Dion wants NATO to invade Pakistan!

M.Dancer · January 18, 2008

Operation Forage was resolved in 30 days.

I will say it again. That is disingenuous. That operation was on of many in FRY. and in fact the total operation lasted much longer...

Operation FORAGE
August 2001 - September 2002

Operation FORAGE was the Canadian contribution to the NATO operation ESSENTIAL HARVEST in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, which began officially on August 22, 2001. On August 27, about 3,500 NATO troops, including 200 Canadians, deployed with logistical support into Macedonia to collect and destroy weapons surrendered by ethnic Albanian groups. Operation FORAGE was a 30-day commitment.

When NATO mounted a follow-on mission to provide a monitoring presence, the CF undertook to provide one staff officer to

work at Task Force Headquarters. The last CF member to hold this post returned to Canada at the end of September, 2002.

That's how many days longer than 30?

jdobbin · January 18, 2008

Nice list but i did say resolved in less than 2 years, handing over to someone else to finish the job is not what i called resolved....but rather handing over the problem....

You actually said this: "Name one, UN or Canadian military mission that has been resolved in less than 2 years...."

Operation Forage was a 30 day mission, It was started and ended by Canadians. It was resolved.

Handed over to the indian BN to complete.

Canada's mission was complete.

nice try, but there are 3 missions in kosvo...the last one operation Quadrant ended in Sept 2002 So resolution took 4 years...

I did say that Quadrant took a little over three years.

I guess my diffinition of resolved is different than yours so i'll explain " resolution means the problem has been resolved and peace is broken out and peace keepers are not really required...., "some place you would think about bringing the family for vacation...
The piont i was trying to make is 90 % of the UN or NATO missions we take on are long term over 10 to 25 years long....making a 2 year mission a short one....

Since we had already been there for a while, it wasn't just a two year involvement. The mission might have been two years but there is nothing that says that we have to be there right to the end as you have demonstrated by Eritrea where we turned over the country to India. You are saying we abandoned Eritrea and should have been there to the end?

Your standard of staying in a mission until it is a holiday destination is one that I have heard no one in the military or government say.

The mission should be one with a deadline. It should have objectives. It should have a plan to get and to get out. Success should be measured on whether we have fulfilled our objectives and whether we have completed the mission entirely or are passing it on better than we found it.

I think that is usually the measure of how Canadian Forces rotate in and out of their area of operations too, right? The Van Doos have their objectives and try to pass things on to the next Canadians better than they found them if at all possible. No one is telling the Van Doos they have to stay in Afghanistan until it becomes a holiday destination.

Then why is the liberals making so much fuss over the bils being spent on military contracts....

The fuss is over un-tendered contracts where Canada may not be getting the best product, the best price, the best delivery date and the best maintenance contract. The Tory government has already been sued and lost a few of these contract disputes and it is ending up costing Canadians big bucks and delaying fulfillment of the contracts.

Actually quoting MR Dion, recently he said that Canada could take on other missions such as Dafur or haiti....

That was Paul Martin and not Dion. Show me a cite that Dion wants to send Canadian soldiers to Darfur. I haven't seen one since he became leader.

Is that what this is about, getting in as many missions as possiable....or is it getting the job right the first time...

Then you must be upset that Canada left Cyprus and Bosnia and Eritrea.

if that was the case why not take this circus on the road....we could do dozens of nations in no time....
Cyprus....how many Canadians even knew we were there, or where is it on the map, or the fact we actually did carry out our last combat airbourne jump there.....

I think what we should be putting pressure on our allies to fulfill their commitments. Rotations in and out of hot spots would go a long way in showing NATO is not all talk and little action.

Edited January 18, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · January 18, 2008

I will say it again. That is disingenuous. That operation was on of many in FRY. and in fact the total operation lasted much longer...
That's how many days longer than 30?

The former Yugoslavia had many missions some still operating today. Are you saying that Canada abandoned the mission before it was done and should have never left? What exactly are you trying to say?

I keep hearing the mission is Afghanistan should be seen right to the end even if it is decades. Are you saying Canada is a failure because we left Kosovo and Cyprus when our mission ended?

The Canadian military and government defines the mission based on objectives not on whether the overall geopolitical situation is concluded.

I can't think of a Canadian mission resolved where we didn't either complete the tasks asked of us or passed it on better than we found it.

