carepov

Perhaps that explains some of my confusion, but still, over 25,000 civilian deaths, how do we just gloss over that? There are plenty of reasons to oppose Putin's Russia - I don't see the bloodless annexing of Crimea (it also had been part of Russia until a few years earlier) as one of those reasons.

Chechnya is still a mystery for me - so many human rights violations, so many civilian deaths, and what was the response from the West: complete and utter apathy. Murderous aggresion in Ukraine/Crimea? AFAIK Russians are responsible for no deaths and no significant violations of human rights, yet there is "strong condemnation" and calls for "action", etc... IMO the West has its reactions backwards.

I am wondering... Why is there so much outrage over Crimea/Ukraine when Russia recieved a "free pass" to kill over 25,000 civilians in Chechnya? Can anyone explain this?

I would hope that the death of over 3,300 coalition troops (mostly American), so many wounded, and over $900 billion spent would get us more than "hope".

What was "Canada's mission"? What good is it if the new house is properly wired but the foundations and framing is NFG?

Not compared to the US of course. But compared to other NATO allies we did, certainly in terms of taking on dangerous missions in Kandahar. "In Afghanistan, Canada has been lauded by the United States for punching above its weight, and Gates offered the same praise Friday for its contribution to the Libya mission." http://www.ctvnews.ca/mackay-backs-gates-criticism-of-nato-1.655444

In some ways Canada under-contributed and in other ways we "punched above our weight". Canada's role is significant however our contributions are a fraction of the US commitments. The USA is the general contractor with many trades and Canada is one trade.

In 2005, Canadian troop levels in Afghanistan were doubled from 600 - 1200. They later peaked at around 2,500.

Here is an informative article: Mission Accomplished ! "The original aim to crush al-Qaeda there and drive out its Taliban host government was quickly achieved." Mission Accomplished ? "But al-Qaeda has since metastasized into Mali, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan, while the exiled Taliban forged tough guerrilla forces that now threaten both the Afghanistan and Pakistan regimes." "Just two months ago, a report compiled by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies predicted the gains made by the U.S. and NATO allies will likely be eroded over the next three years as insurgents and warlords seize large areas of the country from an increasingly "irrelevant" central government in Kabul." Karzai: "The entire NATO exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of suffering, a lot of loss of life, and no gains because the country is not secure," For NATO, the war has proved massively costly by any count — somewhere over $900 billion US, with over 3,300 coalition troops (mostly American) killed. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-the-west-made-a-hash-of-the-afghan-war-brian-stewart-1.2571942

Here is yet another way to demonstrate the deficiency of resources dedicated to Afghanistan. Approximate troop levels 2003-2006 US in Iraq: 140,000 Others in Iraq: 20,000 - 30,000 US in Afg.: 15,000 - 20,000 Others in Afg.: 10,000 - 15,000 Population Iraq: 33 million Afg: 35 million Area Iraq: 437,000 km2 Afg.: 652,000 km2

Me neither. I also wouldn't want a GC to spread themselves too thin.

The US/UK's first blunder was making Iraq a high priority.

Not necessarily. If the costs were too high (as they were) the war can be considered a failure even if the goals were achieved. Besides, some goals were achieved, some weren't and some are too soon to judge. For example, if your goal is to build a house, and you complete a fine house. However, it took twice as long and cost three times as much and you lost a finger in a table saw and the stress of it all cost led to friendships falling apart, would you say: "Mission Accomplished"?

Not necessarily, there is a whole spectrum ranging from complete failure to astounding sucess. Exactly. That's the blunder that cost us the war. http://costsofwar.org/

No shift, IMO the International Community failed in Afghanistan. There were many mistakes made by all involved, but by far the largest mistake that cost us the war was the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Maybe we could sell them some arms like France is doing with naval helicopter carriers?

Of course not. Remeber our discussion from the other Ukrainian thread, where I said: "Leaders usually do what's best for themselves, the interests of "their people" often overlap but are a secondary priority." Harper is not acting in the best interest of Canada, he is simply trying to pick up the pyrogy vote.

Not bandwagon, it's a team mentality: Lieutenant General Stuart Beare: “NATO is an us not a them,”

There is no "Canadian Content" without considering the US . "But the bottom line, as drawn out clearly in this case, is strong US leadership: Canada should say “yes” to operations preponderantly led by the United States. The Pentagon’s 2012 strategic guidance calls for high technology and small footprint approaches to maintaining global leadership. Canada must ensure from the outset that any future NATO non-Article V operation it participates in, enjoys core US support and direction. When America leads it will still need dependable and capable allies to contribute a robust combat capability. Canada and others must decide how to respond to this opportunity." http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf

And some people are doomed to repeat mistakes of the past, how many apply to the WOT? Robert McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam[edit]From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam".[9] We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values. Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

I was refering mainly to the British.

Even if the objectives were acheived the mission was a failure due to excessive costs.

Pity, a lot of NATO forces were in Iraq.

It is too early to judge if the objective was acheived in Afghanistan.

You keep supporting my point that the resources used in Iraq should have been used in Afghanistan.