NATO, Afghanistan & Canada

[Peter F]

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?

No. The USofA demanded Afghanistan stop supporting terrorism to wich end they demanded Bin Laden and his alqueda cronies be turned over to the US. The Taliban refused so the USofA bombed the snot out of the Taliban lines so that the Northern Alliance could defeat the Taliban. NATO went into Afghanistan in support of the Americans after NATO determined that the USofA had been attacked by terrorists operating freely and without hindrance from Afghanistan.

OBL supposedly went into the mountains and is suppose still be there. So why are we still fighting the Taliban?

This is no longer about Bin Laden; It hasn't been since the Norther Alliance tossed the Taliban out of power. The Taliban, as you may have heard, is fighting a war with the present Afghn government to try to re-establish theocratic government. NATO, Canada included, is actively trying to keep the present Afghan government in power until such time as the Afghan army itself is deemed capable of doing that job.

They had the drug-traded down to nothing.

The drug trade - or lack of it - had nothing to do with choosing to toss the Taliban out.

No one said anything about them and they way they lived until 9/11.

Except for the UN wich passed various sanctions against Afghanistan for providing support and sustenance to Al Queda. But, on the whole, no Afghanistan was not worth the media covering for the most part. Thus the impression that no one said anything about them.

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.

Yes, they say lots of things. They also say God is on thier side. Yes it is the Taliban we are fighting, or at least Taliban, religious fanatics, wannabe warlords and various tribal riff-raff all under the Taliban umbrella.

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.

I have no idea where to begin with the above statement. Perhaps its all true. Perhaps not...Except for the oil part - there is nor has there been any oil in Afghanistan. Natural Gas perhaps and certainly some have hoped to get a NG pipeline run through Afghanistan But this isnt about oil. Iraq may be - but not Afghanistan. The USofA is putting up 50% of the troops in Afghanistan. Probably alot more if they feel the need... but then NATO is an alliance...

[myata]

It hasn't been since the Norther Alliance tossed the Taliban out of power.

OK, hold on, here. If they, as you say, "tossed" them out of power, why do they now need 50,000 (and apparently, that isn't enough) of foreign troops, just to hold on to it?

The Taliban, as you may have heard, is fighting a war with the present Afghn government to try to re-establish theocratic government. NATO, Canada included, is actively trying to keep the present Afghan government in power ...

Dead on, here. I.e., we know what government is good for them Afghanis, and we're sending our troops there to prop it at all cost.

[Peter F]

OK, hold on, here. If they, as you say, "tossed" them out of power, why do they now need 50,000 (and apparently, that isn't enough) of foreign troops, just to hold on to it?

Dead on, here. I.e., we know what government is good for them Afghanis, and we're sending our troops there to prop it at all cost.

It seems the Afghans of the Northern Alliance were quite capable of tossing the Taliban as long as they had available cash to buy recruits and large amounts of aerial support to convince the taliban foot-slogger that the norther alliance paid better rates.

...but those warlords are gone and NATO will not allow nor will the US be feeding cash to help the warlords establish themselves in little power bases. Those days are gone.

Too late for all that now, myata. We won't be pulling out of Khandahar unless there is someone to replace us. Even the NDP won't be pulling the troops out without someone to replace replace them. Since no one else is volounteering It appears that someone else is going to be the Afghan army. So there we are for 3 or 4 more years even if we can't do the job required of us.

It's the inevitable result of the governments retarded decision (advised by the CANDO attitude of the CDS - wich is an admirable and desireable attitude for a field commander to have, but sucks at the level of advising the goverment) to take over in Khandahar when we didn't have the means to do the job.

[myata]

No, we should go ahead with the election, and should the Canadians elect a different party on this this issue they should go on with the plan, no matter handtwisting, i.e.

1) pull out the troups from the combat role (we did what we could and paid dearly for that; now it's time for somebody else to step up; if nobody's there to step up - it means that there's no trust on the success of the mission - and these missions usually end in disaster anyways - so the sooner they're terminated, the better for everybody).

2) refocus the resources and efforts on dimplomacy (i.e finding broader base for national peace) and development.

I only hope Dion has guts for it and doesn't screw it up.

[Army Guy]

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

Is it misdirected ? was it not the majority of Canadian citizens that aplauded the mission on day one...in fact a poll i recently read it was one of Canada's best foreign affairs decisions to send our troops to afgan vice Iraq....The majority of Canadian citizens were standing behind us, and we knew that this was a mission that matter to Canadians.. it was a noble mission, had nothing to do with oil, quest for power, or setting up another province....

So the voice of Canadians did not go unheard ....and our nations military went into combat....

