Jump to content

Troops get "non-combat" role in Afghanistan after 2011


Recommended Posts

From cbc.ca:

The Conservative government intends to keep some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in a non-combat role beyond Parliament's 2011 end-date for the military mission, CBC News has learned.

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, told CBC News there will be Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011, though "exponentially fewer."

Soudas said the government will shift its focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.

The military's training mission will continue in protected facilities, he added. Canadian troops' combat-mentoring role would end.

"You can do training in training facilities," Soudas said. "And when I say training, I mean Canadian soldiers will not be doing combat training of Afghan soldiers in harm's way."

Speaking in Welland, Ont., on Friday afternoon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters the government would not seek to extend the mission authorized by Parliament in 2008.

"Well, let me be very clear …" Harper said, "Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011."

It's no secret that Harper has said Canadians will remain for reconstruction etc. after the 2011 pull-out. However, of note to me are the parts i put in bold.

This to me is not appropriate, and does not constitute "humanitariun development & reconstruction". The training of Afghan soliders IS part of a military mission and a military agenda, in my opinion. It is using Canadian soldiers & equipment to militarily support the Afghan gov't & military/police against threats from the Taliban.

I find this unacceptable. Your opinion?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian lawmakers voted in March 2008 to end the deployment of Canadian troops in Kandahar in 2011, but Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said troops would remain in Afghanistan beyond that date.

In comments to public broadcaster CBC, Soudas insisted there would nonetheless be a significant troop reduction.

---

Though Canada's NATO allies have made clear their interest in an extension of the Canadian deployment, Harper has consistently said he must respect parliament's decision to end the mission.

"The military mission ends in 2011," Soudas told AFP. "Canadian soldiers will not play a combat role post-2011."

After the military deployment is over, Canada's mission in Afghanistan will change, he said.

"In terms of our post-2011 commitment, Canada will focus on training, development, reconstruction and humanitarian assistance," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...uBCBMu8jci9r00g

My understanding is that after Feb./11, our soldiers will not seek out and attack the Taliban. The accent will be on providing security and training Afghan forces. Of course, if our soldiers are shot upon or attacked (which they will) they will defend themselves. So they will probably kill some Taliban and suffer casualties.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the Commons defence committee on Thursday that Canada will not leave Afghanistan completely after the combat mission ends in 2011.

The role will change, however, from war-fighting to development and training.

The federal cabinet has the authority to define the mission on its own, but MacKay says the Tory government is committed to the motion passed by Parliament in March 2008 to withdraw the country's battle group from Kandahar, starting in July 2011.

"Until such time as there is a new motion before Parliament or a new decision taken, we will respect the guidelines and the direction from the existing motion," the minister said following his committee appearance.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...dRbGZpTMITnWdbg

A debate will be held in Parliament on refocusing our activities in Afghanistan. I can't see the House voting down our involvement in humanitarian/training efforts. The Cons and Libs will agree but the NDP and the Bloc will turn thumbs down. All very predictable.

No. I don't want an extension of the combat mission and neither do most Canadians. We've done more than our share and sacrificed enough blood over there. I'm OK with providing reconstruction security and training for a couple of years but no more than that. So I would hope that in the spring of 2013 we say hasta la vista to that dusty god forsaken country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I don't want an extension of the combat mission and neither do most Canadians. We've done more than our share and sacrificed enough blood over there. I'm OK with providing reconstruction security and training for a couple of years but no more than that. So I would hope that in the spring of 2013 we say hasta la vista to that dusty god forsaken country.

If we have an election and the Tories get a majority, I wonder if there will be a change of the present plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Hard to to distinguish one soldier from another in a war zone, don't you think?

Furthermore, even if they could distinguish one soldier from another, would they care? Would they be any more likely to accept the intrusion of Canadian "peacekeeping" troops than they would combatants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, even if they could distinguish one soldier from another, would they care? Would they be any more likely to accept the intrusion of Canadian "peacekeeping" troops than they would combatants?

My thoughts exactly.

I expect as long as the Tories have a minority, they will push the idea of troops not really being in combat even though they are in a combat area. If they get a majority, I don't know that the mission will change at all. It will be like the promise on no deficits and income trusts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean resume the military combat mission to seek and destroy the Taliban? If that was the case the Tories would lose my vote and financial support.

I heard the same thing from people that said they would not vote for Harper if he didn't follow his fixed election date promise and called an election without loss of confidence.

I think he might take a hit from it but I think that the a majority would make him proceed with it anyway.

The reason I believe this is that Harper will be under tremendous pressure to commit and he might try to get some sort of other deal elsewhere that he can point to as a result of Canada stepping up.

I believe the response from the government whether it be Liberal or Tory is that Canada should be one of the primary countries in a rapid deployment force to counter terrorists, act in emergencies and get in and get out of hot spots.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have an election and the Tories get a majority, I wonder if there will be a change of the present plan.

