Dion wants NATO to invade Pakistan!

[jdobbin]

I have no doubt that western forces have crossed the border into Pakistan. Spec Ops types. If we are serious about Afghanistan we have to do something about Pakistan. Enough goofing around is enough, it is costing good NATO solidiers their lives to piss around with Musharuff. Why not enlist India's help in this, they have an interest in a stable, democratic Pakistan on their border...

You are probably right about Special Forces. I have no doubts the CIA have gone across or are there right now.

Any help from India could get Pakistan to fight a nuclear war with them. It has come close many times between them.

[Keepitsimple]

You keep getting it all wrong. NATO is not going to war with Pakistan. For some time people in NATO and in the U.S. have been advocating the pursuit of insurgents across the border rather than stopping and letting them regroup and come back. They want Pakistan's authority to act where they won't or can't.

Perhaps my use of "taking Pakistan by storm" was a little sarcastic (Ok, a lot) - of course I know that NATO (and the US) would have to work with Pakistan.....but you haven't answered the question. Dion's position (and yours apparently) is that Canada should encourage NATO to go into Pakistan (with their approval) to conduct combat operations.......but then Dion (and you) would pull all of Canada's combat troops out of the area in February 2009. Is that right?

This whole thread is really about whether we should keep combat troops in the area past February 2009. The Liberals' position has been an emphatic "NO". That just doesn't wash with Dion's comments no matter how much you try to muddy the waters.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Army Guy]

Where did the Liberals say it was short term? What are you citing here?

"I made four demands of Hillier before I agreed to the mission," Mr. Martin is quoted as saying, adding that he told the general: " 'I want in, but I [also] want out. We do peacemaking and reconstruction and win hearts and minds. I am going to make a big demand on Darfur soon and you have to tell me I have all the troops I need. And you must have the capacity for Haiti if that blows up again.' I told him none of this could be constrained by Afghanistan or I wouldn't agree to the mission."

Does'nt sound long term to me....a quote out of MR chrietien's book, and MR martins reply...

I'm saying or impling that we did say we would go on the Afgan mission, however MR Martin did not make it clear to NATO it was short term, Yes there was an end date attached to our mission, along with every other nations mission statement, but you can't just quit in the middle of the mission and say i gave you 4 years time is up...we have not done this on any other mission, that was not completed...Nor is it living up to our NATO commitments...

Mr Dion

As for our NATO obligations, they are not open ended. Even the Tory one has a deadline although they want to extend it to 2012.

Show me in the NATO agreements that they are open or closed ended....you won't find any dates in there.

Mission dates are assigned so that nations are forced to reacess the mission....to update there requirements as the mission requires...

Would you say that this mission requires Canada or other nations to withdrawal....or is more troops required...

[eyeball]

How many years after 2012 do the Tories think we will be fighting in Afghanistan? And how many years do they think the threat will likely be from insurgents taking sanctuary across the border?

Fighting in Afghanistan? Surely by 2012 the Islamofascist Expeditionary Forces will be massing along the far shore of the Bering Straight and the west coast of Ireland in preparation for their invasion of North America.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps my use of "taking Pakistan by storm" was a little sarcastic (Ok, a lot) - of course I know that NATO (and the US) would have to work with Pakistan.....but you haven't answered the question. Dion's position (and yours apparently) is that Canada should encourage NATO to go into Pakistan (with their approval) to conduct combat operations.......but then Dion (and you) would pull all of Canada's combat troops out of the area in February 2009. Is that right?

This whole thread is really about whether we should keep combat troops in the area past February 2009. The Liberals' position has been an emphatic "NO". That just doesn't wash with Dion's comments no matter how much you try to muddy the waters.

I haven't seen where he said he said combat troops. Where was that? You've assumed that much but I haven't see where it says that.

It is quite some time to 2009. I believe Dion was saying Canada would be ready for a mission other than a combat one in southern Afghanistan. He then went on to say that NATO might have to intervene if Pakistan cannot end the threat to Afghanistan. You don't think can happen in 2008? It seems to me that Canada has been or should be discussing those options about Pakistan given the deteriorating situation.