But somewhere at some time, we looked back and most of our support was gone...hence the question WTF....while we are away in Afgan and 6 months of combat in Afgan..Support for the mission waned over night....Most Canadians today do not care about the mission, most think it is unwinnable, screaming for another debate, or pissed off because some decal says support the troops but they really think it means support the mission....and then wonder why in the same breath they can't support the troops but show no support for the mission....

And for those soldiers getting of the planes reintragrating back into Canada's jet stream of life.....get thrown right in the middle of all this....by the same people whom just a short while ago where all for the mission , sending our troops to kick some ass....well we kept our end of the bargin, we did kick ass, and we are still doing it today....Why because that is what you asked us to do....We feel abandoned because we where, we feel used because we where, Shit....some univirsty professor can ring up an entire controversy over prisoners abuse by our soldiers.....and Canada comes to a scretching halt...."them bastards" how dare our troops do that......very few actually stood up and said there must be some mistake these are our troops and they don't do that....driving the piont home....it's funney to actually see from afar what canadians truely believe in or talk about....i'll use the univirsty professor once again, he manged to whip our nation into a feeding frenzy over some aligation of prisoner abuse...not of Canadian POW's, but our enemies....

And yet we the soldiers have been dying here because we don't have all the equipment we require and is the country in an uproar....nope, are they demanding our government get those big honkin helo's to save lives...nope....Yes they are talking about purchsing some used ones , but only after it was made a condition of our withdrawal....nice to be wanted, nice to be supported....

Here's the sad part, today you could ask the Canadian soldier " do you think this mission is a waste of time ,money and lives....you'll get a resounding NO....do you think we can win this war....YES....can you do it without the support of the Canadian people , YES, "but" it would be over in a much shorter period of time if we had thier support....

Most Canadian soldiers don't see this as a Canadian mission but rather a Canadian military mission as we are doing all the work and all the lifting, and sacraficing everything to get the job down....even when our own people are dragging thier feet, making things so much harder....we continue.

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.

Pretty sad when you have to use a war as an excuse to get the equipment that we should have to defend our country....Instead of our people demanding right from the start " hey lets make sure our boys and girls atleast have the equipment to do thier jobs"....instead all that was heard was crickets...for some 20 years....

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty sad when you have to use a war as an excuse to get the equipment that we should have to defend our country....Instead of our people demanding right from the start " hey lets make sure our boys and girls atleast have the equipment to do thier jobs"....instead all that was heard was crickets...for some 20 years....

Wait...it get's even better (worse)....as soon as the public turns tail on Afghanistan, they have the gall to start talking about another righteous mission in Darfur!

Tally Ho!

[jdobbin]

It now appears that France may not be sending troops to Kandahar.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...SkaLJXQh5O2W2OA

A news report suggests a French offer of more troops for Afghanistan may not be what the Harper government is hoping for.

The French newspaper Le Figaro says France is considering four options, only one of which would be to reinforce Canadian soldiers in the volatile Kandahar region. The other options are said to include:

-Moving into Helmand province west of Kandahar.

-Boosting troop levels in more stable Kabul.

-Teaming French special forces with US. troops in the country.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he will follow the main recommendations of the Manley report and continue the combat mission in Kandahar only if NATO provides 1,000 more troops.

French officials have strongly suggested they won't be able to provide that many soldiers and, so far, no one else has come forward.

It looks like our troop will be moved out if that is the response of our allies.

[M.Dancer]

It now appears that France may not be sending troops to Kandahar.

The French newspaper Le Figaro says France is considering four options, only one of which would be to reinforce Canadian soldiers in the volatile Kandahar region.

It's not off the table yet.

While the gov't would prefer one source of 1000, they wouldn't turn down 1000 drawn up from 3 or 4 sources.

[eyeball]

Wait...it get's even better (worse)....as soon as the public turns tail on Afghanistan, they have the gall to start talking about another righteous mission in Darfur!

Tally Ho!

You guy's didn't learn much from Yugoslavia and Rwanda did you? You soldiers have to start taking some responsibilty for being duped time and time again into marching off into these quagmires. If you were a conscriptee you'd have good reason to whine but your not so you don't. Your's is not to reason why, remember?

The only lasting effects from floundering around in these things are wider divisions within our own country. If we can't save the world militarily and we don't have the courage to tell the super-rogues to stand down their destabalizing interference then neutrality, a strong defence at home, and a strict policy of non-interference in the affairs of others is our only option. The world can go take care of itself, we've got enough problems of our own that need solving right here.

Tell the rightous they can go pay their own way to Darfur. I'm fed up with pointlessly throwing more good money after bad.

