Conservatives say- Cost of Afghanistan war?

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

The issues were much more defined during WW2 but I agree, we never will see that kind of commitment unless maybe the country is threatened directly. I don't think it is bad that people are skeptical but our military is us so don't screw them around.

It's only less defined because as a nation we're stupidly politically correct when it comes to enemies. Heck...we don't even like using the word.

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

And big mistakes were covered up and profiteering was never found out because of the secrecy. As I said, you can get pretty crazy keeping things secret. We could get to the point where we don't admit anyone is hurt or killed in the fight and make it illegal to let anyone know as national security.
How far do you think we should take it? Should we neither confirm or deny when we are are at war?

Can you give a few examples?

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

My father joined in 1939 at the ripe old age of 18. He went overseas in 41. His older brother was in the Merchant marine. On the mumansk run his ship was torpedoed and sunk. He was rescued and then that ship was torpedoed and sunk. He was rescued a second time. That ship was also torpedoed. He wasn't rescued. This was 43. My father got the news about his brother the same month he receved news that his mother had died in Montreal. Three years later he came home for the first time in 5 years.

Similar tales here. Our lot fought on both sides just to add to the fun.

jdobbin · September 17, 2009

Can you give a few examples?

In World War I it was the faulty rifles that were covered up.

http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisC...id=5〈=E

On the battlefields of the First World War, Canadian soldiers found themselves frantically trying to free jammed rifles in the face of an attack. The faulty rifles came to symbolize the greed of war as some Canadians made it rich by sacrificing the lives of soldiers for profit.

Eventually, the military raised hell about how many of them were dying as a result. The issue of national security kept it from being dealt with faster.

So, would you say that is an example of secrecy gone too far?

There are similar examples of this in World War II.

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

How far do you think we should take it? Should we neither confirm or deny when we are are at war?

Of course not...but allowing Canadian military information of any sort to get to the Taliban and al-Qaeda is putting our troops in danger, if you ask me.

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

In World War I it was the faulty rifles that were covered up.
http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisC...id=5〈=E

Eventually, the military raised hell about how many of them were dying as a result. The issue of national security kept it from being dealt with faster.

So, would you say that is an example of secrecy gone too far?

There are similar examples of this in World War II.

Good example...but would we have wanted the Germans to actually find that tid-bit out in writing?

jdobbin · September 17, 2009

Good example...but would we have wanted the Germans to actually find that tid-bit out in writing?

The only way to save our soldiers from dying in greater numbers was for that information to be known and for the government to deal with it.

I suppose it could have been covered up all through the war and learned about after. But then we might have been speaking German.

Wilber · September 17, 2009

And big mistakes were covered up and profiteering was never found out because of the secrecy. As I said, you can get pretty crazy keeping things secret. We could get to the point where we don't admit anyone is hurt or killed in the fight and make it illegal to let anyone know as national security.
How far do you think we should take it? Should we neither confirm or deny when we are at war?

Actually, that really could be a matter of national security. Even more serious, it could be very important for the security of the people who are there. Perhaps if the enemy gave detailed accounts of their casualties it might be fair but stupid to reciprocate. We seem to tend toward the stupid. The total cost of running the campaign itself is much less serious.

I don't have any problem withholding information for purely military reasons that should be the only reason for it.

jdobbin · September 17, 2009

Actually, that really could be a matter of national security. Even more serious, it could be very important for the security of the people who are there. Perhaps if the enemy gave detailed accounts of their casualties it might be fair but stupid to reciprocate. We seem to tend toward the stupid. The total cost of running the campaign itself is much less serious.
I don't have any problem withholding information for purely military reasons that should be the only reason for it.

The example I listed was covered up for a long time. Our soldiers were dying because of it and begged people at home to let people know what was happening.

One might say it was a matter of national security to end the cover up so that pressure could be placed on the government to act.

Take your pick. Not exactly an easy decision to make but cover-ups for an entire war can lose that war.

