The Canadian Afghanistan Expedition

carepov · March 17, 2014

I disagree....as described above, several NATO/ISAF and U.S. objectives were accomplished. To discount such efforts and sacrifices made as a "failure" sets a very high bar that few past conflicts and their resolution would meet. Unreasonable expectations do not define success or failure.

What would "success" or "mission accomplished" look like to you ?

To me, success would be either:

a.) Better results (more security, more sustainable improvements that would ensure long-term security)

b.) The same results at about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost (time, blood and treasure)

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

To me, success would be either:

a.) Better results (more security, more sustainable improvements that would ensure long-term security)

b.) The same results at about 1/3 to 1/2 the cost (time, blood and treasure)

These are arbitrary, value loaded qualifications. Some people complain here that the Americans and others did not commit enough blood and treasure initially, even as the mission was only defined in short term security related objectives. Only later did longer term purposes get adopted as mission objectives.

The war in Afghanistan was not a failure...it was a counter-terrorism, anti-insurgency, and peacekeeping mission with varying degrees of success.

carepov · March 17, 2014

Only later did longer term purposes get adopted as mission objectives.

This was a big mistake.

The war in Afghanistan was not a failure...it was a counter-terrorism, anti-insurgency, and peacekeeping mission with varying degrees of success.

Sure, it was neither a complete failure nor a complete sucess. All wars have varying degrees of sucess, even Vietnam

IMO, the way in which the War on Terror was fought, the USA, the West and the ME all would have been better of had the War not been fought at all. i.e it was/is a failure.

GostHacked · March 17, 2014

The real question our government should have asked is Can Canadians be counted to hold on to the support ? That answer was a big NO.....The country was split on this, Canadian soldiers had the opinion that we could make a difference, for the first time in a long time this conflict was not about oil, or resources of any kind, but rather righting a wrong , and giving the people of Afghanistan some hope of peace....

That is what you and I are told the mission was about. Which is a lot of bull in my view. We went in as part of NATO with the US taking the lead to clean Afghanistan of the Taliban and Al-Queda. Both of which still have strong presence in Afghanistan.

Canadian citizens gave up on all of that, the war dragged on, they quickly lost interest and went on with their lifes, with that lost interest our soldiers felt the effects, much needed equipment was not purchased in time, that time would come at a cost, the cost of our soldiers lives....Soldiers quickly developed the opinion that this was our war,not the Canadian citizens... we would try to make a difference without the citizens of Canada....we wanted to finsh the job that the citizens gave us, it is who we are,what we trained for... second place is for lossers....Hence why we were so reluctant to come home....

Blame your military leaders and government for not equipping you properly.

What was the main goal of the fighting over there ? well it changed over time, but our first goal was to destroy terrorist elements within the country, that was done, their main base of operations were pushed into neiboring countries, such as Pakistan....Destroy any other threat that prevented us from accomplishing the first, that was the taliban, also pushed into neiboring countries....

So you simply moved them on to another area. The goal was to get rid of the Taliban and Al-Queda. Not move them to neighboring countries.

You can't eradicate an idea, there will always be that one person who will tell others....so there will always be an AQ or Taliban...armed intervention will however make their job and that process very difficult....Also remeber it is very easy to terrorize a large group of people with very little effort....and it can happen any where in the world...So the orginal plan was not to destroy everything about the AQ and Taliban but to remove them from AFghanisatn....and we did that....

Yep a good example of that is the NATO backed Free Syrian Army operating out of Turkey. Known to have terror groups among the rebels.

You can eradicate an idea if you do it properly.

The people of Afghanistan have had more than 40 years of constant conflict...the want peace, the want security to raise a family and provide for them....And they will find that in any corner they can...But they know what they don't want, they don't want the taliban back,they don't want extremism...

Did not help when the CIA helped the terrorists you are now fighting. There have been decades of external forces on Afghanistan to the point where they cannot determine their own fate.

Their laws and traditions may seem foreign to you,on the extreme side, but that is part of their culture,

Right, the law of the land is Sharia Law. Take a look at what Afghanistan was like in the 80s.

