The Canadian Afghanistan Expedition

[PIK]

Last night I saw a CBC poll that says that well over 80% of Canadians feel the mission was a failure!

I'm sorry but NATO is a waste of Canadian resources.

I'm fully aware of the huge errors made of previous governments.

Meanwhile there are two Canadians missing on that Malaysian flight and not one Canadian vessel helping in the search. Sad wrong and stupid all at the same time.

Canada can do lots to help other countries find peace, but not through war. I believe our debate is there.

WWWTT

Do we even have a ship in the area? And these canadians , , it seems they are just people with canadian passports , I don't think they even live here and were they even born here? And I say this because I am tired of people being listed as canadian when they have nothing to do with country, except for a passport.

[bleeding heart]

To ask why Canada "should have to clean up the mess that America created" is the wrong question.

To put it generously, and gently.

By definition, Canada shares responsibility for the failures; shares them with the NATO partners, and with Afghan officials and authorities.

And IF we are to declare that the US is responsible for messing things up...then that automatically means that we are, too, in this situation. How could it be otherwise?

[segnosaur]

Why should Canada be responsible for a mess the US created?

WWWTT

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think it was a "Mess the US created"? (Their actions to go after al Quaeda, a group with ties to the Taliban, was a reasonable step following 9/11.)

While the U.S. is not completely blameless (they did for example fail to provide useful assistance following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the 80s), they are not the only ones that had a hand in the mess that is Afghanistan....

- The Soviets had been tinkering with Afghanistan for decades, leading up to their invasion and occupation

- Pakistan was one of the few countries to support the Taliban when they ran Afghanistan

- Heck, the Taliban and Al Quaeda themselves (many who's members weren't even Afghan citizens) deserve blame too, since even an idiot would see that having terrorist bases running in Afghanistan was a risky proposition. (Not to mention that setting up laws where there is brutal oppression of the population doesn't do much to win friends in the world.)

[WWWTT]

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think it was a "Mess the US created"? (Their actions to go after al Quaeda, a group with ties to the Taliban, was a reasonable step following 9/11.)

While the U.S. is not completely blameless (they did for example fail to provide useful assistance following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the 80s), they are not the only ones that had a hand in the mess that is Afghanistan....

- The Soviets had been tinkering with Afghanistan for decades, leading up to their invasion and occupation

- Pakistan was one of the few countries to support the Taliban when they ran Afghanistan

- Heck, the Taliban and Al Quaeda themselves (many who's members weren't even Afghan citizens) deserve blame too, since even an idiot would see that having terrorist bases running in Afghanistan was a risky proposition. (Not to mention that setting up laws where there is brutal oppression of the population doesn't do much to win friends in the world.)

Soviets were fighting Islamic extremists, sorry but the Soviets were the "good guys"!

Guess you forgot who helped the Afghan Islamic extremists establish power?

Here's a reminder to freshen your memory

Apparently the founding fathers comment is taken out of context, however the US aid to Bin Laden is real!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

To ask why Canada "should have to clean up the mess that America created" is the wrong question.

To put it generously, and gently.

By definition, Canada shares responsibility for the failures; shares them with the NATO partners, and with Afghan officials and authorities.

And IF we are to declare that the US is responsible for messing things up...then that automatically means that we are, too, in this situation. How could it be otherwise?

Nope sorry but I do not agree!

Canada has absolutely no say in US foreign policy, so why should Canada help the US when their policy fails?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Do we even have a ship in the area? And these canadians , , it seems they are just people with canadian passports , I don't think they even live here and were they even born here? And I say this because I am tired of people being listed as canadian when they have nothing to do with country, except for a passport.

It almost seems that you are disappointed that we fail the ability to help in this search.

Sorry but I should not be contributing to thread drift.

I used the flight as an example as to where our military focus should be placed as opposed to campaigns like Afghanistan.

More search and rescue as opposed to destructive abilities.

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has absolutely no say in US foreign policy, so why should Canada help the US when their policy fails?

Meh....the U.S. had no say in the British Empire's "Great Game" either. So what ?

Edited March 14, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[segnosaur]

Soviets were fighting Islamic extremists, sorry but the Soviets were the "good guys"!

