Canadian soldiers cleared of alleged Taliban abuse

Smallc · June 10, 2009

I am quite aware of the entire situation, but that doesn't change anything. If we stoop to their level we can never again take the moral high ground on anything...ever. We are a country that follows the rules for the most part...and when we're not following the rules, we're usually doing it in the name of good (Iranian Embassy Crisis) rather than in the name of victory at any cost. We can't afford to give up who we are.

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

Is that really who we should be emulating? Are people really just expendable pawns? I don't think so.

Then get out of Afghanistan. If we're not prepared to adapt to the conditions, then we should just get out, because we will not win. Afghanistan will not be a democracy. The Taliban will ultimately defeat the friendly warlords and the impotent government.

Like I said, you fight a war to win. There is no other fundamental objective more important than that.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

Then get out of Afghanistan.

We going to do just that....with our principles intact.

Like I said, you fight a war to win.

See above.

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

I am quite aware of the entire situation, but that doesn't change anything. If we stoop to their level we can never again take the moral high ground on anything...ever. We are a country that follows the rules for the most part...and when we're not following the rules, we're usually doing it in the name of good (Iranian Embassy Crisis) rather than in the name of victory at any cost. We can't afford to give up who we are.

We (the Allies) mounted a massive bombing campaign in Germany which caused enormous civilian casualties. Were we wrong to do it? Yes, by any moral measure, the Dresden fire bombing was a malicious, brutal and wicked act. But war ceased to be in any way a civilized enterprise by the middle of the 19th century. The American Civil War, the first modern war, demonstrated the nature of Total War. Modern war is a horrible, violent, wicked thing, and there's no point in sugar coating it, or in pretending, particular in the kind of war we're fighting in Afghanistan, that simply winning hearts and minds is somehow going to win the day. What will win the day, if anything, is when the Taliban and their allied warlords are riddled with bullets and their bodies soaking the soil with blood.

That's the whole point of a guerrilla campaign, to ultimately remove the other side's will to go any further. The French simply couldn't stomach the atrocities the Spanish fighters were willing to commit. The Soviets couldn't stomach the atrocities the Afghani warriors were willing to commit. In both cases, it wasn't so much a military victory, it was a psychological victory.

Alta4ever · June 10, 2009

We going to do just that....with our principles intact.
See above.

You can't leave a country and a populous to murders, thugs, and terrorists and leave with you "principles" intact.

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

We going to do just that....with our principles intact.

I'm sure the average Afghani will understand. The West abandoned them before, and I suspect most of them knew the West would abandon them again.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

I'm sure the average Afghani will understand. The West abandoned them before, and I suspect most of them knew the West would abandon them again.

We may be abandoning them (militarily)....but we won't be killing them. We've already done a great deal of the work for them. Perhaps they should be the ones finishing the job. It is their country after all.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · June 10, 2009

You can't leave a country and a populous to murders, thugs, and terrorists and leave with you "principles" intact.

And we can't start to act like murders and thugs either. Personally, I would rather we weren't leaving (well, we actually aren't leaving). I would rather we stay in reduced numbers.

Alta4ever · June 10, 2009

We may be abandoning them (militarily)....but we won't be killing them. We've already done a great deal of the work for them. Perhaps they should be the ones finishing the job. It is their country after all.

You are killing them by abandoning them and leaving them to fend for themselves against murders, thugs, and terrorists.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

And you would rather that we become murders, thugs, and terrorists ourselves. I'd rather not.

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

You can't leave a country and a populous to murders, thugs, and terrorists and leave with you "principles" intact.

That's right. What amazes me is that no one saw this coming. I have no idea what the politicians in the NATO countries thought the Taliban were.

