A Fight That Can't Be Won. Afghanistan Mission.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Disagree if you must, but the America you think has long gone never existed at all. Economics has always been the priority...my slave ancestors will attest to that, as will many others from US history's socio-economic strata. The respect that you speak of is just another charade, in suppport of the bottom line, at home, and abroad. Pretending otherwise is shortsighted at best, particularly since we have the luxury of evaluating the historical realities in complete context today.

America once fought wars based upon principle, not merely for their own economic interests. The greatest political document of all time was your American Declaration of Independence, and those principles were applied to American foreign policy for nearly two centuries. It cannot be said that the second world war was all about economics. Then came the rise of the military industrial complex, and after the second war to end wars and with all of the manufacturing capacity already in place, and with the threat of the "Cold War" hanging over the head of the free world an arms race like nothing ever seen before began. To ignore this basic true is simple foolish. Shortsighted approaches to foreign policy are indeed the luxury of hindsight taken into historical context, even so it is clear that the reasons for going to war have changed since Vietnam.

Many don't long for the American foreign policy of old compared to the present.....the victims of such policies sure don't. That's because it is the same policy....American power supporting American interests.

It matters not who's view is at stake....Iraq only exemplifies the continuity of American foreign policy for the region, which is my main contention. Operation Allied Force in 1999 also expended enormous quantities of munitions....Canada ran out and had to buy bombs from the Americans with a credit card at Aviano. Yet defense spending is much lower as a percentage of GDP. Force levels are much smaller. I still like Ike, but he whiffed on this one.

Understood, but the matter of origin (it wasn't Britain) is irrelevant. The USA has projected force through sea power going back to the Barbary Pirates. One of the most common expectations whenever US interests are threatened is for the president to ask, "Where are the carriers". This has been true since 1945, not 1965. Dewey did not sail into Manila Bay on a raft.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it would seem to me that continuity indicates staying on the same course. So how does this apply to Iraq, after having backed Saddam in a war with Iran, who as a coincidence was at one time an American ally before its Islamic revolution? I think it is safe to say that American policy reacted to the changing demographics in the region. What Iraq really exemplifies is going to war for all the wrong reasons. America WANTED a war with Iraq, perhaps more specifically George W Bush wanted to respond to an attempt on his father's life in Kuwait years before. The fact remains that this war was not forced upon them, nor were many of the actions undertaken by the United States government since Vietnam. Before these events America reacted differently.

Excellent...this is progress. Now please go back and see how long this has been going on. Your own forces are deployed far away from home for interventionist purposes....same as in Iraq, Haiti, and Kosovo.

Even better....for if you believe that, there is no way it just happened in the past 40 years. Your position vis-a-vis post-Kennedy is not consistent with a Pax Americana far longer in the making.

To my knowledge a Pax Americana never existed.

[BC_chick]

What?

Here I go translating Olegese again, but what he's saying is that Afghans don't appreciate our help and that he can't really blame them, he'd do the same thing if he were in their shoes... because of this, he feels we need to stop killing beautiful young 'anglo' boys for something nobody appreciates.

[bush_cheney2004]

America once fought wars based upon principle, not merely for their own economic interests. The greatest political document of all time was your American Declaration of Independence, and those principles were applied to American foreign policy for nearly two centuries.

Patently false....the US Constitution (far more important than the DoI) was written by privileged land/slaveowners, who grew in belligerence and power during the westward expansion. So great were the economic interests, America's gravest war was fought between her own states.

It cannot be said that the second world war was all about economics. Then came the rise of the military industrial complex, and after the second war to end wars and with all of the manufacturing capacity already in place, and with the threat of the "Cold War" hanging over the head of the free world an arms race like nothing ever seen before began. To ignore this basic true is simple foolish.

Oh no? Find out why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Or the economic impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

Actually, America made more refrigerators and washing machines.....guns and butter.

Shortsighted approaches to foreign policy are indeed the luxury of hindsight taken into historical context, even so it is clear that the reasons for going to war have changed since Vietnam.

