Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Web-exclusive comment

There are grounds for hope in Afghanistan

CRAIG CHARNEY AND ISOBEL COLEMAN

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:16 PM EDT 27/06/07

Afghans themselves are changing their society ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brian Williams from Canada writes: There's grounds for hope?
    There is grounds for hope?
    There ARE grounds for hope.

    Poor grammar makes a potentially great story hard to read, and thus discounted. This story is discounted by the headline and the content is lost as many reader's will find it hard to ignore the fact the the author(s) or the editor(s) have not paid attention to important details and give an uneducated appearance. These failures are becoming very prevalent in all forms of media.
  2. Estee Tabernac from writes: I can't believe that Brian Williams is willing to discount the entire article because of a perceived grammatical error.

    What is your opinion on the article itself? What is your opinion on the Afghan mission?

    These are the important issues. For some reason he left them out.

    I support the mission. I feel this article may actually wake people up to the fact that the Afghans are making progress and that we are an integral part of that.
  3. george carlin from United States writes: My God, a postive story on Afghanistan in the Globe and Mail! Will wonders never cease! Next thing you know, we might read that there's one or two Iraqis who are sorta glad that Saddam ain't around anymore. Or - heaven forbid - that maybe just maybe, the doomsday climate change scenarios might just be a touch overstated.
  4. Satori Zen from Warriors' Land, Canada writes: Those are the types of "positive" stories to remember and to archive. Such stories would only make sense if they were compatible with the insurgents obviously having so much support among the Afghan population that the insurgency has kept gaining momentum, and is currently spreading to previously relatively peaceful regions of Afghanistan, all the way to Kabul. In the past, we have heard such "positive" stories coming out of Vietnam, of Iraq... followed by humiliating defeat (Vietnam) or to the general situation worsening beyond control (Iraq). Beyond disaster, with this kind of story on hand, it is always most entertaining to hear all those analysts claim (as on Hamas having crushed Fatah in no time, in Gaza), that they all "had seen it coming", since it "was all so obvious it would happen!". :) :) :). That is why this type of "positive" story needs to be kept as a precious object, for further reference, in due course, on how conflicts are covered by the media.
  5. Roy McPhail from Winnipeg, Canada writes: While I claim no special expertise, it seems to me that the utter fiasco in Iraq has the incidental effect of making intervention in Afganistan's situation much more difficult. Are the countries that are currently putting their soldiers on the front lines prepared to find additonal resources? Can more countires be persuaded to participate? Who wants to be co-branded with the Americans these days?
  6. Ken DeLuca from Canada writes: ABC poll of what region of Afghanistan, what segment of society? Was it restricted to Kabul or other large urban areas? The resistance to warlordism is believable but the institutions put in place after 2001 make that difficult to unseat. The Afghan women's attempt at creating a fair constitution was subverted from the start. I agree that the Taliban are a nightmare for progressive thinking Afghanis, men and women alike. As a westerner, my bias is toward a pluralistic, democratic society. But I highly doubt the majority of Afghanis would embrace such sentiments. Perhaps those able/ willing to be polled within the safety and influence of NATO forces would agree to some such reforms. Given greater prosperity and hope, people turn from fear and fear-oriented thinking such as that demanded by the Taliban and other fundamentalist religions. That's a very long road; one which the Afghanis themselves must build without interference from Pakistani Taliban forces who would tear away such hope and progress. Unfortunately, the 'progressive' forces, pro-western forces, are far from the majority and, if they are relying on NATO military might to see them through, they will never win the hearts of the rest of the conservative ( fearful ) population. I am not hopeful. Militarily, this is a quicksand flowing with blood. In terms of social reform, it is an uphill battle on a slippery slope. ( pardon the confusing mixed metaphors. )
  7. B A from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ah, rights for women, just not too many as we don't want to offend local custom, so not really equality, sorta slightly better than what they had only depending on the province, due to tribal custom, maybe some baseline rights, except where there aren't...hmmmm sounds like a solid plan. There we are, sorta defending freedom. LOL. Look, either do it, or don't do it. Here's a litmus test for you, if we're so keen on women's rights and as Afghan men don't seem to be overly interested in defending their "freedoms" train and arm the women. Lots of them. (Tens of thousands) Give them the best training, the best equipment, the best lodging, the best pay. If their husbands disown them, open up family residences on the bases we build for them. Make them the largest, scariest, most highly trained combat force in the country. Train them as pilots, give THEM the gunships. Train them as tankers, artillery officers etc. Giv them the best equipment we can. They'll be motivated, I'm sure. Then I'll believe we're there to defend their rights and freedoms. As long as we're taking the stance of "that's ok, we'll defend you, little lady" bullsh*t, John Wayne attitude, all we're going to wind up with is a lot of dead Afghan women. 'Cause apparently we (NATO) suck at defending them. This is why the mission is such a joke, if we were serious about it, we would have been more proactive. All we're doing is wasting our tax dollars and our soldiers' lives on a half baked "wouldn't it be nice, if" idea. Very American. Then again, look at the source of this particular article.
  8. R Wolovet from United States writes: It is very difficult to intervene in other nations, especially those with values and customs so different from our own. Even in the case of Nazi Germany, with historical values supposedly much like our own, it was only when the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor that we took overt action to help our allies. As millions were enslaved, tortured and murdered, we did not actively try to stop those massacres, although we were supplying blood and treasure toward defeating the Nazi fiends.

