laugh, if I didn't know you actually believed it.
Foreign problems/chaos are our problem because we caused them. I strongly suggest you read some history of the middle east before you embaress yourself any further.
Posted by Tristan McCorry | 24.08.09, 10:44 GMT
It's very clear what the war is about, E. McCann. The fact that you wilfully pretend not to understand this is a clear indication of a pre-determined left-wing mindset that you have, which is allergic to any form of foreign intervention, regardless of merit. New York was attacked, 3,000 people were killed, unchecked Wahabi extremism snowballs as a result of copycat attacks and the culprits - the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are within sniffing distance of nukes in Pakistan. Yes, let's cut and run and bury our heads in the sand, then accuse the US/UK of not caring when murder/torture/Islamic fascism spreads around the world and millions of refugees (Darfur/Pakistan/Afghanistan/Malaysia) queue up to claim 'political asylum' in the west.'Foreign' problems/chaos are 'our' problems for these precise reasons - because they eventually and ultimately affect us. It's no picnic and is a serious test of our political will; your black and white retreat 'solution' would merely be an exercise in denial.
Posted by bhamilton | 24.08.09, 01:42 GMT
In The Name Of The Fada | 20.08.09, 16:11
You are right in what you say. My comments were largely based on frustration at the deaths of so many, to what end, in Afghanistan.
Posted by T J McClean | 21.08.09, 16:04 GMT
It is totally disgusting that young men are dying needlessly for this 'cause'. Bring them home now to their families. Its ok for the generals and liebour sitting in their comfortable offices.
Posted by rn | 21.08.09, 13:27 GMT
Great article Eamon - as always. Refreshing to read your stuff in the BT.
Posted by Simon Caldwell | 21.08.09, 04:47 GMT
bring the troops home now, troops out now, problem is, troops are in, how do you withdraw from this, the taliban are increasing strength across afghanistan, do you abandon the country to pre 2001, taliban in control and ruling by a book that changes it's content and rulings almost daily by unelected councils of ignorant old men, their religious schools funded by pakistan and saudi arabia ( american allies!), the taliban were useful enough in the 'cold war' struggle against the soviets, back then it didn't matter to the western press if women were beheaded, stoned, mutilated, the press didn't care, the governments didn't care and maybe will hawkes wouldn't care as long as the extremists didn't pose a threat in albion, easy fixes are a bore, the invasion of afghanistan was an 'easy fix', as was iraq, easy in and easy out, is that the answer, you want to close your eyes to this, by the way 'untold numbersof afghans', actually means UNCOUNTED numbers of afghans
Posted by michael | 20.08.09, 21:01 GMT
T J McClean, can I point out that it was Blair who sent the troops into Afghanistan and not Brown, if you are to apportion blame make sure you include Blair.
May I also point out that after decades of troops on 'our' streets and all the problems they caused it would be rather unwise and unrealistic to call for them to come back and 'clean up our own streets'. They are not wanted nor needed.
Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 20.08.09, 16:11 GMT
If they want to fight a war on extremism, I suggest that they point their guns at Saudi Arabia. The extreme Wahabbi faith practised in Saudi, and it's inexorable spread throughout the world (inc the UK) via Saudi sponsored Islamic schools (Madrasses), is the biggest threat that we face.
The Wahabbi faith is an extreme form of Islam that requires female circumcision for all females connected with the faith (in some cases this even applies to the wives of new, male converts, think about what that means). It also does not allow women to drive cars, to hold certain jobs, to receive an equal education to me. Misogyny is an understatement.
These people will not stop attacking us, or having the desire to do so, until we have absolutely no 'interests' in the Middle East. By the way, that includes Israel.
Posted by Will Hawkes | 20.08.09, 12:18 GMT
Brilliant artice. I'm just waiting now on the 'The troops are there to protect the UK' replies.
Posted by In The Name Of The Fada | 20.08.09, 11:46 GMT
Eamonn McCann is right.
Bring the troops home now before any more are blown to bits to prop up up Browns' failed, ill conceived, confused foreign policy. He has no real idea what he is doing.
What a waste of brave precious lives by a Government who, from, broken promise evidence, army shortages, and poor equipment evidence, obviously does not care.
I have heard the argument that the troops are fighting to make our streets safe at home! Well we have our own home grown Taliban of street thugs, muggers, drunks, paedophiles and killers. Let the troops clean up our own streets1
Posted by T J McClean | 20.08.09, 10:16 GMT