The reasons are the same....because the hegemon is the same. If America wants a war....then there shall be war. Please note that America has not declared war since WW2....yet it certainly has engaged in many wars since then. Because it can.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it would seem to me that continuity indicates staying on the same course. So how does this apply to Iraq, after having backed Saddam in a war with Iran, who as a coincidence was at one time an American ally before its Islamic revolution?

Saddam was both enemy and ally, just like Joe Stalin. The US deftly played Iraq and Iran against each other. But you already knew that.

I think it is safe to say that American policy reacted to the changing demographics in the region. What Iraq really exemplifies is going to war for all the wrong reasons. America WANTED a war with Iraq, perhaps more specifically George W Bush wanted to respond to an attempt on his father's life in Kuwait years before.

Wrong....America wanted a second war with Iraq for "regime change".....which was coded in Public Law by the US Congress in 1998. Clinton and Blair filled in the middle with sanctions, bombings, no-fly zones, and covert operations. If it looks like war, and smells like war......it's probably war.

The fact remains that this war was not forced upon them, nor were many of the actions undertaken by the United States government since Vietnam. Before these events America reacted differently.

Nope...America reacted in the exact same way. Send in the troops and/or drop the bombs. What do you think Teddy Roosevelt meant by "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?

To my knowledge a Pax Americana never existed.

You'll have to wait for the empire to fall...just like yours.

[LesterDC]

To my knowledge a Pax Americana never existed.

Oh the Americans do have an empire.. It is just a modern kind of imperialism.. Who needs to build colonies anymore? Instill and fund insurgents in order to spread influence.. Entice others to become capitalist so you can collect all the wealth you need

You'll have to wait for the empire to fall...just like yours.

We Canadians never had an empire

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh the Americans do have an empire.. It is just a modern kind of imperialism.. Who needs to build colonies anymore? Instill and fund insurgents in order to spread influence.. Entice others to become capitalist so you can collect all the wealth you need

Correct.....Empire 2.0

We Canadians never had an empire

Really? Then where did the Monarchy come from? Were the Boer Wars fought at Dawson's Creek?

[ToadBrother]

Oh the Americans do have an empire.. It is just a modern kind of imperialism.. Who needs to build colonies anymore? Instill and fund insurgents in order to spread influence.. Entice others to become capitalist so you can collect all the wealth you need

If that's the plan, it's gone rather wrong. The US is involved in a hopeless war that has tied up the larger part of its military, China practically owns the US dollar and the US economy has crashed, burned, fallen over a cliff and on to a propane storage facility.

[Smallc]

They'll be OK as long as nobody decides to light a match.

[bush_cheney2004]

If that's the plan, it's gone rather wrong. The US is involved in a hopeless war that has tied up the larger part of its military, China practically owns the US dollar and the US economy has crashed, burned, fallen over a cliff and on to a propane storage facility.

So what's Canada's excuse?

[Oleg Bach]

So what's Canada's excuse?

Canada is like a wimpering little husband dominated and exploited by a very large and powerful woman...America - that's our excuse - we as marital partners are in an abusive relationship - we are tired of being beaten up by you - and to proud to state the fact that we as men are being abused by the great and powerful harlot....ooooops - I mean wife. The mean wife America. All she wants to do is fight!

[LesterDC]

Really? Then where did the Monarchy come from? Were the Boer Wars fought at Dawson's Creek?

We used to be part of an empire.. the BRITISH empire, not CANADIAN.

[LesterDC]

So what's Canada's excuse?

America is our excuse.. We are supposed to be friends

[Oleg Bach]

We used to be part of an empire.. the BRITISH empire, not CANADIAN.

That empire still exist - just gone low key. We own the Americans and they know it.

[LesterDC]

That empire still exist - just gone low key. We own the Americans and they know it.

What makes you think that we are part of the British Empire..?

[bush_cheney2004]

America is our excuse.. We are supposed to be friends

That's what I thought.....if you want a friend...get a dog.

[LesterDC]

That's what I thought.....if you want a friend...get a dog.

You are the ones who wants us there

[bush_cheney2004]

You are the ones who wants us there

When has that ever mettered ? We wanted missile defense too.