If there were to be one good thing that came out of it, I would hope that would be it. Peacekeeping is a ludicrous, failed idea invented by weak kneed people afraid to admit that the most important job of a soldier is the defeat if an enemy, not handing out lollypops and making the cowards and paper tigers in Ottawa feel ooh-so-much better about themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you check under your bed at night for Stephen Harper? How about Ignatieff? Do you wonder if he'll have Canada participating in targeted assassinations? He did muse about the idea in 2004.

Do you think that Harper will not change his position on this? Have no doubt about it?

Afghanistan will require a huge amount of troops and commitment to quell the violence. And even then we have the issue of Pakistan. However, I think Harper will be under tremendous pressure to change his mind and if he has a majority, he may feel that he has Canadian support to be bold.

As far as Ignatieff goes, I do wonder if he is committed to that idea. My view is that if we have a rapid deployment force that we may very well be killing threats to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were to be one good thing that came out of it, I would hope that would be it. Peacekeeping is a ludicrous, failed idea invented by weak kneed people afraid to admit that the most important job of a soldier is the defeat if an enemy, not handing out lollypops and making the cowards and paper tigers in Ottawa feel ooh-so-much better about themselves.

Don't think that describes any part of the mission in Afghanistan now including the reconstruction teams.

The question is how many more years we wish to commit to the war if a different strategy might be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have an election and the Tories get a majority, I wonder if there will be a change of the present plan.

Hard to say. Afghanistan is not exactly popular among Canadians. I would say there is a definite chance they would extend the mission if elected to a majority. However, would they do it and risk the negative press? I think they would if they announced the extension at the beginning of their majority reign, giving them 4-5 years to shake off the negative effects of that flip-flop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say. Afghanistan is not exactly popular among Canadians. I would say there is a definite chance they would extend the mission if elected to a majority. However, would they do it and risk the negative press? I think they would if they announced the extension at the beginning of their majority reign, giving them 4-5 years to shake off the negative effects of that flip-flop.

My feeling is that Harper was able to succeed in overcoming income trusts and fixed election dates. I can't see why he wouldn't think extending the mission would be any different other than he would need a majority to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that Harper will not change his position on this? Have no doubt about it?

A majority isn't going to influence Harper's decision on Afghanistan. Are there circumstances that could change our involvement in the future? I would say yes. For example if there was a terrorist attack on Canadian soil I would expect that could impact our role, whether we have a minority government or a Liberal or Conservative majority government.

However, I think Harper will be under tremendous pressure to change his mind and if he has a majority, he may feel that he has Canadian support to be bold.

Do you honestly think after all the statements he's made following the deaths of Canadian soldiers that he takes pleasure in being bold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A majority isn't going to influence Harper's decision on Afghanistan. Are there circumstances that could change our involvement in the future? I would say yes. For example if there was a terrorist attack on Canadian soil I would expect that could impact our role, whether we have a minority government or a Liberal or Conservative majority government.

So you think it is impossible that he will change his position unless something drastic happens.

Do you honestly think after all the statements he's made following the deaths of Canadian soldiers that he takes pleasure in being bold?

Do you honestly think that after all the statements he's made following the death of Canadian soldiers that he takes pleasure in being cowardly? I ask that because this is what he suggested of opposition to the mission or questions about when the mission might end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think it is impossible that he will change his position unless something drastic happens.

It's about a likely to occur as Michael Ignatieff putting a video of himself dressed up as Count Floyd on youtube.

Do you honestly think that after all the statements he's made following the death of Canadian soldiers that he takes pleasure in being cowardly?

I'm sure he takes pride in what our soldiers have done. As a politician, I imagine he takes pride that he was able to extend the mission as long as politically possible and still enable Canada to continue to contribute in a different role.

I don't believe there is any pleasure in acting cowardly, but that's a better question for Jack and company.

Harper has said military leaders have told him a decade is enough. Now that a date has been given, it would be unfair to our soldiers and their families to flip flop for no reason. So don't lose any sleep worrying about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about a likely to occur as Michael Ignatieff putting a video of himself dressed up as Count Floyd on youtube.

I was told here by many forum members that Harper would never call an election earlier than the fixed date. I'd have to go back and look but I do recall a few saying that it would affect their vote if he did act in such a way.

Likewise, the Tories hammered the Liberals on income trusts.

I'm not convinced that Harper won't change his mind in this important area. I believe he just doesn't want his government to fall on this matter. That is not a concern if he has a majority.

I'm sure he takes pride in what our soldiers have done. As a politician, I imagine he takes pride that he was able to extend the mission as long as politically possible and still enable Canada to continue to contribute in a different role.