    Now we are seeing similar behavior in Darfour. What are we doing about it? What should we do about it? In Afghanistan we have a clear connection between Taliban and Al Queda and oppression of the populace by the Taliban. Like Palestinian terrorists, the Taliban targeted schools and teachers.
  9. Tough Love from Canada writes: Firstly, every war creates opportunities for small pockets of the population. That don't mean the destruction of foreign invasion is worth the cost in lives, limbs and lucre. It 'aint. Second, Afghanistan, much like the US, is a conservative country with various liberalizing forces at play. The US is also a religion-dominated society with a long history of war, corruption, civil war and conflict with great forces pushing against progress for women and the poor, recently taken over by an extremist religion-dominated force named George Bush and the Republican party. This extremist religious force is causing great pain and hardship for millions of Americans and others around the world. So, why not have China lead a "coalition of the willing" to invade the US and impose a secular government in the interest of American women, most Canadians and most people around the world? Farfetched? So is the ugly war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has had liberalization and secularization, advancement for women, since the 1960's. The Soviets furthered the cause of women's equality. But, once the Soviets were gone and the Americans pulled out, traditional Islam again took over. The conflict between secular liberalization and traditional Islam has been going on for decades and will continue long after the West loses interest and pulls out. It is, therefore, folly to invade, slaughter and pour billions of dollars into Afghanistan because traditional Islam always returns. When the majority of the people finally decide to secularize - maybe in the 22nd Century - the Afghans themselves will start building a democracy. Until then the best Canadians can do is start repairing our own deconstructed democracy so that some day we might be an honest compassionate example for Afghans.
  10. Timothy Nessus from Somewhere, Canada writes: YES!!! there is ALWAYS hope... hope that Canada will get THE HECK! OUTATHERE ASAP!!!!
  11. terry greenberg from North Vancouver, Canada writes: This article is not convincing if one just bears in mind the following:
    1) The Taliban are Afghans, so we are fighting Afghans in Afghanistan. It is disceptive to always call the insurgents Taliban to hide the fact that we are fighting the people of the country we are in.
    2) It has been reported that the insurgency is growing stronger. That means more Afghans are willing to put their lives on the line to fight against us. This is a better measure of our popularity than any poll.
    3) It was reported today that seven Afghan children were killed by NATO aerial bombardment. Fellow Canadians, that means we did it. We can also be certain that we lost the vote in our poll from the mothers of these kids.
    4) Also, Taliban fighters, who are Afghan, have Afghan mothers. Are we really supposed to believe that these Afghan mothers, and sisters, and daughters, would all like see NATO kill their sons, brothers, and fathers in the name of women's rights?
  12. otmar zambo from Canada writes: To me afghanistan as a whole is not worth the life of one Canadian, let alone fifty seven Canadian lives! where is the hope?
  13. Joe Collins from Calgary, Canada writes: The Taliban are from Chechnia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon. Egypt, Indonesia, Philippines etc. It is foolish to believe that they are solely from Afghansitan. Being an international threat precludes walking away from this mission. This makes Canada's committment open ended until Islamic terrorism a thing of the past, however long it takes. It will be a long battle, so we should get used to it.

