Do Canadians UNDERSTAND we are in Afghanistan?

[Kitchener]

How do we know that Ben Laden ever existed.

Are you serious? Good grief.

Remember the babies in Kuwait. What a horrible diescription that was and as with Ben Laden we all were suitably horrified. Now we know that was made up so how much more was.

This is rather confused. Babies did indeed die in Kuwait; that wasn't entirely manufactured. The deception in that case involved the number of babies, the precise manner of their deaths, and the way that the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter was passed off as an eyewitness to the events. It was a shocking and sickening deception, but hardly grounds for scepticism that neonatal deaths occurred! As for the suggestion that Bin Laden never existed... well, I'm at loss to understand your thinking.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Kitchener

[MontyBurns]

Be brave Kitchener. Dont cut and run. We can win this war.

[margrace]

Well of course if you believe of course he existed. If you really want him to and need him more power to you

[Kitchener]

Right. Well, spambots aside, back to the live action.

capricorn linked to a useful document, the Afghanistan Compact. It is important reading, but does not fully answer the questions I had asked.

That's not to say it's irrelevant! The benchmarks and deadlines section in particular is very significant. But there are two key points to note: first, and most importantly, it does not give details on how the actions of ISAF will foreseeably lead to the attainment of the stated objectives. And second, it is mainly split between stating goals that are precisely specified yet trivially achievable "on paper" -- e.g., the establishment of a "clear and transparent national appointments mechanism" -- and stating goals that more substantive but far less concretely achievable: e.g., "Government machinery (including the number of ministries) will be restructured and rationalised to ensure a fiscally sustainable public administration; the civil service commission will be strengthened; and civil service functions will be reformed to reflect core functions and responsibilities."

There's no quarreling with the spirit of the thing, I'd say. The problem is much more the "Hooray for Everything!" sense of unreality that permeates it. To wit, the organizing principles...

1. Respect the pluralistic culture, values and history of Afghanistan, based on Islam;

2. Work on the basis of partnership between the Afghan Government, with its sovereign responsibilities, and the international community, with a central and impartial coordinating role for the United Nations;

3. Engage further the deep-seated traditions of participation and aspiration to ownership of the Afghan people;

4. Pursue fiscal, institutional and environmental sustainability;

5. Build lasting Afghan capacity and effective state and civil society institutions, with particular emphasis on building up human capacities of men and women alike;

6. Ensure balanced and fair allocation of domestic and international resources in order to offer all parts of the country tangible prospects of well-being;

7. Recognise in all policies and programmes that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities;

8. Promote regional cooperation; and

9. Combat corruption and ensure public transparency and accountability.

That'd all be great. Exactly how, though, is our military presence making each of those things happen? The most plausible line, repeated thoughout the document, is that ISAF is "promoting security and stability" in the areas tasked to them, which is easy enough to believe. (Though hardly certain, since they might also function as lightning rods for attacks as well.) But other claims are almost outlandish. As in,

With a view to rebuilding trust among those whose lives were shattered by war, reinforcing a shared sense of citizenship and a culture of tolerance, pluralism and observance of the rule of law, the Afghan Government with the support of the international community will implement the Action Plan on Peace, Justice and Reconciliation.

First, what history is being invoked with the language of "rebuilding", here? Afghanistan was most politically stable as a monarchy with power distributed through a quasi-feudal system; it had only very briefly, thirty years ago, the trappings of democracy. There is no trust in democratic institutions to be "rebuilt" in Afghanistan, no more than there is a nationwide history of a "shared sense of citizenship and a culture of tolerance, pluralism and observance of the rule of law" to be rebuilt. If these things come to Afghanistan, they will be coming there for the very first time -- especially in the countryside. Who on earth has the recipe for instilling a culture of tolerance and pluralism in a deeply clannish culture split along ethnic, sectarian and regional lines? This is pure confabulation, IMO, and is nothing that Canadian troops or God herself could accomplish by deliberate steps in any short number of years.

