If freedom is worth fighting for, then surely peace is its greatest vice.

Since the end of the Second World War, every conflict that the West has involved itself in has been justified by claiming it necessary to safeguard freedom and liberty. Of them, how many have?

It could be argued that the Cold War was fought in numerous ways to protect the free world from the ravages of Communism. Interestingly, there are only a handful of examples that the West can point to as actual successes in that regard, Afghanistan being one of them. But even then, one must examine the aftermath of that victory with regards to current global events.

The Korean War failed in its purpose, as did Vietnam. In fact, during the Cold War, not one hot war resulted in what could be considered a victory against what the West perceived as their global enemy. On the other hand, covert operations, employing unethical methods and pay-rolling murderers and radicals, tended to produce far better results. Afghanistan falls into that category being that those who supported the Mujahideen and The Northern Alliance in their struggle against the Soviets never involved themselves militarily. They acted as financiers, advisors, and gunrunners - nothing more. And, of course, Afghanistan is not the only example of this method being employed. Western powers have colluded with a variety of groups and individuals whose ideologies were, and are, entirely counter to the principles of freedom and liberty. In the context of covert operations, the goal is not to promote an ideology, rather to ensure that those you oppose are dealt with by whatever means necessary, and that you protect your interests no matter who happens to be willing to secure them.

In truth, that is the global legacy of the West in the latter half of the 20th century. Those conflicts that have involved sacrificial lambs of our own are not what are commonly referred to by others abroad when they attack Western complicity, or, for that matter, Soviet complicity. Their primary source of animosity lay in what the general public knows little of, the secret actions undertaken by their own governments and the ramifications that they have had abroad.

While there are numerous examples that can be sited, Chile provides an adequate demonstration.

The Nixon administration worked diligently to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende, their reasons being the usual – he threatened to nationalize aspects of Chilean industry. The result was, of course, the eventual seizure of power by General Augusto Pinochet, whose regime was responsible for mass human rights violations during his tenure as the head of the country’s military junta. Thousands disappeared during the Pinochet era, tens of thousands were jailed and tortured, others were simply disposed of, and all of it was overlooked by the United States who supported Pinochet’s economic reforms (see: Chicago Boys) and enjoyed continued access to Chilean markets. Of course, Allende was a member of Chile’s Socialist Party, and therefore provided ample cause for alarm.

All of that said, who is Chile’s current President? Well, it so just so happens that it’s Michelle Bachelet, the leader of - you guessed it - Chile’s Socialist Party.

Many Chileans have not forgotten Pinochet’s silent partner, nor their hypocrisy. Because while 30,000 Chileans were forced to flee Chile for their lives after the coup that placed the junta in power, the American people, even disenfranchised by the Vietnam War, still believed that theirs was a country that stood for something other than aiding and abetting murderers. It is also very important to remember that Allende’s government was, by no means, a pawn of the USSR. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was, prior to their invasion of it in 1979.

Pin The Tail On The Donkey

What do we possess that compels us to think it applicable the world over? If it’s the perceived enjoyment of living in free societies then, I’m afraid, it’s time we saw an optometrist. The truth is that our own freedoms aren’t even of serious import to us. Were they, we would be far more vigilant than we are, far more critical of government, and even more critical of the use of military force, let alone our own apathy. Any society that claims itself free and possesses the ability to influence government, because the citizenry represents the true base of power, does not offer up excuses as to why it cannot be vigilant. Because that is only the freedom to be ignorant, a liberty that has come to supercede all others in our society.

In the struggle to maintain that which we claim to hold dearest, our freedom, we have only exercised our right to embrace ignorance on unprecedented levels while turning our backs on the very rights that we possess to ensure that our freedoms cannot be diminished. We are, in a sentence, the authors of our own undoing. Reason, it seems, has no place with us.

On September 10th, 2001, how many Canadians cared about Afghanistan, the plight of its people, its government, or how much Naan bread was going for in the typical Afghan market? Who even really cared about poppy production?

Be honest with yourself – very few.

And yet, by the 1st of October, 2001, it became a target the size of the sun itself, the lean-to of international terrorism, a country tyrannically governed by the very same radical despotic regime that a month earlier few even knew about, let alone cared about. But because of the trauma caused us by the attacks of 9/11, reason was thrown out the window in favour of something far more comfortable – vengeance, which, not surprisingly, is steeped in the ease of ignorance.