The Tories want a open ended arrangement for combat in Afghanistan. It is not contingent on help from NATO or Afghanistan. It has no benchmarks. It could be a combat mission that last decades according to the British Defence Secretary.

Canada has not let down NATO. NATO has let down Canada.

Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Does'nt sound long term to me....a quote out of MR chrietien's book, and MR martins reply...

I'm saying or impling that we did say we would go on the Afgan mission, however MR Martin did not make it clear to NATO it was short term, Yes there was an end date attached to our mission, along with every other nations mission statement, but you can't just quit in the middle of the mission and say i gave you 4 years time is up...we have not done this on any other mission, that was not completed...Nor is it living up to our NATO commitments...

Show me in the NATO agreements that they are open or closed ended....you won't find any dates in there.

Mission dates are assigned so that nations are forced to reacess the mission....to update there requirements as the mission requires...

Would you say that this mission requires Canada or other nations to withdrawal....or is more troops required...

Two years is not short term. Entire wars have been fought and won in less time.

The Tories extended the mission another two years and want to extend it another two. We set no benchmarks and have no real offer of help where we are.

Martin was right about one thing: As long as our forces are engaged in Afghanistan, we are limited to any other action in the world including Canada no matter how serious. We can't even adequately train new people because Forces are either in Afghanistan, getting read to deploy to Afghanistan or just got back from there.

It seems that Canada setting a firm deadline but remaining committed to other deployments in Afghanistan shows our committment to NATO. Where is NATO's committment to rotate forces in and out of the hot spots?

[weaponeer]

I haven't seen where he said he said combat troops. Where was that? You've assumed that much but I haven't see where it says that.

It is quite some time to 2009. I believe Dion was saying Canada would be ready for a mission other than a combat one in southern Afghanistan. He then went on to say that NATO might have to intervene if Pakistan cannot end the threat to Afghanistan. You don't think can happen in 2008? It seems to me that Canada has been or should be discussing those options about Pakistan given the deteriorating situation.

The Tories want a open ended arrangement for combat in Afghanistan. It is not contingent on help NATO or Afghanistan. It has no benchmarks. It is till the job gets done which according to the British Defence Secretary could be decades.

Canada has not let down NATO. NATO has let down Canada.

Hi Jdobb,

Going to be home in the Peg next week for a course, can't wait:)

On point being missed here is the whole combat/non combat issue. We are in a combat role, IMHO should be in no other!! To send Canadians to a place like Afghanistan and tie their hands behind them and say NO COMBAT is a crime. Your leaving them to the mercy of the talibs, and if you have ever seen what the they do, they have no mercy!!!

The effort should be the total destruction of the talibs, no escape to Pakistan!! Trainin g the ANA is a combat role, you are taking the ANA out on operations, training their soldiers, their leadership to fight, it is combat!! Canadians are in combat, have been in combat and the talibs will not make that distinction in the future. A Canadian will be just as dead but without the aid and security of the tanks, our own artillery etc... A non combat role will be a disaster......

Pakistan is the key to leaving Afghanistan stable & secure. We need to get the talibs there, we need to do it soon.

[jdobbin]

Hi Jdobb,

Going to be home in the Peg next week for a course, can't wait:)

On point being missed here is the whole combat/non combat issue. We are in a combat role, IMHO should be in no other!! To send Canadians to a place like Afghanistan and tie their hands behind them and say NO COMBAT is a crime. Your leaving them to the mercy of the talibs, and if you have ever seen what the they do, they have no mercy!!!

The effort should be the total destruction of the talibs, no escape to Pakistan!! Trainin g the ANA is a combat role, you are taking the ANA out on operations, training their soldiers, their leadership to fight, it is combat!! Canadians are in combat, have been in combat and the talibs will not make that distinction in the future. A Canadian will be just as dead but without the aid and security of the tanks, our own artillery etc... A non combat role will be a disaster......

Pakistan is the key to leaving Afghanistan stable & secure. We need to get the talibs there, we need to do it soon.