It seems to me that if you are saying we can't ever leave if a situation remains unsettled, it puts a whole new spin on missions. I've already heard from one person who says that a mission is complete when you feel you could holiday there with your kids. That sounds like something the NDP might say and not someone who bases a conclusion on the success of a mission based on objectives that are a little more sound.

Edited January 18, 2008 by jdobbin

Keepitsimple · January 18, 2008

This thread has morphed. Dion used a poor choice of words and Pakistan got very upset and rightly so. Dion has, we should hope, learned a lesson in the nuances of diplomacy. The use of the phrase "if they are incapable of......" doesn't send a very nice message but the use of the term "NATO Forces" totally mangles his entire message. People can clarify and justify all they want, but the fact is that he rightly upset Pakistan.

jdobbin · January 18, 2008

This thread has morphed. Dion used a poor choice of words and Pakistan got very upset and rightly so. Dion has, we should hope, learned a lesson in the nuances of diplomacy. The use of the phrase "if they are incapable of......" doesn't send a very nice message but the use of the term "NATO Forces" totally mangles his entire message. People can clarify and justify all they want, but the fact is that he rightly upset Pakistan.

Pakistan has denied that they are the source of Afghanistan's problems and rightly has upset Afghanistan.

If you are just going to quote out of context, I seem to remember "to help Pakistan to help us."

The right wing seems more willing to side with Pakistan who have been shown time and time again of not being able to stem the problem.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jdobbin

blueblood · January 19, 2008

This thread has morphed. Dion used a poor choice of words and Pakistan got very upset and rightly so. Dion has, we should hope, learned a lesson in the nuances of diplomacy. The use of the phrase "if they are incapable of......" doesn't send a very nice message but the use of the term "NATO Forces" totally mangles his entire message. People can clarify and justify all they want, but the fact is that he rightly upset Pakistan.

Who cares if he upset Pakistan, I in fact have more respect in Dion for doing so. Pakistan should be taken to task for doing a crappy job. Pakistan asked for it.

Sounds like Dion is learning from Harper, atta boy.

Edited January 19, 2008 by blueblood

capricorn · January 19, 2008

Who cares if he upset Pakistan, I in fact have more respect in Dion for doing so. Pakistan should be taken to task for doing a crappy job. Pakistan asked for it.
Sounds like Dion is learning from Harper, atta boy.

Do you think this episode will increase Dion's popularity among Canadians and result in increased support for the Liberals? I ask because if a Conservative supporter such as yourself endorses Dion's actions here perhaps this is a possibility. Bear in mind that support for the Afghan mission is at an all time low, Dion is calling for an end to our combat mission in Feb. 09 and with his comments, Dion pretty well advocates increased NATO action in the region.

Alexandra · January 19, 2008

Despite the prominence of his esteemed visitors Hamid Karzai didn't mince words when discussing Monsieur Dion and Mr. Igniateff's opinions of what Canada's role should be in Afghanistan's war with the Taliban/al Queda terrorists:

Behind their courteous pleasantries, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his senior Cabinet reject the Liberal position that Canada should end its combat mission in southern Afghanistan by February, 2009.
Following Saturday's visit to Kabul by Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and deputy Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal notion that Canada's military mission can somehow be changed to focus less on combat and more on diplomacy and development simply didn't fly with the Afghan government

Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff travelled to Afghanistan days after releasing the party's submission to the panel headed by John Manley on Canada's future military involvement there. It reiterated that Canada should serve notice to its allies that it will withdraw its 2,500 troops from Kandahar by February, 2009, and cease all combat operations then.

Focusing on diplomacy must mean Canadians staying within the safety of a base while the U.S. troopers protect the perimeter:

Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff were not swayed from their party's position on withdrawal.
"It was as if they had carefully arranged to not allow any evidence on the ground to affect anything they had already said. It was, I guess, so they could say, we have been there," said Jack Granatstein, the Canadian military historian and an analyst for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Been where? A heavily protected convoy to an FOB reportedly secure? An overnight march up to the tribal area of Pakistan in order to see for themselves the possibility of 'pacifying' this area of Pakistan by NATO forces (excluding Canada)? Of course, that must have been the itinerary specified by M. Dion and Mr. Igniateff according to M. Dion's opinion of what NATO should now do as stated to the press in Quebec on his return.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=237432

jdobbin · January 19, 2008

Despite the prominence of his esteemed visitors Hamid Karzai didn't mince words when discussing Monsieur Dion and Mr. Igniateff's opinions of what Canada's role should be in Afghanistan's war with the Taliban/al Queda terrorists.