    Support Canada's Military.
  14. Dan Thomspon from Canada, Canada writes: Why should I care about Afghans? I still haven't answered that question, but I guess this is just a lovely story about women rights, and potential for hope in a Canadian national newspaper trying to sell a somewhat unpopular civil war. Trying to justify my dollars to a war or Afghan Liberation operation. Classic PR, must have some excellent communications background from Ottawa U.

    Someone answer my question? I have asked everywhere, why should I care about Afghans?
  15. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Dan Thompson writes: why should I care about Afghans?

    If you require an answer, then you should never have asked in the first place as any answer given, won't be to your liking.

    Here are MY reasons why I support this cause(no order):

    1) Any help we can give any society helps all of us. My utopian wish if you will.

    2) Canada belongs to NATO and to the UN. A NATO member was attacked. It is our duty to come to the aid of our ally. It's an UN operation now and Canada (we've) been asked to help rebuild a nation.

    3) Canada has commited to Feb 2009. We (Canada) need to honour that commitment.

    4) Lastly if Canada wishes to make a difference in the world, then we're going to have to do the hard things. This is a hard thing.

    This isn't an open ended commitment. If we're making gains by mid 2008, then I would vote to extend the mission, if things are stagnating, then it's time another NATO nation step up to the plate and finally if things are worse, then it's time to let the Afghan people choose this path as they're not interested in helping themselves.
  16. nick oliver from Halifax, NS, Canada writes: there might be cause for hope, but not because of the military intervention by christian western countries. if we're serious about helping these people we have a) get real about how long this will take and how much it will cost (i.e. a lot longer and a lot more than any NATO govt is telling its people) and b) recognise that secularising this state is not something that we are likely to be able to influence for the forseeable future. the only foreign army in the country to not suffer any casualties is secular muslim Turkish Army. this is not a coincidence. we need to get the hell out of there and replace our own troops with those from secular (or moderate) muslim countries. for better or for worse, the cultural gap between us and the afghans is too much for the CAF and NATO to overcome by 2009, maybe even for a generation. it's nice to think of ourselves as altruistic, but do we stand the best chance of success? or would it be best accomplished some other way done by some other allied countries? spending $9 billion in armed services and $1 billion on foreign aid gives the afghans the wrong message about our goals there. it isn't about what's best for us, it's about what's best for them. we need to think outside the box and consider options that include foreign aid without the militarism by christian nations.
  17. otmar zambo from Canada writes: Joe Collins! We all know where these creatures come from! And all of these places you mentioned are treacherous despicable dirty and filthy countries with Government to match! I am p***d off just to think that even one cent of my tax money goes to anyone of these countries including Israel!
  18. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm with you, Brian Williams re: is/are, and if I see one more use of 'less' when the right modifier is 'fewer', I really will be angry enough to, as R. Wolovet from the US writes, 'intervene' in another nation.

    'Intervene', Mr. Wolovet? I 'intervene' when pre-schoolers engage in a shoving match. This is a down-and-dirty war and your country and mine are killing people, on the laughable late-day excuse of allowing girls to go to school.

