NATO, Afghanistan & Canada

August1991 · February 9, 2008

The following BBC article made me think about this but its map - linked below - really gave me pause:

Nato defence ministers have dismissed talk of a crisis over its operation in Afghanistan, saying the alliance was making good progress in the country.At their meeting in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, Nato defence ministers insisted that the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) was not failing in Afghanistan and that the alliance was not falling apart.
Emerging from the talks, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said he had been substantially encouraged by the progress made in the country.

"The picture leads me to tell you that I am cautiously optimistic, that there are challenges, that indeed we need more forces... and that our presence in Afghanistan means sharing responsibilities and also sharing risks," he said.

...

No nations publicly announced a decision to increase their troop numbers at the meeting, however, though French Defence Minister Herve Morin confirmed Paris was considering a greater role in Afghanistan.

"My message to the Canadian public is: be a bit patient," he said.

I decided to post the map separately. Take a look here.

Then, later, I read a column. I don't know who Rondi Abramson is and I'm a little surprised that the Toronto Star published her column:

The "deploy more NATO soldiers to Kandahar or we quit in 2009" threat contained in the Manley report strikes me as a sad reflection on current Canadian attitudes. It isn't that more troops would not be desirable. But what if no NATO country sends us a military "partner"?
According to the report, in spite of the ongoing violence, the Afghan economy has been growing, millions of refugees have returned, more children (of both genders) are in school, child mortality rates are improving and infrastructure is being built.

Are we so small-time and penny ante in our world view as to dismiss the progress made? Do we tell the unprepared Afghan forces and population, "Sorry, you're on your own"? Do we allow Afghanistan to again become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, again a threat to us and others?

While I agree with her, I don't think she goes far enough or even understands how serious this is.

----

If you go back to the map, and apply a little knowledge of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Canadians and British have taken the hard areas of Afghanistan. These are the places where entry to Afghanistan is confusing. The Americans have taken the lion's share of the trouble but along the natural mountainous and cultural border. The Dutch are in harm's way because they support Canadians. The Italians (God love them) are on the civilized side of the map.

Canada is playing an absolutely critical role in this mission and for a small country, we should be proud. Our men and women have taken the point position.

Does Afghanistan matter? I think it does.

The end of the Cold War in 1989/1991 signaled a new era. As opposed to the past 100 years when we faced a dictator or a Politburo, for the next 100 years or so, we'll face something different. We won't face a dictator or Politburo. For the civilized West now, the problem/threat is the uncivilized elsewhere - the rogue States, the failed regimes, the basketcases. I have travelled enough in the world to know what these places are like. Such regimes are not really countries; their politicians are gangsters (like gangsters, they only lose power through death). Their UN representatives do not speak in the people's name. They are not democracies. They are uncivilized.

In the past 20 years or so, we in the civilized West have been struggling to figure out how we will manage this post-Cold War world. We have tried different coalitions and arrangements. Bush Snr first put together a post-Cold War UN coalition to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Clinton got NATO and the UN to deal with Yugoslavia. Bush Jnr invoked NATO to deal with Afghanistan and then got the UK (Blair) and Aus (Howard) to invade Iraq.

We can't give up on these efforts and we should be proud that Canadians are (usually) the first to volunteer. We have before us the possibility of people around the planet living in some kind of peace and enjoying some kind of freedom. To make this possible, civilized countries have to ensure that they can impose order. Without order, there is no individual freedom.

Apart from these other efforts, Afghanistan is a good place to start. Afghanistan provided a haven for bin Laden to organize his attack on Manhatten - one of the most civilized places on the planet. To deal with Afghanistan, we civilized countries have to do this together.

Canada should not shirk now and this NATO mission is critical for what will happen in the next 100 years or so. Our children and grandchildren will be proud.

Edited February 9, 2008 by August1991

jdobbin · February 9, 2008

Canada should not shirk now and this NATO mission is critical for what will happen in the next 100 years or so. Our children and grandchildren will be proud.

If NATO thinks a two tier system of doing its duty is going to work, they are sadly mistaken. Also, it would be nice if there was at least a glimmer of hope that Afghanistan was going to be able to take of itself and not be as bad as the Taliban used to be in terms of violence against its own people.

