The Canadian Afghanistan Expedition

[Argus]

I agree. The success of any mission is evaluated as to what degree the goals had been achieved and at what price. Does anybody know or remember what the Canadian goals were in this conflict?

Whatever they were doesn't really matter. In five years, probably sooner, Afghanistan will be the same as it was before the Americans went in. In a thousand years we'll be flying among the stars, and Afghans will still be gathering camel dung to use as a heating source, beating their twelve year old wives, and killing anyone who suggests they might do things differently.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Argus

[GostHacked]

Why did we go to Afghanistan ? It wasn't because of human rights violations, but because they harboured terrorists that attacked the US in 2001, I think. Does anyone dispute that it was the core reason ?

If you believe that then you will believe the Russians are in Crimea as a peace keeping force.

[Michael Hardner]

The mission was 'peacekeeping' so the aid workers could rebuild the country as a glorious bastion of democracy and equality.

Well, sure but it was really in support of the goal I mentioned. What good would it have been to remove the Taliban then leave the country in a power vacuum ?

[GostHacked]

Well, sure but it was really in support of the goal I mentioned. What good would it have been to remove the Taliban then leave the country in a power vacuum ?

That's called 'Mission Accomplished'.

[Michael Hardner]

If you believe that then you will believe the Russians are in Crimea as a peace keeping force.

I don't see the analogy at all. To me, the war in Afghanistan was a response to the attacks of 9/11.

Since I'm not repeating the let's say 'propaganda' goals (nation building, peacekeeping) but instead what I think the real reasons are, you're comparing my assessment of one side's real goals, with another side's stated goals in another conflict.

[Michael Hardner]

That's called 'Mission Accomplished'.

I agree with what you're saying here, but both America and Canada stayed in the region for a period of time to establish some kind of replacement to the previous government, which is my point to Argus.

[GostHacked]

I don't see the analogy at all. To me, the war in Afghanistan was a response to the attacks of 9/11.

No, it was simply used as an excuse. Let's not forget that the US relied on Curveball's fake evidence.Bush and Cheney used the 9.11 attacks to drum up support for a new war. Easy to get emotions and idiots rallied up for a 'worthwhile' cause.

Keep in mind the US/CIA connection with the Muhajedeen in fighting off the Soviets. Meaning the US supports terrorism when it works in their favour. We as Canada as part of NATO should NOT have gone into Afghanistan.

Since I'm not repeating the let's say 'propaganda' goals (nation building, peacekeeping) but instead what I think the real reasons are, you're comparing my assessment of one side's real goals, with another side's stated goals in another conflict.

It was not about the Taliban or humanitarian aide. The rule of law in Afghanistan is the same law as was enforced under the Taliban, but might be slightly better. Karzai was a former oil CEO.

Both wars were absolute bull and were backed up by complete bull, and never needed to happen.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's not forget that the US relied on Curveball's fake evidence.Bush and Cheney used the 9.11 attacks to drum up support for a new war. Easy to get emotions and idiots rallied up for a 'worthwhile' cause.

That's Iraq.

Both wars were absolute bull and were backed up by complete bull, and never needed to happen.

Back to Afghanistan - how was it backed up by 'absolute bull' ? The 9/11 conspiracy, I guess you mean.

[bush_cheney2004]

The official Canadian government message for the mission in Afghanistan has shifted and varied over time and administrations. This fellow took a hard look at the changing message and inconsistent communications:

Selling Afghanistan: A Discourse Analysis of Canada's Military Intervention, 2001-08

I have observed that the Canadian government's message on Afghanistan has been chaotic for most of the past seven years, with the rationales and justifications for the mission undergoing notable shifts. This leads me to conclude that the federal government has not succeeded in clearly communicating the logic behind Canada's intervention and actions in Afghanistan.

...The federal government was unable, they say, to explain the various reasons why Canada invested substantial military and financial assets in Afghanistan, describing the mission as being one of sanction, combat, and/or reconstruction. Stein and Lang argue that "[n]o country can afford to go to war with... confusion of purpose. Canada's leaders would need to make compelling arguments for why Canada is fighting far away from home."3 They further contend that the rationale behind the mission was confused and deficient.

http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1885117301/selling-afghanistan-a-discourse-analysis-of-canada-s

Edited March 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

That's Iraq.

Right, part of the whole 'war on terror', as Afghanistan was. They lied to you about one, why would you believe them for the reasons of another?

Back to Afghanistan - how was it backed up by 'absolute bull' ? The 9/11 conspiracy, I guess you mean.

I guess we keep forgetting how the Taliban evolved out of the Muhajedeen, which lead by Bin Laden and supported by the USA to fight off the Soviets. Blowback.

I know this bit is glazed over by those who actually believe this was about humanitarian reasons or to combat the war on terrorism. Just like we believe that Russia is 'liberating' Crimea.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's Iraq.

Sorta...Iraq was engaged long before Afghanistan.

Back to Afghanistan - how was it backed up by 'absolute bull' ? The 9/11 conspiracy, I guess you mean.

Yes...they believe that Dick Cheney planted demolition explosives in the WTC buildings in between hunting accidents.

Don't feed the trolls.

Edited March 13, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Right, part of the whole 'war on terror', as Afghanistan was. They lied to you about one, why would you believe them for the reasons of another?

Because one reason was unverified information (Iraq had WMDs) and the other was evident ?

I know this bit is glazed over by those who actually believe this was about humanitarian reasons or to combat the war on terrorism. Just like we believe that Russia is 'liberating' Crimea.

Well, the attacks happened - there's no doubt of that. So what other reason did they need ?

It's not the same thing at all.

[GostHacked]

Because one reason was unverified information (Iraq had WMDs) and the other was evident ?

Remember, the person they relied on for a lot of the information simply made it all up. It was no unverified evidence, it was completely manufactured evidence.

What a way to 'respect' thousands of dead American soldiers.

Edited March 13, 2014 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Don't feed the trolls.

This is great advice, thank you.

[GostHacked]

This is great advice, thank you.

You are getting advice on trolling right out of the mouth of our self-proclaimed troll.

Edited March 13, 2014 by GostHacked

[Moonlight Graham]

I guess we keep forgetting how the Taliban evolved out of the Muhajedeen, which lead by Bin Laden and supported by the USA to fight off the Soviets. Blowback.

But what's your point? WHY did US/NATO go into Afghanistan in your opinion if not to destroy terrorists & their havens?

[GostHacked]

But what's your point? WHY did US/NATO go into Afghanistan in your opinion if not to destroy terrorists & their havens?

You mean to clean up the mess they helped create over the previous decades?

[Moonlight Graham]

I think the mission in Afghanistan was fairly successful in disrupting the al-Qaeda safe haven that existed in the country, which was the primary goal of the mission. Unfortunately, I think NATO broadened its scope too wide when it went into nation-building and fighting the Taliban and non-al-Qaeda insurgence.

Our goal was to kill terrorists that wished to harm us overseas and destroy their means of organizing/training within the country. However, we took a secondary goal of regime change and regime stabilization (in order to prevent a future terrorist/al-Qaeda safe haven whe NATO leaves), which meant securing the Karzai government and building/training the government's army/police forces to be able to defend against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I fear this was a waste, and could even backfire. We trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan military troops and supplied them with weapons, which could easily be used in a military coup to overthrow the Karzai government. Afghanistan is still in the middle of a civil war that's lasted decades, so spending 13 years trying to install and build a stable government in the country is a bit of a joke, & 13 years of effort is likely to be erased once NATO leaves for good and the Taliban attack the government without NATO ground support or a military coup ensues. If NATO couldn't defeat the Taliban, the pathetic Afghan army (which doesn't even have an air-force) is no match. We also have absolutely no idea what kind of anti-west resentment we've built up in the country and what extremist anti-west factions could rise within future Afghan governments.

We also spend far too much blood and treasure fighting the Taliban, who didn't attack the US on 9/11. Al-Qaeda attacked the West, and the Taliban only harboured them, so why the vast majority of our effort on them? The Taliban are a bunch of savages, but we're not going to un-savage them and their culture no matter what we do, and after 13 years of fighting we can't say we defeated the Taliban. We should have focused most of our efforts of destroying al-Qaeda and ignored the Taliban. We should have brokered a deal with the Taliban saying "we'll leave you alone as long as you don't support terrorists seeking to attack the West", and if in the years/decades to come they break that agreement we can use air strikes to attack them until they fall back in line.

The 3rd main objective of the war was humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan, like women's rights/education etc., which were noble, but we aren't going to change the entire culture of a misogynistic society at gunpoint, so those resources could have been spend on more cost-effective ways of helping people in the developing world and we could have helped a lot more people with the money wasted on military occupation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Point of order....NGOs were in Afghanistan for humanitarian and economic missions long before 9/11 and the NATO/U.S. intervention.

[Moonlight Graham]

To summarize:

1. NATO's mission should have focused almost entirely on destroying al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan (instead splitting resources in trying to fight the Taliban), which would have severely lessened the cost of the entire war in blood & treasure.

2. After an initial military onslaught to punish the Taliban for harbouring al-Qaeda, we should have brokered a deal with them in the early 2000's saying "we'll leave you alone as long as you don't support terrorists seeking to attack the West". Focusing on fighting Taliban was a waste of blood/treasure since they weren't the ones who attacked the Wes on 9/11 etc..

3. Regime change and stabilization will turn out to be another waste of our blood/treasure, and the Karzai gov will almost certainly be overthrown and/or become severely corrupted not long after NATO leaves.

4. Humanitarian aid in Afghanistan was noble but much of it was an inefficient use of our resources in helping people in developing countries. We can't change a misogynistic culture throughout military occupation.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

You mean to clean up the mess they helped create over the previous decades?

I get your point about blowback, it's a fair statement, but again I ask you...WHY did US/NATO go into Afghanistan in your opinion? Yes it was to clean up the mess they helped create, but that mess was still the reason they went in. It's not like they invaded for oil or poppy seeds.

NATO invaded to destroy al-Qaeda (partly successful), destroy the Taliban who harboured them (mostly a failure), and establish a western-friendly regime in the country (successful in the short term, will likely be a failure in the medium & long-term once NATO leaves the region)

[GostHacked]

I get your point about blowback, it's a fair statement, but again I ask you...WHY did US/NATO go into Afghanistan in your opinion? Yes it was to clean up the mess they helped create, but that mess was still the reason they went in. It's not like they invaded for oil or poppy seeds.

Oil pipelines and opium for pharmaceutical companies. Fighting terrorism? Please, you think that lesson would be learned here, but yet it is happened again with Free Syrian Army operating out of Turkey. Meaning, supporting people who are known terrorists to help fight against another bad guy.

NATO supports terrorism when it benefits them.

[Big Guy]

I understand that Canada entered this conflict on the assumption that the Taliban had been defeated, had fled Afghanistan and that a small contingent of Canadians would be sent to help to stabilize that backward country. There was no anticipation, suggestion or preparation for an armed conflict. From what I can locate, those who decided on the initial participation completely misjudged the situation.

Little by little “mission creep” caused more and more Canadian military involvement. When the body bags started to come home, the public was beginning to sour on this “expedition” that had turned into a war. Suddenly the spin began. We were now really there to free the women from bondage, we were building infrastructure, we were freeing them from dependence on illegal opium growth, we were “doing the right thing”. So if you were critical of the mission you supported the “wrong thing”, were against the armed forces and were a backer of the Taliban. Remember one major political critic as being labelled “Taliban Jack”?

I believe that this “incursion” was a complete and utter failure. Our decision makers made stupid, arrogant and costly mistakes;

Stupid because we did not understand or cared to study and accept the culture of the Pashtun tribes. Our politicians and bureaucrats had no understanding of that part of the world and our military leaders completely underestimated who and how strong the enemy would be.

Arrogant because we completely discounted the fiasco (the Bear Trap) that ensued when the Russians spent 10 years, 15,000 soldiers killed and $billions during their “expedition” only to limp home with their tail between their legs. Of course that couldn't happen to us!

Costly because we poured (and continue to pour) taxpayer dollars (estimated cost to Canadians - $20 billion) into projects that were failures, battles that were lost and $millions going into pockets of corrupt friendly politicians and officials.

I do hope that we have finally learned the lesson.

I do not think that history will treat our involvement very well.

[On Guard for Thee]

Right, part of the whole 'war on terror', as Afghanistan was. They lied to you about one, why would you believe them for the reasons of another?

I guess we keep forgetting how the Taliban evolved out of the Muhajedeen, which lead by Bin Laden and supported by the USA to fight off the Soviets. Blowback.

I know this bit is glazed over by those who actually believe this was about humanitarian reasons or to combat the war on terrorism. Just like we believe that Russia is 'liberating' Crimea.

I certainly agree that the US went back in to clean up the mess they left behind, but I would disagree with one point here. I don't think the Taliban emerged from the mujahadeen but rose up to counter them. The US essentially created the Mujahadeen when they hired locals to help them with the Russians. when the Russians left, so did the US and Muja were left behind abruptly with no paycheques and lot's of guns. It didn't take them long to figure out how to turn power into money. There is a little mosque not far south of Kandahar whose Imam had died and they finally got around to hiring a new one. He and a number of his flock decided to fight fire with fire and so armed themselves and managed to dismantle one of the Muja roadblocks that was forcing tolls from the local farmers pockets. And there's where the Taliban came from. Had the US have taken proper care of the people they enlisted to assist them in their previous war, they may not have had to be involved in the next one.

[WWWTT]

It may not have been worth it to us and I fear for the women and children in Afghanistan now that we and other countries have left.

According to your thinking, than we should invade Saudi Arabia.

Sounds like you bought into NATO reasons for invading and killing hundreds probably thousands of innocent people.

WWWTT