Better bring your mittens it is cold today! Brr!

I don't think anyone said that Canadian soldiers should back up from a fight. I think the deadline is more about pressure to get NATO to commit troops to rotate in and hold land already taken. It is getting to be an old story of how Canada takes an area only to have to re-take it again and again. It would be nice once in a while if Canada could take a place, hold it, let a NATO ally take the next valley and hold it and so on. Instead we are at the pointy end of the stick with no relief and poor support from our allies who say "Attaboy!" whenever we go asking for help.

I think we have to keep the pressure up on our allies because they just don't feel any pressure so long as we indicate that we are there whatever comes, whatever failures, whatever lack of support they throw at us.

As far as Pakistan goes, they are a source of a lot of the grief aimed at Afghanistan. That isn't going to change if we don't somehow pursue the Taliban back to the safe zones.

[capricorn]

I don't think Dion or the Opposition have referred to anyone being a lapdog on the issue of Pakistan. Do you have a cite for that?

I did not say that. You seem to take pleasure in misrepresenting what I say and you come back with irrelevant comments. I posed the question to the effect does Dion thinking the same way as some US politicians make Dion a lapdog to the US? This has happened to Stephen Harper and there's a chance this could happen to Dion over his American-like views on the Pakistan question.

Thanks for your links on the Pakistani border issue.

[capricorn]

The Pakistan High Commission has responded to Dion's comments on possible NATO military action in Pakistan.

We are dismayed by the statement of the leader of opposition, Mr. Stephane Dion about NATO intervention in Pakistan. It shows a lack of understanding of the ground realities. We have, at the highest level, made it clear that Pakistan will not allow any foreign forces to operate within its territory under any circumstances. The sovereignty of the state will not be compromised at any level as the government and people of Pakistan are fully capable of handling their security matters themselves.

http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/...17/3471606.html

I don't think this will help Dion's already low leader popularity numbers. The Liberals are in full damage control but the runaway train will be hard to stop.

[jdobbin]

I did not say that. You seem to take pleasure in misrepresenting what I say and you come back with irrelevant comments. I posed the question to the effect does Dion thinking the same way as some US politicians make Dion a lapdog to the US? This has happened to Stephen Harper and there's a chance this could happen to Dion over his American-like views on the Pakistan question.

Thanks for your links on the Pakistani border issue.

The issue of what to do about Pakistan and the sanctuary that the Taliban there has been around since the Chretien days. The U.S. assured NATO that Pakistan was going to deal with the issue. I don't think Liberals or Conservatives have been lapdogs to the U.S. on the issue. I had no idea who you were referring to with the comment.

I have posted here since the beginning that there is unlikely to be lasting peace in Afghanistan unless the Taliban are dealt with in Pakistan. Dion's comments are in keeping with what many people in NATO have been saying and are saying. No one is talking about invading Pakistan. However, they are saying that something should be done and NATO probably should be involved, especially when it comes to pursuit of Taliban trying to escape over the border.

[jdobbin]

I don't think this will help Dion's already low leader popularity numbers. The Liberals are in full damage control but the runaway train will be hard to stop.

Pakistan also says it is a peace loving state. It doesn't mention how it is now connected to international terrorism and insurgency through it semi-Taliban state in the western region of the country.

[blueblood]

Pakistan also says it is a peace loving state. It doesn't mention how it is now connected to international terrorism and insurgency through it semi-Taliban state in the western region of the country.

This is one of the rare times when Dion is right, and this coming from a CPC supporter. He makes a valid point, why should we fight the taliban with one hand tied behind our back. The americans ran into this snafoo in Vietnam, we should not repeat that same mistake. If Pakistan has a problem with foreign soldiers operating in their country, they are more than welcome to attempt to do something about it and face the consequences.

Dion moved up one notch in my book, he is now at notch one.

[bush_cheney2004]

The americans ran into this snafoo in Vietnam, we should not repeat that same mistake.

Actually, the Americans went into Cambodia and Laos at will. But if Dion thinks he is going to lead the way with the same NATO that Canada has criticised for NOT doing it's share of fighting in Afghanistan, I think his mouth is writing checks that he can't cash.

