reed writes

There’s nothing like a blog to reinforce in your mind the old saying…"tempus fugit".

The Following was first published on Christmas Eve, 2004.

Those of us who follow events in the Middle East                                                                                                                                                                                              closely, do so because we are intensely curious about human social, religious and political beliefs, and there is no part of the planet that better reflects both our history and the human condition. It’s the wellspring of much of the world’s religious life; and with spiralling intensity – especially there – religion seems to be playing an ever-greater part in the behaviour of nations and groups.

The very essence of what humankind hopes or claims to be is concentrated in these countries and especially in the so-called "Holy Land." To be a student of events unfolding in places like Jerusalem, Baghdad, Beirut and Damascus is to be a student of the best and the worst of God’s handiwork and of the whole range of human behaviour. One wonders just how disappointed the Lord might be with what’s been happening there for the past few centuries.

Acts of savage cruelty are perpetrated daily by men and women who insist that what they do is done "in God’s name." The perpetrators of these acts have been allowed – and sometimes encouraged – by certain religious authorities to believe in the holiness of their action, whether it’s the beheading of innocent men and women, the destruction of churches, the massacring of innocents in a mosque or the murder of civilians on a city bus. Almost every atrocity and almost every act of war is carried out with the imprimatur of some God upon it – whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

Every one is a news item.

Equally, the leaders of powerful nations and empires have, throughout the ages, caused rivers of innocent blood to flow through the nooks and crannies of the streets where the spiritual legacies of Jesus, Muhammad and Abraham are venerated. And these nations and empires have always acted in the name of a God. They have advocated the exclusion, conversion or killing of "heathens" and "infidels."

This is the stuff of history and fodder for what has become, in our time, a kind of chronicle machine.

Along with the slaughter of innocents by religious zealots of whatever stripe goes the political and economic power that flows from war making. War with a holy blessing is the zealot’s stock-in-trade; power, whether personal, political or economic, is the zealot’s reward. When religion is distorted and is used to justify war, the religious zealot is glorified; evil becomes good, hatred is buttressed by faith.

As the decades and the centuries go by, and the history piles up, countless lessons are taught and reported on in the Middle East but seemingly never learned or taken to heart. We as human beings continue making the same mistakes and the same wrong assumptions again and again.

The Middle East is, in so many ways, the very crucible in which the great battles of the human race originate and are fought. It is the place where the great questions of what is right and what is wrong are asked and debated. It’s where the great religions have clashed over biblical and Qur’anic truths. And it also happens to be where oil – the lifeblood of Western industry and commerce – is found.

All of these factors weigh heavily in the reporter’s work. To report on the events in a place where the world’s attention is so keenly focused is exciting; to try to sift the grains of truth from the mountains of propaganda and outright lies is a heavy responsibility. Mideast journalism is a thrilling and often dangerous vocation. Countless reporters have died over the years in the Middle East in the search for what is true.

It’s a powerful and volatile cocktail, this mixture of religion, money and politics. And in a world where greed and power rule the roost, we’ve all known for a long time that sooner or later the whole concoction would go critical. Politicians spent the 20th century experimenting, carelessly assembling and mixing all of the ingredients, and we journalists reported it every step of the way.

Then, Osama bin Laden lit the fuse.

At the beginning of this millennium, the first big bomb exploded in New York; the second in Baghdad. There are undoubtedly more bombs yet to go off. It seems there is no respite from the onslaught and almost always the outrages can be traced to the nature of religion and to religious politics.

This is the time of year when Jews and Muslims are confronted daily by the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, a Jew, revered by Muslims as a prophet. Still, religious Christians focus on the proposition that theirs is "the one true way."

Even the most highly-trained observer finds it impossible to know what’s true and what’s not. It’s even more impossible to discern why religious and political leaders behave the way they do.

But every now and then there are signs of hope, even in the midst of the carnage. Acts of incredible bravery and love are carried out daily by followers of all religions, despite their leaders’ rigid beliefs. Somehow, in spite of the religious and political manipulation that goes on, individuals manage – occasionally – to triumph over pressure from the top.

The public might be well served if journalists spent as much time chronicling and sharing the stories of individual goodness as they do the stories of destruction, violence and hate.

I’ve decided to republish here some of my past columns, written for various outlets including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for which I have great love and respect.

I no longer write for CBC out of choice. I realize that it is no longer possible to participate in the mainstreeam media in this country because increasingly, journalists along with management have dumbed themselves down in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The following was first published on July 26, 2006:

CANADA IS CARRYING WATER FOR THE UNITED STATES

Many years ago, I flew over Afghanistan but never touched down there. The day of my flight was clear and sunny and I remember the magnificence of that rugged land with its ancient mountains and striking beauty. From the air that’s what you see.

The country’s history tells a much different story. It’s one of ugliness and cruelty, of vicious tribal warfare, drug trafficking, widespread corruption and historically unsuccessful foreign occupations. Its tribes and warlords live in a world of ongoing instability and social chaos. It’s an important history to us now, because many young Canadians are there risking their lives in an effort to bring order to a disordered land.

Like many of my fellow citizens, I have been following our country’s involvement with a combination of sadness and horror. Twenty Canadians have been killed, and the list of our wounded is growing.

