Do Canadians UNDERSTAND we are in Afghanistan?

[Topaz]

Again listening to the radio, Harper is saying that he thinks Canadians does know why we are there and how its in Canada's interest. So I'M asking a Con supporter to tell me why we are there and why we should be there until 2011 as Harper has said. I think most Canadians are not against reconstruction of the country but the problem is the "seek and kill and be killed" is the problem especially since the US has most of its troops in the north,east and west and not south in Afghanistan. There's also the cost of this war which could turn into another Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I think most Canadians are not against reconstruction of the country but the problem is the "seek and kill and be killed" is the problem especially since the US has most of its troops in the north,east and west and not south in Afghanistan.

Guess again....the US has deployed far more troops, spent far more money, and lost far more lives than Canada in Afghanistan. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[Argus]

Again listening to the radio, Harper is saying that he thinks Canadians does know why we are there and how its in Canada's interest. So I'M asking a Con supporter to tell me why we are there and why we should be there until 2011 as Harper has said. I think most Canadians are not against reconstruction of the country but the problem is the "seek and kill and be killed" is the problem especially since the US has most of its troops in the north,east and west and not south in Afghanistan. There's also the cost of this war which could turn into another Iraq.

The romantic notion of noble peacekeepers standing between foes so that there can be peace went out the window a couple of decades ago. I'm not sure what killed it, probably a combination of peacekeepers being chained to bridges in Yugoslavia, and peacekeepers being hacked to death in Rwanda. The point is that once the world lost its awe of the fact peacekeepers were from a western nation and started attacking them the way they did each other, the whole concept of peacekeeping by simply being there, being seen, and patrolling, went out the window.

So in order for their to be the kind of reconstruction you and Bobbie Rae believe in there has to be people with guns who are not simply standing in place waiting for a suicide bomber but out in the bushes keeping the suicide bombers away and the mortar and the RPG guys from the schools and hospitals and markets. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? This is the new peacekeeping. Are you saying it's too tough for us? We should get out and leave it to others?

If you support peacekeeping you have to support Afghanistan. It's the essence of what peacekeeping is now. Suicide bombers and the complete lack of respect for human life have made it impossible for the old passive peacekeeping to succeed except in "civilized" lands - where there is seldom war.

[Topaz]

Guess again....the US has deployed far more troops, spent far more money, and lost far more lives than Canada in Afghanistan. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

It's been reported on the news that the US has about 25,000 in the country but most of them are in the north,east, and west. It was the US idea to go into Afghanistan to get rid of OBL which they will never find, and IF they did kill or have him as prisoner, they will never say so they can keep the "war on terror" going! People within the US are making BIG money on war.

[Kitchener]

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

This doesn't mean much. Should we take the lead in getting out of the way? Should we lead the way in solely non-military assistance to Afghanistan? Would that count as getting out of the way of the ISAF, or as following the example of NATO members who have not sent troops to occupy the country?

Personally I would like to see more discussion -- that is, more informed discussion, which I am not in a particularly good position to produce myself -- of the prospects for long-term success resulting from short or medium term military presence in Afghanistan. To my knowledge, disinterested experts on Afghan politics and history have not predicted that a stable democracy can be produced there on any foreseeable timetable. And there are certainly reasons to doubt that it can. The reliance on such empty appeals to emotion as "Don't cut and run" and "don't let their sacrifice be for nothing" in public discourse about the Afghan mission strongly suggests to me that actual reasons to be there are in very short supply.

[rover1]

The Canadian point of view, as I understand it, it that by staying, we will help to stabilise the country, and allow them to establish an effective government, and to look after their own affairs.

Looking at the history of the country, and considering the control of the present government, and the possible improvements it could make, I am not so certain that our participation could achieve our stated goals, ever.

In the circumstances, and considering that we will undoubtedly withdraw, sooner or later, I rather doubt that the sacrifices in Canadian lives are justified.

[Moxie]

Argus wrote: If you support peacekeeping you have to support Afghanistan. It's the essence of what peacekeeping is now. Suicide bombers and the complete lack of respect for human life have made it impossible for the old passive peacekeeping to succeed except in "civilized" lands - where there is seldom war.

Well stated, sadly Canadians seem entralled with Peace Keeping. Of course the average Canadian has no idea that being a PeaceKeeper means you stand aside and watch genocide and rapes take place. They are not allowed to interfer with criminal or war type activity like rapes, murder slaughtering of innocents. In Afghanistan our troops are able to fight for stability, not send a memo to the UN headquarters asking for permission to shoot back at barbaric scum.

