Al Quaeda No 2. We Don't Kill Innocents

[WarBicycle]

You mean, there's nobody it can be delivered to? After we blasted out the only government that stayed in place for any considerable time, since decades? That's exactly what I say: starting the cycle of fighting and instability, all over, right at the time the country seemed to have setteled on some level of stability wasn't smart; and maybe, wasn't necessary; and from the perspective of locals will cause them much pain; maybe, from their perspective, more pain than Taleban was causing them.. So who did we do it for, really?

Funny you mentioned it... surely there's one big difference with that particular, 1812, case. Try to spot it...

As for the rest, there're many things people were doing in the 18-ies that we don't do now. It's called learning, i.e not stepping on the same rake, twice.

Absolutely agreed. The way that Kandahar mission was pulled in is shameful. There should have been a full discussion in the Parliament and the country.

Like going out in the field and blasting insurgents;

Good point... Here's what I'll do. I'm not going to vote for the party that sent you there; or is keeping you there; that I'll do.

You make it sound like the Taliban was a popularly elected government when, in fact, the opposite was true. The Taliban took the country by force; they fought the Northern Alliance from the day they took power. As for stability, the semi-literate Taliban nearly destroyed what was left of the country's economy, banned women was working and getting an education and executed anyone who opposed them. They also provided a safe haven for al-Qaeda to train, plan terrorist acts throughout the world, and that is why they were overthrown.

[Army Guy]

Good point... Here's what I'll do. I'm not going to vote for the party that sent you there; or is keeping you there; that I'll do.

This is what i don't get, you have made up your mind, and you truely believe your right, you've spent countless posts saying so....but that is all your willing to give to your beliefs, that and you'll vote NDP or green party.....not much for something you believe so strongly for....what about writing your MP, organizing a rally, attending a rally, start a petion,....but your response does make my piont that canadians like to bitch and moan, about things that they dislike, but for most that is where it ends.....

[Army Guy]

Very good article in MacLeans this week about the progress in Afghanistan.

Recommended reading armyguy. Some reporters get it.

I've heard alot about it, been trying to get a hard copy....no luck ,can't seem to find it on thier online version.

[Peter F]

Great, so we all agree then, that "not" supporting the mission is really a waste of time, and will amount to nothing but more band width, and time on our hands....Maybe we could use that time to lobby our government for the equipment we need to save lives.....

If you think I'm going to be out there cheerleading you're dreaming. I still think that our governments committment of the CAF to Afghanistan was the stupidest thing they could have done...exception being the pipe dream of saving Darfur.

Supporting the mission is just as much a waste of time as not supporting it. In either case the facts on the ground do not change. You're there for the forseeable future with support or without it.

Equipment? Sure. Draw up a shopping list with the why's and wherefore's and I'll write a letter.

But lets not forget our government committed you to a 'combat' mission because it was a combat mission and not a wimpy Northern Afghanistan peacekeeping mission. Our government wanted to make a mark - be taken seriously - get a seat at the table.

The price of that seat is blood; Canadian blood. If it was up to me we wouldn't be hankering after a seat at that table. But it isn't and we are and to many thats a good thing.

So lets not create false hope that new and better equipment will stop Canadians being killed. That, after all is up to the Taliban.

[Peter F]

But the truth is, you and your ilk do not hope that. You hope it is a failure at the same time I know you hope that more Canadians do not die.

You are fervant in both of your convictions, but please be honest with yourself, you and Myata really do hope that it fails. So you can tut tut and have your "I told you so's" (except even on the far left, no one was against the UN sanctioned Afghanistan mission at first - but this wouldn't be the first time hypocricy was conveniently ignored by the far left - see the biggest argument for not going to Iraq "But there is no UN sanction to do so wahhhh"...)

Very good article in MacLeans this week about the progress in Afghanistan.

Recommended reading armyguy. Some reporters get it.

White Doors, I am really sickened by your insistance on telling me what I think and hope. Why don't we start a new thread wherein you tell me what I think and hope. Then I'll reply with what I really think I think and hope and you can reply to that by telling me why im llying.

