Obama, Harper, and Afghanistan

[Argus]

I guess my point was that there are a lot of nasty places. Whether they are marginally better, or worse, Afghanistan is not unique, nor especially deserving of our attention

True. Which is why, despite how nasty the Taliban were, the world did nothing about it until Al Quaeda began using it as a base to launch attacks on the Americans. Then we had to do something, and some well-meaning political foolishness has left us there these last some years.

.

In your' prior post, you said, and I'm afraid that I probably agree, that the best, or at least most probable outcome in Afghanistan is to establish a strongman. Basically, I don't see much difference between Taliban, and Strongman, except I guess we can claim a victorious war if it's OUR strongman, and said strongman might pay lip service to our most strongly presented requirements. At least so long as we continue to feed him whatever it is he lives on. ($$, Power, etc)

Well, there are dictators and then there are dictators. Some are considerably worse than others. And I would imagine our only real requirement would be to prevent the place from being used as a base of attacks against us. It would be nice, of course, if that dictator were somewhat enlightened and wished to unite his people and take them somewhere other than into the sixth century, but that seems unlikely.

Some of the nasty places I listed might be more amenable to ungentle persuasion, but before giving orders to go there, there needs to be a clear, and rigorous moral basis to act. Furthermore, there should be some reasonable expectation of success, and a criteria to evaluate same.

I don't disagree. Most places would probably be more amenable to ungentle persuasion than a Muslim nation. But we don't have any immediate and pressing concern which justifies intervention elsewhere. A case could be made for Darfur, but that's another open-ended commitment which would outrage the entire Muslim world - since as they have repeatedly pointed out there are no human rights violations taking place there, and the Sudan government is a good and enlightened Muslim government.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Argus

[eyeball]

Sorry did'nt mean to paint such a gloomy picture, but it is going to get worsr before it gets better....

You just cheered me up. Look, if a country as rich as ours is unable to afford warfare then I doubt anyone else is. The fact that war is getting to expensive to wage is a good thing.

[Alta4ever]

You just cheered me up. Look, if a country as rich as ours is unable to afford warfare then I doubt anyone else is. The fact that war is getting to expensive to wage is a good thing.

Our country can't afford the warefare becasue of the massive amounts of spending domestically, something that nations who care little about their citizens don't really have to concern themselves with. They have the money to spend on military resources, at the expense of their citizens.

[eyeball]

Our country can't afford the warefare becasue of the massive amounts of spending domestically, something that nations who care little about their citizens don't really have to concern themselves with. They have the money to spend on military resources, at the expense of their citizens.

Almost only when we're funneling money to them though. Its amazing how much we can still afford to do that.

[Alta4ever]

Almost only when we're funneling money to them though. Its amazing how much we can still afford to do that.

Diesn't matter if we funnel money through them or not their goal is most likely to have any fight to become a proxy war, where they will gain support from chinese, Russians, or Iranians. They don't require the out pouring of resources either because they are fighting wars close to home, where we have the added cost of transport.

[eyeball]

Diesn't matter if we funnel money through them or not their goal is most likely to have any fight to become a proxy war, where they will gain support from chinese, Russians, or Iranians. They don't require the out pouring of resources either because they are fighting wars close to home, where we have the added cost of transport.

It doesn't matter to you that we funnel money to nations that don't care about their people? Who's freaking side are you on anyways? You must own stock in Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon or something.

They don't require the out pouring of resources either because they are fighting wars close to home, where we have the added cost of transport.

Perhaps if we funded dictatorships that were closer to home we wouldn't have to throw as much good money after bad.

You're completely insane, you do realize that don't you?

[Alta4ever]

It doesn't matter to you that we funnel money to nations that don't care about their people? Who's freaking side are you on anyways? You must own stock in Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon or something.

Perhaps if we funded dictatorships that were closer to home we wouldn't have to throw as much good money after bad.

You're completely insane, you do realize that don't you?

No I would like to see it stop, but what I was saying was that it wouldn't matter in the long run because they places will find other ways of financing their military.

[Army Guy]

You just cheered me up. Look, if a country as rich as ours is unable to afford warfare then I doubt anyone else is. The fact that war is getting to expensive to wage is a good thing.

Sorry to burst your bubble Eyeball, but it is not getting to expensive, in fact it sort of a like a hobby spending...Canada as a G-8 nation could be doing alot more, instead, spending on this mission is relative to it's acceptance, because it is not popular, it does not get the support it needs, support like funding, etc etc ....one of the main reasons it is going so slowly....