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

Actually, that really could be a matter of national security. Even more serious, it could be very important for the security of the people who are there. Perhaps if the enemy gave detailed accounts of their casualties it might be fair but stupid to reciprocate. We seem to tend toward the stupid. The total cost of running the campaign itself is much less serious.
I don't have any problem withholding information for purely military reasons that should be the only reason for it.

Loose lips sink ships is more than a saying.

Take your pick. Not exactly an easy decision to make but cover-ups for an entire war can lose that war.

You have a good point...but I think it will/should always be overruled by the 'need to know'. A calculated risk perhaps?

Wilber · September 17, 2009

The only way to save our soldiers from dying in greater numbers was for that information to be known and for the government to deal with it.
I suppose it could have been covered up all through the war and learned about after. But then we might have been speaking German.

If there is a real problem these days, any one of our guys over there could post it on this forum in a heart beat. It is almost impossible to cover anything up for any length of time. Prince Harry had to cut his Afghan tour short after a few weeks because the media got wind of it. All kinds of Royals served in war zones during WW2 but no one new about it. Not to mention relatives of US presidents past and present. Could never happen today.

jdobbin · September 17, 2009

If there is a real problem these days, any one of our guys over there could post it on this forum in a heart beat.

And face a court martial under national security rules.

As far as the media goes, the military can ban them from war zones completely but then they can face the problem of no one knowing that they are in battle and in need of support.

In World War II, the issue of medics not receiving combat pay came up when it turned out that they had a very high death rate. It was revealed in a Bill Mauldin military cartoon.

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/20697-willie-joe-2.html

The military was upset that such information was coming out in the war but it did hasten change.

National Security is a poor excuse not to do what is right.

Wilber · September 17, 2009

Unlike the world wars our military personnel are not obligated to stay for the duration. There are plenty of ex military out there who have served in Afghanistan. The government also has to justify not allowing the press access. It cannot muzzle them if it refuses to do so.

National Security is a poor excuse not to do what is right.

It also carries an obligation not to do what is wrong. It will always be a judgment call subject to hindsight.

wyly · September 17, 2009

Of course not...but allowing Canadian military information of any sort to get to the Taliban and al-Qaeda is putting our troops in danger, if you ask me.

please explain how is Canadians knowing the cost of the operation going to help the Taliban? combat operations end in 2011 no matter what...hiding the info is an excuse to avoid being held responsible for military spending gone wild...

Who's Doing What? · September 17, 2009

#1. I'm not conservative nor do I vote for the CPC.

Interesting....

#2. Apparently you can't explain the difference, either. So perhaps you're right in that there's no use in trying.

The difference is easy. But I can already tell it would be like trying to talk reality and science with a religous zealot.

#3. Those that 'support our troops but not the mission' often view the Army as glorified snow shovelers. That is...their true mission is actually pushing your car out of a snowbank when you're dumb enough to get it stuck.

Actually their true mission is to do what they are doing. I actually support the Afghan mission and have stated so many times on these boards. I just happen to be able to distinguish between Govt. Policy and a person putting their life on the line so I can sit at my cpu and argue politics with a bunch of strangers.

wyly · September 17, 2009

I just happen to be able to distinguish between Govt. Policy and a person putting their life on the line so I can sit at my cpu and argue politics with a bunch of strangers.

that's the myth isn't it, thinking that they're saving us from the Taliban hordes from invading us...gullible

jdobbin · September 17, 2009

It also carries an obligation not to do what is wrong. It will always be a judgment call subject to hindsight.

I agree. It is why I say it is sometimes too easy to lean one way or the other to the detriment of people.

DogOnPorch · September 17, 2009

please explain how is Canadians knowing the cost of the operation going to help the Taliban? combat operations end in 2011 no matter what...hiding the info is an excuse to avoid being held responsible for military spending gone wild...