You say "Please be honest with yourself"...According to you, (and - hey! - you do know what I think and hope) I will be happy to see the whole endeavour fall around NATO's and Afghani's ears. For then I can say 'See? I was right! And you are wrong! I get to sing the I was Right song!"

Are you truly that f'ing shallow? Is that why you hope NATO will win? So you can sing I-was-right-songs? If you're wiling to assign that motive to me then you must find it a reasonable motivation for yourself and others.

I suspect you consider me a bleeding-heart lefty whiner overly worried about harming other people. I betcha you wouldn't be surprised if I posted somewhere someday something like "C'mon people...Can't we all just get along?"

Well if you do you would be right because thats exactly what I do and think. That being so, do you also suppose I arrived at that postion with the belief that someday it will all come true and we will all just get along? And that, really, the truth of Peter F is that he really couldn't give a shit if we get along or not cause Peter F chose that position because he see's it as a likely outcome and someday he will be able to tut tut and sing "I am right and you are wrong"

Grow up.

On the other hand, I must admit there is a certain sense of self-satisfaction in singing that song. General Hillier resigning made me want to sing. But I didn't because I also recognize how childish it would be to do so.

But who am I to argue with one who knows what I think. I will be honest with myself...you're right; I hope the whole thing becomes a train-wreck; The Taliban rise again more terrible than before; I hope Iraq languishes in murder and mayhem for many years to come.

Hope, mind you, actually HOPE those things come about. I would feel so much better.

Blow it out your arse.

[WarBicycle]

White Doors, I am really sickened by your insistance on telling me what I think and hope. Why don't we start a new thread wherein you tell me what I think and hope. Then I'll reply with what I really think I think and hope and you can reply to that by telling me why im llying.

You say "Please be honest with yourself"...According to you, (and - hey! - you do know what I think and hope) I will be happy to see the whole endeavour fall around NATO's and Afghani's ears. For then I can say 'See? I was right! And you are wrong! I get to sing the I was Right song!"

Are you truly that f'ing shallow? Is that why you hope NATO will win? So you can sing I-was-right-songs? If you're wiling to assign that motive to me then you must find it a reasonable motivation for yourself and others.

I suspect you consider me a bleeding-heart lefty whiner overly worried about harming other people. I betcha you wouldn't be surprised if I posted somewhere someday something like "C'mon people...Can't we all just get along?"

Well if you do you would be right because thats exactly what I do and think. That being so, do you also suppose I arrived at that postion with the belief that someday it will all come true and we will all just get along? And that, really, the truth of Peter F is that he really couldn't give a shit if we get along or not cause Peter F chose that position because he see's it as a likely outcome and someday he will be able to tut tut and sing "I am right and you are wrong"

Grow up.

On the other hand, I must admit there is a certain sense of self-satisfaction in singing that song. General Hillier resigning made me want to sing. But I didn't because I also recognize how childish it would be to do so.

But who am I to argue with one who knows what I think. I will be honest with myself...you're right; I hope the whole thing becomes a train-wreck; The Taliban rise again more terrible than before; I hope Iraq languishes in murder and mayhem for many years to come.

Hope, mind you, actually HOPE those things come about. I would feel so much better.

Blow it out your arse.

Bleeding heart liberal is too self-serving, effeminate liberal is a more apt description.

[Peter F]

Bleeding heart liberal is too self-serving, effeminate liberal is a more apt description.

effeminate liberal is ok with me

[AngusThermopyle]

General Hillier resigning made me want to sing.

Why on earth would you do that?

He's a good man, the best we've had in that position in many many years. He genuinely cares about the men. Oh, thats right, I forgot you despise all military members.

Scratch the original question.

[WarBicycle]

He's the best since Gen Dextraze.

[Guest FrootLoops]

My Dad say s the librals sent our army to the bad ppl to help Canada not die.

[AngusThermopyle]

Gen Dextraze.

Dex.

He was a soldier amongst soldiers. Try to think of all the most famous statesman warriors throughout history and this man will be able to stand tall amongst them.He won more orders of merit than I can remember. Wasn't he made a member of the order of the Knights Of Malta or something, Defender Of The Empire?