(Leading me to muse, btw, on whether it isn't largely the same political conservatives who complain about the hubris of small scale "social engineering" here at home who are the ones committed to the idea that vastly more ambitious social engineering in war-torn and unstable Afghanistan is a perfectly good bet.)

Edited January 1, 2008 by Kitchener

[Army Guy]

Kitchener:

That's not to say it's irrelevant! The benchmarks and deadlines section in particular is very significant. But there are two key points to note: first, and most importantly, it does not give details on how the actions of ISAF will foreseeably lead to the attainment of the stated objectives.

One has to admit that it is a good first document, one also has to admit that this type of nation building has not been tried for over 50 years and that book is old and outdated. sure the UN has tried on many different occasions but was rarely sucessful. So NATO is forced to take another look and try and find a solution.

I'd just like to make something clear, that although ISAF is mentioned alot in the document it is not the only organzation involved here. there are countless organizations and other governments that influence the events in Afgan, even within ISAF which is made up of serveral componets, most which are duplicated in other organizations and not all have the same agenda or for that matter on the same page.

And with all the above ongoing there is still the bad guys ( taliban, merc, hostile governments,etc.)that influence many events and decissions with Afgan. i guess my piont is the plan looks good on paper but survives only up until the first contact with the enemy. then each dept and government agency operates within it's own mandate...or more or less by the seat of thier pants...remember there is no rule book to follow.

That'd all be great. Exactly how, though, is our military presence making each of those things happen? The most plausible line, repeated thoughout the document, is that ISAF is "promoting security and stability" in the areas tasked to them, which is easy enough to believe. (Though hardly certain, since they might also function as lightning rods for attacks as well.) But other claims are almost outlandish. As in,

ISAF is more than just a military presence, actually our military is just a componet of ISAF...there is the battle group which does the military thing, then there is the PRT or provincial reconstruction team, made up of many groups Military and civilian construction types, a security componet, a diplomatic componet, and civilian policing componet, and a few other depts not related to DND.

These things are happening everyday, not much media milage to be had from building a school, sinking a well, repairing a power station, monitoring district elections, so these events are rarely reported....after all it is a combat zone and real...blood and guts sell papers....WIth out our military presence these type of activities could not go on, not only do they provide protection to the workers and the people these projects are there to help. but to ensure the work is not undone.

As for the lighten rod comment yes, we do attract a lot of attention from the bad guys , but better us than some poor villager...Most of our soldiers have completed 3 or more tours, everyone them has volunteered , there has to be something to be said about that fact.

Who on earth has the recipe for instilling a culture of tolerance and pluralism in a deeply clannish culture split along ethnic, sectarian and regional lines? This is pure confabulation, IMO, and is nothing that Canadian troops or God herself could accomplish by deliberate steps in any short number of years.

Nice question, whom indeed, but what a lofty goal for a nation to set for itself, to be apart of the solution that could be proven in afgan and if it worked ,tried in other parts of the world. Is that not worth the price we are paying today...Or we could do nothing and expect nothing in return, less we be disappionted...atleast now we can stand tall hold our heads up and say atleast we tried...atleast we attempted it, yes we may fail as others often remind us that history can not be wrong....but then again, how did we get to the moon, clearly history was against us there as well...

There is no short term answers nor step by step plan to rebuild a troubled nation, this much we know for a fact. But there is progress being made in Afgan and it is being made by everyone involved in this conflict. It's to bad the left, center and right could not come together and work on a solution.

We as a nation may not be perfect, infact far from it, but i don't think we have been pressed into this operation thru influence of others, or by other means or goals, but rather see it as a noble deed , to grant or assist another nation to obtain what we take for granted everyday.

[Oleg Bach]

Kitchener:

One has to admit that it is a good first document, one also has to admit that this type of nation building has not been tried for over 50 years and that book is old and outdated. sure the UN has tried on many different occasions but was rarely sucessful. So NATO is forced to take another look and try and find a solution.

I'd just like to make something clear, that although ISAF is mentioned alot in the document it is not the only organzation involved here. there are countless organizations and other governments that influence the events in Afgan, even within ISAF which is made up of serveral componets, most which are duplicated in other organizations and not all have the same agenda or for that matter on the same page.