Guess you forgot who helped the Afghan Islamic extremists establish power?

WWWTT

First of all I never claimed that the U.S. was blameless. Just that they weren't the sole source of Afghanistan's problems.

Secondly, it should be noted that the U.S. did not fund "The Taliban" (which did not exist prior to the soviet withdrawal.) Nor did they (to the best of my knowledge) fund Al Quaeda during the occupation. They did fund other groups fighting the Soviets, but supporting one group (fighting against an occupation that was condemned by most of the west) doesn't mean that you support ALL groups.

[WWWTT]

Meh....the U.S. had no say in the British Empire's "Great Game" either. So what ?

That's an excellent point you make!

The US stayed out of the mess the UK /Great Britain created.

I always felt that this isolation attitude helped the US focus internally in turn becoming the world power of the 20 century.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

First of all I never claimed that the U.S. was blameless. Just that they weren't the sole source of Afghanistan's problems.

Secondly, it should be noted that the U.S. did not fund "The Taliban" (which did not exist prior to the soviet withdrawal.) Nor did they (to the best of my knowledge) fund Al Quaeda during the occupation. They did fund other groups fighting the Soviets, but supporting one group (fighting against an occupation that was condemned by most of the west) doesn't mean that you support ALL groups.

I partially agree.

But hindsight is 20/20.

The Soviets were right all along on this one.

Furthermore, at the time, the US had greater influence over western countries than now.

China, Brazil, India, Indonesia (among others) of today were not the same power/influence during the mid 80's.

WWWTT

[segnosaur]

I partially agree.

But hindsight is 20/20.

The Soviets were right all along on this one.

Err... not really.

They took an admittedly unpopular leader, and tried to install their own unpopular government, thus requiring an invasion/occupation when they realize not everyone wanted to live in a socialist utopia.

Had the soviets stayed completely out of Afghanistan's business, its possible that the country would have evolved naturally, perhaps not into what we'd see as a western-style democracy, but one that wasn't the hell-hole that it became.

Furthermore, at the time, the US had greater influence over western countries than now.

The U.S. had no control over the Soviet Union when they decided to interfere with Afghanistan.

The U.S. had little or no influence over Pakistan, when it was helping the Taliban in the 90s.

The U.S. had no control over Omar or Bin Laden, who felt that hanging people in a soccer stadium and crashing planes into tall buildings was a reasonable course of action.

And what exactly is your proof that the "US had greater influence then than now"? What makes you think that such an invasion wouldn't likewise be condemned now?

Do you really think the U.S. is some omnipotent god that has some sort of magic all powerful influence on the world?

[WWWTT]

Anyways segnosaur, I'm not going to go further into this history debate over Afghanistan.

Regardless of who was right/wrong, I still don't see anything that would warrant Canadian personal/resources into getting involved.

We have no venture there and I'm happy we can put it behind us now.

Lesson hard learned as far as I'm concerned!

WWWTT

[eyeball]

(Their actions to go after al Quaeda, a group with ties to the Taliban, was a reasonable step following 9/11.)

Not really, for starters it was exactly what Bin Laden wanted. His stated goal was to draw the US into a hopeless war it could not win that would drain it to the point of collapse - it was a reasonable strategy given how the old USSR drove itself off a cliff. There can be little doubt a very sizable amount of the FUBAR state of the world at present can be attributed to the reaction to 9/11 i.e. the state of the economy, the apparent fear we live in, our surveillance society etc. 9/11 will probably rank as the single most effective strike in the history of warfare given the ROI.

[On Guard for Thee]

Because Canada is a member of NATO and has membership benefits and responsibilities. Canada also has a direct interest in counter-terroism and failed nation states that support same. Canada also acts on stated policies that support its interests.

Remember, Afghanistan was the "just war" compared to Iraq...just ask Chretien.

Um, no, it was the legal war as opposed to Iraq which is why Chretien said no to it. Just ask Bush and the UN.