[blueblood]

Actually, the Americans went into Cambodia and Laos at will. But if Dion thinks he is going to lead the way with the same NATO that Canada has criticised for NOT doing it's share of fighting in Afghanistan, I think his mouth is writing checks that he can't cash.

BUt did the Americans go into North Vietnam???

How about in Korea, they didn't go into China

But Chasing the Taliban to the border and then turning around on a technicality is no way to fight.

[bush_cheney2004]

BUt did the Americans go into North Vietnam???

Yes...ground forces, naval forces and air power "went into" North Vietnam.

How about in Korea, they didn't go into China

Gen. MacArthur wanted to do just that but President Truman thought better of it for obvious reasons. Did Canada go into China?

But Chasing the Taliban to the border and then turning around on a technicality is no way to fight.

Pakistan is a sovereign state....like Iraq...LOL!

[capricorn]

This is one of the rare times when Dion is right, and this coming from a CPC supporter. He makes a valid point, why should we fight the taliban with one hand tied behind our back.

blue, although Dion may be right as rain on his analysis of the need to address the problems stemming from within Pakistan spilling into Afghanistan, Dion's comments have to be regarded within the context of domestic foreign policy. Canada is scheduled to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in 13 months. Support for this mission has been steadily decreasing among Canadians and nothing will change this trend. So for Dion to muse that the focus should shift away from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the form of NATO military action will not sit well with Canadians. It certainly does not sit well with Pakistan. The Liberals worked hard and long to present their policy on Afghanistan and now Dion adds a totally new dimension to that policy. I believe this has done damage to the Liberal party and it has not done any good for our relations with Pakistan.

[jdobbin]

blue, although Dion may be right as rain on his analysis of the need to address the problems stemming from within Pakistan spilling into Afghanistan, Dion's comments have to be regarded within the context of domestic foreign policy. Canada is scheduled to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in 13 months. Support for this mission has been steadily decreasing among Canadians and nothing will change this trend. So for Dion to muse that the focus should shift away from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the form of NATO military action will not sit well with Canadians. It certainly does not sit well with Pakistan. The Liberals worked hard and long to present their policy on Afghanistan and now Dion adds a totally new dimension to that policy. I believe this has done damage to the Liberal party and it has not done any good for our relations with Pakistan.

Tonight's At Issue panel on the CBC is addressing the question tonight.

[jdobbin]

This is one of the rare times when Dion is right, and this coming from a CPC supporter. He makes a valid point, why should we fight the taliban with one hand tied behind our back.

I'm surprised that McKay and others have come down the way on this. Dion was not being critical of the government on the issue. If anything, he was supporting what many others in government have been saying what is the danger of the safe haven in Pakistan.

Dion, in his visit to Afghanistan, has said that he is committed to staying in the country. However, as a member of NATO, he is putting pressure on the alliance to commit more troops and to have rotations in and out of hot spots.

[blueblood]

blue, although Dion may be right as rain on his analysis of the need to address the problems stemming from within Pakistan spilling into Afghanistan, Dion's comments have to be regarded within the context of domestic foreign policy. Canada is scheduled to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in 13 months. Support for this mission has been steadily decreasing among Canadians and nothing will change this trend. So for Dion to muse that the focus should shift away from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the form of NATO military action will not sit well with Canadians. It certainly does not sit well with Pakistan. The Liberals worked hard and long to present their policy on Afghanistan and now Dion adds a totally new dimension to that policy. I believe this has done damage to the Liberal party and it has not done any good for our relations with Pakistan.

Dion is not suggesting we go into the Capital of Pakistan and plant the maple leaf in their parliament. He is suggesting we do what the turks are doing in Iraq to maintain their security, no big deal. Dion will want the troops gone in 13 months, he's also saying we shouldn't be tied down.

Big deal if we piss off Pakistan, they don't give us anything, and we supply their food. If anything they shouldn't piss us off. If they want to have an international incident, they can starve then.

Oh my God I'm defending a Liberal, Hell froze over.