And with all the above ongoing there is still the bad guys ( taliban, merc, hostile governments,etc.)that influence many events and decissions with Afgan. i guess my piont is the plan looks good on paper but survives only up until the first contact with the enemy. then each dept and government agency operates within it's own mandate...or more or less by the seat of thier pants...remember there is no rule book to follow.

ISAF is more than just a military presence, actually our military is just a componet of ISAF...there is the battle group which does the military thing, then there is the PRT or provincial reconstruction team, made up of many groups Military and civilian construction types, a security componet, a diplomatic componet, and civilian policing componet, and a few other depts not related to DND.

These things are happening everyday, not much media milage to be had from building a school, sinking a well, repairing a power station, monitoring district elections, so these events are rarely reported....after all it is a combat zone and real...blood and guts sell papers....WIth out our military presence these type of activities could not go on, not only do they provide protection to the workers and the people these projects are there to help. but to ensure the work is not undone.

As for the lighten rod comment yes, we do attract a lot of attention from the bad guys , but better us than some poor villager...Most of our soldiers have completed 3 or more tours, everyone them has volunteered , there has to be something to be said about that fact.

Nice question, whom indeed, but what a lofty goal for a nation to set for itself, to be apart of the solution that could be proven in afgan and if it worked ,tried in other parts of the world. Is that not worth the price we are paying today...Or we could do nothing and expect nothing in return, less we be disappionted...atleast now we can stand tall hold our heads up and say atleast we tried...atleast we attempted it, yes we may fail as others often remind us that history can not be wrong....but then again, how did we get to the moon, clearly history was against us there as well...

There is no short term answers nor step by step plan to rebuild a troubled nation, this much we know for a fact. But there is progress being made in Afgan and it is being made by everyone involved in this conflict. It's to bad the left, center and right could not come together and work on a solution.

We as a nation may not be perfect, infact far from it, but i don't think we have been pressed into this operation thru influence of others, or by other means or goals, but rather see it as a noble deed , to grant or assist another nation to obtain what we take for granted everyday.

Did the Russian populace and the America populace understand why THEY were in Afghanistan? NOPE! Russian mothers are still wailing for the useless "sacrafice" of their sons - morphine - high end stuff that can not be synthizied? Maybe it is our balless leaders and their handlers who want to show the primative Taliban that rich westerners are real men also - I would say we are their because of the ego of certain people - who are so insanely proud - that killing your sons does not bother them - we could leave that place tomorrow the way a dozen nations left torn and bedraggled - the only way to "win" is to kill every last male Afghan..

- if you can not and will not do THAT get out! Russia leaned the hard way...seems that Canada will also at great human expense...do you really think that some Taliban beardy boy goat herder--- sits up awake at night thinking of bombing Toronto? He does not know or care where Canada is. NOW Saudi Arabia supplies the money for violent hate crime - get the Saudi families under control and you won't need to be in that rock pile killing ground...go to the source - to who supplies the money - forget Iran - Saudi funded the trade center mass killings- one of their adventurer sons with American ties - I believe Bin Laden was the young mans name...and where the hell is he anyway - can a billion dollars not flush him out?

[Wilber]

The best thing to do is to let the Afghanis fight it out amongst themselves. If they take it to another country, then they should be beaten back and isolated. Once Afghanis stop fighting, then we can offer them assistance on their terms.

Nice thought but not possible unless you think you can also isolate all those countries which will not isolate

Afghanistan, such as Iran, and Pakistan.

[Oleg Bach]

Nice thought but not possible unless you think you can also isolate all those countries which will not isolate

Afghanistan, such as Iran, and Pakistan.

We are powerful in the west - even if all these back water principalities managed to ALL aquire nuclear weapons - they would be like men with short range single shot 22 rifles - and we would be the guys with the long range cruise missles - if they got out of hand a little nuking would deter them with little discomfort to us. Now if I had a neighbour that was constantly fighting within their own family - I may reprimand them once out of kindness - and most of the time people take advice and learn - if not let that neighbour destroy themsleves - it's their choice - We can not as a neighbour barge into their house hold and dictate to them -all that will form is deep hate and a constant never dieing resentment - How long will it take Iraq to get over the resentment for the west? How long will it take for Afghanistan to do the same?

