Harper gives Bush ultimatum on troops

[Alexandra]

Should the various NATO countries fail to step up to the challenge with the usual excuses believing S. Harper will back down they will be in for a bit of a shock.

By Alexandre Deslongchamps

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. President George W. Bush by telephone that he'll pull Canada's troops from Afghanistan next year if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't provide more help.

Harper told Bush today that NATO must meet conditions recommended by a government-commissioned panel on Jan. 22, according to Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for the prime minister. The panel said NATO should provide about 1,000 more troops in the dangerous Kandahar region and arrange for additional military equipment.

Harper will spend ``the coming weeks discussing the government's response with leaders and other key players,'' Buckler said by e-mail.

`

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mp;refer=canada

[bush_cheney2004]

Should the various NATO countries fail to step up to the challenge with the usual excuses believing S. Harper will back down they will be in for a bit of a shock.

`

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mp;refer=canada

Why is this President Bush's problem? Is there a paucity of American troops, tactical air, ROVs, artillery, or medium and heavy airlift? Canada wants NATO to commit more of the same or it will go home in 2009 (a year away)? What will PM Harper do until then? Seems to me that the Americans have experienced far more casualties than Canada, and never threatened to go home if Canada didn't provide more troops and helos.

Even if Bush or other NATO allies comply with PM Harper's demands, there is no guarantee that Canada won't leave anyway. The Tories are only one confidence vote from being turfed.

Edited January 31, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Why is this President Bush's problem?

The thread title is misleading. Harper delivered the 'ultimatum' to NATO, not to Bush or the US. Apparently, he spoke to Bush about this in a telephone conversation.

[bush_cheney2004]

The thread title is misleading. Harper delivered the 'ultimatum' to NATO, not to Bush or the US. Apparently, he spoke to Bush about this in a telephone conversation.

I agree, but another headline also sexes things up:

Harper to Bush: Canada needs more combat aid

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[Wilber]

Harper commissioned the panel and he is pretty much stuck with it's conclusions domestically. On the other hand it gives him more leverage when it comes to pushing others to step up to the plate. As we rely on the US more than anyone in Afghanistan it stands to reason that he would keep Bush informed of his intentions and options.

[Peter F]

Harper commissioned the panel and he is pretty much stuck with it's conclusions domestically. On the other hand it gives him more leverage when it comes to pushing others to step up to the plate. As we rely on the US more than anyone in Afghanistan it stands to reason that he would keep Bush informed of his intentions and options.

Harper has no options. We're stuck holding the bag. But the Manley's Commission said what it said so Harper has to make some effort to comply with its recommendations. Who knows? Perhaps somebody will come up with the troops and equipement and all will be well - or perhaps not.

But we aren't going to leave in 2009 because we can't just pack up and leave - hell, we won't even be able to draw down our committment levels.

We're there for two or three more years wether we want to be or not. Once the Afghan army is 'sufficiently' trained and manned then we will declare victory and leave. With Nato or without.

[Wilber]

Harper has no options. We're stuck holding the bag. But the Manley's Commission said what it said so Harper has to make some effort to comply with its recommendations. Who knows? Perhaps somebody will come up with the troops and equipement and all will be well - or perhaps not.

It gave Harper an out without losing face and the rest of NATO knows it.

[blueblood]

Jeez, Harper is not only playing master strategist at home, he's now doing it on the international stage. He's doing to NATO, what he's doing to Dion. HE has their nuts in a vice. Well played Harper, he can't lose.

[Peter F]

Jeez, Harper is not only playing master strategist at home, he's now doing it on the international stage. He's doing to NATO, what he's doing to Dion. HE has their nuts in a vice. Well played Harper, he can't lose.

Yeah, their nuts in a vice allright...

byline: Mike Blanchfield and Brian Hutchinson, Canwest News Service

Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008

OTTAWA -- NATO is determined to keep the Canadian Forces in southern Afghanistan and will lean on its members to find the additional 1,000 troops called for in the Manley report.

