What happens after 2011, for Canada and Afghanistan

[ToadBrother]

Not quite. I think winning is inevitable provided we are brave enough and don't pay attention to the idiotic blatherskite you are so found of pushing. It doesn't matter whether victory, brought forward by guns is finalized by pens...

I know that winning will make you sad, you prefer being a loser....trust me, you will be, you will be.

Is it even about the winning? Quite frankly, I think if we have to stay there a hundred years, but during that hundred years, the Taliban aren't able to turn the country back into an Al Qaeda training camp, then the investment and sacrifice pays off. In fact, I think we need to start extending the program. In Pakistan we need to help the army do a better job of turning Taliban into bloody spots on the hillsides. If it needs to be done covertly so as not to anger the populace, then so be it.

[Sir Bandelot]

He does say

"Frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency," but then goes on to say "What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government, that is capable of manageing that insurgency and improving it's own governence."

So basically the only way to win is get an Afghan government and Army going to take on the Taliban themselves. A far cry from

Stephen Harper says that the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan can never be defeated.

Oh I think your interpretation is a farther cry. Looking at the quote, he doesn't say we can win, at all.

"Not going to ever..." Period. No qualifier, no "unless..."

The next sentence is the one which you extrapolated into fantasy land-

"What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government, that is capable of manageing that insurgency and improving it's own governence."

See the qualifier there, Managing that insurgency. Ahh, that means, keeping it to a minimum. He didn't say a word like "eliminating". Why canst Johnny read???

I think Mr. Harper has done a lot of reading on Afghanistan's history, and has drawn his own conclusions independent of media, outside pressure or political rhetoric. And he had the guts to say it in front of an American audience on national TV. Lets hope he keeps to his word based on his current understanding... what some of us sensible people already knew on day one of this mission.

So, I can't believe I'm saying it for the first time ever- hats off to Stephen Harper!

[eyeball]

We cannot kill every terrorist and dismantle every terror group. It's impossible. You cannot destroy an idea, or an ideology in this case. There are neo-nazi's and KKK members still walking around out there. Terrorism as a tool will also certainly never ever go away.

The best we can do is to contain terrorism that seeks to harm us as best as we possibly can.

I think we could do way better than than just contain it, we could stop doing the things that help create it in the first place.

I really get the sense if we did a lot of people would conclude that was even worse than giving-up or being defeated.

[Oleg Bach]

I think Canadians to try to wrap thier minds around the possibility of stay in Afghan much longer than 2011...

national

With all due respect, I don't really care anymore about the "mission"...Lately I have lost all faith in humanity in regards to keeping the peace and being honest..seems after 10,ooo years we have not changed - Killing - lieing and profit taking out of mayhem..sorry --- but I have had enough...continue to waste your time and life and resourses all in the cause of following the great liars who don't give a shit for you - I'm out of here in these regards..good luck.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think we could do way better than than just contain it, we could stop doing the things that help create it in the first place.

I really get the sense if we did a lot of people would conclude that was even worse than giving-up or being defeated.

Well, i totally agree with you. That was part of what i meant by "containing". We certainly need to address the root of the problem and not the symptoms, as i stated before.

That said, we'll never be able to please all Muslims, especially the fundamentalists. Fundamental Islam & Muslim culture is quite different from Western/judeo-christian culture. These two cultures are destined to clash and cause conflict. In this evermore globalizing world of ours, the goal must be to find the best means for our 2 cultures to co-exist together as peacefully as possible.

[Oleg Bach]

Well, i totally agree with you. That was part of what i meant by "containing". We certainly need to address the root of the problem and not the symptoms, as i stated before.

That said, we'll never be able to please all Muslims, especially the fundamentalists. Fundamental Islam & Muslim culture is quite different from Western/judeo-christian culture. These two cultures are destined to clash and cause conflict. In this evermore globalizing world of ours, the goal must be to find the best means for our 2 cultures to co-exist together as peacefully as possible.

The Masters of Islam are not really "Muslims" - The are men who seek contined power by any means. The sooner we realize that this is not a religous problem, then we might find solutions. Gangsterism established and international in scope is everywhere. Problem being that religion is that tool they use. They stir up the idots and send them out on these deadly missions. My dad served in the Red Army - his job was to fill the heads of the troops with bullshit. Because they are young and have empty heads..that need filling. It might be a good idea to edcuate their massive henchmenship with some new ideas..OUR IDEAS..

