The "Independent" and Afghanistan

Speaking of Afghanistan and the Taliban, it was interesting to see The Independent run a front page (link now hidden behind a subscription firewall) on Tuesday highlighting the plight of women in that troubled country. Interesting in that the Indie has repeatedly taken an anti-war position through its news coverage, its editorials and its commentary (this is the paper that gives acres of space to Robert Fisk, remember). So this is something of a contradictory, if not downright hypocritical, news story to run with. I stopped respecting this particular publication some time ago as it gradually stopped being a newspaper and instead became a campaigning organ with every front page patronising its readers with bold graphics and statistics supporting whatever issue they feel is important today.

And as for its claim to be “independent”? Pah! You will not read a British broadsheet with a more skewed point of view (I would probably even include the Daily Telegraph in that). Its editorial position runs through every story like words through a stick of rock and I would rather read The Times which carries a demonstrably broader range of opinion (although I’m still partial to The Guardian, albeit more out of habit than for its opinion pieces).

Back to the story though, about Safia Amajan, a women’s rights campaigner shot dead in Afghanistan by Taliban gunmen. Her crime? Working. Even worse, working for the government. Worse still, she had also opened six schools in the town of Kandahar where local women were taught a trade. All grave offences to deranged Islamic fundamentalists who prefer their women illiterate, covered from head to toe, stuck in the home, raising children and doing the housework. As the Indie reported it:

Five years after the “liberation” of Afghanistan by the US and Britain, with promises of a new dawn for its downtrodden women, her murder was a bloody reminder of just how far the country is slipping back into a land of darkness. 

We’ll ignore the hyperbolic prose (“land of darkness” indeed) and concentrate on the decision to put ironic speech marks around the word liberation instead. Because the rest of the article, and an accompanying comment piece (although as stated, with The Independent it’s difficult to tell where the comment ends and the news reporting begins and vice versa), goes into great detail about the plight of women in Afghanistan in lawless towns where the Taliban are resurgent and fighting ferociously against the NATO forces. NATO forces that The Independent has consistently argued should be withdrawn. Well, you can’t have it both ways can you?

The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 overthrew a diabolical and hideous regime. It was, without question, a good thing to do. While I can understand people objecting to the war in Iraq (although I would not agree with them myself), I think Afghanistan was a far more clear cut case. An isolated rogue state playing host to an armed and dangerous terrorist operation which, if left unchecked, and given the opportunity, would surely perpetrate far greater crimes than it managed on 9/11. We were right to go after al Qaeda and right to remove the Taliban while we were at it. In the process, Afghanistan got a new constitution and a new elected government (which people turned out in great numbers to vote for). Everyday life and conditions did improve for the majority of the population, and it was only the military intervention that ensured this.

But now the Indie seems to be saying that, in the light of a renewal of the Taliban’s strength and the suffering they are inflicting on Afghans, the invading forces have not done enough to create stability in the region. Thus taking a position of two-way criticism: we do not support the invasion or the presence of our troops; additionally, we are not happy with what they have done to safeguard the people (especially women) that live there. Never mind that the latter is conditional on the former. Yes, conditions have been deteriorating which, to my mind, is even more reason to stay there as long as is necessary, bolstering the military presence there if that is what it takes.

According to today’s Guardian, senior military officers are strongly of the opinion that British troops should tactically pull out of Iraq to strengthen our presence in Afghanistan, which is seen as a more worthwhile and winnable battleground. Even better would be a bigger international commitment to the cause, but that doesn’t seem to be happening either. Withdrawal now, as desired by the anti-war movement, would be to inflict an atrocity on the people living there. People who, after all that they have suffered, deserve better.

Beware the tide of marchers

In addition to my esteemed visit, Manchester also played host on Saturday to an anti-war march. 60,000 protesters (at least, according to the organisers – the police put the figure more at 20,000) walked through the city to oppose, oooh, lots of stuff they don’t like. Tony Blair for example (also in the city for the start of the Labour Party conference): they want him to go. Freedom For Palestine was another popular placard. Which is a bit of a conundrum, because Tony Blair also wants a Palestinian state and was a sponsor of the ill-fated peace plan spearheaded by Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. It was even starting to get somewhere until Yasser Arafat (probably something of a folk hero to many of these marchers) pulled the plug on the whole deal. Since then we’ve seen a second Intifada and the election of a terrorist group to their government. Hardly a great move forward.