But by then Canadians had grown tired of the whole Afghan mess, they did'nt have to do anything except perhaps 20 to 30 dollars of their tax dollars would keep me and the thousands of Canadian troops in the area so the girls could go to school.....it would piss me off that the average Canadian could not do that....

There is no reason I should give money for a war that I do not believe was worth it or right in the first place. You keep wanting to pin the failures of the mission and our military and our government on the average Canadian.

.The average soldier of the time has done 3 or more tours, they have volunteered each one of those times....the have risked it all...the question Canadians have to ask is why?

That's a question for the soldiers, not average Canadians.

Edited March 17, 2014 by GostHacked

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

This was a big mistake.

...IMO, the way in which the War on Terror was fought, the USA, the West and the ME all would have been better of had the War not been fought at all. i.e it was/is a failure.

The USA is part of "the West", and opinions about how and why the WOT was fought should not be parsed in this way. Don't Canadians bristle when Americans claim they (not The Allies) "won WW2" ? The military actions in Afghanistan were a necessary and logical counter-terrorism response to training and safe habour of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. This initial action was very successful, and included Canada's JTF2.

Were you of this opinion before any WOT actions were undertaken, or are you hedging your bet because of hindsight ? Alas, Canadian Forces deployed to do their duty were not as fickle, and that is a good thing.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

Army Guy · March 17, 2014

That's clearly not true if your posts are any indication.

You sound way more like Mike Holmes than Nick Fury.

Well in Aghanistan you had to be both, as we did not know from one day to another what we were going to be doing, building a well, or hunting bad guys.....

carepov · March 17, 2014

The USA is part of "the West", and opinions about how and why the WOT was fought should not be parsed in this way. Don't Canadians bristle when Americans claim they (not The Allies) "won WW2" ? The military actions in Afghanistan were a necessary and logical counter-terrorism response to training and safe habour of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. This initial action was very successful, and included Canada's JTF2.

Were you of this opinion before any WOT actions were undertaken, or are you hedging your bet because of hindsight ? Alas, Canadian Forces deployed to do their duty were not as fickle, and that is a good thing.

You cannot "hedge a bet because of hindsight" this is nonsensical.

At the outset the WOT was very successful. IMO, had it not been for the major strategic blunders of the USA (invading Iraq) the WOT would have been very successful. With the benefit of hindsight I have ranked the following WOT options from best to worst:

1. Invade Afghanistan and wage war intelligently

2. Do nothing, or next to nothing

3. Do what we did

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

At the outset the WOT was very successful. IMO, had it not been for the major strategic blunders of the USA (invading Iraq) the WOT would have been very successful.

Then clearly yours is a politically motivated perspective. Afghanistan did not have the capacity or logistics to accept the influx of resources and financial aid even before Iraq was invaded. If you wish to write checks with American blood and treasure, you will always be disappointed. As I have stated many times, Canada and other nations also did not commit more expeditionary forces to Afghanistan, and some NATO partners refused to engage the enemy with combat forces.

Army Guy · March 17, 2014

That is what you and I are told the mission was about. Which is a lot of bull in my view. We went in as part of NATO with the US taking the lead to clean Afghanistan of the Taliban and Al-Queda. Both of which still have strong presence in Afghanistan.

Blame your military leaders and government for not equipping you properly.

So you simply moved them on to another area. The goal was to get rid of the Taliban and Al-Queda. Not move them to neighboring countries.

Yep a good example of that is the NATO backed Free Syrian Army operating out of Turkey. Known to have terror groups among the rebels.

You can eradicate an idea if you do it properly.

Did not help when the CIA helped the terrorists you are now fighting. There have been decades of external forces on Afghanistan to the point where they cannot determine their own fate.

Right, the law of the land is Sharia Law. Take a look at what Afghanistan was like in the 80s.

There is no reason I should give money for a war that I do not believe was worth it or right in the first place. You keep wanting to pin the failures of the mission and our military and our government on the average Canadian.

That's a question for the soldiers, not average Canadians.