This guy, a French Canadian, won more honours and served more capably than anyone else I know or have heard of.

On the other side of the coin and not really related is Rudjard. Well sort of related. If Dex was a soldier amongst soldiers then Rudyard Kipling was a journalist amongst journalists. He was the first reporter to actually travel and live with soldiers. He became known as a soldier because of the fact that he travelled with them, he lived and fought with them, and he told their stories.

All in all both fascinating men who lived lives that are the stuff of legends.

[Wild Bill]

Dex.

He was a soldier amongst soldiers. Try to think of all the most famous statesman warriors throughout history and this man will be able to stand tall amongst them.He won more orders of merit than I can remember. Wasn't he made a member of the order of the Knights Of Malta or something, Defender Of The Empire?

This guy, a French Canadian, won more honours and served more capably than anyone else I know or have heard of.

On the other side of the coin and not really related is Rudjard. Well sort of related. If Dex was a soldier amongst soldiers then Rudyard Kipling was a journalist amongst journalists. He was the first reporter to actually travel and live with soldiers. He became known as a soldier because of the fact that he travelled with them, he lived and fought with them, and he told their stories.

All in all both fascinating men who lived lives that are the stuff of legends.

"Oh, it's 'Tommy" this and "Tommy" that and

'Chuck 'im out, the brute!' "

But it's 'Savior of his country!'

When the guns begin to shoot.

[myata]

You make it sound like the Taliban was a popularly elected government when,

...

Guys... for the umpteens, and the last time... how can't you get it, it's beyond me ... people do not elect governments there; even in our very friendly semi dictatorships, like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, they don't! Really!

Perhaps you can try to grasp one simple fact: all places aren't the same as ours; they haven't been, since time immemorial; they don't have to be; if we want to make them all the same anyways, just call it it's proper name: colonization; expansion, etc and drop the songs of freedom and love, for heaven's sake. Nobody can be freed against their will; it's a nonsense, oxymoron.

The government exists there because it can. The same way it was in many places in the West several generations back. It takes time, slow evolution for ideas to spead; ways of life to change; installing even most wonderful idea by force, when society isn't ready for it, will achieve nothing (and most likely, cause much pain in the process, for nothing).

...

We've already addressed the rest; I don't see anything new there.

[White Doors]

Why on earth would you do that?

He's a good man, the best we've had in that position in many many years. He genuinely cares about the men. Oh, thats right, I forgot you despise all military members.

Scratch the original question.

exactly. He sought to deflect from what I said, but he proved my very hypothesis of him by saying that.

lol

Well at least it;s not hard to see through poor arguments.

[Army Guy]

If you think I'm going to be out there cheerleading you're dreaming. I still think that our governments committment of the CAF to Afghanistan was the stupidest thing they could have done...exception being the pipe dream of saving Darfur.

I agree with you, i know it's shocking...But considering the shape and size the forces was in at the time, and pretty much nothing has changed today, getting involved in a combat mission of this duration was a mistake...there was a lot of talk about DND trying to convince the powers to be that we could not sustain a mission of that length...not to mention the state of our equipment or lack of it...

Supporting the mission is just as much a waste of time as not supporting it. In either case the facts on the ground do not change. You're there for the forseeable future with support or without it

We both understand that we are there now, with no withdrawal date in the near future...However with the majority of Canadians "not" supporting the mission, the present government is reluctant to spend our tax dollars be it on new and improved and much needed equipment, or increase funding for reconstruction efforts....

So lets not create false hope that new and better equipment will stop Canadians being killed. That, after all is up to the Taliban

Supporting this mission, would only benifit our soldiers, not only in moral, crictical when in combat.... but increased safety measures....the difference of resuppling byair rather than road alone could decrease our causualities by 50 %....Armed helicopters would mean having fire support right there when you need it, instead of having to wait 10 or 15 mins...more heavy armoured vehs such as the bufflo, and Nayla...all could save lives...

And while the taliban do respond well to our changing tactics, we need to keep changing ours that includes updating and purchasing new equipment....