Truth is, PM Chretien jumped at Afghanistan instead of Iraq. It's your NATO mission and UN consolation prize. Remember all that Canuck bravado about "multilateral action" and the "power of we"?

[reasonoverpassion]

When has that ever mettered ? We wanted missile defense too.

Truth is, PM Chretien jumped at Afghanistan instead of Iraq. It's your NATO mission and UN consolation prize. Remember all that Canuck bravado about "multilateral action" and the "power of we"?

Yeah I remember that pretty well.

The real question is what is the point of all the interventionism? Do any of the Western powers have the ability to stay in any country that is "liberated" long enough to make a difference?

Look at Afghanistan. America used the Muhahadeen, gave them arms and aid to poke the Soviet bear and what was the result of that intervention? As soon as the war was over, American aid pulled out and left the friendly Muhahadeen to their newly liberated country Afghanistan. Then what happened? The friendly Mughahadeen turned into the unfriendly Taliban. Did America really care they were conducting public beheadings and blowing up old Buddhist statues? Not really. Meanwhile all the Islamist extremists from everywhere flocked to Afghanistan

Then along came bin Laden and 911. Suddenly America felt threatened. Terrorism was always an unfortunate occurance somewhere else (Europe, Asia, Africa) now it was possible for them to hit at America. Then America realized that the Taliban were providing a "safe house" to bin Laden so they invade and install Karzai.

After that America gets distracted, decide they need to take out their old friend Saddam, so they invade Iraq and abandon Afghanistan to their NATO partners.

Now it seems the war for the liberation of Iraq is won. The peace is another story, but America's never been any good at peacekeeping--time to go back to Afghanistan because it seems the Taliban are back and the Canadians and Dutch need some help to push the Taliban back into Pakistan.

Sure sounds like a mess. How long is going to be before America becomes distracted again? How long will Afghanistan and Iraq be occupied?

One of the main problems with American foreign policy is the belief that Americans are welcomed as liberators and loved where ever they go. The other faulty assumption is that people everywhere in the world want to just live like Americans.

It's just not that easy to transplant liberal democracy in 2 places that have never had either system. Most Iraqis and Afghans don't even identify with their countries--they are more likely to identify with their ethnic or religious group.

Intervention without undertanding the places we are just walking into is a recipe for failure. "Nation building" is hard work which requires massive amounts of money, time and resources. If we don't have the commitment, my question is : should we be doing it? This is a question both Canadian and Americans need to ask themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Intervention without undertanding the places we are just walking into is a recipe for failure. "Nation building" is hard work which requires massive amounts of money, time and resources. If we don't have the commitment, my question is : should we be doing it? This is a question both Canadian and Americans need to ask themselves.

No....it sounds more like Canadians need to ask why more than the Americans, who have historical experience with nation building in post war Europe and Japan, as well as Central America. If Canadians always want a guarantee, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the nation destruction and re-building business.

Failed states are a security risk....so you can pay now or pay later. Relying on the attention span of America is a very misdirected policy either way. Want to be champions of the "Responsibility to Protect".....then it's gonna cost a lot more than shadowing American foreign policy.

[reasonoverpassion]

No....it sounds more like Canadians need to ask why more than the Americans, who have historical experience with nation building in post war Europe and Japan, as well as Central America. If Canadians always want a guarantee, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the nation destruction and re-building business.

Failed states are a security risk....so you can pay now or pay later. Relying on the attention span of America is a very misdirected policy either way. Want to be champions of the "Responsibility to Protect".....then it's gonna cost a lot more than shadowing American foreign policy.

I agree...with most of what you say.

What kind of "historical record" in nation building are we talking about here? The only nation truly reformed by American intervention was post war Japan. Germany already had democratic experience, so as far as winning the "hearts and minds" not much effort was required. In countries with no traditions of liberal democracy, nation building has been a disaster.

As a Canadian, I'm not looking for a guarantee, but from my government and governments we choose to ally ourselves with, I'm looking for a plan with meaningful objectives.