[bush_cheney2004]

With all due respect, I don't really care anymore about the "mission"...Lately I have lost all faith in humanity in regards to keeping the peace and being honest..seems after 10,ooo years we have not changed - Killing - lieing and profit taking out of mayhem..sorry --- but I have had enough...continue to waste your time and life and resourses all in the cause of following the great liars who don't give a shit for you - I'm out of here in these regards..good luck.

Cheery thought for the day:

"In the end, nobody gives a shit whether you live or die" - Dennis Miller

[Oleg Bach]

Cheery thought for the day:

"In the end, nobody gives a shit whether you live or die" - Dennis Miller

Thats a real problem...but what is worse is when you get to the point where you don't give a shit whether you live or die. _ Alec Bachlow.

[August1991]

I think Canadians to try to wrap thier minds around the possibility of stay in Afghan much longer than 2011...

Harper has been absolutely, categorically clear that Canada's military will leave in 2011. Parliament voted and decided.

Pulling Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan in 2011 will leave a gaping hole in security efforts and won't necessarily ensure the end of combat operations, former chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier says.

Gaping hole? This is a NATO operation. The few Canadian troops have held the ugly underbelly of Afghanistan for many years. NATO will pony up many more troops to do what the few Canadians managed.

I think that I am right in saying that most Canadians do not know the role that our military undertook in Afghanistan. Read a bit of history, take a look at a map and you'll soon realize that Canada's army accepted the ugly job.

With that said, keep in mind some basic statistics. About 45,000 Canadian soldiers died in WWII. In Afghanistan, each of the 100 deaths warrants a public motorcade. To our credit. I think Canada 2009 is more civilized than Canada 1945.

"It would be like going to shore at Normandy on the sixth of June (1944) and driving around ... sightseeing and leaving the enemy the opportunity, flexibility and initiative to attack you when they want," Hillier said.

IMV, Hillier is wrong here and Normandy is the wrong comparison. (What's the old line? Generals fight the last war's battles?)

This war in Afghanistan (this war against backward, violent, envious idiocy) is going to go on for a long time. It is the new Cold War. It is a hot war of skirmishes.

What's lost are the courageous long-term commitments necessary to fight a tough war or rebuild the Canadian military, in favour of short-term government gambles or unfair opposition criticisms that sell well with the electorate.

An analysis he conducted of the daily question period in the House of Commons found about 150 questions in one session of Parliament on military and defence issues. The vast majority focused on the treatment of suspected insurgents by Canadian soldiers, and whether they were abused in local Afghan-run jails -- a matter Hillier views as a tempest in an Afghan teapot.

Hillier's analysis is a CBC approach to public opinion.

Have no fear Army Guy. When push comes to shove, most Canadians - even in Quebec - support this Afghan mission. Canadians hold dear thge basic principles of the Enlightenment.

Why should i care what a General says about what we should be doing in Afghanistan. The entire strategy there is fundamentally flawed so bad its a joke. They are trying to fight an entirely different kind of war using military strategies that are 60+ years old.

Didn`t work in Vietnam, didn`t work in Iraq, didn`t work for the Soviet`s in Afghanistan, won`t work for us either.

MG, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The fact is we can't win, period.

Eyeball, Galileo and Voltaire won. Of course we will win - or why does our reach extend our grasp?

[punked]

You want to know what happens?

"Washington has its War Hawks and Doves, here in Ottawa we only have parrots"-Tommy Douglas

We do whatever America tells us because Liberal Tory same old story. I bet they tell us to stay where we are and continue doing the same thing we are now.

[M.Dancer]

I think we could do way better than than just contain it, we could stop doing the things that help create it in the first place.

Like letting them live? Allowing them to procreate?

Wow , you're hardcore.

[jdobbin]

Harper has been absolutely, categorically clear that Canada's military will leave in 2011. Parliament voted and decided.

In a minority government.

Some analysts have been saying this week that a majority for the Tories could change that.

[M.Dancer]

In a minority government.

Some analysts have been saying this week that a majority for the Tories could change that.

Let me correct that....

Some LIBERAL analysts HOPING TO REVIVE THE SECRET AGENDA have been saying this week THAT THEIR ONLY CHANCE TO SCARE IS TO SCARE THE VOTERS is that a majority for the Tories could change that.

Desparet and pathetic

Edited October 24, 2009 by M.Dancer

[Sir Bandelot]

Like letting them live? Allowing them to procreate?

Wow , you're hardcore.