[M.Dancer]

Yugoslavia is a quagmire?

....in which multiverse?

[eyeball]

WAS a quagmire, Morris. Are you suggesting that Canada's military involvement in Yugoslavia's break-up were halcyon days?

What dimension were you in at the time?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Tell the rightous they can go pay their own way to Darfur. I'm fed up with pointlessly throwing more good money after bad.

Oh no...that won't do at all. The public and their corrupt politicians worshipped at the alter of Human Rights and Responsibility to Protect...as long as it was somebody else who had to do it. Canadian values....don'tcha know!

How convenient that you can be "fed up" when you feel like it.

Edited February 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

You guy's didn't learn much from Yugoslavia and Rwanda did you? You soldiers have to start taking some responsibilty for being duped time and time again into marching off into these quagmires. If you were a conscriptee you'd have good reason to whine but your not so you don't. Your's is not to reason why, remember?

The only lasting effects from floundering around in these things are wider divisions within our own country. If we can't save the world militarily and we don't have the courage to tell the super-rogues to stand down their destabalizing interference then neutrality, a strong defence at home, and a strict policy of non-interference in the affairs of others is our only option. The world can go take care of itself, we've got enough problems of our own that need solving right here.

Tell the rightous they can go pay their own way to Darfur. I'm fed up with pointlessly throwing more good money after bad.

Rwanda? Huh?

Look, for several good reasons, Canada cannot simply pull up the drawbridge and claim to want nothing to do with this ugly mess outside our gates. (Two of the reasons can be found in the absence of two tall buildings in lower Manhatten.)

How should Canada get involved? The UN cannot engage the world in any meaningful way. A coalition of likeminded countries might work but this would be a rather ad hoc solution. At present, NATO is it and NATO has the advantage that its members are largely democracies. Moreover, NATO is tailor-made for Afghanistan because it's an alliance with the specific purpose to protect its member states.

Since 1990, the world is grappling with the reality that there is only one superpower. How should this superpower exercice its military power around the world?

The possibility of an alliance of democratic states capable of ensuring a degree of protection and civilization is a welcome change in world affairs. Canada should be at the forefront of this.

All things considered, and comapred to previous threats such as Nazism or Communism, radical, violent Islamists pose a minor threat to the West. We can deal with this modern threat and hence my statement above that this should not be a question at all. The British Army dealt with far worse in Malaya in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Pretty sad when you have to use a war as an excuse to get the equipment that we should have to defend our country....Instead of our people demanding right from the start " hey lets make sure our boys and girls atleast have the equipment to do thier jobs"....instead all that was heard was crickets...for some 20 years....

On the contrary, it makes sense to get the equipment when you need it.

Dead on, here. I.e., we know what government is good for them Afghanis, and we're sending our troops there to prop it at all cost.

Sorry, but the previous Afghan regime was a disaster.

But in all honesty, several countries in the world have absolutely horrendous regimes in power. The term "failed-state" is not a misnomer although basket-case might be more accurate.

So, yeah. I happen to think that we in the West have more experience and a better understanding of what a civilized regime might look like. In particular though, we have the military power to change any regime that threatens our interests or our civilized way of life.

Edited February 12, 2008 by August1991

[Rue]

The original pretext or cover story for Afghanistan was responding to 9-11 and terrorism and going after Taliban who were hiding Osama. That was the original pretext and that is cover story the US presented for the invasion.

The next round of the cover story altered to state the military action was not simply a response and hunt and search for Osama and punishing Taliban for hiding him, but a colonial exercise to rid the country of Taliban fundamentalist rulers and replace them with a Western "democracy".

Canada bought into the colonial exercise. We sent our troups in as democratic missionaries designed to bring democracy. While our soldiers in fact were told to operate as a marine combat force, it was also asked to play the role of community relations social worker and democratic missionary at the same time.

We have ever since played this role. We expect our soldiers to be a marine front line combat unit hunting down and killing Taliban but we also want them serving as a visible symbol and community agent for implementing democracy.

Politically the Canadian mission is flawed. Its flawed because we placed our soldiers in a war of attrition. They can not for geographic reasons and logistics reasons ever be anything then a localized strike force operating within a certain region.

Afghanistan has never been conquered by any foreign army ever because of its geography. It makes it impossible. At best you can set up fragmented zones of control.

Afghanistan does not exist as a nation. Its capital as a zone of local control only. Where Nato places its assorted troops are pockets of control. But that is all.

The British, Americans, Canadians, Dutch, Australians and Poles have taken the brunt of actual combat. The other NATO members are simply symbolical doing little if anything other then lending to the appearance the colonial presence is an international one.

