Which party will bring troops back from Afghanistan?

[normanchateau]

This morning, Harper said he will not seek an amendment to the Feb. 09 pullout. He made it quite clear we will deploy out of Afghanistan on the projected date. I can't find a link yet as it just aired on CTV.

That's correct. Here's the link:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...eb-25ed71e9332e

Effectively this means whether the Taliban are winning or losing, Harper pledges to withdraw leaving security entirely in the hands of the Afghanistan government. Who could ever have imagined that Chretien would commit Canada to fighting in Afghanistan while Harper commits Canada to pulling out whether the Taliban win or not?

Is Taliban Steve trying to steal votes from Taliban Jack or is it yet another flip flop like his reversal on Canada invading Iraq?

Either way, it's a brilliant strategy to win a majority. Harper may have no principles or integrity but he sure nows how to win elections. Harper supporters will still vote for him because they continue to sincerely believe that with a majority government, he can and will break his promises on everything and anything and start again acting like the pro-war Reformer/Alliance/National Citizens Coalition/religious nut that he always was. Meanwhile, he'll pick up some opposition votes from those whose main objection to Harper is that he's a warmonger. It's a win/win strategy since Harper supporters will support him whether he shifts to the left or shifts to the right.

[M.Dancer]

That's correct. Here's the link:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...eb-25ed71e9332e

Effectively this means whether the Taliban are winning or losing, Harper pledges to withdraw leaving security entirely in the hands of the Afghanistan government.

Given that the US will be upping their deployment to almost 40,000, saying that security will be entirely in the hands of the Afghan gov't is hysterical hyperbole at best.

[normanchateau]

Given that the US will be upping their deployment to almost 40,000, saying that security will be entirely in the hands of the Afghan gov't is hysterical hyperbole at best.

The hysterical hyperbole to which you refer comes from your hero Stephen Harper himself.

Here are excerpts from the story which apparently you've not read:

"I think our goal has to be, after six years, to see the government of Afghanistan able to carry the lion's share of responsibility for its own security," Harper said.

The prime minister conceded that the Taliban insurgency, which has gained strength in recent months, may not be completely defeated by 2011. But he said that should not be the goal of the mission.

"The goal in Afghanistan is not that there will be no insurgency, or the insurgency will be eradicated by 2011 - I don't think that's realistic if you look at the history of Afghanistan - but that you will have a government that is able, given that insurgency, to nevertheless manage its day-to-day security."

Coming in the heat of an election campaign, it is perhaps the clearest statement yet that the Conservatives will not risk proposing another extension of the combat component of the mission.

However, Harper's comments contradict those of Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani, who this week said a "surge" of troops in Afghanistan is essential.

Here's the story link:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...6e-1a44b8bdc9ba

So there you have it. Taliban Steve not only claims that the Afghans will manage their own security but concedes that Canada will withdraw whether the Taliban win or lose.

Taliban Steve has not only decided to cut and run but he's even told the Taliban when he'll do it. This is one election promise I predict that he'll definitely keep as he knows perfectly well that his pro-war, neocon supporters have no other party to vote for. There's no political party to the right of Harper's.

[Argus]

I'm not sure if you've ever come across opinions diverging from the official story, Alta, but there are many.

Most of them imply the US government organized the attacks to get an excuse to invade countries that have oil or can serve as a conduit for oil.

Only wackos and unsophisticated, backward third world rubes believe that sort of thing, like Arabs and Africans and Russians.

[normanchateau]

Would it surprise you, that any poliction broke thier promise. There is alot riding on this Operation , not only for Canada, but NATO, and the entire alliance. enough that yes i would forecast any of the parties once elected would extend the mission....

Well then you must be very disappointed by Taliban Steve reporting today that he decided to cut and run. For once I believe that he's telling the truth.

[jdobbin]

Well then you must be very disappointed by Taliban Steve reporting today that he decided to cut and run. For once I believe that he's telling the truth.

Have you see this headline?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080910/...a_pakistan_dc_1

The U.S. military conceded it was not winning the battle against an increasingly deadly insurgency in Afghanistan and said on Wednesday it would revise its strategy for the region to include militant safe havens in neighboring Pakistan.

"I'm not convinced we are winning it in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in sobering testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee nearly seven years after U.S.-led forces toppled Afghanistan's former Taliban regime following the September 11 attacks.