Can't say I've been that impressed with Afghan government promise to build their military and policy forces so they will assert authority in areas that Canadians have taken away from the Taliban. They are two years behind schedule and Karzai continues to assert no authority outside of Kabul.

Focusing on diplomacy must mean Canadians staying within the safety of a base while the U.S. troopers protect the perimeter.

Why does it have to be the U.S.? Where is Spain, Italy or any of the other multitude in NATO who keep telling Canada "great job!"

Been where? A heavily protected convoy to an FOB reportedly secure? An overnight march up to the tribal area of Pakistan in order to see for themselves the possibility of 'pacifying' this area of Pakistan by NATO forces (excluding Canada)? Of course, that must have been the itinerary specified by M. Dion and Mr. Igniateff according to M. Dion's opinion of what NATO should now do as stated to the press in Quebec on his return.

Must be the same sage convoy that Harper travelled in and concluded that amazing progress had been made after the most violent year since the war.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jdobbin

Keepitsimple · January 19, 2008

Tonight's Mike Duffy show was quite telling. Dan McTeague, a Liberal, was defending Dion's remarks. In doing so, he said he was quoting "word for word" what Dion said. Trouble is, he left out the word "forces". McTeague actually seems like a nice guy but it was not an accident that he left out that one particular word. Liberals know very well that Dion was off-base with his comments.

"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.

blueblood · January 19, 2008

Do you think this episode will increase Dion's popularity among Canadians and result in increased support for the Liberals? I ask because if a Conservative supporter such as yourself endorses Dion's actions here perhaps this is a possibility. Bear in mind that support for the Afghan mission is at an all time low, Dion is calling for an end to our combat mission in Feb. 09 and with his comments, Dion pretty well advocates increased NATO action in the region.

No don't worry about it because at the end of the day, Canadians aren't that fickle. This episode brought Pakistan's half assed military to the woodshed of public opinion. Dion would be advocating that action immediately (agree with) and at the same time wants us out of combat in 09 (which I don't agree with)

I'll pose this question, if we are going to be fighting an enemy with our hands tied behind our back and not make significant process, why are we there?

capricorn · January 19, 2008

I'll pose this question, if we are going to be fighting an enemy with our hands tied behind our back and not make significant process, why are we there?

When the Liberals first committed Canada to the NATO led Afghan mission, I did not think that we would be doing the heavy lifting in southern Afghanistan, especially since our military seemed ill equipped in so may ways for that assignment. (I recall the green camouflage outfits provided to our troops making them sitting ducks against Afghanistan's dusty environment.) As time passed, I became frustrated and somewhat enraged that our NATO partners were either bailing out or opting for assignment to the safer North, East and West parts of the country. Even before the mission was last extended by Harper (by a narrow vote in the H of C), I wanted Canada out of there.

After the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan with its tail between its legs, the international community basically turned its back on Afghanistan and let that forsaken land fend for itself. It's no wonder that Afghanistan gradually came under Taliban rule and became home to Al Quaeda.

With all due respect to our troops and our military leaders, our country simply does not have the military capability to be engaged in Afghanistan. We are putting forward a valiant effort. Yet, all the good intentions in the world will not make up for the fact that we are over extended militarily as is. Our tiny population is simply not militarily minded, regardless of the superhuman effort we put forward in past wars.

I want us to honour the commitment we made to NATO. More importantly, I hope all our soldiers come home safe in February 09. I know this is a long answer but your question is important and deserved more than a one liner.

M.Dancer · January 19, 2008

The former Yugoslavia had many missions some still operating today. Are you saying that Canada abandoned the mission before it was done and should have never left? What exactly are you trying to say?

I would say you are playing games and it doesn't become you. Yes the Liberal Party took on some pretty light weight missions and they certainly ended on their mandated date. They also took on a few robust missions and they lasted longer...far longer. This is nothing to brag or crow about. It is plain what Army Guy meant and I sure you are smart enough to know what he meant to and that is, conflicts that Canada has been involved with wether peacekeeping or combat tend to go on a lot longer than 2 years.