And I think you mean Rondi Adamson. This writer contributes to the Ottawa Citizen and is a bit of a hawk.

Edited February 9, 2008 by jdobbin

eyeball · February 9, 2008

Our children and grandchildren will still be trying to clean up the mess we still refuse to touch with a ten foot pole. The mess that our parents and grandparents left us....blowback...root causes...

"You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation for the others. That is what the Western world -- not only the Americans, the Western world -- has to realize. Because they are human beings too. There are long-term consequences,"
"And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."

Jean Chrétien

bush_cheney2004 · February 9, 2008

Our children and grandchildren will still be trying to clean up the mess we still refuse to touch with a ten foot pole. The mess that our parents and grandparents left us....blowback...root causes...

Tisk..a pity...but it will give them something to do. The parents and grandparents left far more to be thankful for.

August1991 · February 9, 2008

Our children and grandchildren will still be trying to clean up the mess we still refuse to touch with a ten foot pole. The mess that our parents and grandparents left us....blowback...root causes...

Eyeball, go and live in Sri Lanka for a year or two. Then, come back and tell us how human beings by nature are understanding and cooperative - if only governments could control the short-term minded, profit-obsessed corporations.

Eyeball, you're missing a broader point. How do we protect ourselves in the next 100 or 200 years? The Communists are gone. (The only socialists now are boomer 60 year-old university professors.)

In the future, when the boomers are dead, we will confront people that Galileo faced - medievalists.

----

Far more broadly, and returning to the OP, Canadians should be on the right side of this question. Now is a moment to stand up and support what our troops are doing in Afghanistan. This should not be a question.

Edited February 9, 2008 by August1991

Oleg Bach · February 9, 2008

Eyeball, go and live in Sri Lanka for a year or two. Then, come back and tell us how human beings by nature are understanding and cooperative - if only governments could control the short-term minded, profit-obsessed corporations.
Eyeball, you're missing a broader point. How do we protect ourselves in the next 100 or 200 years? The Communists are gone. (The only socialists now are boomer 60 year-old university professors.)

In the future, when the boomers are dead, we will confront people that Galileo faced - medievalists.

----

Far more broadly, and returning to the OP, Canadians should be on the right side of this question. Now is a moment to stand up and support what our troops are doing in Afghanistan. This should not be a question.

Shall I repeat it once more the way the world works? ALL wars are quietly arranged - by the incrowd...they are buisness - always have been and always will be. As some poor grunt is hiding behind a rock trying not to get his head blown off, there are a couple of guys with great influence making through a third party another deal for arms and also talking in a kind of code about opium prices. - as for when us boomers or in my case - an adult child of war is dead and gone - the "midievalists" as you so well put it will have their grandchildren fully trained in they will take the seat of dark power and rule this fuedal hell. Welcome to what is the brave new world run buy crimminal cowards - once I am gone and others like me - the light will simply go out and civilization will desolve like butter on the pavement...Getting back to Afgahanistan - let the elite lawyers that talk to Washington and Ottawa - send their damn grandsons to die in Afganistan - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

August1991 · February 9, 2008

Shall I repeat it once more the way the world works? ALL wars are quietly arranged - by the incrowd...they are buisness - always have been and always will be.

Oleg, have you ever been mugged?

Has someone ever violently stolen your bag?

It happened to me and I realized then that I couldn't deal alone with evil people in this world. (Bad people exist.)

----

In a civilized society, we give police guns but we forbid everyone else to have a gun. In Canada, police can have handguns but ordinary Canadians cannot. Canada is civilized.

In a civilized world, some governments have the right to invade other countries to control rogue or criminal gangsters. Some civilized governments have the right to use nuclear weapons. But not all governments. IOW, the US Second Amendment is crazy and the world needs gun control.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Oleg Bach · February 9, 2008

Oleg, have you ever been mugged?
Has someone ever violently stolen your bag?

It happened to me and I realized then that I couldn't deal alone with evil people in this world. (Bad people exist.)

----

In a civilized society, we give police guns but we forbid everyone else to have a gun. In Canada, police can have handguns but ordinary Canadians cannot. Canada is civilized.