Remember that kind soldier that sat down with tribal elders and attempted to reason with them? Then a resent filled native came up behind him and hit him in the back of the head with an axe. You must remember - humans are territorial - and we are in their living room - their good and bad behaviour is simply not our buisness - we should have a campaign of advicement - not military intrusion - would any sane person comply to an invader with a gun? For the short term they would...they would most likely appreciate a reasonalbe approach - BUT our leaders look at them as wife beating animals - and they know that and hate us for it. Honour and respect is all they understand - quailties we have abandonded - much like manhood.

I use to laugh when the Americans sent a diplomat to Iraq who was openly gay - How could a traditional male respect what was coming out of his mouth after knowing what was in it? This was a great insult to them..and we are not learning how to deal with the past or what we percieve as primative - where is it written in stone that as we advance in time that we actually evolve? We may be the ones that are backward - RESPECT..That's the key on the street here and the key on the rock mounds there.

[Wilber]

We are powerful in the west - even if all these back water principalities managed to ALL aquire nuclear weapons - they would be like men with short range single shot 22 rifles - and we would be the guys with the long range cruise missles - if they got out of hand a little nuking would deter them with little discomfort to us.

Isn't that one of the objects of these exercises, to avoid situations getting to the point where we have to nuke someone?

Remember that kind soldier that sat down with tribal elders and attempted to reason with them? Then a resent filled native came up behind him and hit him in the back of the head with an axe. You must remember - humans are territorial - and we are in their living room - their good and bad behaviour is simply not our buisness - we should have a campaign of advicement - not military intrusion - would any sane person comply to an invader with a gun? For the short term they would...they would most likely appreciate a reasonalbe approach - BUT our leaders look at them as wife beating animals - and they know that and hate us for it. Honour and respect is all they understand - quailties we have abandonded - much like manhood.

That respect wasn't there before we went to Afghanistan. That is why they attacked one of us. People are territorial and when someone attacks you it makes much more sense to fight them in their home than letting them fight it in yours. A campaign of advisement is a wonderful concept but what good is it if the Taliban destroy everything you try to build and terrorize the people you are trying to help?

I use to laugh when the Americans sent a diplomat to Iraq who was openly gay

They did? If so, that would seem rather stupid.

[Oleg Bach]

Isn't that one of the objects of these exercises, to avoid situations getting to the point where we have to nuke someone?

That respect wasn't there before we went to Afghanistan. That is why they attacked one of us. People are territorial and when someone attacks you it makes much more sense to fight them in their home than letting them fight it in yours. A campaign of advisement is a wonderful concept but what good is it if the Taliban destroy everything you try to build and terrorize the people you are trying to help?

They did? If so, that would seem rather stupid.

This buisness about it being better to fight them in their home than in ours does not make sence. You must remember though immigration you have thousands and thousands of potential terrorists. The trick would be to show them justice and civilty- if they see no sign of justice and goodness...we will in time be like England and have terrorist that are not just dark haired Arabic kids - but radicals that will form in your very own blue eyed children. If there is a problem you must ask why and what the root is. From what I have observed is that the east hates the west because the west raped and plundered them and their resourses ( wealth ) - putting the generation of fanatics aside - and there will always be reactionary emotional people - maybe if we in the west stopped manipulating more emotionally charged cultures abroad - we may fair better. Pissing people off to weaken and confuse them may have worked when doing buisness in Victorian times - but the rest of the world is getting wise to this technique.....once you anger a man you control him - makes me wonder if the best advice to the west would be - to let the east know that you have been playing them.

[Wilber]

From what I have observed is that the east hates the west because the west raped and plundered them and their resourses ( wealth ) - putting the generation of fanatics aside

What has the west plundered from Afghanistan, their poppy crops? The Middle Eastern oil countries such as Saudi Arabia are where Al Queda came from. It was the west which made them some of the richest per capita nations in the world. Without the west's need for their products, they would still be herding camels in the desert.