[bush_cheney2004]

This doesn't mean much. Should we take the lead in getting out of the way? Should we lead the way in solely non-military assistance to Afghanistan? Would that count as getting out of the way of the ISAF, or as following the example of NATO members who have not sent troops to occupy the country?

I think you have answered your own questions. Maybe start by defining Canada's interests, foreign policy goals, NATO responsibilities, hobbled capabilities, and political liabilities. It sure was swell to drop NATO bombs on Serbs in 1999 with big American muscle in the air, but not so good on the ground when dedicated troops do their duty and lose their lives? "Human Rights*".....

*Subject to limitations, exclusions, and political polls. Limited to supply on hand. Not valid with other offers. Must be present to win.

Personally I would like to see more discussion -- that is, more informed discussion, which I am not in a particularly good position to produce myself -- of the prospects for long-term success resulting from short or medium term military presence in Afghanistan...

Got a better idea for the war zone that is Afghanistan? Let's hear it on an international level.....Layton talks a good game, but he does not lead. Canadians are in Afghanistan because Canada sent them there.

[Moxie]

BC correction the Liberal Party of Canada sent them there, as much as they'd like Canadians to forget that little tidbit we won't.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC correction the Liberal Party of Canada sent them there, as much as they'd like Canadians to forget that little tidbit we won't.

Fair enough....but that is just more of what I call a domestic political liability instead of a mission supporting foreign policy goals, Canadian "values", yada, yada, yada. The Taliban grunts don't know Grits from Tories....or Dippers from Greens. (But they probably do know Jack Layton.)

[Kitchener]

In Afghanistan our troops are able to fight for stability, not send a memo to the UN headquarters asking for permission to shoot back at barbaric scum.

Unfortunately, stability is not a flag in a game of capture-the-flag, nor do barbaric scum come labeled that way. It is a mistake to describe these goals as if they were simple actions that one can attempt with confidence that one is really doing them.

Stability is not a fire mission; whether a particular mission leads to more stability, less stability, or no effect at all typically won't be knowable for a long time, if ever. And more than a few of the people ISAF troops have killed have not been barbaric scum, but civilians, and even government forces. Even the ones shooting at ISAF forces can't be labeled barbarians with such a casual handwave: we know from wars a hundred times over that today's angry but quiescent villager may be tomorrow's committer of atrocities -- and then be genuinely back to a civilian by next week.

In short, such simplistic thinking based on false presuppositions is not the informed discussion needed.

[Kitchener]

I think you have answered your own questions. Maybe start by defining Canada's interests, foreign policy goals, NATO responsibilities, hobbled capabilities, and political liabilities.

Okay -- I agree that these definitions will be an important part of clear thinking about the issue. But I certainly haven't answered those questions!

It sure was swell to drop NATO bombs on Serbs in 1999 with big American muscle in the air, but not so good on the ground when dedicated troops do their duty and lose their lives? "Human Rights*".....

I'm not sure what that means. Could you explain your point directly, in sentences?

Got a better idea for the war zone that is Afghanistan? Let's hear it on an international level.....

What does "let's hear it on an international level" mean? Do you want ideas about Canada's involvement to be discussed in international media?

Layton talks a good game, but he does not lead. Canadians are in Afghanistan because Canada sent them there.

I don't see how these two sentences are related; maybe they're not meant to be. Of course Layton leads many, many people who believe that Canada should be out of Afghanistan soon. I take it you mean that he doesn't speak for you. Fair enough.

[bush_cheney2004]

Okay -- I agree that these definitions will be an important part of clear thinking about the issue. But I certainly haven't answered those questions!

But that is the issue...those who do not have answers will never lead those who do, or think they do. Lead, follow, or in this case, get out of the way.

I'm not sure what that means. Could you explain your point directly, in sentences?

The point is that Operation Allied Force in 1999 (Kosovo) had Canada engaged as a NATO bombing machine without so much as even a vote in Parliament. But Afghanistan is now a mistake and quagmire? Is it only the Canadian body count that matters ?

What does "let's hear it on an international level" mean? Do you want ideas about Canada's involvement to be discussed in international media?

No, I want Canada to lead if it thinks it has a better idea for NATO and Afghanistan. Show the Americans and NATO where they are wrong and build support, resources, and execution to get the job done "right" if it has a better way. I don't want to wait for the next sob story book from General Dallaire about woulda, coulda, shoulda.