Yes our responsibility to protect requires much more than shadowing US foreign policy. Canadians need to stop talking and start doing. We need to reclaim our rightful place as a responsible nation (the legacy of Pearson) who is a middle power willing to be an honest broker resolving conflict where we can, throughout the world. This requires commitment and living up to our flowery promises.

[Topaz]

What I think Canada should do is bring home all the troops and never go into another war UNTIL we have the equipment to help protect them and the personnel to build a stronger military until we are only sending our troops to return in wooden boxes. Then, we sending them to into harms way, we better be very care what war we are going to fight in. Afghanistan is a loss cause and if we stay it will bring our economy down even more and we will lose more of our people.

[M.Dancer]

What I think Canada should do is bring home all the troops and never go into another war UNTIL we have the equipment to help protect them and the personnel to build a stronger military until we are only sending our troops to return in wooden boxes. Then, we sending them to into harms way, we better be very care what war we are going to fight in. Afghanistan is a loss cause and if we stay it will bring our economy down even more and we will lose more of our people.

Every war is a come as you are party...

[bush_cheney2004]

What kind of "historical record" in nation building are we talking about here? The only nation truly reformed by American intervention was post war Japan. Germany already had democratic experience, so as far as winning the "hearts and minds" not much effort was required. In countries with no traditions of liberal democracy, nation building has been a disaster.

Since you mentioned cost, I'm including the Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program). Obviously the Americans had already paid in lives lost, as did the other Allies.

As a Canadian, I'm not looking for a guarantee, but from my government and governments we choose to ally ourselves with, I'm looking for a plan with meaningful objectives.

Sometimes we don't get that....that's not guaranteed either. My own observation is that some Canadians (and Americans) would rather second guess any comitment(s) because of an unkown outcome or potential for success.

Yes our responsibility to protect requires much more than shadowing US foreign policy. Canadians need to stop talking and start doing. We need to reclaim our rightful place as a responsible nation (the legacy of Pearson) who is a middle power willing to be an honest broker resolving conflict where we can, throughout the world. This requires commitment and living up to our flowery promises.

R2P presents many challenges and afronts to sovereignty. There is no assurance of success or acceptance even when cloaked with questionable UN or NATO legitimacy.

[speaker]

It's true that there are no guarantees.... of success,

I think it's true too that a lot of Canadians question a committment to a war that is of questionable purpose, stands to do more harm than good to world relations, and where victory can't be got without causing more of the same terrorism that was the excuse for the war in the first place.

What Canadians have had in peacekeeping missions in the past was a guarantee that we were trying to keep the peace rather than punish an entire population for the crimes of a few.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think it's true too that a lot of Canadians question a committment to a war that is of questionable purpose, stands to do more harm than good to world relations, and where victory can't be got without causing more of the same terrorism that was the excuse for the war in the first place.

OK...but such second guessing after the fact points to more of the same. In the end, it is always a trade off between acceptable levels of misery.

What Canadians have had in peacekeeping missions in the past was a guarantee that we were trying to keep the peace rather than punish an entire population for the crimes of a few.

Right, but inherent in such an approach, perceived or real (according to General Hillier), is the often times false assumption that peace can even exist. I think that such a mindset embraces the dichotomy of peace through armed conflict and/or occupation. For many a Canadian psyche, the notion of peacekeeping is paramount even in the face of outright war. I am not sure where this comes from, save for the reflex reaction to whatever the "Americans" have done or may do.

Edited December 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

"Exceptable levels of Misery" - there is empathy. To stand in your shoes and look at the world though YOUR eyes and to understand who and how you percieve. The other word is sympathy - which is very interesting in what it really means - sym - pathos .................Patheitc or pathological - SICKNESS AND SUFFERING....sypathos means to SUFFER TOGETHER....I have empathy - as the old French saying goes - "To understand is to forgive" BUT for those who choose misery with exceptable levels - that's a choice - and to ask me to have sympathy for you and suffer for you is not something I will do - YOU can suffer alone. There is nothing execptable about misery - and only a very sad, lonely and hopeless person excepts suffering proudly - BC - get off the cross - someone needs the wood!