The Afhgan conflict was winnable when the US was basically carpet bombing the ancient Afghani retreats in the Hindu Kush and other mountainous areas of the country. When that campaign stopped because the US had to run off to waste its time, resources and blood in Iraq, conventional troops were sent in to, well I dunno what they were sent in to do. Most of the NATO countries didn't even want to have their soldiers actually see anything approaching combat, and the rest were sent off with this idea that if you gave the little kiddies Timbits and teddy bears, that the hearts and minds of the Afghani people would be turned, and the Taliban would give up and would become marginally less extreme Islamists.

There were sound military reasons to go into Afghanistan. The Taliban were aiding and abetting al Qaeda. They were part of a larger series of problems destabilizing Pakistan, and thus creating an enormously dangerous situation in Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. And it's quite possible that if we walk away now, the successes Pakistan is having on its side of the fence may be undermined.

Is this what our soldiers' dearest blood is being used to buy?

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

And you would rather that we become murders, thugs, and terrorists ourselves. I'd rather not.

I'd rather we commit to no deadlines, vow to stay until every last Taliban soldier lies in a pool of their own blood, and then make good on it. No war can be fought without civilian casualties, that's just the way it is. And soldiers will, at times go to far, but that's the price they and we have to pay for producing those creatures we know as soldiers. If the message being sent to soldiers is "We'll sell you up the river for misplaced liberalism and a neurotic desire to always be the good guy", then we're not producing soldiers at all.

Alta4ever · June 10, 2009

And you would rather that we become murders, thugs, and terrorists ourselves. I'd rather not.

We aren't nor are we turning into that. You fail to understand or realize most of the ill will the world has toward the west is becuase we turn tail and leave people in the lurch instead of seeing our commitments through, and when the west did leave those conflicts, police actions or whatever the word is for them now, we did not leave with our "prinicples" intact. We left those people high and dry.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

I'd rather we commit to no deadlines, vow to stay until every last Taliban soldier lies in a pool of their own blood, and then make good on it.

No one has that ability...and certainly not Canada. We can't sustain indefinitely what we are doing in Afghanistan. We can never kill them all, because as you say, they can blend in. The only way to kill every member of the Taliban is to extinguish life on Earth itself.

No war can be fought without civilian casualties, that's just the way it is.

That's right, and it's tragic. Despite the fact that we can never completely avoid civilian casualties, our goal should always be to limit them as much as possible. Victory at any cost isn't much of a victory at all.

And soldiers will, at times go to far, but that's the price they and we have to pay for producing those creatures we know as soldiers.

And when tho soldiers go to far, they will also have to pay a price. We are not terrorists, thugs, or murderers, and we must hold ourselves accountable to that.

If the message being sent to soldiers is "We'll sell you up the river for misplaced liberalism and a neurotic desire to always be the good guy", then we're not producing soldiers at all.

The message being sent to soldiers is that they are not above the law. The message is that they can't sell the reputation of this country and its people up the river in the name of vengeance and victory. We're creating soldiers to fight for Canada, and Canada has rules. War has rules. Soldiers are not animals.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

We aren't nor are we turning into that. You fail to understand or realize most of the ill will the world has toward the west is becuase we turn tail and leave people in the lurch instead of seeing our commitments through, and when the west did leave those conflicts, police actions or whatever the word is for them now, we did not leave with our "prinicples" intact. We left those people high and dry.

So how do we win this war without becoming murders thugs, and terrorists? How exactly? We don't know who the enemy is, we don't know where the enemy is, and we often don't know what the enemy is. We can stay as long as we want (and we are staying in some capacity), but until the Afghan people decide that they are tired of supporting the thugs, murderers, and terrorists, we can't win without killing everyone....and that is a distance that is simply too far.

Borg · June 10, 2009

And you would rather that we become murders, thugs, and terrorists ourselves. I'd rather not.

You become this by running and allowing others to do it. In for a penny in for a pound - turn back now and it will be worse than when we entered.

You are beginning to deeply disappoint me - whether that means anything or not does not matter - I would say that your principles are weak and will lead to the down fall of others if not yourself. Do not think for an instant the world will respect you because of law - it respects only strength and purpose.