NATO has fully endorsed the findings of the independent panel headed by the former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley on Canada's future military involvement in Afghanistan, and also threw its full weight behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper's efforts to persuade allies to supply more troops to southern Afghanistan -- the key condition for Canada continuing its combat mission beyond February 2009.

"We will work with Canada and play our part in support of Prime Minister Harper's efforts to find those other contributions," NATO's chief spokesman James Appathurai said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with the Canwest News Service from Brussels.

National Post 30 January

Meaning Canada's holding the bag so why should NATO worry?

Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service

Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

BRUSSELS -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper is engaging in unnecessary, irrelevant and "overheated" speculation when he suggests a Canadian troop pullout from Afghanistan could jeopardize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a NATO official said here Tuesday.

Canadians have every right to debate the future of Canada's "key" military role in Afghanistan that has led to a disproportionately high number of Canadian casualties, NATO spokesman James Appathurai told reporters.

But he challenged Harper's grim speculation about the future of NATO, an alliance founded by the U.S., western Europe and Canada in 1949 as a bulwark against the possible military threat from the old Soviet Union.

"I think that making links between this [Canada's possible withdrawal] and NATO's credibility are frankly ... unnecessary," he said.

"We understand the Canadian position that a thousand more troops are needed in Kandahar. But let's not link what is a successful mission with 37 countries [or] NATO's 60-year credibility to this. That simply is not really relevant."

National Post 29 January

...and, no, NATO isn't dreadfully concerned about Canada's position. They know we aren't going anywhere...

[eyeball]

I don't see Harper or NATO or anyone in the west doing much if anything until they have a clearer idea what the US election will bring. In the short term a harsh winter will likely keep the fighting in Afghanistan to a minimum but as the year wears on and things heat up - the pucker factor around the PMO's office should be just about enough to give everyone a case of chest-pains and diarreah.

It'll be a good year for warlords, dictators and pundits.

[Topaz]

Jeez, Harper is not only playing master strategist at home, he's now doing it on the international stage. He's doing to NATO, what he's doing to Dion. HE has their nuts in a vice. Well played Harper, he can't lose.

That's not true. As long as Canadian soldiers come home in a casket, Harper is losing. It will take years to win this war and the Taliban have more people as replacements than the NATO does. IF they start to bomb again and Afghans get killed in the process then NATO hears it from it Afghanistan's president. NO ONE wins at war.

[blueblood]

That's not true. As long as Canadian soldiers come home in a casket, Harper is losing. It will take years to win this war and the Taliban have more people as replacements than the NATO does. IF they start to bomb again and Afghans get killed in the process then NATO hears it from it Afghanistan's president. NO ONE wins at war.

I didn't agree to the war in the first place, but since they are there now, they should do their jobs and do them well and as quickly as possible. Our army should get more credit than that, it is defeatist attitudes like that which result in wars getting lost and enables real bad people to do real bad things, Germany anyone...

Have you checked out the kill ratio's over there? The Taliban are getting cleaned out.

Also why is the Liberal Party split on the issue?

I was alluding to Harper's political strategy in General and how he has his opponents boxed into a corner. The Liberals are sitting on their hands and the longer the tories are in power the better they look. With this Manley report, Harper can now go to NATO and tell them to send more troops or he pulls the plug. He has the Liberals boxed in by agreeing with a report by a prominent Liberal and he has NATO boxed in by threatening to pull the plug and take pot shots at the lazy NATO countries at his leisure. If Canada pulls out of the South, and it goes to hell in a handbasket, Harper puts the blame squarely on NATO for doing a half assed job.

[rbacon]

He should have given it to NATO and the UN as it is not a US action but a NATO and UN action.