[On Guard for Thee]

I spent 3 long tours in Afghanistan, alot of blood,sweat,tears were left behind...Did i think it was worth it. Yes i do, every minute i was there....don't get me wrong there were sometimes i questioned the WHY was i here....those moments were normally on the tarmac as we escorted another comrad's flag drapped coffin onto a herc for the long journey home...I would gladly do it all over again...Remember it was not Canada's soldiers that gave up on Afghanistan, it was her people....

Canadians can question the WHY anytime they want...But to call the mission a complete failure thats Bullshit.....Answer these questions .....Is Al Quida living and training and operating within Afghanistan...Or for that matter is the Taliban still in control of Afghanistan....Then ask your self this how many major reconstruction projects did Canada take on and complete, how many thousands of smaller projects did we do....do you think that these projects had any impact?

The People of Afghanistan want peace, a place to raise their families, a place they can get work....and they are ready to talk to anyone that can supply those answers....

Perhaps we should take the question to the Afghanistan people.

A lot of blacktop did get laid down which will help a lot of farmers get their crops to market faster. But is the Taliban still there, you bet, as strong as ever.

[carepov]

If some ressources used in the Iraq War had been deployed in Afghanistan instead...

If the West/NATO cooperated more instead of arguing and mistrusting each other...

If...if...if.....this has been discussed here before. Yes, the Americans could have deployed more resources to Afghanistan (it still contributed far more than any other NATO member), but other members (including Canada) did not commit as much as they could have either. Canada deployed with inadequate kit and support, left its tactical air (CF-188s) at home, and was also frustrated by other NATO members' reluctance to engage the enemy.

Imagine if all of the UK and US troops that were deployed in Iraq were instead depoyed in Afghanistan in 2002/2003.

Based on the success of the Surge in 2009 we could of had way beeter results at far less cost.

[On Guard for Thee]

Imagine if all of the UK and US troops that were deployed in Iraq were instead depoyed in Afghanistan in 2002/2003.

Based on the success of the Surge in 2009 we could of had way beeter results at far less cost.

I didn't really see a lot of sucess stories there in '09. I did hear a lot of grumbling from IASF (US) soldiers who got "stoplossed" into going to Afg. from Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Imagine if all of the UK and US troops that were deployed in Iraq were instead depoyed in Afghanistan in 2002/2003.

Based on the success of the Surge in 2009 we could of had way beeter results at far less cost.

Far less cost to whom ? The Americans were already spending a great deal in blood and treasure for Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF. Canada and other NATO members did not commit equivalent (relative) resources.

[carepov]

Far less cost to whom ? The Americans were already spending a great deal in blood and treasure for Operation Enduring Freedom and the ISAF. Canada and other NATO members did not commit equivalent (relative) resources.

For everyone. The War inAfghanistan would have been over in half the time.

[bush_cheney2004]

For everyone. The War inAfghanistan would have been over in half the time.

No, that is not a sure bet. Few seriously expected a permanent military solution for Afghanistan. Using cruise missiles on donkeys gets to be very expensive.

[carepov]

No, that is not a sure bet. Few seriously expected a permanent military solution for Afghanistan. Using cruise missiles on donkeys gets to be very expensive.

War is never a sure bet. It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war before starting another.

[bush_cheney2004]

War is never a sure bet. It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war before starting another.

The war in Iraq was engaged before Afghanistan. UK and US resources were already enforcing post Gulf War provisions and objectives to achieve regime change in Iraq.

[carepov]

The war in Iraq was engaged before Afghanistan. UK and US resources were already enforcing post Gulf War provisions and objectives to achieve regime change in Iraq.

OK, well then let me revise: It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war (Afghanistan) before massively escalating another (Iraq).

[bush_cheney2004]

OK, well then let me revise: It certainly would have been a better bet to finish one war (Afghanistan) before massively escalating another (Iraq).

Not for the U.S. or U.K., which had an existing agenda that was accelerated and enabled by the events of 9/11. Canada and other NATO partners certainly did not engage Afghanistan with all available expeditionary forces. Both ultimately became anti-insurgency occupations, not full blown set piece wars.

[bleeding heart]

I should think this very discussion--"finishing one war before starting another," etc--begs the more important questions of whether either was actually justifiable or not.

Unless we take such things as givens, as truths obvious as the air we breathe.