Taliban commander looks at the numbers from this year and the previous years and decides if we are going to make a bigger or smaller effort this 'fighting season'. It's quite a nice little bit of strategic information.

that's the myth isn't it, thinking that they're saving us from the Taliban hordes from invading us...gullible

Nobody here thinks the Taliban will be dropping anchor in Vancouver anytime soon. The threat...unless you're some sort of 9-11 nutbar...is that al-Qaeda and the Taliban will go back to their old tricks and perhaps we could then expect another bold attack like those made back in 2001. I think it's certainly an issue...plenty of tall buildings left on the planet.

Who's Doing What?: The difference is easy. But I can already tell it would be like trying to talk reality and science with a religous zealot.

Which one are you? Religious zealot or scientist?

Shakeyhands · September 17, 2009

please explain how is Canadians knowing the cost of the operation going to help the Taliban? combat operations end in 2011 no matter what...hiding the info is an excuse to avoid being held responsible for military spending gone wild...

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner.

Who's Doing What? · September 17, 2009

that's the myth isn't it, thinking that they're saving us from the Taliban hordes from invading us...gullible

If you think it is about the Taliban invading us then you are not only the gullible one but sadly misinformed as well.

It isn't about the Taliban invading us as much as it is about the fact that the Taliban was openly allowing Bin Laden et al free reign to train terrorists and plan terrorists attacks in Afghanistan. The lack of large scale attacks since the invasion shows that the mission has succeeded in disrupting what was the terrorist home base of operations.

Who's Doing What? · September 17, 2009

Which one are you? Religious zealot or scientist?

Well I'm not the one blindly swallowing everything that is handed to me in the name of the military. I am able to look at things objectively. Can you? I am not so sure.

Topaz · September 17, 2009

If you think it is about the Taliban invading us then you are not only the gullible one but sadly misinformed as well.
It isn't about the Taliban invading us as much as it is about the fact that the Taliban was openly allowing Bin Laden et al free reign to train terrorists and plan terrorists attacks in Afghanistan. The lack of large scale attacks since the invasion shows that the mission has succeeded in disrupting what was the terrorist home base of operations.

That is what the Afghanistan invasion was all about OBL but now hes not in Afghanistan, he could be dead and the war against the Taliban continues, why? Do we kill every last Taliban even though OBL is not captured? It looks like this war is more about the Taliban ruling Afghanistan than OBL.

M.Dancer · September 17, 2009

That is what the Afghanistan invasion was all about OBL but now hes not in Afghanistan, he could be dead and the war against the Taliban continues, why? Do we kill every last Taliban even though OBL is not captured? It looks like this war is more about the Taliban ruling Afghanistan than OBL.

Because Al Qaida has more that one member. It matter not whether OBL is dead (or not) as long as Al Qaida lives and the Taleban live the fight goes on.

Who's Doing What? · September 17, 2009

That is what the Afghanistan invasion was all about OBL but now hes not in Afghanistan, he could be dead and the war against the Taliban continues, why? Do we kill every last Taliban even though OBL is not captured? It looks like this war is more about the Taliban ruling Afghanistan than OBL.

Well appearances can be deceiving.

How do you know OBL is not in Afghanistan any more? With your knowledge you really should be working for the army intel corps.

I guess you are having a hard time understanding that while the Taliban pose no direct threat to the West, they are more than willing to provide safe haven for those who are the real threat.

Topaz · September 17, 2009

Why should Canadians know about how much many is being spent on the war and the military? Because its the highest liabilty, in the case of cost. Its what driving up the debt and its what killing Canadian soldiers, and to support those troops, we, as Canadians have the right to say, the cost of money and blood is too much and this war will never be won by military means alone. The Taliban is probably getting help from other countries against the west and so who do you think will run out of money first or feel the money crunch? This not about the Defence wanting to keep info. from the Taliban this about the Tories not wanting the REAL cost of the war and the buying of military equipment to come out, especially if there was an election. Miltary equipment is very expensive in the Billions and that's the secret they want to keep.