In a civilized world, some governments have the right to invade other countries to control rogue or criminal gangsters. Some civilized governments have the right to use nuclear weapons. But not all governments. IOW, the US Second Amendment is crazy and the world needs gun control.

Welcome to the 21st century.

No one would dear to mug me - I would harm them. Having said that and my point is that at this point in my life it is about survivaL. I have seen the world repidly change...sure we are the lesser of the evil - but still evil persists and seems to be winning even in Canada - can't help the fact that I have come to the conclution in the last five years...and yes they were the roughest of my life - that there is no ture justice here...if there is no justice - then HOW can you say we are civlized...we are just as barbaric as the ones we invade - Knowing in the past some men of great influence and power - I came to the conclution they were simply very respectable mafia..and I am talking about a now deceased arms dealer - and a living older lawyer that loves to toy with society - appointing judges and effecting foriegn policy - getting down to the crunch - these types of men will not kill you as is done in MORE barbaric nations - but they can influence - and slowly ruin you life and drive you into the streets.

I like the term "rouge" gangsters that you used..in other words - if they are our gangsters then they are legit - if they are competors then they are rouges or crimminals or mavericks of some sort...Tell me what nation is "civilized" enough to as you say "have the right to USE nuclear weapons" - the fact that they fail at communication and possibly will use a nuclear weapon shows clearly they are not civlized...so you can talk all you want - I have totally lost faith in society and our leaders and their handlers - we are a cruel and dangerous breed and are guilty of great usery - I just can't take you seriously any more - I wish I could help..but I am aging and just trying to survive - I gave it a good try - and as one man - I faltered and failed to make improvements in the world - thanks friend.

August1991 · February 9, 2008

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion warned Friday the country could be headed for a spring election unless the Harper government backs down from its position on the Afghanistan war.
"If the government doesn't want to do anything to explore that our views might be compatible after February 2009 . . . the government will look as usual intransigent and the consequence may be an election," Dion told reporters in Vancouver.

...

Earlier in the day, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff struck a more conciliatory tone than Dion.

"This is the most important thing Canada's done in 50 years. We are anxious to work with the government to find a respectable, honourable compromise that serves the national interest."

CanWest

Also, it would be nice if there was at least a glimmer of hope that Afghanistan was going to be able to take of itself and not be as bad as the Taliban used to be in terms of violence against its own people.

The federal Liberals have their own way to pose the question. Yet neither Dion, Ignatieff nor our own Dobbin sees well the question. (I'll admit that Dobbin is far above Cherniak... )

All things considered, what does Afghanistan involve? Why do we ask young Canadians to risk their lives to go there?

In the future, will we face more situations like Afghanistan?

Edited February 9, 2008 by August1991

myata · February 9, 2008

It's really quite simple. No need to build phylosophical foundations around plain and simple lack of judgment.

The US bangled into Afghanistan because its president (and the crowd around him) needed quick fix to the 9/11 tragedy. They also had this wonderful "domino effect" theory, in plain words, that the whole world can't wait to become one big America, and only a few evil baddies stand in the way of the eternal bliss.

The other "partners" followed because they were either hand twisted into it, or chose it as a lesser of evils, compared to going into Iraq (which had next to zero lawful justification, compared to at least appearance thereof in the case of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan). Interestingly, Iraq too was quoted in the context of this thoughtful argument (i.e us against the throng of barbarians). Of course, nobody ever remembered to ask (or maybe, was really interested to know??) what was it that set them barbarians on the collision course in the thirst place? and what realistic chance they have to inflict any serious harm upon us? before calling into action such dramatic actions.

Not Manley nor anybody else has even try to prove that the task it is realistically doable. We're talking about converting a feodal society into modern ways of democracy, in the matter of couple decades. It's pure and simple, an illusion, and a pipe dream. We'll waste money, lose lives, and retreat, as others before us, when the cost will become unbearable, leaving to Afghans to sort out the mess. By which time, the mess, thanks to our uncalled for (in our usual manner) interference, may become much worse, than it could have been.

