By William Markiewicz
Recently a Canadian survey among the Afghan population showed that the majority feel satisfied with the Western military presence in the country. The reasons are that security, prosperity, education and the women’s situation have improved. I have two questions that as far as I know remain unconsidered:
1) It's been a long time since the notion of "Yugoslavia" was used in the world. Even if the political entity of "Afghanistan" persists, it shouldn’t be forgotten that Afghanistan is far from being homogenous. The Afghan populations are ethnically more diversified than the Slavic populations in ex-Yugoslavia. Yugoslavs were separated mostly by religion while the ethnie was practically the same. They were also widely intermarried. The Afghan ethnic populations remain territorially and ethnically separated; the north, populated by the descendants of the army of Genghis Khan and the south, populated by the native Pashtun, are antagonistic to each other. In the days of the Afghan kingdom, the army and the police were predominantly Pashtun. Now the power belongs to the "Northern Alliance," aligned to the Americans. The Afghan army and police, really Northern Alliance army and police, control the rebellious South populated by Pashtun. Prospects for peace remain very gloomy in this situation.
2) One doesn't have to be an expert to know that countless states in the world need democracy; then why has Afghanistan been chosen to be blessed by a "democratic" invasion? Knowing history, the Pashtun will never be subdued by foreigners. The Northern Alliance doesn't care about democracy or the women's situation; they only hope, with the help of Nato, to give a mortal coup to the Pashtun.Back to the index of the Vagabond