In terms of history its just yet another colonial power trying to extend ina land whose geography will never allow ground control.

So now let us deal with the true agenda. Pipelines. There was an elaborate plan to build a multi-trillion dollar network of pipelines to transport oil from the Baltic Sea and other sites through Afghanistan.

The ground was supposed to be secured so that these pipelines could be built and secured.

The Taliban could not be bribed-it is that simple. They could not be controlled to allow the pipelines through.

That is all this is. If you want your pipelines through and you can't control Taliban, you turn to Taliban's enemies-the drug war lords. So that is what NATO has done. Its formed an alliance with opium drug lords and its gotten them nothing.

It is a colonial expedition that was designed to secure the land around the pipelines no different then Iraq but the ground has not been able to be secured because the wild card is fundamentalism. Fundamentalist ideology can not be bribed. It can't be controlled with kick backs and prostitutes and Swiss bank accounts.

I do think on one level fundamentalist beliefs are a danger to the Western world and all the values we take for granted and by having an arena of confrontation in Afghanistan it has prevented one on our own shores-I do not doubt that for a second-but I also believe it is not realistic to use conventional armies on the ground to engage in conventional war with terrorists.

I have always been a believer in small operational commando units of no more then 30 elite specially trained soldiers making precision attacks to specific cells and leaders and not trying to use conventional armies on the ground to patrol and occupy and serve as social workers, police, community advisors, etc.

NGO's not military should be used for develpmental work. We have confused anti-terrorist and counter-terrorism with conventional war and military occupation as a method to prop satellite regimes friendly to specific business interests.

Conventional armies used as colonial props for satellite or puppet regimes have gone the way of the do do brid because of guerilla tactics perfected by Mao Tse Tung and used ever since that enable few, poorly armed men to be able to imobilize huge conventional military forces through run and hide within the civilian attacks.

The mission in Afghanistan was nothing but a cover to secure oil pipelines. We can pretend all we want we are democratic missionaries but the so called savages we try convert to our superior way of life do not benefit from those oil pipelines and therein lies the failure. If we were truly something other then a front for mega-national business interests we would have sat down with Taliban years ago and said-if you don't deal with us peacefully we will use the exact same tactics as you. If you do deal with us, we will not come with arms and we will find away to reconcile our cultural differences while sharing some of the wealth from the oil pipelines to directly benefit your people.

We did not appeal to Taliban on a grass roots level. As much as Taliban are warrior and terrorist they are also committed to charitable deeds for their people. Its a paradox we do not understand. What makes them riigid terrorist fundamentalists also makes them impossible to bribe and makes it possible to deal with them on a non materialistic level.

As much as I despise terrorists and everything they stand for and believe elite fast moving operational forces are the way to contain and neutralize them, I also believe that is only a temporary solution and the real long term solution is when creating these vast networks of oil and energy pipelines, these huge multi-nationals that turn soldiers into nothing more then their security guards, instead of being able to control foreign policy and politicians, are controlled and required to create econom,ic opportunities that provide grass roots needs for common people such as roads, sewers, schools, fresh water systems. You want to put an oil pipeline through fine, but also be willing to build infrastructure for the people ine exchange for that access.

The best way to combat terrorism long term is to provide an alternative to poverty for its people. Nothing shuts a terrorist up faster then a sewer system, a hospital, fresh water, housing and jobs for its people.

In Gaza when Israel did manage to do this with Hamas, it worked. Hamas was then violently taken over internally by a faction that blew that all up because they felt their power eroding away. That only happened because Syria and Iran and terrorists were allowed with no consequence from the international community to incite and destroy. The UN applauded terrorist efforts as freedom fighting.

If it is to work in Afghanistan, the corupt UN and corupt China, corupt Russia and every other nation with business and financial agendas must be treated in the exact same manner.

As long as we do not have consensus among world nations as to how we will operate and deal with terror and international development, these problems will continue.

So while I very much respect our Canadian soldiers and what they do-I question the deeper layers of this mission and agree with Oleg but unlike Oleg I think the key is not to give up but innunciate practical grass roots level projects and humanitarian issues.

I also think until someone finds a way to achieve a ceasefire and bring the Taliban and warlords in, this will continue.

[White Doors]

Afghanistan has never been conquered by any foreign army ever because of its geography. It makes it impossible. At best you can set up fragmented zones of control.

This should be added to August's fallacy list...

Afghanistan has been conquered and held more than once. Alexander the great. The Mongols. Various northern Indian kingdoms. It is false that it has never been.

Edited February 12, 2008 by White Doors

[M.Dancer]

WAS a quagmire, Morris. Are you suggesting that Canada's military involvement in Yugoslavia's break-up were halcyon days?