Could have been, that is, if we tried a more intelligent and also, civilized, approach (no, it's really too much to expect from us, boasting so much of moral, intellectual, technological and god knows what else superiourity), i.e. to try to work out open and honest rules of interaction with other and different societies, without trying to impose our values, ways of life, modes of governance, etc, upon them.

eyeball · February 9, 2008

Far more broadly, and returning to the OP, Canadians should be on the right side of this question. Now is a moment to stand up and support what our troops are doing in Afghanistan. This should not be a question.

That doesn't change the fact that it still is one.

myata · February 10, 2008

Oh, and I skipped over that common wisdom. So when is the right time to question wrong decisions?

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2008

Oh, and I skipped over that common wisdom. So when is the right time to question wrong decisions?

When you have better answers, not just more questions.

Edited February 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

Peter F · February 10, 2008

When you have better answers, not just more questions.

There are no answers to the present situation. As the Manley Report spells out the only viable option Canada has is to remain in place and beg NATO to supply more toops and helicopters and if not then please , someone - anyone - please take over for us because Canada cannot accomplish our security goals without that support.

Really good planning the Libs and Hillier pulled off.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Peter F

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2008

There are no answers to the present situation. As the Manley Report spells out the only viable option Canada has is to remain in place and beg NATO to supply more toops and helicopters and if not then please , someone - anyone - please take over for us because Canada cannot accomplish our security goals without that support.
Really good planning the Libs and Hillier pulled off.

There are answers in the Manley Report...it's just a matter of how much you want to spend...or save. Why wouldn't Canada make more of the commitment that it accuses other NATO nations of abandoning?

Peter F · February 10, 2008

There are answers in the Manley Report...it's just a matter of how much you want to spend...or save. Why wouldn't Canada make more of the commitment that it accuses other NATO nations of abandoning?

I suppose we could. We bought a bunch of new tanks and new Hercs and new IFV's and increased recruiting.

But we arn't and Manley nor the Government nor Gen.Hillier recommend we send more troops and lease the helicopters to complete the job we signed onto.

Rather strange isn't it? It's almost as if they don't want to reinforce failure...

Peter F · February 10, 2008

There are answers in the Manley Report...

The only answers I saw were trying to convince the other NATO allies to commit more troops/equipment/money and try to convince ISAF to better organize the operation and try to convince the Afhan government to crack down on the corruption.

IE: the succesfull realization of Canada's goal in Kandahar is dependant upon what everyone else doe's or doesn't do. We can't do what we said we were going to do yet we can't leave either. We have not the wherewithall to stay nor wit enough to run away.

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2008

I suppose we could. We bought a bunch of new tanks and new Hercs and new IFV's and increased recruiting.
But we arn't and Manley nor the Government nor Gen.Hillier recommend we send more troops and lease the helicopters to complete the job we signed onto.

Rather strange isn't it? It's almost as if they don't want to reinforce failure...

It really doesn't make any sense...this is not a "hobby war". Sharing the burden fairly with other NATO partners is a secondary issue. Even if France comes through with reinforcements, I'm sure the domestic tap dance will continue.

It's like saying the US will leave Afghanistan in 2009 if Obama becomes the American president. Unthinkable...right?

Peter F · February 10, 2008

It really doesn't make any sense...this is not a "hobby war". Sharing the burden fairly with other NATO partners is a secondary issue. Even if France comes through with reinforcements, I'm sure the domestic tap dance will continue.
It's like saying the US will leave Afghanistan in 2009 if Obama becomes the American president. Unthinkable...right?

It's not a 'hobby war' anymore. I think it was up to 2005 - not for the troops on the ground, of course - but certainly for the folks in Ottawa on parliament hill and at DND HQ.

bush_cheney2004 · February 10, 2008

It's not a 'hobby war' anymore. I think it was up to 2005 - not for the troops on the ground, of course - but certainly for the folks in Ottawa on parliament hill and at DND HQ.

The troops must be asking, "WTF".....Ottawa is playing a game of chicken with NATO while their asses are on the line? Spend the money or go home.

capricorn · February 10, 2008

The troops must be asking, "WTF".....Ottawa is playing a game of chicken with NATO while their asses are on the line? Spend the money or go home.