The trick would be to show them justice and civilty- if they see no sign of justice and goodness...we will in time be like England and have terrorist that are not just dark haired Arabic

Bullshit, Britain is one of the most just and civil countries in the world, for Muslims or anyone else. Certainly more tolerant than 98% of the countries they or their ancestors originally came from.

[Kitchener]

Army Guy, I'd like to thank you for your thoughtful response, and to apologize for not saying so sooner.

Kitchener:

One has to admit that it is a good first document, one also has to admit that this type of nation building has not been tried for over 50 years and that book is old and outdated. sure the UN has tried on many different occasions but was rarely sucessful. So NATO is forced to take another look and try and find a solution.

I don't know exactly how NATO's approach in Afghanistan is different from everything the UN ever tried -- which, after all, ranged from Korea to the Golan Heights to Cyprus, in terms of different methods. But I'm more concerned to figure out why they think it will work. That, I suppose, is what Canadians have never been told: how the specific efforts of our soldiers can be reasonably expected to produce a specified outcome within a specified time. Otherwise you get an indefinite mission for no clear overarching purpose; no matter when you quit the mission it will look as much like "cutting and running" as it would have looked in the very first year; and the public won't feel invested in it. Which is very much what now seems to be happening.

These things are happening everyday, not much media milage to be had from building a school, sinking a well, repairing a power station, monitoring district elections, so these events are rarely reported....after all it is a combat zone and real...blood and guts sell papers....

True enough, as far as it goes. But I seem to recall some positive reporting on development/security work from the missions in the former Yugoslavia (i.e., mine-disposal, well-construction, etc.), so there might be something unusual about Afghanistan. The lack of a clearly articulated mission, would be my guess.

It's also a bit inconsistent to complain about the reporting of military deaths, if one would also complain if those deaths weren't reported. Wouldn't that show a lack of interest and respect? And in any case, who talks most volubly about military casualties if not supporters of the mission in Afghanistan? Coach's Corner never lets a death go unmentioned. The fact is that Canadians in general, even those who oppose Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, care most deeply about Canadian casualties in the first instance, and that makes them newsworthy.

WIth out our military presence these type of activities could not go on, not only do they provide protection to the workers and the people these projects are there to help. but to ensure the work is not undone.

That is an excellent point. But how is that work -- constructing various buildings or physical infrastructure -- supposed to survive the departure of its protectors? Afghanistan had plenty of nice buildings that were destroyed by conflicts over the past decades. On what evidence do we foresee a different fate for the stuff currently being protected?

As for the lighten rod comment yes, we do attract a lot of attention from the bad guys , but better us than some poor villager...

The open question is whether some of that violence wouldn't happen at all, if not for the presence of troops.

Nice question, whom indeed, but what a lofty goal for a nation to set for itself, to be apart of the solution that could be proven in afgan and if it worked ,tried in other parts of the world.

A lofty goal indeed! So demanding, difficult, expensive, that money and lives shouldn't be sacrificed unless there's reason to believe it can succeed. That's what I'd like to see, though. The track record of failures in this regard is quite long, while the successes, historically (e.g., Japan) are few, and highly disanalogous to Afghanistan, and involved military occupations of many years, even decades.

Is that not worth the price we are paying today...Or we could do nothing and expect nothing in return, less we be disappionted...atleast now we can stand tall hold our heads up and say atleast we tried...atleast we attempted it, yes we may fail as others often remind us that history can not be wrong....but then again, how did we get to the moon, clearly history was against us there as well...

Well, we didn't go the moon. But I take your point. The mistake, though, is in thinking that we hold our heads high because we took a military mission in Afghanistan, or we fail -- period. Nonsense. There is so much suffering in the world, so much good to be done, and so many obvious, familiar, well-understood ways in which we could do that good. Feed the poor. Educate the illiterate. Fund AIDS treatment for impoverished populations in Africa. There are better ways to hold our heads high.

There is no short term answers nor step by step plan to rebuild a troubled nation, this much we know for a fact.