[August1991]

Dion is not suggesting we go into the Capital of Pakistan and plant the maple leaf in their parliament. He is suggesting we do what the turks are doing in Iraq to maintain their security, no big deal. Dion will want the troops gone in 13 months, he's also saying we shouldn't be tied down.

Big deal if we piss off Pakistan, they don't give us anything, and we supply their food. If anything they shouldn't piss us off. If they want to have an international incident, they can starve then.

Is that even what Dion is saying? Not according to Coderre.

"We are dismayed at the statement of NATO intervention in Pakistan," High Commissioner Musa Javed Chohan said in an interview.

"[We are upset by] the concept of any intervention in Pakistan. ...Under no circumstances will we allow any foreign forces to operate on our soil."

Mr. Chohan was responding to comments attributed to Mr. Dion this week, which the leader's office has subsequently clarified. Mr. Dion said in Quebec City that "if they [Pakistani leaders] are incapable of doing it themselves, it is something that we could envision with NATO forces how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan."

The remarks were taken by some to suggest Mr. Dion supported sending troops to the nation. Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre later clarified the remarks saying Mr. Dion was simply trying to convey that there needs to be a diplomatic solution in the region.

G & M

The amusing point is that Dion is supposed to be this nuanced intellectual who has a clear mind and an ability to get to the heart of the matter. Huh? Why is Coderre clarifying his remarks in response to a response of the Pakistani High Commissioner?

It gets better:

Contrary to the erroneous claim and distortions of Mr. Harper and the Conservatives, in a press conference in Quebec City yesterday the Liberal leader did not propose a military intervention in Pakistan. Mr. Dion obviously did not propose any sort of military intervention. Mr. Dion believes that Canada must focus our diplomatic efforts on Pakistan in order to secure the border with Afghanistan.

Federal Liberal Party web site

If Dion meant to say that he wanted a diplomatic solution, why didn't he say so? And does Dion want NATO/Canadian troops to be involved in this "diplomatic solution"?

C'est de la broche à foin.

Edited January 18, 2008 by August1991

[Shakeyhands]

and if he would have said that August, there would have been hay made about how he thinks you can just "talk" these problems out with (insert group name here) when what is needed is armed intervention etc...

He only said what most of us think.

[jdobbin]

Is that even what Dion is saying? Not according to Coderre.

If Dion meant to say that he wanted a diplomatic solution, why didn't he say so? And does Dion want NATO/Canadian troops to be involved in this "diplomatic solution"?

C'est de la broche à foin.

I keep looking for the statement about NATO forces going into Pakistan. I never see it. The Globe said Dion "hinted" at it but all I saw "We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan." That seems to indicate helping Pakistan by invitation, doesn't it? Isn't that at its heart a diplomatic solution?

[Keepitsimple]

I keep looking for the statement about NATO forces going into Pakistan. I never see it. The Globe said Dion "hinted" at it but all I saw "We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan." That seems to indicate helping Pakistan by invitation, doesn't it? Isn't that at its heart a diplomatic solution?

It's not what he meant to say - it's what he actually said - clarifications don't count. Here's what was reported by the CBC, bless their hearts:

"If [Pakistani leaders] are incapable of doing it themselves, it is something that we could envision with NATO forces — how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," he said during a news conference in Quebec City Wednesday.

"If they are incapable of doing it for themselves" and NATO forces - that's a poor choice of words for diplomacy. This is not just mis-speaking. It is a dangerous and embarrassing comment. It is reasonable to assume that Pakistan would think that Dion may very well be the next PM of Canada and as such, he has made a statement that flies in the face of Pakistan's sovereignty...and that's exactly how Pakistan interpreted it - and rightly so. These type of careless and naive comments can easily take on "a life of their own" in Islamist countries like Pakistan.

Link to CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/17/dion-pakistan.html

Edited January 18, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

These type of naive comments can easily take on "a life of their own" in Islamist countries like Pakistan.

They certainly get misinterpreted by the right wing in Canada. I think I heard hysterical claims on invading Pakistan.