Wikileaks.org -- Tens of thousands of Afghan war docs leaked

[VladtheImpaler]

Interesting discussion. I will add a couple of comments...

I do not see how the leaking of these documents furthers the discussion on fundamental issues:

1) Why are we there?
2) Should we be there?
3) What should we do, once there?
4) How long should we stay?

Fundamentally, whether our soldiers died through Taliban action directly or due to friendly fire is irrelevant - crap happens in war, and in the end they are still dead. How many and how exactly civilians died is also in the end irrelevant. Some civilians always die - the only real issue is whether civilians are intentionally targeted...

The release of these documents does not help any sort of reasonable debate. It's just more fodder for those who are already prejudiced against this enterprise. I'm sorry, FDW, but your comment about Americans being the biggest terrorists around is very revealing...

Now, I happen to agree with you that we should not be there, but not out of any irrational anti-Americanism or "love of all human life". My belief is that we simply cannot win, if by "win" we mean to change Afghanistan into a civilized, democratic, peaceful, modern nation. On a military level, I do not believe that you can defeat these well-armed savages, in that particular terrain, with the geopolitical situation as it is (Pakistani havens), especially not fighting the "Western" way, that is trying to minimize collateral damage and casualties. I even have my doubts that the Chinese could "win" this war, fighting with complete disregard for the lives of soldiers and civilians alike.
I think that 9/11 demanded an American response, but not this war, fought in the wrong manner for the wrong goals...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't presume to know this but I wonder to what extent the Taliban absolutely desires to see Canada smoking and in ruins. How much of it is the Taliban hates Canada and how much of it is them attacking invaders? I mean you can go invade a country under numerous pretexts but should we be surprised that the invaders are attacked?

Your quips about republican values, enemies, etc do little to answer these questions and simply engage in meaningless rhetoric. Does the Taliban hate every country in NATO equally? Are they planning and attacking numerous countries?

Plenty of questions you don't seem interested in

Republican values are, in a sense, naturally exported. Do they want to see Canadian cities lying in ruins? Probably not, I don't know. That question seems a bit silly.

Do they want to see the end of liberalism or republicanism? I would say, absolutely.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think our interests in Afghanistan are very clear. Just because you pretend that they aren't clear, doesn't mean that we don't have noble ends.

Essentially, you are a demagogue, using poorly articulated and weak ideas in a moralist rhetorical fashion to whip up popular support for your position.

LOL. Well I'm not the only using rhetoric, your posts in this thread have been heavily laced with it.

So I'm assuming you think our mission in Afghanistan is women's rights, Afghani political self-determination and attack on the drug trade? Or simply to root out the terrorists?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Republican values are, in a sense, naturally exported. Do they want to see Canadian cities lying in ruins? Probably not, I don't know. That question seems a bit silly.

Do they want to see the end of liberalism or republicanism? I would say, absolutely.

So you see it as clash of ideologies? And you think I'm the sheep? lol

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

LOL. Well I'm not the only using rhetoric, your posts in this thread have been heavily laced with it.

So I'm assuming you think our mission in Afghanistan is women's rights, Afghani political self-determination and attack on the drug trade? Or simply to root out the terrorists?

It was American revenge. The thing is, the mission changed. We have to support women's rights, political self-determination etc...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was American revenge. The thing is, the mission changed. We have to support women's rights, political self-determination etc...

But only Afghanistan presumably?

Its not the only place in the world that has issues of woman's rights, democracy, etc.

So any pretext for the war based on that is hypocritical as we do not intervene in most places where atrocities are being committed.

You think Amercian revenge is enough of a reason to commit our own soldiers and risk their lives?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

What are you going to grad school in Peter? Is it poli sci?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

But only Afghanistan presumably?

Its not the only place in the world that has issues of woman's rights, democracy, etc.

So any pretext for the war based on that is hypocritical as we do not intervene in most places where atrocities are being committed.

This is the worst/silliest/stupidest argument against our involvement in Afghanistan. We can't be everywhere so we should be nowhere?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was American revenge. The thing is, the mission changed. We have to support women's rights, political self-determination etc...

Yes, should have just stuck to revenge - killing as many Taliban and al-Q as possible - and left the nation-building out...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

So you see it as clash of ideologies? And you think I'm the sheep? lol

Given our current circumstances, it probably is a clash of ideologies, to some extent. Slavoj Zizek, a Marxist, has some interesting things to say about it.

As for grad school, political philosophy, yes.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think our interests in Afghanistan are very clear. Just because you pretend that they aren't clear, doesn't mean that we don't have noble ends.

Essentially, you are a demagogue, using poorly articulated and weak ideas in a moralist rhetorical fashion to whip up popular support for your position.

Clearly he should read more eh? Any suggestions?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Yes, should have just stuck to revenge - killing as many Taliban and al-Q as possible - and left the nation-building out...

But we totally failed at that. It was actually a dishonourable embarassment. Western countries lose vengeful conflicts all the time. For some reason, our soldiers and citizens need something more purposeful.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think our interests in Afghanistan are very clear. Just because you pretend that they aren't clear, doesn't mean that we don't have noble ends.