How about castration? Forced sterilization? That would be more humane than killing them. Then we could use them to do some work for us. Set up a few labor camps,

[M.Dancer]

How about castration? Forced sterilization? That would be more humane than killing them. Then we could use them to do some work for us. Set up a few labor camps,

That's barbaric. Simply exile the men to Mars and bring the women to civilization where they can be taught to use electricity and running water, but not at the same time.

[Sir Bandelot]

That's barbaric. Simply exile the men to Mars and bring the women to civilization where they can be taught to use electricity and running water, but not at the same time.

I see. Now your hidden agenda is revealed...

[Smallc]

We do whatever America tells us because Liberal Tory same old story.

That's a rather low blow...not to mention an untrue one. How did Canada do in Iraq?

[eyeball]

Eyeball, Galileo and Voltaire won. Of course we will win - or why does our reach extend our grasp?

Of course we will...although I bet a circus aerialist who misses a rung occasionally and the Romans especially might have had a thing or two to add to the discussion.

[Sniglet]

Regardless of whether Canada leaves Afghanistan or 2011 or 2040, the result with be the same. Afghanistant will STILL be a mess, and will remain a barely functional corrupt narco state with insurgents controlling vast portions of the hinterland.

The "morality" of staying in Afghanistan is irrelevant, and so is the question of whether the US is pressuring Canada to be there. The end-result is the same. No mission to Afghanistan will EVER succeed in reforming the country, and as soon as troops leave the country will descend into even worse chaos.

[bush_cheney2004]

Regardless of whether Canada leaves Afghanistan or 2011 or 2040, the result with be the same. Afghanistant will STILL be a mess, and will remain a barely functional corrupt narco state with insurgents controlling vast portions of the hinterland.

Not altogether bad, considering that the US and Canada are well functioning narco states.

The "morality" of staying in Afghanistan is irrelevant, and so is the question of whether the US is pressuring Canada to be there. The end-result is the same. No mission to Afghanistan will EVER succeed in reforming the country, and as soon as troops leave the country will descend into even worse chaos.

A chaotic pre-Taliban A-stan may be quite acceptable......the Taliban were too organized!

[Topaz]

Let me correct that....

Some LIBERAL analysts HOPING TO REVIVE THE SECRET AGENDA have been saying this week THAT THEIR ONLY CHANCE TO SCARE IS TO SCARE THE VOTERS is that a majority for the Tories could change that.

Desparet and pathetic

Dancer, have you ever watched the senate committee hearings when they talked to the military? The military are short on personnel and the upper guys are retiring when they can and this is leading to having no one to direct or train any new personnel that does join. So the only solution is for force 18 years to do at least 2 years or 5 years of military time and who would probably make that happen.... Harper. Why spend billions on equipment if you don't have the personnel to use it. I'm sure the politicans would find a way to omit their kids from serving.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In the short term, military investment is a very smart way to go. It would provide emplyment both inside and outside of the defense infrastructure.

[jdobbin]

Dancer, have you ever watched...

It is funny how some people think Granastein and Hillier are Liberals. On CTV interviews they both said how a Conservative majority could change Canada's stand on staying.

Hillier was particularly strong in his view about minority government and how it affected his job in interviews with the media.

Pathetic and desperate indeed how these two individuals are suddenly lumped in with the Liberal party.

Edited October 25, 2009 by jdobbin

[fellowtraveller]

As a taxpayer I dont support ANY indefinate military obligations. So can you pay for my share since you like this policy so much?

You could just re-imburse me directly through my paypal account or something like that.

Is it simple dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension that obliges you to drag out this strawman?

What I said was "as a taxpayer, I would support an indefinite Canadian role in Afghanistan.

Civilian or military roles will be determined by the situation there and then"

You must not have noted, or more likley chose to ignore, that I support an indefinite role for Canada there , not an indefinite combat role for our military. If they are required for support purposes to civil rehabilitation work beyond then, so be it.

[noahbody]

It is funny how some people think Granastein and Hillier are Liberals. On CTV interviews they both said how a Conservative majority could change Canada's stand on staying.

Do they speak for the government? No. Does their opinion on what "could" happen matter at all? No. Why not ask him if the Liberals could once again steal taxpayer money if given a majority? A better answer would have been "why are you asking me?"

Pathetic and desperate indeed how these two individuals are suddenly lumped in with the Liberal party.

It's the reporter who should be lumped in the the Liberal party, if anyone, or at least the shitty journalist party.