In the middle east even the people we stand against would think you insignificant for being willing to abandon your initial purpose - making you far more vulnerable in your own home.

A product of a soft life, privilege and no dirve to make that world better - the strong may roll over you someday.

Borg

Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg

Alta4ever · June 10, 2009

So how do we win this war without becoming murders thugs, and terrorists? How exactly? We don't know who the enemy is, we don't know where the enemy is, and we often don't know what the enemy is. We can stay as long as we want (and we are staying in some capacity), but until the Afghan people decide that they are tired of supporting the thugs, murderers, and terrorists, we can't win without killing everyone....and that is a distance that is simply too far.

We stay there and draw their fire, until such a day the people of the country are able to defend themselves from the taliban eventually they will give up and go home. Strike at the strong holds we know about and disrupt their supply of people and material. For the most part you do what has been done throughout history create strong points and garrisons to support and protect the local people, until the insurgency peters out. This is the only strategy that has ever worked in military history and can take a very long time, Generations. Counter insurgency operations that work are never quick and full of brilliant maneuver, its a long slog.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

In the middle east even the people we stand against would think you insignificant for being willing to abandon your initial purpose

If I were in charge we would not be leaving Afghanistan. It's that simple. We would reduce to a sustainable level and continue. I simply stated that we are leaving, not my support for us leaving. I would want us to stay to protect life and the rule of law...and to kill people when we have to. Don't think you know me all that well.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

We stay there and draw their fire, until such a day the people of the country are able to defend themselves from the taliban eventually they will give up and go home. Strike at the strong holds we know about and disrupt their supply of people and material. For the most part you do what has been done throughout history create strong points and garrisons to support and protect the local people, until the insurgency peters out. This is the only strategy that has ever worked in military history and can take a very long time, Generations. Counter insurgency operations that work are never quick and full of brilliant maneuver, its a long slog.

And I agree completely. That said, I still believe our goal should be to limit civilian casualties and follow our own rules...but we can stay as long as is necessary.

Alta4ever · June 10, 2009

And I agree completely. That said, I still believe our goal should be to limit civilian casualties and follow our own rules...but we can stay as long as is necessary.

Do you not think that this something that western governments and militarys hold as a goal? They have been doing their utmost to creat build and field precision weapons to limit civilian causalties. The advances made in these capablities are phenominal over the last 50 years. Considering acurate bombing in WWII was within 5 miles of the target now we are looking at acuracey within meters of a target.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

I'm not saying that anything is being done wrong now. I'm simply responding to the idea that we have to fight the enemy to win no matter the cost. I am 100% in favour of the mission at present. The only regret I have is that it takes away from money that could be spent on rebuilding the military....but, if we're going to have a military, we do have to use it. Don't mistake me for a pacifist...I'm simple an idealist with very strong principles. I realize things don't always work out great in real life, but that doesn't mean that we don't try.

Oleg Bach · June 10, 2009

Not very strategic to stand and draw the fire of the enemy...and it's also not very true - seems that all deaths occur on the road...with no fire - just a big boom and a dead human akin to a native Ontarian racoon - It sure must be embarassing to call road kill heros...wonder if the living raccons along the Highway of Heros feel left out of the hero department?

IF Canadians are going to draw the fire of the enemy - then they are fools - they must cleverly draw out the enemy bodily and kill them - what's with our commanders and commander in chief? Just not very street wise - to wage war with Afghani Taliban - you can not have a boardroom mentality - You have to have the mind of a street fighter - and street fighters are not elected to public office in Canada - they elect people who just love team sports and handle a war like a basket ball game........................provoke - call forth - encircle and destroy - fain weakness - and strike - sucker shot from behind when possible - riding about in Carl sherder armoured cars is not fighting a war - it is simply fulfilling military contracts - and the waste of tax dollars on second rate machinery = If Canada is going to kick ass - get rid of the modern comforts - dawn a traditional head dress - and foot soldier them to death....riding about like you are off roading for sport and getting blown up is not working.