Essentially, you are a demagogue, using poorly articulated and weak ideas in a moralist rhetorical fashion to whip up popular support for your position.

Which book do you suggest we read so we can be just as smart as you?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Which book do you suggest we read so we can be just as smart as you?

Gibbon, Plutarch, possibly Thomas Moore

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Which book do you suggest we read so we can be just as smart as you?

This is the frustrating part of these discussions. Politics is a complicated activity, it used to be viewed as such, and people took the proper steps to educate themselves on its workings and ends. No one does that anymore. We assume that because we live in a democracy anyone with an opinion gets to state it. And what's worse is that because we assume politics to be an inherent right of every citizen, someone's learned opinion is seen as equal to an unlearned opinion.

I'm someone who studies politics for a living. I'm not a snob. However, I do read books, study people, and experience things which are very complicated and because I am someone with intense OCD, I hate giving out trash opinions without demanding that someone I am talking to has at least some context.

I'll try not to resort to the book clause when I post things, but goddamit, sometimes it's very frustrating.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is the worst/silliest/stupidest argument against our involvement in Afghanistan. We can't be everywhere so we should be nowhere?

Thats not really my argument.

My argument is that, if we went in for American revenge as you acknowledge, this PR business of being about women's rights, democracy, etc is a load of BS and a justification.

If we really care about those things, our actions in the world would be different, and we would care about more places and we would raise the profile of places we couldn't get to in order to encourage other rich countries to do so. You would see our politicians make more of a big deal about it, on our own soil and at international conferences, in the UN, etc.

That we don't do this, suggests we don't really care about women's rights and democracy enough to invade other countries and enforce it. Which makes our commitment in Afghanistan questionable.

You don't see why some people would have a problem with a war that was started to help the Americans get some revenge and then was post-justified in some other way? It is costing people money and costing people lives. If the justification wasn't legitimate initially then making it about something else seems fishy to me.

If Canada has the export of women's rights and democracy as one of its highest values I think we'd act in a different way in general. So the stated goals of the war do not seem to jive with our other actions.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Which book do you suggest we read so we can be just as smart as you?

Do understand just how stupid everyone is when it comes to understanding politics, I'd give this one a read.

I read it back in undergraduate and it completely changed my perspective on education and politics.

http://www.amazon.ca/Closing-America...0257587&sr=8-1

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I think you've been enchanted by some political theories that don't necessarily correspond to reality even thought they may appear to to some very intelligent people.

The psychology of being in power and trying to retain power isn't used enough by political scientists in some of the concepts they try and put forth about real world phenomenon.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do understand just how stupid everyone is when it comes to understanding politics, I'd give this one a read.

I read it back in undergraduate and it completely changed my perspective on education and politics.

http://www.amazon.ca/Closing-America...0257587&sr=8-1

I have this book on my shelf

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Thats not really my argument.

My argument is that, if we went in for American revenge as you acknowledge, this PR business of being about women's rights, democracy, etc is a load of BS and a justification.

If we really care about those things, our actions in the world would be different, and we would care about more places and we would raise the profile of places we couldn't get to in order to encourage other rich countries to do so. You would see our politicians make more of a big deal about it, on our own soil and at international conferences, in the UN, etc.

That we don't do this, suggests we don't really care about women's rights and democracy enough to invade other countries and enforce it. Which makes our commitment in Afghanistan questionable.

You don't see why some people would have a problem with a war that was started to help the Americans get some revenge and then was post-justified in some other way? It is costing people money and costing people lives. If the justification wasn't legitimate initially then making it about something else seems fishy to me.

If Canada has the export of women's rights and democracy as one of its highest values I think we'd act in a different way in general. So the stated goals of the war do not seem to jive with our other actions.

Okay, thanks for this post. We seem to understand one another better now.

I... don't know what to think to be honest. We went in on what was an essentially a "Eff up the Taliban because they effed us up, sorta" mission and have basically ended up in a slow endemic conflict with no end in sight.

Progress has been made though. The country has a rising literacy rate, more women in schools and government, and the possible opening of new markets for its sudden mineral wealth.

Why are we there? Tough question. What is interesting to me is why we stayed. We could have just blown some Taliban apart and then effed off out of there, but we didn't.

There is some sort of moral imperative for democracies when they go to war, even if it starts out as vengeance. By the way, Machiavelli said that republics were the most dangerous enemy to fight for just this reason.

I think that democracies can give citizens virtue. That is, courage, prudence and a greater respect for their fellow man. It is no coincidence that after the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban government that we decided to stay and yes, help Afghans rebuild their shattered country.

This is not an easy task, but to me, it is a noble task. It requires all the virtue of our citizenry to accomplish it. From a military perspective, we need troops to secure regions and kill our enemies. To me, these soldiers and their commanders should be supported with almost no question. The only reason that would cause me to look on the conflict with a jaundiced eye is if strategically we were engaging in intent destruction of civilians in Afghanistan.

All evidence points to the opposite.