[Oleg Bach]

Really don't get you adventuring wacky wanna war guys. For instance if America had dumped 100 thousand bucks on every Iraqi family - they would be all peacfully shopping at a Walmart in Baghdad...it would have been a whole lot cheaper than the trillion bucks they dropped along with needless loss of military and civilian life.

Same as the issue in Afhanistan - or Palistine for that matter - it really has nothing to do with religion, it is strickly and pragmatically economic. Not saying there are not religious lunitics - but the moderate new Walmart shoppers would eventually shun the wacko ones. It is much like a group of welfare recipents at a board meeting to discuss their future...there is always a crazy overly medicated lady that sits as chair..and she will suggest medication for all...as the answer for the depressive persona of the poor.

I sat at such a meeting and suggested the depression would leave if all the poor in the room had 5000 dollars dropped into their bank accounts all would no longer be suffering from inforced clinical depression - a cheer went up with my suggestion....I am sure if the billions spent on the lucrative and exceiting war machine - were spent more wisely their would be peace...and you folks would have to struggle to become civilized and intelligent human beings in this brave new world.

[Army Guy]

Really don't get you adventuring wacky wanna war guys. For instance if America had dumped 100 thousand bucks on every Iraqi family - they would be all peacfully shopping at a Walmart in Baghdad...it would have been a whole lot cheaper than the trillion bucks they dropped along with needless loss of military and civilian life.

Hey nothing would make me happier than be able to stay at home with my family. But perhaps it's not the wachy, wanna war guys thats holding back progress but rather the peace nik, i'm spending to much on this mission already guys.....

[Topaz]

Are you implying that autoworkers are too stupid to look for a job so they will sit on their arse and just collect social assistance?

Of course not! BUT not ALL these workers are going to be able to find jobs especially if they are over 50!! IF they have to collect EI, why not? They probably have been paying into for over 30 years! As far as welfare goes, I don`t think any of these guys would want to go there but if they can`t find jobs, they can`t let their kids starve can they?

[Oleg Bach]

Wefare pays just enough to make you homeless and eventually mentally ill. No worker who has had a good living wage can survive on welfare. They all have houses - and CARS - they will be forced to liquidate all assets and then when that money is gone - there will be homelessness. As far as UIC - it is an over loaded fund and should be used up completely - it's their money! What happens after that? Maybe sell the house and keep the cottage and get a few chickens...the future is not bright and only the bright will survive - so how bright is the average repetative action auto worker?

[Peter F]

The Canadian government has replied

"We will be pulling out our military forces in 2011 and this is quite clear."

tic-toc-tic-toc

[bluegreen]

You make it sound like NATO is not doing that today, the reason we are in Afgan today was that the US went to war under art 5 of the NATO defensive pact, an attack on one is an attack on all....yes in that process we removed the Taliban government, but we also have a responsibility to rebuid what we've destroyed. or leave the country a smoking hole....ripe for more of the same problems.

You have read about NATO defensive pact, and you are familar with Art 5 i assume...if you are then please walk me through it, why are we involved in Afgan...

Yes there is many spots in the world that are as much or worse off than the Afganistan. So what is your piont here, that we have spent enough cash in Afgan time to move on, we've buried enough soldiers, time to move on so we can bury some more else where ....We are not in Afgan because we've decided to save Afganistan, that it was on some list of states that needed saving....we are there to rebuild it because we've kicked the crap out of it....and we want to rebuild it so we don't have to come back....

*****************

We're not bleeding for a lie, where bleeding for a cause that you've given up on, that you've swept under the carpet....And don't give us that soldiers go where they are ordered to and we the people are responsible for thier lives crap ....if thats the case you've failed us miserably...you sent us on this mission and then forgot us...because you no longer supported the mission....

Canadian soldiers believe in the mission, no question about that fact... ask any of them, not because we have to, or that we've been ordered to,

but because you gave it to us and we will accomplish it, regardless of how hard it is , despite if you support it or not....we don't quit, we don't don't whine, we get the job done....

Did we need Afganistan to relearn that, have we forgotten those past conflicts already, what makes you think that Afagn will be any different , war and it's effects will not be forgotten by those that have felts it's touch one way or another, for the rest of Canadians it will soon fade from thier minds to be replaced by something else....Have a good Rememberance day.