On that terrible day in 2001, not one Afghan national took part in the attacks. That didn’t matter, mind you, because the author of the attacks had been a guest of the country’s government since his expulsion from Sudan, and therefore it seemed only logical that military action against Afghanistan was warranted. On the 12th of September, 2001, President Bush declared that the attacks themselves represented an act of war, even though no nation, and I emphasize ‘nation’, had declared war on the United States following them.

Of the 19 hijackers, 15 of them were Saudi. Of the remaining four, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. None of the men were members of the Taliban, none of them were Afghans, and in no way did the attacks that day constitute an act of war on Afghanistan’s behalf because only three countries in the world even recognized the Taliban as the country’s legitimate government, all three of which – The United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia – also supplied them aid.

Given that, a few contradictions should be noted:

Saudi Arabia, during the reign of the Taliban, afforded the United States military bases and purchased arms from them. This, of course, was the same government that exiled Osama Bin Laden for his views, but would eventually recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the very regime that Bin Laden helped finance.

Following the attacks of 9/11, Pakistan conveniently became an ally in the new War On Terror, their past support for the Taliban quickly fading from memory. The United States was afforded military accommodations in Pakistan from which to launch operations against Afghanistan while it’s President, General Pervez Musharraf, lied to the Pakistani people about the financial costs incurred during Operation Enduring Freedom.

The United Arab Emirates is home to the USAF’s Al Dhafra Air Base, from which U-2 and Global Hawk flights operated during OEF.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Afghanistan was the perfect target - one of the poorest countries in the world, little to no conventional military might to speak of, and politically fractured. Of course, the author of the attacks, who would initially deny involvement only to be contradicted by video tapes found in a house by US troops on which he displayed foreknowledge of them, was also there and had colluded with the country’s radical regime – one which the United States itself did not recognize as the official government of the country, though that would not stop them from taking the position that 9/11 constituted an act of war against the United States and that Afghanistan could be held responsible because of the Taliban’s relationship with al-Qaeda’s leadership.

It is here that the disconnect occurs.

How does one hold a nation responsible for the actions of a radical group within it? In the eyes of the United States, and many others, Afghanistan was a nation still in the midst of civil war, as the Northern Alliance was still resisting the Taliban. Thus, if one faction within a nation has benefited from the financial assistance of a radical organization, as the Taliban did, how do the attacks of 9/11 constitute an act of war against the United States by the nation of Afghanistan? Further to that, if a nation such as Saudi Arabia, from which most of the hijackers came, and who recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government, can’t be viewed as suspect, then how could Afghanistan, as a whole, be?

The answer is – it couldn’t.

The reality is that we did nothing to sort out the puzzle pieces, nor did we bother trying to entertain the fact that there might exist complexities that would make the matter less direct. The enemy was in Afghanistan, a little under 3,000 people had just perished in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, so Afghanistan would be made to pay.

And pay it has.

Price Tags And Body Bags

As I write this, combat operations in Afghanistan have taken the lives of 55 of our countrymen. Their sacrifice has been spun to legendary proportions by those that would use their deaths for the purpose of justifying our presence there. It is not wrong to honour them, nor their commitment to our country, but it falls to those left behind to look beyond their singular role at the larger picture. Because if we fail to do so, if we’re to simply buy into the solemnity of their sacrifice, then we dishonour not only them, but that for which they perceived to fight – freedom.

Canadians should make no mistake, we are a country at war. And in doing so must also realize that the war in which we are involved does not deter those that might seek to attack us using unconventional means. If anything, it provides them justification and heightened motivation. When dealing with terrorism, as the British can well attest, containment is not something that works with regards to deterring terrorist attacks. Were that the case, their presence in Northern Ireland would have resulted in decreasing IRA bombings in England, something that it did not do. If anything, it only increased operations outside of Northern Ireland.

The simplicity given the face of the enemy in Afghanistan is a weapon, not a fact. While Canadian forces face a revitalized Taliban bolstered by newcomers that have hitched their wagons to the Taliban’s horse because of their desire to see their country rid of foreign occupation, they do not represent those that planned or carried out the attacks of September 11th. In all probability, those of that ilk that remain have long since fled into Pakistan where they are most likely being sheltered by the likes of the Pakistani ISI and those sympathetic to their cause. Thus, we are not fighting in Afghanistan to disenthrall those responsible for 9/11, only what remains of the largely unrecognized governing regime that existed prior to the invasion. And even though that regime was supported by Osama Bin Laden, along with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (now both allies in the War On Terror), it has been able to sustain itself despite the presence of Western forces and the continued operations of their Northern Alliance allies. That is not to say that theirs is an ideology that isn’t irreprehensible, only that the realities of that ideology are often overlooked by those struggling against what they perceive as foreign invaders, and that that fact should not be disregarded. There is a reason why Hamid Karzai is referred to as ‘The Mayor of Kabul’, and it has everything to do with the ineffectuality of his government and the process that led to its formation, a process hurriedly undertaken to gratify our own sense of accomplishment rather than one that took into account the long-term effects that it might have on the Afghan psyche regarding the virtues of the democratic process.