I believe you! It would be great if this fact could be honestly admitted by our elected officials. But it seems at least as obvious that there's also no long-term plan or answers either.

But there is progress being made in Afgan and it is being made by everyone involved in this conflict. It's to bad the left, center and right could not come together and work on a solution.

I submit that if there were a solution, you would find a lot more broad-spectrum support for it. As for progress: I believe that our presence in Afghanistan is currently making things better for most of the Afghans whom it affects. I just don't see any reason to think that the benefits will outlast our presence. Given the absence of plausible answers as to how the mission will eventuate in long-term stability, I don't see much reason to doubt that we're just delaying the equilibrium that Afghans will have to reach for themselves.

We as a nation may not be perfect, infact far from it, but i don't think we have been pressed into this operation thru influence of others, or by other means or goals, but rather see it as a noble deed , to grant or assist another nation to obtain what we take for granted everyday.

The surplus of other noble deeds waiting to be done, coupled with the circumstances under which we embarked on the Afghanistan mission, make it pretty natural to conclude that we did it in response to actual or perceived political pressure. But the motives of many of our soldiers, politicians, citizens, NGOs and workers are no less noble for all that.

[Moonlight Graham]

Canadians understand we are in Afghanistan, but the majority have little idea what it actually means and/or have little knowledge on the history of the region.

[eyeball]

If Canada was a member of an international coalition that had a clear mandate to simply replace the world's dictatorships with democracies, to make the world a safer place, Canadians would have a much easier time understanding why their country was in Afghanistan. Perhaps a kinder gentler Battle Hymn more appropriate to an army that's only trying to make the world safer for folks would help. How does Kumbiya sound?

Our coalition leader, the US however, continues to make the world a more dangerous place by aiding and abetting dictatorships - like they always have. You'll have to really work hard at suspending your disbelief to squelch out any cognitive dissonance interfering with your ability to understand exactly why we're in Agfhanistan.

Myself, I don't have a clue why we're fighting over there when the world's most dangerous nation is right next door.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Myself, I don't have a clue why we're fighting over there when the world's most dangerous nation is right next door.

Because like social drinkers, Canada never fights alone. Gots to go where the party is.

[Army Guy]

Kithchener:

I don't know exactly how NATO's approach in Afghanistan is different from everything the UN ever tried --

To really explain this would take a few pages....UN missions, number of peacekeepers, equipment peacekeepers could use , operational mandate, was decided by the nations in conflict....so they would decide how many soldiers were allowed in , and what kind of equipment they could use....Mostly just small arms and lt vehs....so if things went bad again, the UN could not effectly put out any fires , or get in the way....

NATO missions, most things are decided by NATO, the nations in conflict have little to say on how the operation is carried out, how many soldiers, what type of equipment is used. ETC....So you will see the right equipment to get the job done, keeping the peace is down by having a bigger stick, one that NATO is willing to use...

in terms of different methods.

UN has traditional been observe and report missions....Not taking any action to stop war crimes etc...just observe and report...very frustrating for UN soldiers as both sides know this and will often commit these acts in front of UN soldiers trying to get a reaction...

NATO missions give the soldiers the means to stop anything that may effect the peace....the RO&E are very different giving the soldier more abilities to stop these acts, thru use of force.

But I'm more concerned to figure out why they think it will work.

For a long time all we did was UN missions, it's soldiering with both arms tied behind your back....watch and report, it is what the media does,...not soldiers...hard to watch a bus load of Yugo muslims exicuted by a large wooden hammer to the head, and bodies pushed into the river....while your brain is screaming for you to do something....we did we reported it, then retrived the bodies down stream....

NATO missions on the other hand gives the soldiers the power the right to protect the people from the above acts...a soldier can take what ever use of force that is nesicary to protect those same people....that could be from pionting a wpn at them to calling in air strikes....no longer are we forced to watch war crimes happen but we can stop them....NATO often has the biggest stick and waring factions don't want any part of it...so the peace is kept for the most part....

Only difference in Afgan is that the taliban are willing to take on NATO....and are paying a heavy price...