They have no presence in Afghanistan, they are based in Pakistan , and have influence in Afghan. there is a big difference.

I do blame them for their share, but it is the Canadian people that make change in this country, It is the Canadian people who have the responsability to have our backs......So the majority of our equipment problems are yours...every Canadian citizen....a good example of that would be the F-35 program, we'd already have that Aircraft if it were not for public opinion....you can't have it both ways.....

No the gaol was to destroy their presence in Afghanistan.....if that was the case we have ground forces in Pakistan....

You can try to eradicate an idea....i don't know how many military books mention this...you can not kill it with out wipeing out everyone with knowledge of it....that would have went over well in the media....

That is a myth that wea are fighting the same terrorist as the US created for Russia....do some more research....

Afghanistan has for the most part always been SHIA law, but they took it to the extreme, hence the problem...

Well welcome to democracy, were the majority rule....each Canadian does not get to chose where our tax dollars get spent.....Just like i don't get to chose what war DND is going to engage with.....Back to reality.... It's not that i want to pin it on them, I do pin it on them just so we are clear....

Canada got all hot and horny about beating the shit out of a bunch of goat herders, so off we went....they loss interest shortly afterwards and forgot we even had troops over there....except when one of us came home in a bag....or you wanted answers about some aligation.....with no interest, just how easy would you think it would be to get equipment.....Canadian soldiers have an unwritten code that we will defend this nation, without concern over our own lifes so you and your family does not have to....., but it is the Canadian citizen who ensures we have what is needed for us to do that job.....and like us you don't have a say in which war you want to do that...it is everyday....

We had to die before we got any equipment.....now put yourself in my boots, who are you going to blame.....

The government listens to the public....if they're is no uproar then there is no action.....

Had this been a no fail mission the Canadian public would have been their to fully support our cause....But it was not, hence why i say this was a Canadian military mission only....we did all the work, we did all the bleeding , we did all the greiving.....the Canadian public has not right to call it a failure...you lost that honor when you abandoned us on the battle field.

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

....Had this been a no fail mission the Canadian public would have been their to fully support our cause....But it was not, hence why i say this was a Canadian military mission only....we did all the work, we did all the bleeding , we did all the greiving.....the Canadian public has not right to call it a failure...you lost that honor when you abandoned us on the battle field.

Well stated.....sometimes the worst part of the mission is coming home to crap like this....but it's the right soldiers die for.

Army Guy · March 17, 2014

Well stated.....sometimes the worst part of the mission is coming home to crap like this....but it's the right soldiers die for.

Your right , our current day freedoms are our primary function as soldiers.. but this is a two way street, soldiers do the fighting and back home the citizens have our backs.....and before we atart pionting the fingers, we must know the facts....sometimes tha facts are not what we want to hear...

Big Guy · March 17, 2014

...

Had this been a no fail mission the Canadian public would have been their to fully support our cause....But it was not, hence why i say this was a Canadian military mission only....we did all the work, we did all the bleeding , we did all the greiving.....the Canadian public has not right to call it a failure...you lost that honor when you abandoned us on the battle field.

I do not believe that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan made the situation worse for Afghans, although the families of the approx. 20,000 Afghanistan civilians killed might disagree. I also believe the "worth" of something is evaluated by comparing the cost against the desired result and the success of achieving that result. It is still too early to have a definitive answer since this conflict is not yet over although I doubt that the situation for Afghans will get any better with time. Every recent event in the last few years seems to be pushing that society farther and farther back into their dark ages.

There is no such thing as a "military mission only". That would be like saying that fire fighters going into a burning building are in a "firefighters mission only" or police officers chasing gang bangers as a "policemen mission only". Soldiers, firefighters and policemen know exactly what they are getting into when they join their particular force. They are paid by Canadian taxpayers and supported and equipped by Canadian tax dollars. I believe Canadians have every right to evaluate the use of their resources.

As to the truth and "facts" of our involvement, it took about 20 years after the Americans declared victory and fled Vietnam, for the real truth to come out.