Mullen said he was already "looking at a new, more comprehensive strategy for the region" that would cover both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

[M.Dancer]

Well then you must be very disappointed by Taliban Steve reporting today that he decided to cut and run. For once I believe that he's telling the truth.

I wonder if you get your hand slapped as I did for using that surname on Layton?

[normanchateau]

Have you see this headline?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080910/...a_pakistan_dc_1

I wonder if Taliban Steve did?

Even more, I wonder how his supporters view his decision to cut and run and acknowledge that the Taliban may win. Will they rationalize this, just as they rationalized his totally out-of-control spending, as something he must do to win a majority and please the "left"? Don't they realize that if he actually wins a majority, he just might want to be re-elected?

[JJJ]

But you are a fervent suppoter of this in Georgia! In post after post defending Russia's right to send troops anywhere it wants to!

To fight against the forces of evil, you know, like the people you support.

WTF

[PoliticalCitizen]

Only wackos and unsophisticated, backward third world rubes believe that sort of thing, like Arabs and Africans and Russians.

And only the simple-minded believe anything the official mass media sources tell them.

[HisSelf]

Right now, I am watching David Emerson (I'd describe his position within the Conservative Party if it were possible to keep track) being interviewd on the CBC and he is describing Afghanistan as the "gateway to the Orient". Hello? Do have even a clue how many Chinese Canadians now live in this country? Indo-Canadians? Do you have any friggin' clue at all?

David Emerson thinks that this miserable little disorganized squat of a state is the gateway to the Orient. Give the man a camel, pack it full of spices. Send him into the Khyber Pass and tell him you'll meet him in Petra. LOL.

How did this guy get to be a minister? Oh I know. He walked.

[PoliticalCitizen]

"I think our goal has to be, after six years, to see the government of Afghanistan able to carry the lion's share of responsibility for its own security," Harper said.

The prime minister conceded that the Taliban insurgency, which has gained strength in recent months, may not be completely defeated by 2011.

I'm with Stevie here, even though I'd never vote for him.. but we need to do it sooner!

How about - bring them home before Christmas?

And why do some politicians presume they can go on with this mission when less than half of the population supports it?

[capricorn]

The hysterical hyperbole to which you refer comes from your hero Stephen Harper himself.

Harper delivers hysterical hyperbole in a calm fashion. Dion, not so much.

Taliban Steve

Stop stealing Jack's moniker.

Taliban Steve has not only decided to cut and run but he's even told the Taliban when he'll do it.

Actually, by doing so Harper is tricking the Taliban to make them think the field will be clear for them to resume their murderous rampage on the country. There will be hundreds of US troops waiting for them after we deploy out and the Taliban will get their asses kicked just a we did. Don't tell me you don't see the genius behind that move.

This is one election promise I predict that he'll definitely keep as he knows perfectly well that his pro-war, neocon supporters have no other party to vote for. There's no political party to the right of Harper's.

Did you figure that out all on your own?

[capricorn]

I wonder if Taliban Steve did?

I wonder why dobbin isn't calling you out for your juvenile reference to Taliban Steve? You know, forum rules and all.

[normanchateau]

Actually, by doing so Harper is tricking the Taliban to make them think the field will be clear for them to resume their murderous rampage on the country.

He's not only tricking the Taliban. Read this from a US source:

Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, a retired Canadian commander formerly in charge of a U.N. force in the Balkans, criticized Harper for announcing a deadline during an election campaign.

MacKenzie said that should only be told to allies in the highest of confidence.

"I don't like deadlines," MacKenzie said. "I don't like announcing deadlines to an enemy force that now says to themselves, 'Well, we're getting rid of the Canadians' so let's turn our strategic attack on some other country."

http://www.fortmilltimes.com/106/story/285249.html

But then what does Lewis MacKenzie know about military strategy.

Harper supporters will support him whether he's pro-war, anti-war, for increases in government spending, against increases in government spending, for abortion, against abortion...and they'll rationalize it as something he must do to win a majority.

[capricorn]

Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, a retired Canadian commander formerly in charge of a U.N. force in the Balkans, criticized Harper for announcing a deadline during an election campaign.

----

But then what does Lewis MacKenzie know about military strategy.