Each death strikes at the heart of every caring Canadian, and that includes, I’m certain, the officials who decided to send these young people so easily into the heart of danger. More will die in this conflict, that’s a tragic certainty.

Many questions have been asked about what we euphemistically call "the mission." Most Canadians are unclear as to what that means, although we have the vague idea that we are fighting terrorism. But what we are truly fighting is a war that is an Afghan responsibility.

Looks and feels like a civil war

The United Nations expressed support for an action against Afghanistan in November 2001, right after the attacks of September 11. The aim was to replace the ruling Taliban. The initial attack was successful in unseating the ultra-religious rulers, who had harboured Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda training camps.

At that time, in the wake of the New York and Washington attacks, the world was solidly in sympathy with the United States — and all countries, regardless of religion, expressed sympathy and solidarity. NATO countries, which identified emotionally and culturally with the U.S., showed particularly strong support for engaging and punishing the forces of terror, which had trained in Afghanistan after the Russians had been driven out.

The UN mandate proceeded well at first. A leader was found, a traditional council deliberated on the country’s future and an interim government was formed. Later, elections were held and a form of democracy was established for the first time in many years.

But before the consolidation and rebuilding of the country could even be started, the two leading members of the UN coalition left the Afghans and their allies in the lurch. The United States and Britain, together, decided to turn away from the legal operation and embark on another course. Together they launched an invasion of Iraq, which most experts contend was, and is, illegal.

The hunt for bin Laden and his terrorist followers was relegated to the back burner. Now we and our NATO allies are trying to help pick up the pieces of a flawed and shattered strategy.

The mistake hit home when the Taliban resurrected itself from the grave and challenged the new government. To many on the outside, it often seems more as if we’re caught in the midst of a civil war, rather than a battle against international terror. In any case, most of the hardcore terrorists have moved on to Pakistan, Iraq and other places.

The Anglo-American "adventure" in Iraq left a thin force on the ground in Afghanistan. The Americans appealed to NATO for more soldiers to help fill the vacuum they had left behind. Canadians were called upon to increase our involvement, and we did, with several hundred soldiers and other personnel.

Under the UN umbrella

So we are there, legally, as a member of NATO, under the broader UN umbrella. We are part of what is called the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). We now have a presence numbering more than 2,300.

The word "assistance" is the key to this "mission."

The original commitment was threefold: first we agreed to assist the government of Afghanistan with training its own army; second, to assist them with training police; and third, to assist with reconstruction following the devastation of the American bombing and previous destruction wrought by the old Soviet Union. Our people were never meant to be involved in day-to-day, hand-to-hand combat of the kind we now face.

The truth is that all of the work we ought to be doing on the ground can be done in the security of the Afghan capital city.

This mission, as it has been re-defined by persons unknown, is flawed, not because it’s not a noble cause — certainly the Afghans need all the help we can give them. It’s flawed because it’s not winnable under present circumstances — mainly for three reasons: the relatively small number of soldiers on the ground, the difficulty of moving supplies, and, more importantly, the nature of the conflict itself.

This is a guerilla war in a nation of experienced guerillas. It’s a mountainous country with often impassable roads — when roads exist. The Afghan rebels are experts at this kind of fighting and many of them are veterans of the long and successful war against a force of several hundred thousand Russians. The Russians were not trained for this kind of fighting in this kind of climate, and neither are we.

I seldom criticize our government, and given the mood these days in Ottawa, what I am saying here is tantamount to heresy. From an observer’s position, however, it’s not clear that our political leaders have grasped the reality of this assignment.

At present, we are merely carrying water for the United States, which ironically, boosted the Taliban to power by arming them against the Soviet occupation. The U.S. also boosted bin Laden by recruiting radical Muslims from the Middle East and North Africa to join the fight against the Soviets. Some of them are now the cornerstones of al-Qaeda cells in many countries; others are in Guantanamo Bay.

So what do we do about what clearly is a policy conundrum?

Perhaps the best course at this point — in order to avoid more Canadian and allied casualties — would be to re-examine the original NATO mandate and remember that it was to be one of assistance.

Our task ought to be to help the Afghan government become strong enough to fight its own civil war.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let
everyone know what an American or Canadian is, so they would know when
they found one.

An update on two previous posts Kill Us and Kill Us 2 -

According to Break the Chain this was not written by an Australian dentist "…
but by an associate law professor at Virginia’s George Mason University. Titled "What is an American: A Primer," it was published in the National Review on September 25, 2001.

In Kill Us 2 I wrote -  " I hate its content but I admire its spunk. I think it’s a wonderful piece."  Knowing the attribution begs the question "do I still admire its spunk?"

Blog-master hits the wrong key

In a classic case of the hand being quicker than the eye – and the brain being disengaged – reed writes disappeared.  Don’t worry, it’ll be back. 

When asked what happened Mr Reed referred us to Ms Mooney, the person responsible for maintaining the ‘back end’ of reed writes.  After much dissembling Ms Mooney finally acknowledged that, yes, she had hit the wrong key, sending the blog off into the ether.

She apologized and then, in true pollyanna fashion, said that this was an opportunity to make design changes and start the year with a clean new look. Things make look a bit strange for the next few days but they will settle down.

Stay tuned.