Keepitsimple · January 19, 2008

Stephen Taylor's Blog contains a YouTube of the actual Dion interview. I did not realize that Dion made his comments in French - in which he clearly uses the term "NATO Forces". I was willing to consider the fact that he mis-spoke in English - but now I can't. It's also interesting to note that several of the recent news releases omit the word "forces". Probably just by accident of course. Taylor also supplies some interesting commentary of his own:

Link to the YouTube video and the Blog: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/

The Conservatives can hardly be blamed for both debating what appeared to be Mr. Dion's divergent foreign policy proposal, and they cannot be blamed for taking the Liberal leader at his literal word. Now Mr. Dion has said that he means "diplomacy" and not "force" even though he called for considering "NATO forces" in Pakistan. Either one of two things then happened. Mr. Dion either realized the faults of his proposal and climbed down in the face of being battered on an already weak file of his. Or the Liberal leader misspoke, which is known to happen. However, misinterpreting Dion's intent based on his words has really only been known to happen in English. Is it possible that Mr. Dion made a gaffe in French about an issue that was on the top of his mind (he had just come back from his first trip to Afghanistan)? It's possible, but its not probable. I believe that Mr. Dion was proposing a new track even if it's a proposal for others to help develop his ideas. And in this, I honestly believe that this is where one of Mr. Dion's political faults lies; he takes an academic approach which is better suited to the safe environment of a "what-if" university seminar. Such an environment is the incubator to under-developed ideas and untested policy proposals. The national stage is no place to "spitball" ideas.
Some will say that they've found it refreshing to hear a Canadian politician "tell it like it is on Pakistan" and "say what we've all been thinking". Pakistan has been a laggard when it comes to taking care of the radical elements in its western province. Like most Canadians, I am concerned about our inability to address this problem directly. Yet, Pakistan is a sovereign country that has the jurisdiction over its own security. Most Canadians would agree that the only scenarios that would allow military presence within Pakistan's borders would be either with the permission of the Pakistani government, or with a broad international consensus to violate Pakistan's sovereignty. The Pakistani government is not about to allow any western nation to put our soldiers on the ground there (this is a well known sentiment of the Musharraf government - so it is surprising that Mr. Dion suggested this). Further, the UN is not on the verge on granting any military the authority to violate Pakistan's sovereignty. Mr. Dion's statements were ill-conceived and more theoretical than practical in nature.

jdobbin · January 19, 2008

I would say you are playing games and it doesn't become you. Yes the Liberal Party took on some pretty light weight missions and they certainly ended on their mandated date. They also took on a few robust missions and they lasted longer...far longer. This is nothing to brag or crow about. It is plain what Army Guy meant and I sure you are smart enough to know what he meant to and that is, conflicts that Canada has been involved with wether peacekeeping or combat tend to go on a lot longer than 2 years.

It seems people won't answer the question about Kosovo and Cyprus. Do you or do you not think our missions ended there or do you think we abandoned those places? I happen to believe we fulfilled both the timeframe and objectives set for each mission and handed them over better than we found them. I don't consider the missions lightweight and think what you say is an insult to the troops who served there.

Some people in this forum say a mission doesn't end until the place becomes a tourist destination for the family. Our military and government has never considered that to be an objective. Quite honestly, have ever heard of anyone thinking that is an objective where our military forces couldn't leave until the situation was perfect. I think that is playing games and it doesn't become some of the posters here.

We set deadlines and benchmarks so that we can gauge the success of our objectives. By 2009, we will have served many years in combat and in an alliance, a good alliance, we should be expected to be rotated out. We certainly don't keep the same units of our own military in place for more than two years. Why do we expect Canada's entire military can't be rotated elsewhere?

Edited January 19, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · January 19, 2008

Stephen Taylor's Blog contains a YouTube of the actual Dion interview. I did not realize that Dion made his comments in French - in which he clearly uses the term "NATO Forces". I was willing to consider the fact that he mis-spoke in English - but now I can't. It's also interesting to note that several of the recent news releases omit the word "forces". Probably just by accident of course. Taylor also supplies some interesting commentary of his own:

I could care less if he stated NATO Forces. That is what is in Afghanistan, right? I also saw nothing to indicate that Dion was advocating intervention without Pakistan support. The quote does say "to help Pakistan to help us." Sounds diplomatic to me. Where does t say to send forces in without authorization? I think he specifically says if Pakistan feels it can't or won't, NATO should consider being involved.

Edited January 19, 2008 by jdobbin

Keepitsimple · January 19, 2008

I could care less if he stated NATO Forces. That is what is in Afghanistan, right? I also saw nothing to indicate that Dion was advocating intervention without Pakistan support. The quote does say "to help Pakistan to help us." Sounds diplomatic to me. Where does t say to send forces in without authorization? I think he specifically says if Pakistan feels it can't or won't, NATO should consider being involved.

