Politically orphaned for a fool's errand

A quick note.  Lord Kitchener's Own (??!) is annoyed about the recent decision of NDP delegates to buck convention in favour of sense and endorse Jack Layton's apparent proposal to withdraw from Afghanistan.  My friend skdadl has delineated the pointlessness---and, of course, worse---of any involvement in Afghanistan at all.  (I didn't entirely agree with the way she put it, as you can see from the comments, but I agree with the overall intention wholeheartedly.)

Now, there are probably good reasons to leave any political party.  You'll notice that I certainly have no affiliation with one myself.  But to make Afghanistan the reason for leaving a party is kind of like, well, quitting a hockey team because the other members wouldn't join your campaign to make the NHL replace skates with soccer cleats on the ice...I mean, it's hard to come up with an analogy for a behaviour so odd.

Worse, this person who is someone else's "own" begs that he not be forced to abandon what are presumably his political principles and join the Conservative Party.  Afghanistan is, apparently, so important to him that he is willing to sacrifice his belief system on a fool's errand.  That's even worse than Esau: at least he got a wholesome meal out of it (and was evidently tricked).  The irony is that, well, if you sincerely believe that Afghanistan involvement is a good idea for Canada, then among mainstream parties, the Conservative Party is probably your best fit, what with the service to the empire and all that.

Oh, well.  Maybe there's some broader context that I'm missing here.  But otherwise, it's definitely rather strange.

Rather immediate update: an interesting bit of news from Eugene Plawiuk. Accords well with what I have thought of such projects.  Warning: you might get popup ads even if you have Firefox screen them.

Comments

[skdadl]

Mandos, I'm not opposed to "any involvement in Afghanistan at all." I haven't been happy with Jack's statements (what I have read on the NDP site or what little has got into the msm so far), but I've been more impressed by Alexa's.

What I am opposed to is what has so far been conceived of as "war in one country," since that's not what it is. So allowing the argument to continue as though we were talking about one country, as Jack sort of does, annoys me too.

What I would wish for (but know is not going to happen soon) is to hear Canada arguing the world community into taking over negotiations with both Pakistan and Afghanistan, getting them out of Bush's hands. I think that tensions in Central Asia matter very much, that it is important at least to begin to counteract the toxic effects of U.S. manipulations in both countries.

[Mandos]

Fair enough. I should have said "under present conditions" or something.

BUT...when you say,

"What I would wish for (but know is not going to happen soon) is to hear Canada arguing the world community into taking over negotiations with both Pakistan and Afghanistan, getting them out of Bush's hands. I think that tensions in Central Asia matter very much, that it is important at least to begin to counteract the toxic effects of U.S. manipulations in both countries."

What do you think that these negotiations are supposed to accomplish, assuming that the world community takes them over?

[skdadl]

Stopping the Americans?

Sheesh, Mandos: I've just been reading Bohne's article on Baluchistan, which I found ... (how did I find that? I've read too much this morning ... Fur Gaia, that's how.)

And my hair is curling. It's another front on/for Iran, of course.

[Mandos]

"Stopping the Americans?"

I meant, more specifically. I mean, what's there to negotiate, exactly, with both Pakistan and Afghanistan? For me, at least, the cornerstone of the local instabilities in South Asia is Kashmir, which is Pakistan's largest motivation for interfering in Afghanistan.

[Lord Kitchener's Own]

I'm actually sticking to my principles, which is why I won't vote for an NDP party that explicitly states its intention to abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban. I should also say that it's not that I'm leaving a party. Like most Canadians, I've never belonged to a political party, and probably never will. I have voted NDP in the last two elections, but I will not continue to do so. I also have no intention of "abandoning my political principles" to join the Conservatives, as I EXPLICITLY state in my post. What I was asking of the Liberals is that they not follow this fool's errand of abandoning the fight against the Taliban in favour of "negotiating" with religious fanatics who want to establish a global caliphate under Sharia law. I'm "begging" (though it was meant to be largely facetious ) the Liberals not to abandon me, leaving me with no one to vote for (because, again, as I state explicitly, I won't abandon my principles to vote Conservative, but I also won't abandon my principles to vote Liberal, if they abandon the people of Afghanistan).

I'm sorry you don't believe the people of Afghhanistan are worth fighting for, but I do. I simply don't beleive that because they live on the other side of the world, and are different from us, that that means we should just let whatever band of nutjobs pleases control their lives, and rule them with religious fanaticism. I just don't think religious oppression is "their problem", or that it's none of our business if a country far away is held under the thumb of fundamentalists. I just don't think we should let democratically elected governments fall to religious fanatics when they ask for our help. "The left" used to beg that we intervene in places like this to bring some degree of freedom and justice to opressed peoples. Apparently, not if it means fighting though. Fair enough, but I refuse to support meaningless rhetoric in the face of tyranny.

As for my tag, I'm from Kitchener, so I'm one of "Kitchener's Own". The Lord there just gives it historical context. Frankly, I never expected anyone to take it so seriously.

Then again, I never expected anyone to think we could negotiate people out of following what they see as the word of God. But I guess I'm just naive.

[Hattie]

I'm posting from the mess to the south. Yes, it is a mess. You are right to think so, Canadians. Some of us our dedicated to this, our home, however. Our attitude is not the same as patriotism, the refuge of fools and liars, but the sense that the U.S. belongs to its citizenry and not to the Bush cabal.
I don't know what Canadians can do, realistically, to stop the madness. It's mostly up to us, and I don't know whether we'll be successful.
It would be good if Canada pulled its soldiers out of Afghanistan.

[Hattie]

I'm posting from the mess to the south. Yes, it is a mess. You are right to think so, Canadians. Some of us our dedicated to this, our home, however. Our attitude is not the same as patriotism, the refuge of fools and liars, but the sense that the U.S. belongs to its citizenry and not to the Bush cabal.
I don't know what Canadians can do, realistically, to stop the madness. It's mostly up to us, and I don't know whether we'll be successful.
It would be good if Canada pulled its soldiers out of Afghanistan.

[Mandos]

LKO: Even if you believed that absurdity, the point is that you can only make it worse. Do you understand the nature of the fool's errand? Do you understand why it is a fool's errand? Do you understand the historical context of Afghan instability? The real origin of the Taliban? The motivations for aspects of Pakistan to be, at minimum relieved by it? The motivations for particular groups in Afghanistan to support it? Evidence shows that you don't.

It has very little to do with any "global islamic caliphate" caricature, which is a fantasy projected by two specific groups, one for propagandistic purposes, the other because of, well, familiar forms of fantasy.

[Mandos]

Hattie: I wouldn't fetishize Canadians above Americans too much. We elected Stephen Harper, after all. And I think that despite the odds, a lot of US social movements are more creative and dynamic than those in Canada. Canada is partly the way it is because of inertia and ennui, both the good and the bad.

[Craig]

We elected Stephen Harper, after all.

As brother told me the other day at the Lone Star at Baseline and Fisher in Ottawa, "People like Stephen Harper because he means what he says." Or something like that. The week before he said to me, because I didn't support cluster-bombing children, "Oh, so you're Hezbollah."

[Mandos]

THAT Lone Star? Why would you go there when there's a perfectly good---and cheaper---Greek restaurant there?

[Craig]

That restaurant is at Baseline and Prince of Wales - next mall down.

[Mandos]

Ooops. I always get the two mixed up. Anyway, close enough, eh?

[Craig]

Yes, close enough. There's also a Quizno's and a Telus outlet at the next mall. The one with Lone Star has a dentist, tanning place, brew your own booze store, and a pizza place.