But lets not forget our government committed you to a 'combat' mission because it was a combat mission and not a wimpy Northern Afghanistan peacekeeping mission. Our government wanted to make a mark - be taken seriously - get a seat at the table.

The price of that seat is blood; Canadian blood. If it was up to me we wouldn't be hankering after a seat at that table. But it isn't and we are and to many thats a good thing.

We've always had a seat at the table, and your right, it was paid for, by the most part by our soldiers blood....and i don't think that will change in the near future....since Korea we've not been living up to our table responsibilities, and although i don't think Cretien had that in mind when he made the decision to commit us to Afgan....The seat does have a price, and it needs to be paid.... Where would we be without the seat...

[myata]

This is what i don't get, you have made up your mind, and you truely believe your right, you've spent countless posts saying so....but that is all your willing to give to your beliefs, that and you'll vote NDP or green party.....not much for something you believe so strongly for....what about writing your MP, organizing a rally, attending a rally, start a petion,....but your response does make my piont that canadians like to bitch and moan, about things that they dislike, but for most that is where it ends.....

Maybe, you're right, maybe I should write a petition, maybe I will... for whatever its worth. But remember, I didn't start this; nor did people of this country, at least in clear majority (and clear understanding of what, and why, we're doing there). What frightens and amazes me at the same time, is the ease with which a bunch of paranoido-megalomaniacs managed to dupe us into starting two totally unnecessary full blown wars that will send ripples over generations; after all the bloody experiences of the relatively recent past; countless "wars to end all wars"; colonizations; Vietnam; it only only took one tragic, extremely tragic incident, to send us into the warring spiral all over again. With nobody having any clue when and how it could end.

Tony "ballistic missile" Blair and George "WMD" Bush, etc, will be long out, writing the memoirs, or devising new ways to enlighten this humankind, while somebody somewhere would still be paying with their health, property, or lives, for the mess they started. Out of the blue; for nothing; simply because they had/shared that wonderful idea... vision ... of global democracy, forever.

At some time, in the past, we had this understanding that this country shouldn't be fighting in other peoples wars; we'll go and keep the agreements in place, we'll help to observe them but we won't be fighting on one side; not because we're the weaklings; but because we learned, from other's and ours past mistakes, that it's counter productive; ie costs a lot, and rarely achieves the objective.

When and how did it change to the brave new "we have to go in" attitude? Combat missions? When did we, the public, have a chance to hear the arguments; pros vs cons; objectives, goals; strategies to achieve them?? It all happened behind closed doors; .. with average citizen only having the option to stand by and observe; and state their disappointment, when asked.

When a cop holds a guy with a 15 gr of pot, we'll have pre-trials, lawyers, arguments, bails, trials and so on. When a top general says "I want a real mission", we'll simply send them in.

But seriously. I'd like to propose a project, of a law. In this country, to make it illegal, and a criminal offense, to start a war; excluding, obviously, all cases when a country, or its allies, are under a life threatening attack. Will you support me?

[Army Guy]

Maybe, you're right, maybe I should write a petition, maybe I will... for whatever its worth.

Damn right it's worth it, It's your right, to make your vioce heard by anyone that will listen....Will it accomplish anything, ask Mr Martin luther king, if he accomplished anything....the list is endless....doing something is better than not doing anything then complaining about it....After all it is one of those freedoms our nations holds near and dear...use it.

But seriously. I'd like to propose a project, of a law. In this country, to make it illegal, and a criminal offense, to start a war; excluding, obviously, all cases when a country, or its allies, are under a life threatening attack. Will you support me?

There is already millions of laws that govern how countries should act and what is illigal, and what is not....But let me ask you this, how will you enforce that new law ? give out tickets, perhaps sanctions, but what do you do with countries that don't respond at all, those that tear your tickets up, laugh at your fines, and disregard your sanctions....what do we do with those countries....and how do we make them accountable....

Hey you find a cure that will end all wars, i'm in...it would be nice to find a new vocation in life, but i've seen man at his and her worse, and i don't see war ending any time soon...