I don't see how these two sentences are related; maybe they're not meant to be. Of course Layton leads many, many people who believe that Canada should be out of Afghanistan soon. I take it you mean that he doesn't speak for you. Fair enough.

No...my bad...I assumed you were familiar with Mr. Layton's comments and criticism vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

[Borg]

Again listening to the radio, Harper is saying that he thinks Canadians does know why we are there and how its in Canada's interest. So I'M asking a Con supporter to tell me why we are there and why we should be there until 2011 as Harper has said. I think most Canadians are not against reconstruction of the country but the problem is the "seek and kill and be killed" is the problem especially since the US has most of its troops in the north,east and west and not south in Afghanistan. There's also the cost of this war which could turn into another Iraq.

We are there because it in a NATO committment and we are members of NATO.

Stay in NATO and honour the requirements, or get out of NATO and do as the people wish.

Plain and simple - nothing more and nothing less.

Borg

[Leafless]

The Canadian point of view, as I understand it, it that by staying, we will help to stabilise the country, and allow them to establish an effective government, and to look after their own affairs.

Strange, I always thought it was about maintaining our economic stability, meaning oil, oil, oil, oil!

[Kitchener]

But that is the issue...those who do not have answers will never lead those who do, or think they do. Lead, follow, or in this case, get out of the way.

Hm. That's no less obscure to me, as an explanation of what you said earlier or how it relates to anything I've said. But it doesn't seem particularly important to the discussion at hand, so I won't worry about it.

The point is that Operation Allied Force in 1999 (Kosovo) had Canada engaged as a NATO bombing machine without so much as even a vote in Parliament. But Afghanistan is now a mistake and quagmire? Is it only the Canadian body count that matters ?

How would that follow? Doesn't it show, at the very most, that the Canadian body count matters, and not that it's the only thing that matters? Unless your contention is that Canadian deaths don't matter at all, it's hard to see what the problem is with treating different cases differently.

In fact, if anything the point should be the very opposite: Canada's military involvement in the former Yugoslavia went under the radar here at home even though our forces sustained casualties. (Just not in the Kosovo bombing campaign.) But the perceived differences, with respect to "quagmire" status, are not hard to understand: in the former Yugoslavia, there were historically distinct nation-like regions, with at least some preponderance of ethnic identities associated. There was, partly as a result of this, some conceivable stable endpoint, at which the warring parties would be regionally separated in a way that could achieve some equilibrium. What is the endpoint associated with Afghanistan? I submit that not many people perceive one, and of those people, a substantial proportion have some childishly oversimplified idea in mind. That sort of difference, I think, explains why Afghanistan seems a quagmire while the former Yugoslavia seemed less of one.

I assumed you were familiar with Mr. Layton's comments and criticism vis-a-vis Afghanistan.

I believe I am. If you want to say something more substantive than that he doesn't speak for you, I'm afraid that actual arguments will be required to shore it up. But of course it's fair enough just to say he doesn't speak for you. Don Cherry doesn't speak for me, though I can't be bothered right now to explain why not!

[bush_cheney2004]

In fact, if anything the point should be the very opposite: Canada's military involvement in the former Yugoslavia went under the radar here at home even though our forces sustained casualties. (Just not in the Kosovo bombing campaign.) But the perceived differences, with respect to "quagmire" status, are not hard to understand: .....

This is key....and demonstrates the collective naivete which now finds a majority of Canadians unprepared for reality when it comes home in an air transport casualty container. Afghanistan is a war....General Hillier has hinted at this many times. "Under the radar" is a damn poor excuse for understanding what Canadian Forces have been asked to do, in the former Yugoslavia or Afghanistan. These forces certainly understand the meaning of "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Perceived differences do not change the reality, only the sales job. Closer to home, American KIAs from Afghanistan do not get bigger flags than those killed in Iraq.

[Kitchener]

This is key....and demonstrates the collective naivete which now finds a majority of Canadians unprepared for reality when it comes home in an air transport casualty container. Afghanistan is a war....General Hillier has hinted at this many times.

It doesn't matter whether we call it a war -- it's a commitment that will generate casualties. Just as UNPROFOR was, war or not. That's why it's important for a nation to go into such a commitment with its eyes open, and not lurch into a combat scenario by default, having quietly decided at first to have a mere policing presence.

"Under the radar" is a damn poor excuse for understanding what Canadian Forces have been asked to do, in the former Yugoslavia or Afghanistan.

It's not an excuse. (What do you think it would excuse?) It's a description of fact: the dangers of our commitment in the Balkans were not heavily emphasized in public, and not because there were no casualties, but in spite of the casualties. Hence the need to look for other explanations for the greater emphasis on quagmire potential in Afghanistan, as I already explained.