[Peter F]

I was alluding to Harper's political strategy in General and how he has his opponents boxed into a corner. The Liberals are sitting on their hands and the longer the tories are in power the better they look. With this Manley report, Harper can now go to NATO and tell them to send more troops or he pulls the plug. He has the Liberals boxed in by agreeing with a report by a prominent Liberal and he has NATO boxed in by threatening to pull the plug and take pot shots at the lazy NATO countries at his leisure. If Canada pulls out of the South, and it goes to hell in a handbasket, Harper puts the blame squarely on NATO for doing a half assed job.

I don't think so. Harper's the loser in this one. Nato doesn't have to do anything. Most of the NATO country's are not interested in 'combat' in Afghanistan, exceptions being the Dutch and British - but even they are not willing to increase thier committments either.

So who gives a hoot what a Canadian commission says? If the Americans turn a screw or two perhaps NATO as a whole will come up with some more troops - but so what?

NATO is kicking Taliban ass around the countryside even if we are a thousand troops short - and even if we don't have helicopters and even if we didn't have tanks with 120mm guns instead of old fashioned 105mm guns, and even if the troops were wearing green camo and not brown camo.

Canada is not going to pull the plug even if NATO doesn't pony up. Its all empty threats and NATO knows it, for there is nobody to replace us except for the Americans and they would be highly upset should Canada 'pull the plug' as you say.

Canada isn't going anywhere for a couple of more years. Harper has no options and NATO knows it.

[White Doors]

That's not true. As long as Canadian soldiers come home in a casket, Harper is losing. It will take years to win this war and the Taliban have more people as replacements than the NATO does. IF they start to bomb again and Afghans get killed in the process then NATO hears it from it Afghanistan's president. NO ONE wins at war.

wait.. do I really want to dignify this with a response?

nah. I'll leave it be..

carry on.

[capricorn]

As the BBC put it:

"Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued both US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown with an ultimatum - that Canada will end its military mission in Afghanistan if Nato does not put more soldiers in the dangerous south of the country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7221485.stm

Check out the map at the end of the article that shows where NATO allies are deployed.

No doubt the Manley report gave Harper the tool necessary to put pressure on NATO in general and on specific allies. The meeting in Bucharest in April will be pivotal for the direction NATO takes in Afghanistan.

[Argus]

As the BBC put it:

"Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has issued both US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown with an ultimatum - that Canada will end its military mission in Afghanistan if Nato does not put more soldiers in the dangerous south of the country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7221485.stm

Check out the map at the end of the article that shows where NATO allies are deployed.

No doubt the Manley report gave Harper the tool necessary to put pressure on NATO in general and on specific allies. The meeting in Bucharest in April will be pivotal for the direction NATO takes in Afghanistan.

The "specific allies" to which you refer could not care less what happens to Afghanistan, except in the abstract. It doesn't personally affect the leaders of those nations nearly as much as the anti-militarism, anti-American voters who would support someone else if they got involved in combat.

And, in fact, if Canada itself had the national will we wouldn't be whining after our allies to come and bail us out. These are a few scruffy, illiterate religious fanatics, easily swept away by the strength Canada could once have wilded - before we lost that national will, got rid of most of our military, and failed to properly equip the military which we still posess.

[Topaz]

The "specific allies" to which you refer could not care less what happens to Afghanistan, except in the abstract. It doesn't personally affect the leaders of those nations nearly as much as the anti-militarism, anti-American voters who would support someone else if they got involved in combat.

And, in fact, if Canada itself had the national will we wouldn't be whining after our allies to come and bail us out. These are a few scruffy, illiterate religious fanatics, easily swept away by the strength Canada could once have wilded - before we lost that national will, got rid of most of our military, and failed to properly equip the military which we still posess.

You really think so. Who helped the Taiban take down the Russia....the US. Don't you think that NATO is fighting the Taliban who may have help of other countries like Iran China and Russia?? The Tailban want the US military out of the AFGHANISTAN and will fight them like they did the Russians. Canada may want to help the people of this country but there are too many unknowns and too much corruption with that government. How do we know who to trust?? McKay stood up today and said he had talked to the governor about the torturing of prisoners. Little did McKay know that this very guy is the one allowing torture to happen!! How much experience have any of these Conservatives have when dealing with a war and all that goes with it??