I have a lot of respect for Lew MacKenzie. This is not about military strategy. For better or for worse, our Afghanistan involvement has been politicized and it is quite appropriate that it be discussed during an election campaign. It is an important issue for Canadians. It is our youth and their families that are sacrificing so much in Afghanistan, and it is our money that pays the tab. Are our politicians now to be intimidated into refraining from communicating honestly with Canadians in case it plays into the hands of a foreign entity? Hey, we have a decision to make about our Country's destiny. If the Taliban get into a huff and strategize around our elections, our troops are there to respond in kind.

And about notifying NATO. NATO has had plenty of notice, in confidence and through other sources (i.e. Manley report and our Parliamentary debates/votes) that Canada would be pulling out in Feb. 2011.

One last thought about MacKenzie. I'd like to see him run for office at the federal level.

Harper supporters will support him whether he's pro-war, anti-war, for increases in government spending, against increases in government spending, for abortion, against abortion...and they'll rationalize it as something he must do to win a majority.

Only those who are very partisan and political junkies.

Edited September 11, 2008 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

I wonder why dobbin isn't calling you out for your juvenile reference to Taliban Steve? You know, forum rules and all.

I've actually told the moderator a couple of times this week about the use of insults this week including some in this thread. The namecalling is inappropriate.

For my own part, I address the leaders by their proper names.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stevie, Taliban Jack, etc. are all unacceptable.

Take this as a global warning: address people by their proper names or do not address them at all. Please review this thread: Insults and proper names, forum rules update

[Army Guy]

AG - you're right, everything I stated are my opinions (educated or not).

And your entitled to your Opinions, my concern is cementing them with the wrong or false info. Thats been one of the biggest problems about this mission, the lack of clear direction and info regarding this mission.... from both our Government, and the media. And is why i continue to post here.

It is also my strong opinion that we should pull out and stay out because the reason for going in, the scope and the mandate of our troops are all murky at best

.

But what you failed to do is explain WHY you feel we should pull out NOW. what "facts" have cemented your Opinion. The problem with the Majority of Canadians is they can't explain "why" they want out, they just want out....And they don't care about "why" we should stay and assist...just that it is thier opinion and it must be right....

But me as a soldier, who is now on his third tour, has to much blood sweat and tears invested to just take your opinion as gosple, or the right thing to do...Convince me is what i'm trying to say...or atleast listen to my side of the story...

Norman:

Would it surprise you, that any poliction broke thier promise. There is alot riding on this Operation , not only for Canada, but NATO, and the entire alliance. enough that yes i would forecast any of the parties once elected would extend the mission....

Well then you must be very disappointed by Taliban Steve reporting today that he decided to cut and run. For once I believe that he's telling the truth.

Norman you know more about Canadian politics than i do, does it disappiont you to here that from the Cons, during an election run....How many times have "they" meaning any political party made promises only to have them changed after the election....One thing about the Canadian people is they have short memories, and are very forgiving....how many scandals did the liberals have, and continued to serve....

My guess is that decision will be changed before the pull out deadline, whomever is in power will have come up with a whole new idea to sell it to the people, and come the next election, it will all be a distant memory....

But then what does Lewis MacKenzie know about military strategy.

As one of Canada's better generals, i think his record speaks for itself.

[M.Dancer]

Personally I am pleased that the Forces will get a much needed break come 2011. Hopefully they will get 2 years off where their experiance can be used to train fresh young faces, and for some of our multi tour battle hardened vets I hope they will be sent with their wives and children to our allies in places like Australia, The French Riviera, Barbadoes, New Zealand and Southern Italy where they can help train fresh young faces there.

A two year break will do us good and by 2013 we can go back bigger, stronger and fighting fit.

[PoliticalCitizen]

A two year break will do us good and by 2013 we can go back bigger, stronger and fighting fit.

... and to a brand-new country US will choose to invade and occupy - Iran, for example...

[Topaz]

I've stated this several times and I say it again. In the early spring the second in command of the Taliban had a video out stating they had no problems with the Canadians Forces IF they left Afghansitan. IF Canada refuse to leave then the Taliban would target them until they did leave and yes they have been targeting Canadians. Canada has almost 100 people killed and we can stay until there is no one to fight and as a US general said this week, things are getting worse. Harper said that Canada will end its mission as we know it, he didn't say he was bringing the troops home by 2011.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've stated this several times and I say it again. In the early spring the second in command of the Taliban had a video out stating they had no problems with the Canadians Forces IF they left Afghansitan. IF Canada refuse to leave then the Taliban would target them until they did leave and yes they have been targeting Canadians....