Freedom, you see, is not something definable by a single people’s view, despite the definition available in your dictionary. It is, like most things, a complicated matter that involves a myriad of factors dependant on culture, religion, and history. To force the world to conform to a single understanding of the term will only produce resistance, not magically open eyes that will suddenly see the relevance of having a McDonald’s on every second corner. Freedom, in the context of a national movement, has to be something sought by those that would have a government created to represent its application. It is not something that can be forced on a people who have had no populist stake in the struggle for it. Ironic as it may seem, most would fight for the right to retain their own bad government than see a foreign power instill one, no matter how it is packaged and sold them. NATO’s current struggle against the Taliban is representative of this in that it has attracted support from amongst those that view their struggle not entirely as a radically religious one, but one of self determination.

Layer Cake

As Jim Miles recently pointed out in an article about Linda McQuaig’s book Holding the Bully’s Coat – Canada and the U.S. Empire…

“The first chapter covers a series of mini-themes that exposes the American empire at the same time implicating Canada in its complicity with American actions. Familiar topics arise with Canada as they do with America abroad in the world: Canada’s recent implicit support of torture in Afghanistan by ‘rendering’ prisoners to Afghanis bases; military plans of attack, in this case against Canadian the 1930’s, such that it would cause “devastation” and include “chemical warfare”; a view of American “exceptionalism”, another word for ignoring international norms, laws and institutions (illegal wars, torture, nuclear weapons double standards, UN, ICC, Kyoto, ICJ, Biological weapons); in other words a generalized withdrawal from international law and conventions.

McQuaig recognizes the incongruity of the U.S. “defending” itself against many created foes, focussing her arguments on the Persian Gulf, reiterating the American tale of woe about “vulnerability”, of America being under attack. While the majority of Canadians do not want to be a part of this militaristic exceptionalism, the “media, academic and corporate worlds – pander to Washington.” The elite see Canada as a renewed power, as an energy superpower, but what sort of superpower would give all its energy resources to another country before its own needs are guaranteed, leading to the author’s conclusion that Canada would not be viewed “with anything but contempt, as the bully’s unctuous [great choice of word – “simulation of affected enthusiasm” based on the root meaning of anointed with oil] little sidekick.”

Oil and free market economics flow via the Canadian elites “fiercely resisting such [social] planning in the Canadian national interest.” As Canada’s social services diminish and its resources are sold off liberally and cheaply, the reality is that “there is little connection between a country’s level of social spending and its ability to compete in the global economy.” Examples are evident for this, with Norway being the most successful, and with the countries of Latin America slowly turning away from the disastrously imposed free market policies.

In the second chapter, “No More Girlie-Man for Peacekeeping” the Canadian popular view of peacekeeping is explored, again exposing the elites, in this case Canada’s own copycat military-industrial-political he-man alliance, as manipulating events towards the American pre-emptive war attitude that searches out strategic control of oil and gas resources, hidden behind the hunt for terrorism, as “America’s vigilance against terrorism…just happens to coincide with its need for oil.” Once again the media come into the picture, a poorly defined picture of “distortion” that has “rendered the suffering of the Arab world invisible to us.” What is viewed in the west is far different than the view seen by others, “the ultimate horror of occupation: the powerlessness of an occupied people against an all-powerful foreign army.”

The argument then turns fully to Afghanistan where Canada is an invading army (and for those Canadian politicians ignorant of the role of oil in Afghanistan, it is a focal point for oil trans-shipment as well as having significant reserves of gas in its north-western provinces in the Caspian Basin), that has committed war crimes by “rendition” and the “collateral damage” of killed citizens. She concludes the section posing the question of security, “Because we realize our security is not actually at stake, and we sense that there is no compelling purpose to this mission….We’re not aggressors [arguable, but perhaps only semantic]. We’re just helping out the aggressor in order to protect our trade balance.”

In summary, McQuaig concludes that “Powerful forces inside the Canadian elite want to move Canada not only away from peacekeeping – as they’ve already succeeding in doing- but also away from an allegiance to the United Nations and the rule of law.” This is a strong statement that Canadians and the world need to be fully aware of.”

