Galloping Beaver compares the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite right too. Both operations are different. And as a progressive he is opposed to the war in Iraq but then he continues to try and justify the war in Afghanistan as different, more noble. Because it is sanctioned by the UN and NATO.
But then again when he says it is sanctioned by the UN and NATO let us not forget that so was the war on Serbia over Kosovo. And that mess is still going on. With no resoloution. So far neither the UN nor NATO sanctioned wars have had much success.
See my Seeing the Forest for the Trees
Thesis on The Kosovo Crisis and the Crisis of Global Capitalism
originally written May 1999, Bill Clinton set the stage for George W. to invade Afganistan and Iraq for humanitarian purposes.
And the comparison could be made that initially we were involved in peace keeping in the Balkans and then we were part of the War in the Balkans declared by that other Progressive For War, Bill Clinton.
At that time those who opposed imperialism and war, and the two go togther like peanutbutter and jam, also objected to that war. And that war was fought on so called humanitarian grounds, which many on the left even, mistakenly, supported. Christopher Hitchens opposed the war but now he supports the War in Iraq. Consistency is the hobgobllen of opportunists.
The Galloping Beaver says; If Canada were to suddenly withdraw because Canadians at home are getting squeamish, those who would have us do that should be aware that Canada would be forever viewed as an unreliable ally; not by the US, but by NATO. Canada relies on collective defence treaties to keep defence affordable. Withdrawl would result in no treaties, no collective defence and a huge price to pay in going it alone.
Exactly why we should withdraw from NATO. Something the NDP called for over many decades until Jack Layton decided to arbitrarily change the party platform. Thus leaving him in the Hobbesian dilemma he is in now over whether our Troops should stay or go. NATO is a cold war relic, whose purpose was to prepare for a European theatre of war with the USSR. Without the USSR, NATO has no purpose.That was until it was utilized to end the Balkan war it's member states had encouraged in the first place (with their recognition of Slovenia and Croatia).
Then the Beaver concludes; "No matter how comfortable people are inside our borders at the moment, they should realize that the world has become a much more dangerous place, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union."
Yep thats when the world changed. No longer did we fear the nuclear meltdown due to the Cold War. Nor could the Soviet Union do its job as an Imperialist power in moderating its client states and holding them accountable. Thus a vacuum was created. One into which marched the USA as it declared under the Elder Bush the coming of the New World Order. And the new mask of Imperialism was adopted, that of humanitarian wars.
Military interventions on supposedly humanitarian grounds have become an established feature of the post–Cold War global order. Since September 11, this form of militarism has taken on new and unpredictable proportions. Diana Johnstone’s well-documented study demonstrates that a crucial moment in establishing in the public mind—and above all, within the political context of liberalism and the left—the legitimacy of such interventions was the “humanitarian” bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999.
For those of us on the Left we are opposed to Capitalism, Imperialism and War we are not pacifists, we recgonize that all wars are the bosses war which is why we say No War But Class War.
This adventure in Afghanistan clearly exposes those who are the liberals and so called progressives, the new age social democrats who will go to war for humanitarian reasons; which is the new excuse for Capitalism and Imperialism. Like they once used nationalism and honor.
Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
war, imperialism, capitalism, Bush, Afghanistan, Canada, Military, Troops, NATO, Harper, Layton, DND
1 comment:
I question the need for a Canadian military period. All we really need is a Swiss-style, or even better, workplace based militia trained in guerrilla warfare to defend ourselves. And the only country we need ever defend ourselves against is thge US when they come to take the gas, oil and water. A regular military would be useless in that circumstance. A regular military serves two purposes in this country. 1. To be used against the people, as in Quebec 1970 and 1990 (Oka) 2. To be used in some American or, at best, UN imperial adventure. To hell with it, I say. Why doesn't the left raise this kind of isssue?
Post a Comment