These forces certainly understand the meaning of "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

I daresay they do, since it's an English sentence, and they speak English. But as a slogan, applied in this case, it's trivial and unclear. I have no idea why you keep repeating it, since it illuminates nothing else that you say, and has no obvious application here.

Perceived differences do not change the reality, only the sales job. Closer to home, American KIAs from Afghanistan do not get bigger flags than those killed in Iraq.

Um, okay. Again, I have no idea how those sentences are supposed to fit together, nor how they engage anything I've said. Was this intended as a kind of unified case for some conclusion, or is it just supposed to be a list of sentences?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Um, okay. Again, I have no idea how those sentences are supposed to fit together, nor how they engage anything I've said. Was this intended as a kind of unified case for some conclusion, or is it just supposed to be a list of sentences?

Then please move along, as others may not have such difficulty with abstract thought. Any flavor of Canadian snow job is Canada's business....I was amazed when PM Chretien pulled it off...twice.

[Kitchener]

Then please move along, as others may not have such difficulty with abstract thought. Any flavor of Canadian snow job is Canada's business....I was amazed when PM Chretien pulled it off...twice.

I think you mean "stream of consciousness", rather than "abstract thought". And you've done it again in this post.

Anyhow, back to the live action. Canadians cannot be expected to understand what we (where "we" can include ISAF/NATO if one likes) are doing in Afghanistan, unless there is some account of: (i) what we are trying to accomplish in specific measurable terms; (ii) what mechanisms are expected to accomplish these specific goals; (iii) on what evidence those mechanisms are believed to have that likely outcome; and (iv) on what timetable the success is expected.

[jazzer]

I was amazed when PM Chretien pulled it off...twice.

Uh, that would be 3 times.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think you mean "stream of consciousness", rather than "abstract thought". And you've done it again in this post.

You may think whatever you wish. Or not.

Anyhow, back to the live action. Canadians cannot be expected to understand what we (where "we" can include ISAF/NATO if one likes) are doing in Afghanistan, unless there is some account of: (i) what we are trying to accomplish in specific measurable terms; (ii) what mechanisms are expected to accomplish these specific goals; (iii) on what evidence those mechanisms are believed to have that likely outcome; and (iv) on what timetable the success is expected.

Hmmmm...seems these questions should have been asked before sending Canadian Forces. Even Bush had a better story for the invasion of Iraq.

[capricorn]

Canadians cannot be expected to understand what we (where "we" can include ISAF/NATO if one likes) are doing in Afghanistan, unless there is some account of: (i) what we are trying to accomplish in specific measurable terms; (ii) what mechanisms are expected to accomplish these specific goals; (iii) on what evidence those mechanisms are believed to have that likely outcome; and (iv) on what timetable the success is expected.

These are very important and good questions. Some answers can be found in the NATO Afghanistan Compact. The document opens in MSWord.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagena...d=1134650705195

IMO, the Conservatives have done a poor job in communicating the mission to Canadians in practical terms. Chief of Defence Staff Hillier came the closest to doing so.

[jdobbin]

IMO, the Conservatives have done a poor job in communicating the mission to Canadians in practical terms. Chief of Defence Staff Hillier came the closest to doing so.

I tend to agree that there has been poor communication. Last previous summer there was almost no one saying anything about the mission even when there was casualties and subsequently support for the mission plunged. Hillier continues to be the main voice but when he says the mission will be ten or more years, he jumps the gun and what the policy is from highest level, namely the prime minister.

The Toronto Star has an article today about how that can be and will be a problem in the future for the Tories.

Whenever there is measurable progress and signs of Afghan and Allied help in Afghanistan, support for the mission stops declining. However, when we hear the Dutch are leaving in 2010 many Canadians wonder if we will be left out there without back-up.

Moreover, it doesn't help when it looks like the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and violent.

[Kitchener]

These are very important and good questions. Some answers can be found in the NATO Afghanistan Compact. The document opens in MSWord.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagena...d=1134650705195

Thanks! I look forward to reading it.

IMO, the Conservatives have done a poor job in communicating the mission to Canadians in practical terms. Chief of Defence Staff Hillier came the closest to doing so.

They have done a poor job -- indeed, they've done worse than nothing, because, as I noted above, the noises they have made about why we should be in Afghanistan are patently absurd. But this was not a situation of their making (though they approved of it in Opposition). The Liberals launched this mission and agreed to expand it.