    Sordid hypocrisy, that's what this is.
  19. Gerry Condon from Seattle, United States writes: Equality? Women's rights? These are not the reasons that the Bush Gang decided to invade and occupy Afghanistan! And this is not why Paul Martin and Stephen Harper were so eager to follow. This war is about control of oil and oil pipelines. This war is about the geopolitics of western imperialism. The Canadian ruling class wants to play with the big boys. The Canadian military wants a little respect. That is why Canadians are dying in Afghanistan, and taking innocent Afghani civilians with them. There is no noble crusade on behalf of women's rights. It's high time that people in both of our countries (I am from the U.S.) got a grip and stopped believing these foreign policy fairy tales.
  20. grover station from Hamilton, Canada writes: Controlling Afghanistan offers a lot of strategic advantage should the Americans go to war with Iran. Afghanistan has a great deal of natural resources including minerals and natural gas. Wouldn’t it be nice to get our hands on that?
  21. Bob Aubery from Calgary, Canada writes: Regarding this 'news item,' if it looks like propaganda and smells like propaganda, then it is PROPAGANDA. The important thing to keep in mind here regarding the Afghan debate is that any argument that is presented in the guise of humanitarian aid, womens' rights, UN condoned missions, liberty and democracy, and so on is on par with arguments for the existence of Santa Claus. The only sensible argument that i have yet heard in this debate is to pray for the troops, but that presupposes that you believe in god... or Santa Claus.
  22. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    I think the nutters, including my namesake, have their email preferences set to ring an alarm in mom's house whenever there is a story about Afghanistan, so they can run downstairs jump online and post drivel about 'Bush' or conspiracy theories about pipelines. Typing in caps is a favorite for the real whackjob fringe.

    I agree with George Carlin. Odd to see a story like this in the Globe and Mail which has turned into a nutter magnet.
  23. Gilles Hudicourt from Montreal, Canada writes: I did a photo search of Afghanistan on the internet, looking for pictures from before the Taliban, in the seventees. Very few women in the streets and those that did venture out, all wore burkas, where not even their eye could be seen.
    We're not fighting the Taliban, we're fighting all Afghan men. Has anyone ever seen president Karzai's MD wife? Most Afghans don't even know he's married.
    Wake up Canadians!
  24. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh, we're awake, Gilles Hudicourt - it's just that we know spin and propaganda when we see it. But because you apparently don't, please do a little research and present to the rest of us your evidence that this war was undertaken to see that Afghan girls go to school. Me, I remember it as a response to the 9/11 bombings and I remember our own General Hillier confirming recently that it's all about revenge, but you go ahead and make your case for how our real motivation has always been those poor Afghani schoolgirls.
  25. lad lladie from Canada writes: This article conveniently fails to mention that even before the "Soviet invasion"( triggered by the CIA-backed-Islamist fundamentalists attempt to overthrow "the Communist regime" in Kabul) women in Afghanistan were free to educate themselves and practice any profession they wished to practice. Only after the regime in Kabul fell and the so called "mujahedeen" (backed by the CIA) had gained controll of much of the country and established an Islamic state did the freedoms of women were curtailed in a most repressive fashion. Now, for the authors of this article to say that women's rights "to study, vote and work were largely gained since the Taliban's 2001 ouster" is to sweep under the carpet and forget the historical fact that Afghan women had such freedoms and it's only thanks to those traditions if those freedoms are now revived and re-gained. Sure, had the Taliban not been ousted their Islamic laws would not have permitted women to do anything, but then, without the CIA, -backing Islamist fundamentalists- the Talibans would not have ruled Afghanistan at all and women would not have suffered as they were made to suffer. Blame America? No. It's simply history.
  26. Richard Roskell from Naramata, Canada writes:

    Michelle K.

    Seeing as how you claim to be 'awake', why not show us where General Hillier used the word 'revenge' as a reason for the Canadian mission. Don't show us your bs and spin. Show us where General Hillier said 'revenge'.

    And if you can't, then apologize to our troops and to General Hillier for making up propagandistic lies on the internet to smear our troops and General Hillier.
  27. MARK S from Calgary, Canada writes: Michelle K from Ottawa,

    Your pre-schooler attitude is loud and clear. Obviously you don't understand. That is evident. Just one more spout off about, what you know nothing about.
  28. Paul Rogers from Ottawa, Canada writes: So this qualifies as POSITIVE NEWS about Afghanistan? The article says the best we can expect is
    "a violent, underdeveloped Pashtun tribal belt in the South and East, and corruption-plagued semi-normality elsewhere" ,
    at least now we'll know what Victory looks like.
  29. Steve White from Canada writes: Richard Roskell - I know this may stretch your thought processes to the limit but have you ever considered the idea that there may be many reasons why we are in Afghanistan. You do not have to pick just one.