That's what we get with a minority government. Political posturing and waffling. As for the troops, the mission is clear to them and they'll continue doing what they do best until the plug is pulled. Not unlike the US troops in Iraq.

apollo19 · February 10, 2008

The federal Liberals have their own way to pose the question. Yet neither Dion, Ignatieff nor our own Dobbin sees well the question. (I'll admit that Dobbin is far above Cherniak... )
All things considered, what does Afghanistan involve? Why do we ask young Canadians to risk their lives to go there?

In the future, will we face more situations like Afghanistan?

I think Ignatieff does see the issue properly, but he cannot stake out the position of supporting a combat role while being Dion's deputy leader (though I think it is quite clear he does support it, based on his voting last year for the extension). The report generally has it right, in that Canada does need support in Kandahar. The easy way out of this issue would have been the Americans adding more troops to help Canada, but (thankfully) the pressure has been applied to other NATO nations.

So many people hope for involvement in Darfur, yet they are quick to advocate changing what Canada does in Afghanistan. It would be a shame if we step away from taking the lead in moving towards goals virtually every Canadian agrees with. We also need to energize other nations to move towards missions which support human rights and development, and I think the first step has been taken with France considering sending troops into combat in Kandahar. There is no doubt that we will see more of these Darfur/Afghanistan cases in the coming years, and there is also no doubt that 20 years down the road, Afghanistan won't remain dead last on so many lists measuring human welfare.

myata · February 10, 2008

What Canadians (potentially) want to do in Darfour, is to stop mass crime against population. Not "rebuild" Sudan, nor establish a modern "democratic" society there.

Those are two very different objectives. One is noble, and viable. The other, would be, idealistic (to say it very mildly) and destined to fail.

Peter F · February 10, 2008

The troops must be asking, "WTF".....Ottawa is playing a game of chicken with NATO while their asses are on the line? Spend the money or go home.

'Spend the money or go home'....absolutely. Canada can't go home so it follows that we must spend the money (through increased committment) to see the thing through. But Canada isn't going to do that either.

edit to add:

As for the troops asking 'WTF'... if Army Guy is representative, they are asking WTF. But they are asking it of the citizenry of Canada - particularly people like me or myata - WTF why don't we support the mission? In itself its a perfectly reasonable question, but really the question of WTF is misdirected.

Nobody has yet said WTF to the Prime Minister who is going to use the present 'falling between two stools' situation to win the upcoming election. Nobody has yet said to Gen.Hillier WTF when he has been using the present 'falling between two stools' situation as a means to get all that new equipment. Hell, it would normally have taken the beurocracy 10 years to acquire new tanks. Hillier pulled it off in less than 2.

He's playing rock soup...but nobody's aking him WTF.

But no, WTF gets directed at us wimpy peaceniks as if we are the ones to blame for the present situation.

Ignoring the fact that despite us peaceniks there they are and there they will remain.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Peter F

Topaz · February 10, 2008

Didn't NATO go into Afghanistan because the US said that the Taliban had OBL hiding there and when ask to turn over OBL to the US the Taliban said yes but the US invaded anyway? OBL supposedly went into the mountains and is suppose still be there. So why are we still fighting the Taliban? They had the drug-traded down to nothing. No one said anything about them and they way they lived until 9/11. The Taliban has said it won't talk peace until the foreigners leave especially the US. They say if you are there fighting for the US then you will die also. This is just the Taliban and not al Qaeda fighting. Even if we can beat the Taliban, religious beliefs will always top what the West calls abuses. We all know about the corrupt government and we don't even know were the Canadian millions are doing for sure. The drug traded is being supported by people in their government. As I have said before there are too many unknowns with this Afghan government to trust their word. McKay for example said he talked to the government about torturing prisoners. They will always torture their prisoners because they hate the Taliban. The President's father was killed by the Taliban! Gates is in Germany and he is now saying that if NATO doesn't stop the Taliban that the terrorism will spread through Europe. I think the Taliban only cares about Afghanistan and the US has no creditablity in the world thanks to Bush. That's why no country is willing to come forth to help in Afghanistan and I don't blame them. If the US wants that country and oil so bad, then THEY will put up the troops.