[capricorn]

McKay stood up today and said he had talked to the governor about the torturing of prisoners. Little did McKay know that this very guy is the one allowing torture to happen!!

Are you saying McKay didn't know when he stood up today, or he didn't know in the past. Big difference IMO

How much experience have any of these Conservatives have when dealing with a war and all that goes with it??

The Conservatives have as much "war" experience as Martin's Liberals who are the ones that assigned our troops to the most dangerous part of Afghanistan.

[eyeball]

I didn't agree to the war in the first place, but since they are there now, they should do their jobs and do them well and as quickly as possible.

What changed your mind and how do we do this quickly and avoid doing a half-assed job as a result?

If Canada pulls out of the South, and it goes to hell in a handbasket, Harper puts the blame squarely on NATO for doing a half assed job.

Yep. I doubt very much that Harper will do a half assed job of covering his own.

[Ergonomic]

Harper is using extortion to pry miltary funding out of the US Presidential election.

[Oleg Bach]

What changed your mind and how do we do this quickly and avoid doing a half-assed job as a result?

Yep. I doubt very much that Harper will do a half assed job of covering his own.

The whole affair was "half assed". NATO and the rest approached the matter half heartedly to say the least because there was no clear agenda other than some adventurism for some powerful people and as I have mentioned there was always the spectre of crimminality on all parts - that still looms on the horizon - dope...and a manly contest between white guys in the board room and some bearded fellows with more ancient manlyness than these western adventureist could ever hope to achieve. If Harper bails out - I am sure that he is hoping to blame it on NATO - and of course the Europeans are much more in tune to this type of colonialist enterprise than we are - they just want out - the fun is over - and there is no God Damn training camps in the rocky hills were young men will learn to fly a jumbo in to the CN Tower...the whole thing was reactionary and ubsurd - but - it provided a nice diversion for our spoiled brats that want to rule the world and that are embarassed that they are not men in the ancient sense.

[blueblood]

What changed your mind and how do we do this quickly and avoid doing a half-assed job as a result?

Yep. I doubt very much that Harper will do a half assed job of covering his own.

Right off the gun I didn't agree to this war, but since we have troops in there I am not about to go undermine what they do and hope they do a good job and get it done.

[Topaz]

Are you saying McKay didn't know when he stood up today, or he didn't know in the past. Big difference IMO

The Conservatives have as much "war" experience as Martin's Liberals who are the ones that assigned our troops to the most dangerous part of Afghanistan.

Yes, Martin did for ONE YEAR. HARPER has extended to 2009 but he wants Canadians there until the job is done. Speaking of which the reason we went to Afghanistan was to get OBL. Well he's NOT THERE so why should we be there? What is Harper going to do when we start losing more guys and we get to less than a 1000 soldiers? If we are still there in 10 years then Harper's own son should sign up for duty because its the right thing to do for Canada, right?

[Argus]

Yes, Martin did for ONE YEAR. HARPER has extended to 2009 but he wants Canadians there until the job is done. Speaking of which the reason we went to Afghanistan was to get OBL. Well he's NOT THERE so why should we be there? What is Harper going to do when we start losing more guys and we get to less than a 1000 soldiers? If we are still there in 10 years then Harper's own son should sign up for duty because its the right thing to do for Canada, right?

We went to Afghanistan for a variety of reasons, among them so we wouldn't have to go to Iraq. We are supporting both our NATO allies - something novel for us - and the United Nations, whose Secretary General has written an open letter stating how important our work is and begging us to stay.

Martin would unquestionably have extended the mission had he won the election. And why not? There would not have been much national opposition had the Liberals not created it as a political lever against the Tories.