It's a little dis-ingenious to quote article 5. The Taliban gave shelter to Bin Laden, but didn't participate in any attack on the US. I remember well the events of the day, and while everybody (All the NATO allies, plus others) seemed to think it was a good idea to clobber the Taliban, I think that article 5 was a quick justification to involve NATO.

Please don't pretend that NATO hasn't changed beyond recognition. For the past 20 years I have been listening to, and reading arguments about 'How can we make NATO relevant in the post Cold War world?' That discussion has been all about how 'we' can expand the mission, expand the membership, etc. Kindly tell me in what respect Serb actions in Bosnia/Kosovo called for NATO intervention? NATO was a handy hammer. It was picked up and used. Ditto for Afghanistan. NATO is the only effective joint command, and multi-national military force in the world today. The reason for this is because the cold War mission was so unmistakably serving the interests of the alliance members, and it was probably a matter of survival that it be effective. That's why NATO worked, and was effective. Given that the cold war dangers have receded, many of the NATO members will be re-evaluating their security needs. I would suggest that over time, not next year, or even the next decade, continued use of the NATO 'hammer' as a matter of convenience will discredit the alliance, and undermine it's central function. To our potential detriment I might add.

As you pointed out, that is water under the bridge, and here we are. I stated that Afghanistan isn't a Nation. (As opposed to a state). If you accept the definition of a nation as a cohesive group, that self identify as such, through shared language, institutions, religion, and/or culture, it would be very hard indeed to define Afghanistan as a nation. My point was that there is not much in the way of unifying influences across the state of Afghanistan. Your long term mission strikes me as being one of building a state, with all the unifying institutions that will bring peace and security, and ultimately prosperity. How is it possible to graft a unitary state onto a tribal society? It would take generations, and I don't believe it's possible.

I empathise with you. I would hate to have to come up with a winning strategy and tactics to bring security to that troubled land. If it is truly our part to rebuild it, because we are responsible for the outcome of our intervention, then some really drastic changes to our assumptions will be required. Remember Palestine after the war? My grandfather served there as an Intelligence officer seconded from the Royal Marines. He was a crusty old bigot, but he'd fought his way through Africa, Sicily, the mediterranean, and the Normandy. He was horrified that his military service was capped by such a mess. Shooting teenagers, and torturing old men wasn't his idea of how a soldier should soldier, but it was the result of an impossible mission. Palestine was a disaster because the assumption made about the UK's ability to impose a humane and secure settlement on Palestine was fundamentally flawed. We live with the consequences of this failure today, and look at the dangers we face as a result. If we are to learn from the past, we ought to consider carefully our ways, means, and intentions in Afghan. It will haunt us for generations to come if we seek to impose the impossible, by force of arms.

[Army Guy]

It's a little dis-ingenious to quote article 5. The Taliban gave shelter to Bin Laden, but didn't participate in any attack on the US. I remember well the events of the day, and while everybody (All the NATO allies, plus others) seemed to think it was a good idea to clobber the Taliban, I think that article 5 was a quick justification to involve NATO.

Was it a quick and easy justification or did they not have much choice, where do we draw the line in this circumstance , a nation harbouring known terrorists who had just carried out the worlds largest terror attack in history....wiegh that with alot of other factors as well, The citizens of the US were waiting for some type of quick government response, The US was already involved in Iraq, a mission not popular amoungest all western world allieds, if placed in the US president shoes how would you've handled it?

Please don't pretend that NATO hasn't changed beyond recognition. For the past 20 years I have been listening to, and reading arguments about 'How can we make NATO relevant in the post Cold War world?'

Nato has changed, but the orginal mission has not, Russia is still a threat to europeon security, it still pocesses a vast military, granted nothing on the scale of the cold war, but enough to still cause the US and all of Nato pause, and concern. and although the cold war is offically over, according to the media...i think it is still ongoing, somewhat....the US is activily seeking out ex warsaw pact nations to join the alliance, why ? if not to ensure that those power bases are removed from bears grasp ...and Nato is put in a stronger postion for the future....

Kindly tell me in what respect Serb actions in Bosnia/Kosovo called for NATO intervention? NATO was a handy hammer. It was picked up and used. Ditto for Afghanistan. NATO is the only effective joint command, and multi-national military force in the world today.

What other organization was able to do the job, to quickly mobilize the equipment and manpower....Bosnia, and kosovo also fell in under Nato's operational theater so to speak....the Europeans are well aware of how fast things can get out of control in this part of europe and wanted a quick response, and a quick outcome....Had the UN handle it i know we would be still there today, and this conflict would be just getting warmed up...

with a great possiablity of drawing more european nations into it...