Members of the Canadian military are just like all other loyal Canadians but they have chosen a career in the military with its inherent advantages and dangers. I believe that the average soldier did what he/she was expected to do and did it well. That is their job.

If there are negative fingers that will be pointed, they will be at those commanders (who never see action) who guaranteed to our politicians that this was a battle that we could easily win and at those politicians who decided to send our people there without properly assessing the situation.

As to future reactions, as John F. Kennedy said, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

Edited March 17, 2014 by Big Guy

Michael Hardner · March 17, 2014

the Canadian public has not right to call it a failure...you lost that honor when you abandoned us on the battle field.

That's an interesting perspective. Are you saying that the Canadian public abandoned the Canadian military by not supporting the purchase of equipment ?

carepov · March 17, 2014

Afghanistan did not have the capacity or logistics to accept the influx of resources and financial aid even before Iraq was invaded.

All the more reason to send in more military ressources to increase logistics capacity, security, etc...

If you wish to write checks with American blood and treasure, you will always be disappointed.

Wrong, I do not wish to write any cheques. I simply wish that the ones that the USA wrote to pay for Iraq would have gone to win the war in Afghanistan.

As I have stated many times, Canada and other nations also did not commit more expeditionary forces to Afghanistan, and some NATO partners refused to engage the enemy with combat forces.

I agree.

Army Guy · March 17, 2014

I do not believe that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan made the situation worse for Afghans, although the families of the approx. 20,000 Afghanistan civilians killed might disagree. I also believe the "worth" of something is evaluated by comparing the cost against the desired result and the success of achieving that result. It is still too early to have a definitive answer since this conflict is not yet over although I doubt that the situation for Afghans will get any better with time. Every recent event in the last few years seems to be pushing that society farther and farther back into their dark ages.

There is no such thing as a "military mission only". That would be like saying that fire fighters going into a burning building are in a "firefighters mission only" or police officers chasing gang bangers as a "policemen mission only". Soldiers, firefighters and policemen know exactly what they are getting into when they join their particular force. They are paid by Canadian taxpayers and supported and equipped by Canadian tax dollars. I believe Canadians have every right to evaluate the use of their resources.

As to the truth and "facts" of our involvement, it took about 20 years after the Americans declared victory and fled Vietnam, for the real truth to come out.

Members of the Canadian military are just like all other loyal Canadians but they have chosen a career in the military with its inherent advantages and dangers. I believe that the average soldier did what he/she was expected to do and did it well. That is their job.

If there are negative fingers that will be pointed, they will be at those commanders (who never see action) who guaranteed to our politicians that this was a battle that we could easily win and at those politicians who decided to send our people there without properly assessing the situation.

As to future reactions, as John F. Kennedy said, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

Yes lets throw some numbers around, 20,000 civilains killed by Canadian troops alone, i mean that is who we are talking about right....our mission to Afghanistan, maybe a source is needed for that one....

You can't use some corporate formula to calculate sucess or failure of a military mission...was WWII a sucess, ..nor can you calculate the cost in lives lost....

Every action over tha last few years is pushing the nation backwards is bullshit...do some research, how many new bussiness were open, how many schools were built and filled with students, when was the last public exicution....when we first arrive in Kabul, the place was in ruins, no water, no power, no paved roads, no vendors , no bussiness, today, the oposite is true, intra net cafe's are every where....construction is every where. paved roads are the norm, bussiness is thriving...

"Members of the Canadian military are just like all other loyal Canadians but they have chosen a career in the military with its inherent advantages and dangers. I believe that the average soldier did what he/she was expected to do and did it well. That is their job."

And the job of it's citizens are to ensure they have everything they need to accomplish that task....how many soldiers do you think would sign up to give their lives, if the citizens did not give a crap....their job is to hold our government accountable....

There is no such thing as a "military mission only". That would be like saying that fire fighters going into a burning building are in a "firefighters mission only" or police officers chasing gang bangers as a "policemen mission only". Soldiers, firefighters and policemen know exactly what they are getting into when they join their particular force. They are paid by Canadian taxpayers and supported and equipped by Canadian tax dollars. I believe Canadians have every right to evaluate the use of their resources.