Nah...I see all the latest Taliban pleadings as evidence that Canadian Forces are putting a serious hurt on 'em. Canadians have already been "targeted"....and "100" is not a magic number.

[PoliticalCitizen]

And your entitled to your Opinions, my concern is cementing them with the wrong or false info. Thats been one of the biggest problems about this mission, the lack of clear direction and info regarding this mission.... from both our Government, and the media. And is why i continue to post here.

But what you failed to do is explain WHY you feel we should pull out NOW. what "facts" have cemented your Opinion. The problem with the Majority of Canadians is they can't explain "why" they want out, they just want out....And they don't care about "why" we should stay and assist...just that it is thier opinion and it must be right....

OK AG, let's take a look at the facts:

Fact 1:

Wikipedia: "The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda."

It began with 2 countries that attacked a third country. Not UN, not NATO, not even a "Coalition of the Willing".

The aggression was justified by the search for an ALLEGED mastermind of the 9/11 tragic eveniments in US, his organization (Al-Qaeda) and the Afghani ruling regime that gave them harbor (Taliban).

Results after 7 years: Osama has not been captured, Al-Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan have been disrupted and the Taliban ousted but not destroyed; so we have some goal patially accomplished.

However (unless I somehow missed it) there was no evidence found that would prove "beyond a shadow of doubt" that Osama and Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 tragedy.

So a country was attacked by 2 ohter countries based on a suspicion - the equivalent of a sentence being carried out before the guilt is proven.

Fact 2:

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was formed and got a mandate from UN to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority. It is interesting to note that after the initial attack there were almost no US troops in Afghanistan to support the puppet government they installed - they had to get busy in Iraq. In 2003 NATO took command of ISAF. What's ISAF's mandate?

In addition to the overall task of assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority and creating a secure environment, in concrete terms, ISAF aims at:

- conducting stability and security operations in coordination with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF);

- assisting in the development of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and structures, including training the new Afghan National Army (ANA) and National Police (ANP);

- identify reconstruction needs, such as the rehabilitation of schools and medical facilities, restoring water - supplies and providing support for other civil-military projects;

- support the Afghan government to Disarm Illegally Armed Groups (DIAG);

- provide support to the Afghan government and internationally-sanctioned counter-narcotics efforts through intelligence-sharing and the conduct of an efficient public information campaign, as well as support to the Afghan National Army Forces conducting counter-narcotics operations. ISAF, however, is not directly involved in the poppy eradication or destruction of processing facilities, or in taking military action against narcotic producers; and

- support humanitarian assistance operations

Results after 7 years: Hard to measure because of the vague nature of the objectives. Taliban insurgency was not only not eradicated but became more targeted and deadly. National Afghan Army doesn't appear to be able to maintain the "Democratically elected" government on their own. Poppy production is at an all-time high. There were roads and hosptials built which may or may not last.

Fact 3: There's simply NO concrete achievable goals defined or set that Canadian forces in Afghanistan can reach in a timely manner so that their departure be "morally justified" or happen after "the logical culmination" of the operation.

Edited September 11, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[M.Dancer]

It is interesting to note that after the initial attack there were almost no US troops in Afghanistan to support the puppet government they installed - they had to get busy in Iraq.

Incorrect.

In 2003 57 coalition soldier were killed, 12 less that in 2002

as well

By The Associated Press

December 13, 2007 (AP) The Associated Press

U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have peaked this year at about 26,000, as officials tried to push NATO countries to take on more security responsibility, while keeping enough U.S. forces there to counter the stubborn insurgency.

Total U.S. forces have fluctuated from a low of about 1,300 in late 2001, shortly after U.S. and coalition troops invaded, to 26,000 now.

NATO nations joined the fight in late December 2001, with a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the deployment of a multinational force of 19 countries.

Throughout much of 2003, the U.S. maintained about 10,000 troops there, but that number jumped to about 17,000 for 2004, as combat operations intensified. It increased again in 2006, to 20,000-23,000.

What's ISAF's mandate?

ISAF has a peace-enforcement mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Eight UN Security Council Resolutions – 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1707 and 1776 – relate to ISAF.