No Canadian should ever overlook the importance of those factors that have shaped Canadian foreign policy over the last six years with regards to our cooperation with US foreign policy objectives and the reasons for it. Nor should they take at face value the simplest of explanations regarding our collusion. It has become far too easy to manipulate public opinion, and if one need proof of just how easy it is, look no further than the removal of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004 and our role in it…

“Many of the supporters of the Famni Lavalas party and Aristide, as well as progressive and independent observers worldwide, denounced the rebellion as a foreign controlled coup d’etat orchestrated by Canada, France and the United States (Goodman, et al, 2004) to remove a publicly elected President.

The argument is that the governments of the United States, France and Canada were interested in the removal of Aristide from power because of his populist tendencies. For example, in 2003, Canada hosted a meeting of Haïtian opposition leaders called the Ottawa Initiative which concluded that “Aristide must go”. At the same time, the United States, France and Canada were funding the rebel groups, via opposition NGOs and the International Republican Institute, and provided the necessary military and logistic support for the rebellion. Rebel leader Guy Philippe has been trained by U.S. forces and had been on the CIA payroll. Other prominent rebel figures had also been previously trained by the U.S. despite their participation in previous rebellions and terrorist acts with some living in the U.S” (Wikipedia)

As far as The Ottawa Initiative is concerned, you might be surprised to discover…

“The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti or simply the Ottawa Initiative, was a conference that took place in Montreal on 31 January and 1 February 2003, to decide the future of Haiti’s government, though no Haitian government officials were invited. The conference was attended by Canadian, French, and U.S. and Latin American officials. What exactly transpired is difficult to say, since Canada is keeping the documents that came out of this conference secret.” (Wikipedia)

When asked during an interview with Naomi Klein for The Nation why he was removed from power, Aristide responded - privatization, privatization, and privatization.

We were, of course, sold a different story. An age old story that involved freedom fighters and an emerging despot that threatened freedom itself. And most Canadians, those who even knew about it, bought that version of events.

This, of course, exemplifies our right to be freely ignorant rather than employing vigilance with regards to the principles that we are so often eager to champion at the drop of a hat. In such cases, we do not examine our own complicity as citizens of a nation whose government would act illegally, and in doing so have helped create a reality in which government doesn’t hope to succeed in avoiding condemnation but relies on public apathy to ensure that those undertakings that are suspect are never widely examined. And those that do bother to point fingers are easily dismissed as a variety of things, from radicals to hippies and so forth.

Afghanistan is, of course, no different. With regards to the recent scandal involving the rendition of detainees to Afghan authorities known for their use of torture, the public was diverted away from two very important truths – that members within our government and military were aware of it, and that despite knowing did nothing serious to deter it until it became news. Of course, when it did become news, it was challenged by claims that by debating the issue Canadians were somehow undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy, that to attempt to critically examine what had occurred and who knew about it was entirely counter to our military efforts.

Now I ask you, is it not our democratic duty to debate this topic? Is it not the right of every Canadian from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland to look at the realities of this issue without it being impressed upon them that to do so for more than five minutes is somehow detrimental those fighting in Afghanistan to supposedly ensure that Afghans have that very right?

Furthermore, for the sake of the integrity of our democracy, is it not our responsibility to hold those responsible accountable and have them removed from their various offices and commands? Unfortunately, as long as our love affair with the right to be freely ignorant continues, we remain a reliable horse on which to bet.

In all probability, Canadian troops, under the same make-shift banner of half-assed legitimacy, will remain in Afghanistan for years to come. Public opinion will, of course, only be swayed once the body count reaches a significant enough level to cause alarm, and by then who knows whether the showcase democracy gifted it will still be around, or whether, like the Russians and the British before us, we will find ourselves trapped in a foreign land fighting a determined enemy that has always been willing to give up more for their cause than those that have always arrogantly believed otherwise.

The lesson of 9/11 will never be learned because to admit that it was a lesson is to admit something that we simply never will. That what we do for our own benefit, projected in the diminishing light of our own freedom, has been responsible for creating monsters. In the shadow of The Second World War and the predominance we have placed on its victorious resolution, we have, in many ways, fallen prey to that which we sacrificed to deter. And the most overwhelmingly important aspect of that is our continued belief that our way of life not only represents the pinnacle of civilized society, but that to refuse it is to entertain perfidy.

Want to bookmark or share this entry?



This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.