What dimension were you in at the time?

Okay, now that we have established you haven't a clue about the topic, what is the colour of the sky in your multiverse?

FYI: Canada's involvement, while noble, meaningful and rsponsible for the saving of tens of thousands of lives, happened after FRY broke up. The main reason why Serbia felt they could attack, cleanse and pillage with impunity is that there were people like you who sat with their thumbs up their arses and their heads in the sand loudly denouncing any attempts to rebustly confront Serbian expansionism and the repercusions it caused. IOn this case it wqas blowback from sucking and blowing at the same time.

Quagmire my arse.

[White Doors]

WAS a quagmire, Morris. Are you suggesting that Canada's military involvement in Yugoslavia's break-up were halcyon days?

What dimension were you in at the time?

Well if we can ever look back and same the same thing about Afghanistan, I think we could say that our involvement was a success.

Quagmires are ok. (ie: soldiers are FOR quagmires) Never ending one's are not.

You should really stop using words that you obviously do not understand.

I don't think anyone with any credibility says in retrospect we should not have intervened in Yuogoslavia and that it is not now a model of success when we do.

[August1991]

So now let us deal with the true agenda. Pipelines. There was an elaborate plan to build a multi-trillion dollar network of pipelines to transport oil from the Baltic Sea and other sites through Afghanistan.

The ground was supposed to be secured so that these pipelines could be built and secured.

The Taliban could not be bribed-it is that simple. They could not be controlled to allow the pipelines through.

Pipelines? Pipelines? Baltic Sea and Afghanistan?

Why is oil the usual suspect when looking to explain international events? Now there's a conspiracy for you: Exxon is behind the WTC attacks.

Edited February 12, 2008 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

Well if we can ever look back and same the same thing about Afghanistan, I think we could say that our involvement was a success.

Indeed. While I would be off in left field to suggest that Kosovo is Disneyland, but in comparison to before the NATO involment it is a far cry from the past and life in Bosnia, Coatia and Serbia have returned to normal, the quasi communist/nationalists have been discredited as thieves and for bringing ruin to their lands.

Canadians have a lot to be proud of for our contribution there and the PPCLI stands out for conspicuous bravery.

Lets hope Afghanistan is at least 1/2 as succesful.

[eyeball]

Quagmire my arse.

It ain't over till its over and as of 10:23am EST this morning the region known as Yugoslavia was still a sticky quagmire. Belgrade has been razed some 30 times throughout history and I suspect it will be again.

Since 2007, the Russia of Vladimir Putin has mounted a stiff challenge to the West over Kosovo, where it was once treated as a spent power, and it has no obvious reason to give up now.

Serbia has already shown gratitude by letting Russia buy its oil monopoly. Nationalists say it should also invite Russia to set up military bases, to counter NATO in the Balkans.

Source

[M.Dancer]

It ain't over till its over and as of 10:23am EST this morning the region known as Yugoslavia was still a sticky quagmire. Belgrade has been razed some 30 times throughout history and I suspect it will be again.

Get back to us when you know what you are talking about.

[eyeball]

BELGRADE, Feb 12 (Reuters) - Serbia intends to declare Kosovo's proclamation of independence annulled in advance as an illegal act by "terrorists" to set up a fictitious state, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said on Tuesday.

40 minutes ago

I see they're playing the "terrorist" card...it was only a matter of time...

[oreodontist]

The current mission is dead. The Libs won't support it. If there is an election and a minority Con government returned (likely) the mission is still dead. The Cons will get 35% of the vote and 130 or so seats...no mandate and the opposition parties have no reason to change their position. In fact, if the government proposes more or less the same motion and and is defeated again then the governor general might call upon the Libs to form a government if the NDP and BQ support the alternative.

[Army Guy]

I would'nt cut and run just yet.

liberals.

[Rue]

This should be added to August's fallacy list...

Afghanistan has been conquered and held more than once. Alexander the great. The Mongols. Various northern Indian kingdoms. It is false that it has never been.

Not conquered. Look at the above carefully. Whether it was Alexander, the Mongols, or these Indian kigdoms you refer to they did not ever have state wide control, ever, just fragmented zones of control no different then what we see today.

Alexander was no more in control of Afghanistan then NATO is today or the Soviets or British were in the past. Same old, same old.

The fact that you send an army in and occupy some of the land does not mean you have conquered the people or the nation. So sorry I absolutely disagree on your interpretation of these alleged acts of conquering. They were temporary, fragmented occupations of only certain zones.

No one, no Mongol, no Greek, no Caucasian, no Persian, no one has ever controlled the mountains.