Anyway, I digress. Where was I? Oh yes, the protesters protesting about things they want to protest about. As long as they’re protesting, they’re happy. Oh, how they like a good protest. Changes everything you see. Troops Out Of Iraq, of course, that was another favourite. Troops Out Of Afghanistan too…

This one I find particularly objectionable, seeing as our troops (and others) are currently there fighting back the Taliban: that reactionary, barbaric, philistinic force that would rather live in the Middle Ages, following a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of the Koran. And insisting that everyone else does too, on pain of death or disfigurement. And many of the protesters were university students. The idea of students – albeit perhaps unwittingly – arguing for action that would lead to the restoration of a regime that forbids education for women is beyond laughable. Norm wrote about this before me, and I agree with him wholeheartedly when he says:

But the marchers in Manchester, including members of the University and College Union it seems, are happy for the women of Afghanistan to be left to the benign attentions of the Taliban. Hold your heads up high, peaceniks, why don’t you? 

These are the progressive forces of this country, remember? They turned up in their thousands to listen to the likes of George Galloway, Tony Benn, Bianca Jagger and, erm, Lauren Booth, insist that Afghanistan be returned to a system of medieval feudalism: where women not adhering to the strictest form of Muslim dress can expect to have acid thrown in their face, or face a death squad if they want to be educated rather than just be baby-making chattel for their husbands; where music is forbidden, where free speech or independent thought are not allowed to exist. Oh, these people might not explicitly call for such a thing, but an argument for removing troops from Afghanistan is exactly what it amounts to.

A plague on their houses.

Incidentally, you’d expect them to have a bit of respect for the environment wouldn’t you? Given the number of placards discarded on the pavements of Deansgate and Market Street, an awful lot of them don’t. Still, they had their little walk and “die-in” to oppose the imperialist dogma of Bush and Blair, so I dare say they all went home happy.

Knock me down with a feather, Clever Trevor

I had the pleasure this morning of listening to John Humphrys interviewing Abu Izzadeen on the Today programme. Abu Izzadeen (also known as Omar or Trevor Brooks) was the protester who on Wednesday heckled Home Secretary John Reid during a speech he was giving to a group of Muslims in East London. Izzadeen disrupted the meeting, shouted his fury about “state terrorism by British police” and proclaimed John Reid an “enemy” of Islam before being removed by police and security.

 

Izzadeen/Trevor is a former member of al-Ghurabaa, an Islamist militant group best known for praising the 7/7 London bombers as “martyrs” and being the chief organisers of the February protest outside the Danish Embassy in London during the furore about the publication of those “offensive” cartoons. They were founded by Omar Bakri Mohammad, who publicly praised the 9/11 hijackers/mass murderers as the “magnificent 19”. Mohammad has since been excluded from Britain, and al-Ghurabaa itself was one of the groups banned by British law in July 2006 for glorifying terrorism in addition to suspected links with other extremist and terrorist organisations.

 

Again, taste the delicious irony. Here was Izzadeen protesting about the police state and the “war against Muslims” yet he lives and moves freely in the country despite suspected links to terrorist groups and hate-preaching Islamist extremists. Moreover, he was able to get within shouting distance of one of the most powerful members of the British government. He was then removed from the premises but was free to continue his bizarre ranting outside the building. Then, two days later he is given a ten minute interview to state his case on the most popular news show on British (state-owned) radio. Clearly, we have become a fascist state of monstrous proportions. Somebody, please call Amnesty International. Even George Galloway wrote an open letter to John Reid on Wednesday, wondering how “such a well known extremist….. was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary”. (To clarify, George was talking about Abu Izzadeen, not himself.)

 

The interview itself can be listened to here. It’s pretty much what you would expect. Bush and Blair are “Crusaders” who have declared war on Islam. Their intention is to murder Muslims, they have blood on their hands, the government is persecuting Muslims on a daily basis, democracy is a sham, we want Sharia Law, etcetera, etcetera. Personally, I think John Humphrys let him off quite lightly. When Izzadeen remarked that US/UK foreign policy is designed to inflame and persecute Muslims I would have liked to have asked him about Kosovo, where NATO intervened to halt Serbian slaughter of Muslim civilians: something that Tony Blair – that deranged Muslim hater – was instrumental in orchestrating. Or point out that military operations in Afghanistan are purely focussed on fighting the monstrous Taliban who were quite happy to kill, torture and deform any Muslim under their rule who did not adhere to their standards (women, mostly). It would have been good to counter-balance this interview by having a moderate Muslim involved too, to show that most British Muslims do not think in this way and – for once – not give the limelight to a deranged extremist. Humphrys did ask Trevor why, if he finds British life so objectionable, he does not simply choose to live in a country that does govern according to Muslim law. Funnily enough, Clever Trevor wasn’t too keen on that idea.

 

Trev, if it’s the air fare that’s putting you off, we can have a whip round. I’ll chuck in twenty quid towards a one-way flight to Kabul. You’ll like it there. You can meet up with other like-minded types and fight off the bloodthirsty Western Crusaders yourself.