    I would suggest that a study of history will show that, whether it be a military invasion, peace keeping, or rebuilding a country there are always many reasons why a country like the U.S. or Canada is involved.

    For example, the rebuilding of Europe through the Marshall Plan had support from both the right and left in the U.S. Some viewed and supported the effort for purely humanitarian reasons while others supported it as a crucial tool to block Soviet expansion into Europe. It was because the massive plan made sense to both the hawks and the doves (each for their own reasons) that it was approved.
  30. Steve White from Canada writes: Sorry Richard Roskell I meant to refer my comment to Michelle K
  31. Zahra Jamal from Burnaby, Canada writes: I'm so surprised this article isn't getting as much praise as it deserves. If you want to hear about destruction in the Middle East, inc. Afghanistan, there's probably a news link on your screen that you can click on right now or you'll hear something dramatic as soon as you switch on your TV/radio. And if you're going to look for spelling mistakes when a report on historical change is being given - that's just really sad.
    I really hope that people can appreciate the statistics for what they are. Women are going to school, children are getting an education - finally!!
    This IS a major improvement. Let's not forget, we can not compare Afghanistan's standards to Canada's. You're dealing with a completely different situation, culture and history. But let's appreciate the fact that they want to get there - craving education and progress is a very good thing - for us and them.
  32. R M from Canada writes: The people who live in Afganistan are Afghan, not Afghani. Afghani is the official currency of Afghanistan.
  33. R M from Canada writes: My goodness, there are a lot of experts here. Experts who have never been to Afganistan or never spoken to anyone from Afghanistan. Experts who have no military or political involvement and who have never spoken to anyone from the aid agencies working in Afghanistan. Being a person in that exact situation, I feel that my best bet at being properly informed would be to listen to the people who are directly affected - the Afghan people themselves. Seeing as (statistically) most people from Afganistan welcome the support and security provided by the NATO troops, including our Canadians men and women, I would have to assume that there is some real value in our being there. Is it an easy task? Certainly not. It's dirty, dangerous work - much like performing the cleanup after any major disaster. The presence of a small group of religious fanatics devoted to derailing any progress complicates the process even more. I think it's important to understand that it's not our job to convert Afghanistan into a western style democracy with the same rights, culture and practices we enjoy. Our task is to assist a population of people who lack the most basic necessities of life (through no fault of their own) and help them attain access to the shelter, medical care, food and water resources and education that they need. If the Taliban were to pack up and leave, that would make the task so much simpler. We could bring our troops home, and send in thousands of development workers to rebuild the infrastructure. Unfortunately, that is not the case - the Taliban will continue to disrupt the process whenever they can. As conditions improve in Afganistan, support for the Taliban will dwindle even more. Many of the so-called "Taliban fighters" are simply poor people who volunteer in exchange for money for their families. Unfortunately, the rebuilding process required in Afganistan will not happen overnight. Years of destruction requires years of rebuilding.
  34. C Bell from Calgary, Canada writes: We invaded their country. It is our obligation to help re-build their society. It is nice to see some progress is being made, no matter how small.

    As for Mr. Williams, "...content is lost as many reader's will find it hard to ignore..."

    Indeed they will. I think if you're going to be persnickety about grammar, you might want to make sure yours is perfect.
  35. campbell atkinson from victoria bc, Canada writes: The article brings hope. There has been contact with the west since the start of the 1800,s and a more modern society has been developing in the non-tribal, non-nomadic regionc. The worst areas have always bordered on what is now Pakistan. The heart of the problem is the growth of fundamentalist Moslems../. We ehcourage this when we protest against Yurkeys restristions on it calling it restraint in freedom of religion!. Their society should continue to mature as long as we stop insisting they be exactly liks good Methodists.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top