[myata]

Manley report

I reread the report following this discussion, and find it even less impressing than on the first reading. The important questions relating to 1) why are we there; and 2) what are we trying to achieve; aren't given anywhere enough analysis given the scale of our involvement or cost and risk for our troops and personnel. From a panel like this I'd expect an honest complete analysis which would not hop around critical questions with commonplace truisms or matter of fact statements. I'd like to see a clear picture of possible outcomes, with clear definition of criteria / probability / cost / risk analysis for each. Not a whitewash of the status quo with an occasional patch here and there.

I find it utterly discouraging that a decision on this scale can be made behind the doors virtually with no public discussion. That's just too bad, for an advanced 21 century democracy; before we go educate other peoples abroad, we should fix it here first, so that next time we have to "go", we'll know there and then why, and how, and do we really have to. Not postfactum from a panel, instructed to explain and justify already accomplished fact.

--------------------------

Some of my comments, for completeness:

Page 10: Perl: “NATO coalition and Afghan forces were engaged in military action against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. As a result of that action, the Taleban regime collapsed …”

Page 12: background on Taleban does not give any estimate of Taleban’s popular support or fighting power.

Page 20: objectives: logical leap from “countering the terrorism” to “help build a stable and developing country in which the rights of all citizens are respected”. For the first, a number of alternative strategies were available; the second, is it even possible?

Page 21: what is this: “UN’s capacity to respond to threats to peace and security and to foster better futures in the world’s developing countries”

Page 22: and this: “protection and promotion of human security in fragile states”

Page 23: for whatever reason it happened: “In 2005 Canada chose, for whatever reason, to assume leadership of a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar City and the security obligations that went with it.”

Page 24: reiteration “Afghans themselves must ultimately acquire the forces needed to defend their own security”. Yet no analysis of meaning of that statement, as well as reasons for insufficiency of the current forces is provided.

Page 30: matter of factly: “training and mentoring Afghan forces sometimes means conducting combat operations with them.” Why should it, though?

Page 31: options overlooked one obvious solution: Afghan forces provide security, while UN assists with development. If Afghan forces in their current numbers are unable to provide security, explanation / analysis of the reasons / future developments should be given.

Page 32: important questions of viability and ultimately, legitimacy of the “peace-enforcement operation” are skipped matter-of-factly.

Page 33: “the aim was not to create some fanciful model of prosperous democracy” compare with p.78 “Afghanistan compact” and its reality in the region around.

Page 33: cons of “premature military withdrawal” aren’t clearly and logically explained, and in some instances questionnable or plain weak

Page 35: “to repeat: a successful counter insurgency campaign requires more ISAF forces”. Repeating it doesn’t explain the reasons, or prove that more forces would change situation to the better in the long term.

Page 78: Afghanistan Compact Benchmarks: one look is enough to show that compact is based purely on the Western model of society that is being imposed on Afghanistan because it’s occupied. No such conditions are imposed on any of the countries in the region, including presumed Western allies (e.g Egypt, Saudi Arabia).

[myata]

NDP position on Afghanistan

Could not find official statement of Green party, but many stories and blogs on the subject found in their website (greenparty.ca) seem to be bringing up the same questions: i.e why are we engaged in a combat mission, while our traditional position has been peacekeeping and peaceful assistance?

When, by whom, and how was the change made?

This question seems to be the key to Canadian's uneasiness with the current state of the mission. Many do not believe that "installing" or "building" progress in another, totally different society, by force, is possible, or practical. Or worth our money and lives. I only see two meaningful outcomes from this impasse:

- one, a serious and open discussion of the "peace enforcement" aspect of the mission; which Manley report above is so obviously lacking; i.e: is it viable; what are the objectives it is intended to achieve; risk and negative effects; criteria of progress / failure; scenarios, etc.

- two, if #1 isn't forthcoming (e.g because main political parties aren't interested in, a serious and open discussion), we should call for the termination of the military mission, and not necessarily after 2011. Given the critical nature of the matter - getting involved in a war, on other peoples's land, that we condemned so many times before - the risk of getting it wrong is just too great.

[AngusThermopyle]

why are we engaged in a combat mission, while our traditional position has been peacekeeping and peaceful assistance?