Given that the cold war dangers have receded, many of the NATO members will be re-evaluating their security needs. I would suggest that over time, not next year, or even the next decade, continued use of the NATO 'hammer' as a matter of convenience will discredit the alliance, and undermine it's central function. To our potential detriment I might add.

Many NATO countries did re evaluate thier security needs, in fact right after the cold war massive cut backs where ordered, and many of those same nations now find themselfs re arming....mainly for that very reason...Nato is the only cop in town right now...That and the fact that other nations are on the verge of becoming super powers, China for one, Russia is now pumping bils back into it's military, re arming, and retooling....add the fact thier is more conflict in the world now than there was 10 years ago.

And on top of all that the UN has become discredited already....and a fairly ineffective organzation when it comes to using force....

I stated that Afghanistan isn't a Nation. (As opposed to a state). If you accept the definition of a nation as a cohesive group, that self identify as such, through shared language, institutions, religion, and/or culture, it would be very hard indeed to define Afghanistan as a nation. My point was that there is not much in the way of unifying influences across the state of Afghanistan. Your long term mission strikes me as being one of building a state, with all the unifying institutions that will bring peace and security, and ultimately prosperity. How is it possible to graft a unitary state onto a tribal society? It would take generations, and I don't believe it's possible.

It is going to take generations, or much longer, if it is going to suceed....One of the very reasons it is a tribal society was in many circumstances the only way the people could be looked after, provided the security needed, the work they needed, providing everything needed to sustain life. And frankly they stick to what is working, regardless of how effective it is....and with time the people will find that the government is capable of giving them these things...The big question is do we know for sure this task is impossiable to do ? know one knows that with any certainity...we are guessing, with the stakes so high, can we afford to guess, if there is a small chance then why not try...

I empathise with you. I would hate to have to come up with a winning strategy and tactics to bring security to that troubled land. If it is truly our part to rebuild it, because we are responsible for the outcome of our intervention, then some really drastic changes to our assumptions will be required.

We are responable for our intervention, hencw why we are now trying to rebuild it....and your right we do need to change how we go about rebuilding , i'm not saying it is not currently working, it is just not bringing about change fast enough for those supporting the mission, and when support dwindles to a tipping piont, the entire mission will fail, regardless of the plan.

He was horrified that his military service was capped by such a mess. Shooting teenagers, and torturing old men wasn't his idea of how a soldier should soldier, but it was the result of an impossible mission. Palestine was a disaster because the assumption made about the UK's ability to impose a humane and secure settlement on Palestine was fundamentally flawed. We live with the consequences of this failure today, and look at the dangers we face as a result. If we are to learn from the past, we ought to consider carefully our ways, means, and intentions in Afghan. It will haunt us for generations to come if we seek to impose the impossible, by force of arms.

For the majority of this mission , i think Canada has conducted itself extremly well, but are at times guilty by the company we keep. But i will agree with you 100%.

[M.Dancer]

Kindly tell me in what respect Serb actions in Bosnia/Kosovo called for NATO intervention?

Serbian aggression was having a destableizing effect on the region as a whole. Hungary felt threatened, Italy was concerned about refugees, Greece about Macedonia(FRY)..Albania...

Europe has along memory, they felt that Serbia had to be stoped before a low intensity war got a lot hotter.

[Mr.Canada]

Serbian aggression was having a destableizing effect on the region as a whole. Hungary felt threatened, Italy was concerned about refugees, Greece about Macedonia(FRY)..Albania...

Europe has along memory, they felt that Serbia had to be stoped before a low intensity war got a lot hotter.

They got involved because Muslims were being cleansed from the area, we cannot have that. Such a nice, peaceful people too....

[M.Dancer]

They got involved because Muslims were being cleansed from the area, we cannot have that. Such a nice, peaceful people too....

That was only Bosnia and later Kosovo. Croatia is catholic while the mountain passes defended Slovenia...

[Mr.Canada]

Of course not! BUT not ALL these workers are going to be able to find jobs especially if they are over 50!! IF they have to collect EI, why not? They probably have been paying into for over 30 years! As far as welfare goes, I don`t think any of these guys would want to go there but if they can`t find jobs, they can`t let their kids starve can they?

Many will be offered packages to retire early and /or severance packages to leave permanently. This will be happening soon, there will be no choice in the matter unless something miraculous happens. A bailout with the same people running the auto sector will only delay the inevitable.