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

And I agree completely. That said, I still believe our goal should be to limit civilian casualties and follow our own rules...but we can stay as long as is necessary.

I'm not saying indiscriminate kill everything in sight. That's not what ultimately won the civil war for the Sri Lankans (though it shortened it substantially). In that case, what won was disgruntled Tamil Tiger lieutenants who sold their leader up the river (treachery is another useful tool).

But the point is that Canadians have been sold a somewhat sanitized version of what's required to ultimately bring peace to Afghanistan, in part because the last couple of generations have been raised on a doctrine fundamentally based on peacekeeping, where Canadian soldiers are seen handing out presents to smiling local children, and no one ever bleeds, and no civilians ever gets caught in the crossfire, and the enemy is ultimately just misunderstood, and needs a loving Canuck hug to get them back on the right and proper path.

It's garbage. The Afghani warriors, Taliban, warlord or however they're aligned, are among the most fierce and indomitable fighters our species has ever produced. They were frightening 2400 years ago when Alexander the Great skirted through the Hindu Kush, and the chief difference is that now they've got firearms and explosives. The Soviets, whose rules of engagement were certainly less restrictive than ours, ultimately packed up and went home, so the job of defeating these guys when you're trying to be polite becomes that much harder.

Canadians need to get over the Pearsonian Doctrine. By and large, it's been a failure, and it's simply wrong to send soldiers into places and then expect them to become little more than interested spectators. The former Yugoslavia and Rwanda should have utterly wiped out any commitment to such a moronic military philosophy, but no, the lack of will still lingers on. Canadians want to be loved, it seems, and being loved means having a castrated armed forces. I want a real armed forces, one that is willing to take initiative, gain territory, occupy and build bases, use intelligence and counterintelligence, blow bad guys up, and conduct a war. War is a violent situation, not a photo op.

In other words, Canadians need to grow up. They're acting like infantile half-wits. The last few generations of Canadians have so little in common with the brave men and women who marched off to fight the Nazis that it's difficult to see how they could even be the same people.

Smallc · June 10, 2009

I don't know if you failed to notice, but it isn't the 1930s and 40s anymore. Things are quite different. That said, Canadian soldiers are not spectators in this war, we are active participants. Being an active participant doesn't meant that we've thrown the law aside (and we haven't). We are doing good work in Afghanistan. That's why we should be staying to continue that work...in the manner that we are currently doing it. The direction of the country is up to the Crown on behalf of the people, and does not come as a result of your individual wants. We (the citizens of Canada) will decide what is done here (within the framework of the law and the Constitution), whether or not you or I agree with it.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc

ToadBrother · June 10, 2009

I don't know if you failed to notice, but it isn't the 1930s and 40s anymore. Things are quite different. That said, Canadian soldiers are not spectators in this war, we are active participants. Being an active participant doesn't meant that we've thrown the law aside (and we haven't). We are doing good work in Afghanistan. That's why we should be staying to continue that work...in the manner that we are currently doing it. The direction of the country is up to the Crown on behalf of the people, and does not come as a result of your individual wants. We (the citizens of Canada) will decide what is done here (within the framework of the law and the Constitution), whether or not you or I agree with it.

Democracies, as a rule, are never as eager to go to war as dictatorships. That's a good thing. That being said, democracies that have successfully mounted military campaigns are ones that have let the commanders decide tactical measures. Even Churchill, only once, made direct orders, and that was when the Japanese took Singapore. He knew military matters well enough to know that the only people equipped intellectually and psychologically to manage a war are warriors.

What I'm seeing in Parliament about the Afghan campaign is what sure looks like impossible lines being drawn in the sand. The timelines forced on the Government by the Opposition are as bad as it gets. Imagine if the British Parliament had said "Okay, we'll fight Hitler just until we've liberated North Africa, after that we want to go home." It would have utterly demoralized the army and emboldened the enemy. Timelines are just another word for withdrawal. Military campaigns don't have timelines, they have objectives.