There is in this case....Show me how this is not a Military mission only.....show me the support we recieved during the mission......Most Canadians did not give a flying F*** about Afghanistan, they had moved on.....Nor did they give a sweet shit about their military....I mean how many times did the media tell Canadians that IED's were killing more Canmadians than anything else....and when the numbers of cas became to great, and people started to voice their opinions we leased x 6 CH-47D off the Americans our cas rate went down almost 75 %.....but that did not happen to 2009, some 6 years after the start up....

So when the public decided it did not give a shit, we took it over because for us it was everything.........Hence a Military mission only....

you said it they are paid and supported and equiped by Canadian tax payers then they must be held accountable if they drop the ball right..........or do you pay your 20 bucks a year so you don't have to hear anything else about the problem of Afghanistan...

Wilber · March 17, 2014

That's an interesting perspective. Are you saying that the Canadian public abandoned the Canadian military by not supporting the purchase of equipment ?

If you send them to war without the proper equipment, wouldn't that be the case? Is the government not the representatives of the Canadian people?

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

All the more reason to send in more military ressources to increase logistics capacity, security, etc...

Not immediately possible....Afghanistan is landlocked, and convoys through Pakistan were problematic, especially after the U.S. ramped up drone strikes. The Americans and other NATO partners did increase resources over time.

Wrong, I do not wish to write any cheques. I simply wish that the ones that the USA wrote to pay for Iraq would have gone to win the war in Afghanistan.

That is not your decision or policy determination. The Americans clearly provided far more resources than all NATO partners combined. The American military had/has commitments all over the world, not just Afghanistan.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

Army Guy · March 17, 2014

That's an interesting perspective. Are you saying that the Canadian public abandoned the Canadian military by not supporting the purchase of equipment ?

Not just equipment, but on the whole conflict....question how long would have Canada stayed in the conflict if the masses were in Ottawa protesting or for that matter telling the government to equip us for the job.....with out the support of the people funding dries up for everything....nobody gave a crap...

carepov · March 17, 2014

.....the Canadian public has not right to call it a failure...you lost that honor when you abandoned us on the battle field.

Did the American public have the right to call Vietnam a failure?

Canadians, military or civilians, do have the right to call the mission a failure. Yes, we all share some responsability, and yes we can be critical of ourselves.

What do you think about my position that the War in Afghanistan was ruined due to the invasion of Iraq?

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

Did the American public have the right to call Vietnam a failure?

Yes...the objective in Vietnam was clearly not achieved. Different situation and objective in Afghanistan.

Edited March 17, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

carepov · March 17, 2014

Not immediately possible....Afghanistan is landlocked, and convoys through Pakistan were problematic, especially after the U.S. ramped up drone strikes. The Americans and other NATO partners did increase resources over time.

That is not your decision or policy determination. The Americans clearly provided far more resources than all NATO partners combined. The American military had/has commitments all over the world, not just Afghanistan.

You keep supporting my point that the resources used in Iraq should have been used in Afghanistan.

carepov · March 17, 2014

Yes...the objective in Vietnam was clearly not achieved. Different situation and objective in Afghanistan.

It is too early to judge if the objective was acheived in Afghanistan.

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

You keep supporting my point that the resources used in Iraq should have been used in Afghanistan.

Not at all.....Iraq was the continuation of pre-existing US/UK policy. Resources were deployed to Kuwait just to get weapons inspections resumed. No fly zones were already being enforced for years. I say again...where were the additional Canadian and NATO forces if they were in such dire need for Afghanistan ?

bush_cheney2004 · March 17, 2014

It is too early to judge if the objective was acheived in Afghanistan.

And yet, here you are already calling the mission a failure.

carepov · March 17, 2014

Not at all.....Iraq was the continuation of pre-existing US/UK policy. Resources were deployed to Kuwait just to get weapons inspections resumed. No fly zones were already being enforced for years. I say again...where were the additional Canadian and NATO forces if they were in such dire need for Afghanistan ?

Pity, a lot of NATO forces were in Iraq.