Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

The election in Afghanistan is over, sort of. With most outside observers predicting a second “run-off” election will need to be held – to choose a winner between incumbent, Hamid Karzai and challenger, Abdullah Abdullah – the only certainty is that there will be no real winner, while the Afghan people are the certain losers.

Karzai had been predicted to romp to an easy victory when this (so-called) political campaign began. Despite the massive corruption of his government (almost reminiscent of the U.S. government), in a country with a 98% illiteracy rate, and little real “campaigning” possible (due to the nearly non-existent “security”), it is rather difficult for an incumbent to lose.

It is therefore a revealing indicator of the lack of popular support for Karzai that he appears to be incapable of winning – at least on the first ballot. However, the possibility that this corrupt, U.S. puppet might be tossed out of office is likely of little comfort for the people of Afghanistan.

His challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, is his former foreign minister. Some might hope that Abdullah may have broken away from Karzai because of his blatant abuses of power. However, being a member of this U.S.-installed puppet-government, Abdullah is likely more interested in self-enrichment, himself, rather than any attempt to purge the massive corruption which has spread throughout Afghanistan since the downfall of the Taliban government.

As the ballots are being counted, both candidates have already declared themselves the “victor”. Meanwhile, an independent body inside Afghanistan which is monitoring the election is receiving reports of fraud and “interference” from around the country (according to a Reuters article). Therefore, it is already conceded by everyone except the two candidates that no matter who is declared the “winner” that the result will be strongly disputed.

Going from a corrupt government with a firm grip on power to a corrupt government with a hotly-disputed mandate to govern certainly cannot be considered “progress”, even in the eyes of the most-biased American propagandist.

Supposedly, the purposes of this war were two-fold. First, invading Afghanistan was supposed to lead to the demise of Al Qaeda, and the capture of Osama Bin Laden (remember him?). Bin Laden remains free, while Al Qaeda has found a much more secure home in Pakistan – destabilizing the government of a nation with a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. Bravo, U.S.A.!

Secondly, these Western invaders were supposedly “helping” the Afghan people – by installing a government which the U.S. claimed would be far superior to the Taliban. Creating one of the world's most corrupt governments – which instantly transformed Afghanistan into the heroin production capital of the world can hardly be considered an “improvement”.

“But the Taliban wouldn't let girls go to school,” shriek the politically-correct parrots, who have been well trained by the U.S. propaganda-machine. It's too bad that these ignorant do-gooders are unable to count.

In a country where 98% of the population is illiterate, even if 0% of girls go to school, this still only means that 4% of males actually get an education. Is there even one politically-correct knuckle-dragger who would actually claim that the U.S. was justified in bombing this country into rubble because 4% more males than females had the opportunity to go to school?

Furthermore, as has often been reported (by non-American sources), the Taliban strictly banned poppy farming under their regime. Yes, the Taliban government implemented various aspects of “Islamic Law” which in our societies are seen as regressive and unfair – so do most of the U.S.'s oil-soaked allies in the Middle East.

In short, the only thing differentiating the Taliban government from several of the U.S.'s “strongest allies” is that Afghanistan didn't have any oil with which to buy-off its U.S. invaders.

As a result, Canadians (and Brits and Americans) continue fighting (and dying) in Afghanistan for absolutely no reason other than what kept the U.S. in Vietnam much too long: to avoid acknowledging inevitable defeat. The U.S. has already declared “victory” in Afghanistan once (a much less celebrated “mission accomplished”), much like the Soviet Union declared “victory” a generation ago.

Indeed, the once-popular joke about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is that they controlled 98% of the county – right up until the day they were forced to retreat in defeat. Afghanistan has been invaded more times than anyone than count. And every one of these invaders has been driven out – generally after they have proclaimed their “victories”.

Whether listening to Barack Obama, or Stephen Harper, or Gordon Brown, none of these spineless “leaders” is even capable of providing a coherent rationale for continuing this military occupation – and continuing to attack and kill people whose only “crime” is that they are fighting to drive out yet one more immoral occupation.

In this respect, the current election is highly symbolic: a contest where there is no real “winner” possible, and where the Afghan people have nothing to hope for but more misery and suffering.

End the occupation!!

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed