The Canadian Afghanistan Expedition

[carepov]

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.

You don't think things could have gone better for the US and UK 2002-2014?

[bush_cheney2004]

You don't think things could have gone better for the US and UK 2002-2014?

Differently perhaps, but not necessarily any better. Pakistan became problematic and remained so throughout the war, impacting policy and real world logistics to Afghanistan. Afghanistan was already so broken and battered there was little hope of "success" beyond short term security and humanitarian goals.

Canadian DND reports actually describe far better effectiveness in Afghanistan when working with U.S. elements and resources, yet it wasn't all the Americans had to offer. Another member here posted that content a while back.

[carepov]

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.

It seemed to me that the practicaly the enitire world founf the war in Afghanistan to be justifiable in 2001/2002. Like I said, the war in Iraq in 2003 ruined it.

[jbg]

The Americans had already kicked out the Taliban when we went in. Chretien agreed to it as a way of getting out of not sending anyone to Iraq. The mission was 'peacekeeping' so the aid workers could rebuild the country as a glorious bastion of democracy and equality. Unfortunately, the only way to have done that was to kill all the Afghans and import people from another culture there - one that's not muslim.

The problem with that part of the world is that no one in their right mind would want to live there. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, the pick of the human litter is not going to want to live in a miserable, landlocked desert area. New York area climatically and resource wise it's not. Muslim or not it doesn't matter. It's not the religion that's the problem.

Edited March 16, 2014 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

It seemed to me that the practicaly the enitire world founf the war in Afghanistan to be justifiable in 2001/2002. Like I said, the war in Iraq in 2003 ruined it.

Justifiable or not, each contributing nation chose to engage or limit resources and risk taking independently, long before Iraq was "invaded" in 2003.

[hitops]

The problem with that part of the world is that no one in their right mind would want to live there. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, the pick of the human litter is not going to want to live in a miserable, landlocked desert area. New York area climatically and resource wise it's not. Muslim or not it doesn't matter. It's not the religion that's the problem.

When the leader of your religion reports that women make up the majority of hell's occupants due to being ungrateful to their husbands, that their witness is worth 1/2 the witness of a man due to a deficiency of their mind, and that the role of women in the afterlife is sexual servitude, then yes the religion is part of the problem. That view of women directly extrapolate from Muhammed's own words.

[jbg]

When the leader of your religion reports that women make up the majority of hell's occupants due to being ungrateful to their husbands, that their witness is worth 1/2 the witness of a man due to a deficiency of their mind, and that the role of women in the afterlife is sexual servitude, then yes the religion is part of the problem. That view of women directly extrapolate from Muhammed's own words.

Despite the blemishes I see no reason that they can't contribute to the global community as constructive participants. Edited March 16, 2014 by jbg

[WWWTT]

When the leader of your religion reports that women make up the majority of hell's occupants due to being ungrateful to their husbands, that their witness is worth 1/2 the witness of a man due to a deficiency of their mind, and that the role of women in the afterlife is sexual servitude, then yes the religion is part of the problem. That view of women directly extrapolate from Muhammed's own words.

Since when did Canada become holier than holy and start this mission to change the world through military intervention?

Lots of screwed up places around the world, let them figure it out themselves!

I'm not against Canada helping other countries advance human rights (all for it!), but using military force isn't the way to go.

Better yet, ask yourself this.

Has a trade embargo ever been placed on a country for violating women's/human rights?

WWWTT

[bleeding heart]

carepov:

I have seen no evidence--zero!--that "practically the whole world found the Afghanistan war to be justifiable in 2001-2002." I remember seeing something close to the opposite, in fact.

I understand that when the NATO partners (meaning the leadership, not necessarily the populations) agree on something, we tend to arrogantly call it "the whole world"...but that's an objective, incontrovertible falsehood.

Noam Chomsky remarks on the Gallup International poll taken in September 2001:

Were there opponents of the bombing who were not either absolute pacifists or absolute lunatics?

It turns out there were, and the opponents formed an interesting collection. To begin with, they apparently included the great majority of the population of the world when the bombing was announced. So we discover from an international Gallup poll in late September 2001. The lead question was this: "Once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorists are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?" Whether such diplomatic means could have succeeded is known only to ideological extremists on both sides....

World opinion strongly favoured diplomatic-judicial measures over military action. In Europe, support for military action ranged from 8 percent in Greece to 29 percent in France. Support was least in Latin America, the region that has had the most experience with US intervention: it ranged from 2 percent in Mexico to 11 percent in Colombia and Venezuela. The sole exception was Panama, where only 80 percent favoured peaceful means, 16 percent military attack. Support for strikes that included civilian targets was much less. Even in the two countries polled that supported the use of military force, India and Israel, considerable numbers opposed such attacks. There was, then, overwhelming opposition to Washington's actual policies...

And from wiki:

In 3 of the 37 countries surveyed....did majorities favour military action. In 34 of the 37 countries surveyed, the survey found majorities that did not favour military action [including] the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Lithuania [etc]

Unless you have some equal or better information to suggest the opposite, one might wonder from where this rather common opinion--the direct and literal opposite of the actual facts, so far as we can ascertain--has been generated.

That is, how do we ever get to this point? Indoctrination? Propaganda? The question is interesting, and I'd argue quite important.

Edited March 16, 2014 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, the "whole world" was far more supportive of the first Gulf War and subsequent UN sanctions against Iraq than for a war in Afghanistan.

[carepov]

carepov:

I have seen no evidence--zero!--that "practically the whole world found the Afghanistan war to be justifiable in 2001-2002." I remember seeing something close to the opposite, in fact.

I understand that when the NATO partners (meaning the leadership, not necessarily the populations) agree on something, we tend to arrogantly call it "the whole world"...but that's an objective, incontrovertible falsehood.

OK, I do tend to exaggerate, not the whole world. But still there was overall support for Afghanistan, less than the Gulf war as BC said, but way more than Iraq.

The most obvious evidence of this support are the numbers of countries sending troops and the UN approval.

In Canada, the Liberals, PC and Reform approved of the mission while only the NDP opposed. Did any major Western political parties oppose the war?

[Wilber]

Two different majority governments, 12 years, 158 military lives and $multi billions Canadian tax dollars later the Canadian flags came down in Afghanistan to-day. The place and time of the official ceremony had to be withheld from the media for security reasons until the last minute. Our forces have officially "withdrawn.

Was it worth it?

Interesting that there were no representatives from the government at the ceremony, just the ambassador. What does that say? Edited March 17, 2014 by Wilber

[carepov]

Justifiable or not, each contributing nation chose to engage or limit resources and risk taking independently, long before Iraq was "invaded" in 2003.

We both know that the only military that really matters is that of the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

We both know that the only military that really matters is that of the USA.

Not sure what that means in the context of a "collective defense" organization like NATO. If you really believe that, then it is silly to have any expectations about Canada's military role and mission purpose in Afghanistan.

[carepov]

Not sure what that means in the context of a "collective defense" organization like NATO. If you really believe that, then it is silly to have any expectations about Canada's military role and mission purpose in Afghanistan.

Yes, it is silly to over-analyze Canada's role. The war in Afghanistan was a failure because of the mistakes made by the USA. Other countries made mistakes too but none that cost us the war.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually, the "whole world" was far more supportive of the first Gulf War and subsequent UN sanctions against Iraq than for a war in Afghanistan.

And that's in large part due to the fact old man Bush had the good sense to abide by the UN guidelines. Kick Saddam's troops out of Kuwait and go home. A lesson "junior" didn't seem to learn, which is why he could theoretically end up in the ICC

[bush_cheney2004]

And that's in large part due to the fact old man Bush had the good sense to abide by the UN guidelines. Kick Saddam's troops out of Kuwait and go home. A lesson "junior" didn't seem to learn, which is why he could theoretically end up in the ICC

Only in your dreams.....GWB had more support from the U.S. Congress for war in Iraq and Afghanistan than his father had for the Gulf War in 1991. George H.W. Bush was roundly criticized for not removing Saddam the first time, and if you listen to Usama's rhetoric, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was a main driver for 9/11. So blame Bush senior for Canada's mission in Afghanistan if you must avoid responsibility for Canada's decisions and actions.

[On Guard for Thee]

Only in your dreams.....GWB had more support from the U.S. Congress for war in Iraq and Afghanistan than his father had for the Gulf War in 1991. George H.W. Bush was roundly criticized for not removing Saddam the first time, and if you listen to Usama's rhetoric, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia was a main driver for 9/11. So blame Bush senior for Canada's mission in Afghanistan if you must avoid responsibility for Canada's decisions and actions.

HW removed Saddam from Kuwait, which was what the UN sanction called for. That made it a "legal" war, junior went into Iraq without such sanction, which is btw the reason Chretien told him to bugger off, and which is why he is technically a criminal. Ever wonder why he stays pretty close to home?

[bush_cheney2004]

HW removed Saddam from Kuwait, which was what the UN sanction called for. That made it a "legal" war, junior went into Iraq without such sanction, which is btw the reason Chretien told him to bugger off, and which is why he is technically a criminal. Ever wonder why he stays pretty close to home?

Nonsense...and this thread is not about Iraq. Chretien also bombed Serbia without a UN resolution (Kosovo 1999), so when is he going on trial for war crimes ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it is silly to over-analyze Canada's role. The war in Afghanistan was a failure because of the mistakes made by the USA. Other countries made mistakes too but none that cost us the war.

Sure...why not ? Canada didn't even bother to bring tactical aircraft or helicopters to the war, and Canadian Forces paid dearly for that "mistake". Not Canada's fault...blame the USA.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nonsense...and this thread is not about Iraq. Chretien also bombed Serbia without a UN resolution (Kosovo 1999), so when is he going on trial for war crimes ?

I recall a very interesting interview just prior to Bush's first visit to Canada who said in theory when he steps off the plane an RCMP officer could slap the cuffs on him and send him to the ICC, because we are a signatory to it, and his name is on the docket. We didn't of course but interesting to know it could have. Some othr countries may not be so "neighbourly". Ever wonder why he stays close to home?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ever wonder why he stays close to home?

No, because he doesn't, having visited Canada (along with VP Cheney) and other nations as well. Dream on....

What does any of this have to do with Canada in Afghanistan ?

Edited March 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

No, because he doesn't, having visited Canada (along with VP Cheney) and other nations as well. Dream on....

What does any of this have to do with Canada in Afghanistan ?

I don't know, it was you who brought up Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know, it was you who brought up Iraq.

No...a good Iraq rant is always part of Canadian retrospectives about the war in Afghanistan...that and the usual Bush bashing.

[On Guard for Thee]

No...a good Iraq rant is always part of Canadian retrospectives about the war in Afghanistan...that and the usual Bush bashing.

We sure took the high road on that one eh?