This is wrong. Our traditional position has never been peacekeeping and has always until recently been combat. Peacekeeping was no more than a flirtation with a flawed and failed recent concept.

[myata]

I hope it was very clear from the context (to preempt another long excurses into histories) that at question is not a survival combat mission, not even, unless by a big long stretch, a defense combat mission; no, we're talking about "peace enforcement" combat mission. When did any of these ever work? With what success rate? What did they achieve?

Questions, questions; everything was so nice and easy when somebody pointed a finger and said: there, your enemy, go! Who cares that couple of generations later they'll regret, apologize, and (try to) clean up the mess, right?

[Army Guy]

Could not find official statement of Green party, but many stories and blogs on the subject found in their website (greenparty.ca) seem to be bringing up the same questions: i.e why are we engaged in a combat mission, while our traditional position has been peacekeeping and peaceful assistance?

I'd like to ask this question, How is it that Canada's military, main focus has been on combat related tasks and missions for the last 40 years ? it has employed a bulk of it's members on these tasks, and UN and peace keeping and peaceful assistance have had the back seat, and if this is the case how did we ever come to the conclusion that "our traditional role or postion has been peace keeping"...

It would be like telling everyone that our police forces are nothing more than armed tax collectors whose prime mission and role is to collect taxes thru tickets issued, and law enforcement is just a side show....

This question seems to be the key to Canadian's uneasiness with the current state of the mission. Many do not believe that "installing" or "building" progress in another, totally different society, by force, is possible, or practical. Or worth our money and lives. I only see two meaningful outcomes from this impasse:

Most missions that our country takes on involves one or all of your above "things that make me uneasy" that includes our UN peacekeeping missions ....The most common misbelief that MOST Canadians have about peacekeeping is that we hand out teddy bears and candies and everything is good.....and that no use of force is used, If that was the case why would we need Armoured personal carriers, why would every soldier be issued a wpn,Frag jacket, and live ammo....have Rules of engagement....and spend 6 months training of ehich most of it concentrates on combat...i'm just guessing but teddy bears and candies do not need such training or protection....

- one, a serious and open discussion of the "peace enforcement" aspect of the mission; which Manley report above is so obviously lacking; i.e: is it viable; what are the objectives it is intended to achieve; risk and negative effects; criteria of progress / failure; scenarios, etc.

Discuss what exactly, is there something that has not been discussed, do you have something new....We are already on the battlefield, and bullets are being traded as we speak, Canada has already decided to stay until 2011, Canadians need to swallow that fact, it is unchangable, (look at the problem we had raising 1000 extra troops to support us) can you imagine trying to find a country that would cough up 2500 to replace us....not going to happen....And the longer that Canada dithers away valuable time and wasted effort on trying to stop the mission the more our soldiers have to suffer and do with out....

And while we have established the fact that it is not changeable, then we need to focus all our efforts on our troops....ensuring they have the right equipment to make their jobs a safe as possiable....we need to get behind the mission , more funding for both our military and the Afgan government, so that this mission can get completed.....and we can go home with our new found knowledge " next time our government is thinking of commiting our troops we need to do the following" ....before the step onto the battle field.....

getting involved in a war, on other peoples's land, that we condemned so many times before - the risk of getting it wrong is just too great.

But that is not the NDP's platform at all, they still are pushing the DARFUR involvement, and that mission is little different than Afgan....you can't have it both ways....you can not sit here and preach peace and peacekeeping and then yell we want to go to darfur....which is a combat mission....so really they are no better than the liberals or cons, they to want thier own mission, to have thier chance at playing with the military in thier own sand box.....

[myata]

I'd like to ask this question, How is it that Canada's military, main focus has been on combat related tasks and missions for the last 40 years ?

If it's a matter of terminology, apologies for my insensitivity. Nobody means to say that traditional peacekeeping missions are about planting the flowers and can be done by kids on a school project. Peace keeping missions can be as dangerous as any and will require every bit of expertise; skill; equipment; organization etc and not necessarily in the order of priority.

The key difference: peace keeping missions do not attempt to interfere in the local politics. They observe and enforce agreements that were already in place.

