A PROPOS THE MANLEY PANEL

By William Markiewicz

On returning from Afghanistan, former Liberal MP John Manley and his advisory group explained to Canadians why the mission should continue. The Manley argument that the world situation is more complicated than in the past is gratuitous; the situation is less complicated than the Establishment wishes us to believe Ė they decide where itís Ďcomplicatedí and where it isnít. While world attention is mainly concentrated on Afghanistan and Iraq; less is focused on Africa with its alarming death rate. During WW2, the Establishmentís attention was not focused when millions of civilians were fried in extermination camps though it would have been technically easy to destroy those centers and their rail access. Why was Yugoslavia the main target of Nato? The protection of civilians in Kosovo was an important issue, but did it have to be achieved by destroying Serbia? What the world ignores is that years before the Kosovo war, Yugoslavia could have separated through negotiations among the interested parties, without war, just as other separations were achieved. Was Iraq invaded to destroy Saddam Hussein, or was oil the main object? And who needs victory in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is not the main reason for the present war. As Manley stated, Afghanistan is stable and peaceful on the whole; it's the south, meaning PASHTUNISTAN that is the main object of the offensive. On the whole, terrorism spread later as part of the war, not before the war. Who in the West needs to destroy Pashtunistan? Nato is engaged there without any apparent reason, and the Pashtun are not the object of a colonial war; they are too well armed and organized and they are fierce fighters for freedom. Very much the same applies to Iraq. More massacres happened after Saddam Husseinís fall than before. The West fought FOR separatists in Kosovo, then why fight AGAINST separatists in Afghanistan? The Pashtun were a conquered nation yet today the media buy into the brainwash story about "Afghanistan" while ignoring that "Afghanistan" is no more a necessity than "Yugoslavia" was a necessity. Combined states are usually less desirable and less stable. Afghanistan was never as free as it should have been. The British surgically cut an important part of Pashtunistan which is now part of Pakistan. And the most active Pashtun nationalists are the Taliban whether we like it or not. Personally, Iím not happy about it because free Pashtunistan, like the entire world, should be secular. And why forbid the Bosnian Serbs to separate? Who decides which separation is good and which is wrong and why? Are all the defeated wrong?

Back to the index of the Vagabond
© Copyright 2007 E-mail to: William Markiewicz