I don't believe there is any pleasure in acting cowardly, but that's a better question for Jack and company.

Harper has said military leaders have told him a decade is enough. Now that a date has been given, it would be unfair to our soldiers and their families to flip flop for no reason. So don't lose any sleep worrying about it.

Think it would be interesting to see what the view of the military leader is now. I wonder if their view is a parroting of what the prevailing thought is in Canada or if they would make a case for staying.

As far as losing sleep over a change in Tory policy, I'm sure many who held income trusts did just that when they got the bad news from Harper on their end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This to me is not appropriate, and does not constitute "humanitariun development & reconstruction". The training of Afghan soliders IS part of a military mission and a military agenda, in my opinion. It is using Canadian soldiers & equipment to militarily support the Afghan gov't & military/police against threats from the Taliban.

I find this unacceptable. Your opinion?

I swear, you lefties and your bizarro view of the world.

What do you think the CF is for anyway? Planting daisies? Why would we send very expensively trained, heavily armed men over there to plant daisies? Wouldn't we be better off just shipping over a bunch of unemployed with no skills?

And btw, what is the point of spending all that back breaking work planting and watering and fertilizing daisies when a bunch of thugs are simply going to come in every few weeks and tear them all up? You need to have some reliable local gendarmes to watch over the daisies, boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Pulling out of Afghanistan at all will be inpossible, we are there for the long haul

if we or Nato leaves Al Qaeda moves right back in open training bases and it would all be

for nothing! Nato will always be there keeping the Taliban and Al Qaeda Filth on the run

cowering in caves but at least they can t plan and excute attacks here when they are pinned down

there fighting our soldiers...that is the whole point of this war!!

To win this war there can be no half measures the U.S./Nato needs to send in thousands of troops

with all the heavy firepower to support them and crush the Taliban with a major Blitzkrieg,

hunt them down house by house cave by cave with search and destroy missions and

completely destroy their opium fields that is where you hurt the Taliban the most! This war

can be won but history has always shown He who uses enough firepower will be victorious!

Edited by wulf42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly.

The Taliban bombed the UN Food Aid program the other day calling it "unislamic".

What on earth makes you people think they would be any more accepting of completely unarmed Canadian troops doing nothing but building schools and roads? These people are savages and they live to kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Pulling out of Afghanistan at all will be inpossible, we are there for the long haul

if we or Nato leaves Al Qaeda moves right back in open training bases and it would all be

for nothing! Nato will always be there keeping the Taliban and Al Qaeda Filth on the run

cowering in caves but at least they can t plan and excute attacks here when they are pinned down

there fighting our soldiers...that is the whole point of this war!!

If CAnadian soldiers are moved into "safe" facilities, we won't be doing much of that. Of course, as we've seen with "safe" facilities in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's a highly relative term.

To my mind, I'd rather we just pull out entirely than turn our fighting men and women into some castrated "do good" force. What Afghanistan needs is more countries willing to put their bravest in harm's way to chase the Taliban into the holes in the mountains where, hopefully, Obama will let the bombers drop bunker busters on top of them.

I still can't quite figure out why anyone thinks peacekeeping is even a useful type of mission. The peace keepers in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia became little more than spectators, restricted by the most moronic rules of engagement ever dreamed up by anyone.

I think, if so many of my fellow countrymen feel highly limited engagement peacekeeping missions are such a good idea, that we sign a bunch of them up, give them some guns they are effectively not allowed to use, set them up in fortresses where they can look out and watch other people getting slaughtered, and then ask them "Is peacekeeping a relevant mission?"

Canada used to have a fine tradition as a nation of people willing to go to far off lands, shed blood and shed their own blood to defend freedom. Peacekeeping is a rejection of that notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Taliban bombed the UN Food Aid program the other day calling it "unislamic".

What on earth makes you people think they would be any more accepting of completely unarmed Canadian troops doing nothing but building schools and roads? These people are savages and they live to kill.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I think anyone there is considered a combatant by insurgents.

My view is that we base ourselves outside the country and be prepared to strike external threats. I'm not convinced that whatever we do won't be overturned by a return to tribalism and warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have an election and the Tories get a majority, I wonder if there will be a change of the present plan.

It would be more likely for Ignatieff to change the present plan. After all, he's always been in favour of the Afghanistan mission - as he was the Iraqi mission. And the Liberals invented the Afghanistan misson and shifted it into high combat mode. The only reason they've been opposing it since then is a political tactic against the Tories in power. But if the Liberals were in power they could go back to supporting the combat mission knowing the Tories would not oppose it.

But the army is worn out and needs to rest and recover and refit. The Tories know that and that is part of the reason why they are ending the combat element of the mission. Liberals, on the other hand, have never cared about the army (dirty, stinking militarists) and wouldn't have the same concern for them being worn out and worn down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...