To avoid future misunderstanding, I propose to use this terminology, note that all missions are meant to be foreign with significant involvement of the army; therefore defence operations on our own soil, or assistance programs on the level of exchange/information sharing / training are outside of the scope of this discussion

- peacekeeping mission: has for objective to enforce existing peace agreement(s); does not interfere with the local policies;

- police mission: has for objective achievement or implementation of certain condition, such as: ceasefire; termination of crime against humanity in progress; neutralization of hostile activity, without general interference in the local policies;

- and finally, in Manley's report words, peace enforcement mission: has for objective significant change of the local policies.

If you're OK with these definitions for now, I'll add more comments at a later time.

Edited May 2, 2008 by myata

[myata]

Most missions that our country takes on involves one or all of your above "things that make me uneasy" that includes our UN peacekeeping missions ....

Not disputing any of what you're saying below... most UN missions did not involve full blown invasion of a country; direct participation in an armed confrontation; forceful removal of the government; direct involvement in fighting insurgency; and so on.

That is the part that's making me, and many others, uneasy. Not the fact that we have our people with arms there. What we're taking direct part in the country's internal conflict, on one side. I.e instead of maintaining a credible position of keepers of the peace settled by the people of the country, we're trying to tell them (make them) what the peace should be. This hasn't been our role before, and if we had to assume it now, we should at the very least hear (and understand), why.

Discuss what exactly, is there something that has not been discussed,

No, I can't recall any serious discussion of the matter; even e.g on the same level with eg. last budget's tax cuts. Yet we're talking about exporting democracy; way of life; putting our lives at risk, and spending uncounted billions. How does this happen, I just can't fathom. We have a process for everything, a pen can't be pushed without some prolong ongoing discussion, etc, and then someone comes around, says "we've to go" and lo, we're now in a war...

do you have something new....

The new (as often, forgotten old) is that going to a war is not a triffle. It shouldn't be done lightly, for little reason, like to please an old buddy; if there's a reason to do this war, we should, by now, know it very well; if we aren't sure, then it's best to stay away. And it's not a revelation; there's a bunch of other countries sitting in the safe provinces on non-combat roles; maybe we should be doing just the same; i.e. let the government set itself up in the unstable provinces first; make sure that it's well established and can provide security; then move in with assistance, training, etc. That way, there will be no question of legitimacy; less suspicion of intervention; less backlash against the foreigners.

And while we have established the fact that it is not changeable,

....

then we need to focus all our efforts on our troops....ensuring they have the right equipment to make their jobs a safe as possiable....

....

we need to get behind the mission , more funding for both our military and the Afgan government, so that this mission can get completed.....

there's no such thing as "not changeable"; but all change begins with asking questions;

...

while they are there, agreed. Or we may decide (ie. cause the government to decide) that they're (and indeed, we all are, in the long perspective) better off home, or at least in another place

....

except that a wrong mission (i.e e.g impossible mission) cannot be completed; throwing more money and equipment into it won't make much difference, in the eventuality, only prolong suffering (recall US in Vietnam, Soviets in the same Afghan); and, without good, very good consideration, how can we be sure that the mission is well defined and has a reasonable chance of success??

But that is not the NDP's platform at all, they still are pushing the DARFUR involvement, and that mission is little different than Afgan....you can't have it both ways....you can not sit here and preach peace and peacekeeping and then yell we want to go to darfur....which is a combat mission....

the nature of the mission is defined by us, i.e our real goals in it; if we're genuinly looking to stop a crime against humanity from being perpetrated, we don't need to invade the country and redesign it top down; a few painful lessons to the top of the command chain will be enough; and can be achieved with very few resources (compared to a full blown invasion); won't result in insurgency because there's no occupation; and the objective will be actually achieved in very reasonable terms of time because nobody likes to suffer for long, least of all cream of pie, who only surmise these nasty things because they're sure they'll get away with it; the only downside is that we can't be assured that the place will wake up next morning into a bliss of eternal democracy; if that, the latter, is our true objective, then indeed we're bound to go in in force, fight fierce insurgency, bleed, and who knows, maybe find out about futility of the mission and retreat.