Perhaps you don't care - but Pakistan does. Jdobbin - you just can't bring yourself to say the guy could have chosen better words - can you? You're too funny. By the way, Mansbridge has a one-on-one scheduled with Dion at 4:30 EST and again at 9:30 - specifically to address this issue and I guess, Dion's overall foreign policy.

jdobbin · January 19, 2008

Perhaps you don't care - but Pakistan does. Jdobbin - you just can't bring yourself to say the guy could have chosen better words - can you? You're too funny. By the way, Mansbridge has a one-on-one scheduled with Dion at 4:30 EST and again at 9:30 - specifically to address this issue and I guess, Dion's overall foreign policy.

Pakistan's bluster over their peace loving state is Musharaf's way of trying to build popular support against an attack that wasn't even proposed. It seems it is in the partisan interest of the right wing here to try to promote that idea though.

As I said, I don't see anything in English or French to indicate a unilateral attack and that is how the Tories and Musharaf are trying to frame it.

Keepitsimple · January 20, 2008

Pakistan's bluster over their peace loving state is Musharaf's way of trying to build popular support against an attack that wasn't even proposed. It seems it is in the partisan interest of the right wing here to try to promote that idea though.
As I said, I don't see anything in English or French to indicate a unilateral attack and that is how the Tories and Musharaf are trying to frame it.

Jdobbin - you are a hard-headed fellow. Of course Dion did not really mean to imply a unilateral attack...but his unwise choice of words resulted in many people, including Pakistan, thinking that if he were the PM in Canada, he would seriously consider using NATO forces if Pakistan were incapable of stemming the flow across the border. His words can easily be interpreted in that fashion. Surely a bright fellow like yourself can see that.

jdobbin · January 20, 2008

Jdobbin - you are a hard-headed fellow. Of course Dion did not really mean to imply a unilateral attack...but his unwise choice of words resulted in many people, including Pakistan, thinking that if he were the PM in Canada, he would seriously consider using NATO forces if Pakistan were incapable of stemming the flow across the border. His words can easily be interpreted in that fashion. Surely a bright fellow like yourself can see that.

Pakistan is incapable of stemming the flow. McKay himself has said so many times. In fact, there has been some evidence that Pakistan authorities have helped the Taliban against NATO forces.

The Tory government is willfully trying to spin what Dion said to imply that if Dion were PM, he would act unilaterally or push NATO to so against Pakistan. He never said that at all and unfortunately, McKay is cozying up to the Pakistan regime for crass partisan reasons.

Keepitsimple · January 20, 2008

Pakistan is incapable of stemming the flow. McKay himself has said so many times. In fact, there has been some evidence that Pakistan authorities have helped the Taliban against NATO forces.
The Tory government is willfully trying to spin what Dion said to imply that if Dion were PM, he would act unilaterally or push NATO to so against Pakistan. He never said that at all and unfortunately, McKay is cozying up to the Pakistan regime for crass partisan reasons.

Like I said - you're a hard-headed fellow. He chose his words poorly - and doing that in the world of foreign affairs, you're just asking for trouble. Can you imagine the brouhaha if Harper would have said that when Martin or Chretien were in power. They'd be all over him - with CBC and The Star leading the way.

jdobbin · January 20, 2008

Like I said - you're a hard-headed fellow. He chose his words poorly - and doing that in the world of foreign affairs, you're just asking for trouble. Can you imagine the brouhaha if Harper would have said that when Martin or Chretien were in power. They'd be all over him - with CBC and The Star leading the way.

I think the whole issue is a phony one that the Tories have concocted.

M.Dancer · January 20, 2008

I think the whole issue is a phony one that the Tories have concocted.

That Stephen Harper...he's so devious, he MADE Dion act like a rank amateur and even gave him the shoe horn for his foot in mouth....

...I think Canadians know exactly what Dion meant at the time and they know Dion and the party are in full spin control mode.

I expect this will be seen in the next leadership poll....Dion will be still at the bottom.

jdobbin · January 20, 2008

I expect this will be seen in the next leadership poll....Dion will be still at the bottom.

I expect the Tories will be hurt for their midnight firing on the Nuclear regulator.

Edited January 20, 2008 by jdobbin

Topaz · January 20, 2008

Just maybe the answer to this debated question is for NATO to stay inside Afghanistan's border and keep out Taliban there and let the US send in their "special forces" as Bush has said. What is Pakistan going to do, attack the US forces?