Summing up, giving our soldiers the ability to soldier , less restrictive RO&E's we are able to take action on the spot, before things escalute, saving inocent people...Forcing the bad guys into peace....not waiting around until it's to late for peace..

That, I suppose, is what Canadians have never been told: how the specific efforts of our soldiers can be reasonably expected to produce a specified outcome within a specified time

What Canadians forget is most of Afgan was ruled by the Taliban numbering hundrds of thousands, loyal and fantical people.....this group numbers have been dwindled, so much that they have been forced into Guerrilla warfare....Our soldiers have been apart of doing that....

All while not having the numbers to get the job right and quicker....If Canada was truely concerned about ending this thing then we as a nation should be screaming for the others to do more, by setting the example and increasing not decreasing our numbers....by having more soldiers on the ground we could effectivily provide the security the Afgan people need and want winning over more hearts and minds plus allowing for more reconstructive project to be carried out....We've been told build a skyscraper, heres your ten guys good luck....

and then wondering 5 years later why they are still working on the basement.

True enough, as far as it goes. But I seem to recall some positive reporting on development/security work from the missions in the former Yugoslavia (i.e., mine-disposal, well-construction, etc.), so there might be something unusual about Afghanistan. The lack of a clearly articulated mission, would be my guess.

Yugo was the forgotten mission, nobody even cared about yugo, nor do they truly know the history of Yugo, and what our troops did in thier nations name....NATO had enough troops in place, hey it was in the europeans back yard....Afgan is the opposite everything is covered in the media, and NATO does not have the troops to effectly do the job....the Mission is very clear to those involved....Yes our government has done a shitty job discribing it's mission to the Avg joe...but this is not the cause of this mission being so unpopular....It's because nobody cares period, nobody cares enough to get up of thier asses and do something....put another 25 30 thousand troops in there and the progress would astound everyone....and boom we now have a popular mission....on with a much clearer end date.

It's also a bit inconsistent to complain about the reporting of military deaths, if one would also complain if those deaths weren't reported. Wouldn't that show a lack of interest and respect?

Both sides of the coin should be reported equally, the deaths and the price this mission is costing this nation, but also show where this money is being spent and what effect it is having on the Afgan people....and the effect our soldiers are having in solving this problem area....It all has an effect on our decssion making process, be it to support or not....and Canadians need both sides of the story....

[Army Guy]

The open question is whether some of that violence wouldn't happen at all, if not for the presence of troops

Thats how the taliban control the population thru violence or the threat of it...if the troops go, the taliban will return in some form, and the violence will continue....thier history is well recorded....

A lofty goal indeed! So demanding, difficult, expensive, that money and lives shouldn't be sacrificed unless there's reason to believe it can succeed. That's what I'd like to see, though. The track record of failures in this regard is quite long, while the successes, historically (e.g., Japan) are few, and highly disanalogous to Afghanistan, and involved military occupations of many years, even decades.

The only scrafice that the Avg Canadian has to make is 2 cents out of ever tax dollar they provide our gov't, that pays not only for the military side of the mission but all the aid we have provided to date....so really it's not that expensive, what price would you be willing to pay for your current rights and freedoms....

The demanding, difficult, and lives, all of that is being paid by our military, RCMP and the few diplomats serving over there..... Those that are being asked to make those sacrifices think it can and will succeed, provided that the AVG canadian gives us that opurtunity... This is where the Military separates from the civilian population...we don't look at a problem and say historically it can't be down, anything can be down if you throw enough resources at it....Vimy ridge, D Day landings, all examples of our nations soldiers taking a problem grabing it by the balls and getting ity down. But to do that we first and foremost need our nations support, without it it will be a needless sacrafice by all...

[james rahn]

Thats how the taliban control the population thru violence or the threat of it...if the troops go, the taliban will return in some form, and the violence will continue....thier history is well recorded....

The only scrafice that the Avg Canadian has to make is 2 cents out of ever tax dollar they provide our gov't, that pays not only for the military side of the mission but all the aid we have provided to date....so really it's not that expensive, what price would you be willing to pay for your current rights and freedoms....

I don't even think it's a full two cents. It's a small price to pay.