War Crimes - Afghanistan

[Michael Hardner]

What sort of specifics?

I asked the questions above - you can go back and read it again. Maybe you assumed I already knew the answers to the questions.

[eyeball]

You should know them. I find it bizarre that you're unaware of any off the top of your own head. That speaks to what I meant when I described feeling exasperated to AG.

Read post 114 again too. I can't put it any clearer than that myself.

Maybe you can see why I suggested a Royal Commission.

[Argus]

This comment is very telling, about who we are as a nation....better yet who you are as a person....Afghanistan was one of the few conflicts that was not about oil, or big corporations....it was about helping out a nation that had endured 30 plus years of conflict, that had left them in despair, with no hope of a future, under a regime that was brutal..... It was a chance for us as a nation to give an out reached hand, and help them , give them some hope for the future.....

Afghanistan should have been about none of that. Afghanistan was about hammering Bin Laden and his ten thousand supporters there, and sweeping away anyone who got in our way, like the Taliban. That's it, that's all!

It was the naive and stupidly unrealistic belief that we then had the responsibility to set about nation building in a land of tribally oriented religious fanatics that got us to stick around for more than a decade in a pointless effort to civilize the uncivilized.

[Argus]

I don't think anyone can say with 100% correctness that Bin Laden was behind 9/11. I've read many articles on this and one item that kinda makes sense is Israel because they wanted the US and others to go into the ME

This is looney conspiracy theory stuff which has no logic to it and is rooted in anti-semitism.

[Argus]

You wanted examples of western supported dicatorships. Them being wealthy and 'stable' is irrelevant.

The problem with not supporting them is the odds of them becoming more free and more respectful of human rights should someone overthrow them are very close to nil.

[eyeball]

delete

Edited October 25, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Afghanistan should have been about none of that.

---SNIP---

Not as naive and stupidly unrealistic as believing going after Bin Laden in the manner we did was the appropriate thing to do. Edited October 25, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[GostHacked]

Afghanistan should have been about none of that. Afghanistan was about hammering Bin Laden and his ten thousand supporters there, and sweeping away anyone who got in our way, like the Taliban. That's it, that's all!

Stinger missiles to Bin Laden and his men seemed to be a good idea at the time too.

[Big Guy]

Was watching some politico shows on Sunday. On PBS there was an American "military expert" who stated that at this point in time, there are only 9,500 American troops in Afghanistan - but - there are about 30,000 "Military Contractors" there who are being paid by the USA.

He explained that the "military contractors" are mercenaries from around the world but mainly former American, British and Canadian soldiers who have served in Afghanistan or Iraq and are no longer in the forces. They are being paid much better and do not have any real "rules" to follow.

Another panelist stated that the cost to America in these wars is about $1 million per soldier per year. This includes ammunition, armaments, equipment etc - i.e. I think he is taking the total cost and dividing by the number of soldiers deployed.

If he is correct, that money could sure be used for better and more efficient purposes.

[Big Guy]

On that bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan that killed a number of doctors and patients:

Good News for USA; The Americans were told that it was a Taliban Hospital not a "friendly" so that is why they bombed it.

Bab News for USA: The Americans knew it was a hospital and still decided to target it.

That is a war crime.

"Troops who sought strike thought Taliban had hospital

The Army Green Berets who requested the Oct. 3 airstrike on the Doctors without Borders trauma center in Afghanistan were aware it was a functioning hospital but believed it was under Taliban control, The Associated Press has learned. The information adds to the evidence the site was familiar to the U.S. and raises questions about whether the attack violated international law. A day before an American AC130 gunship attacked the hospital, a senior officer in the Green Beret unit wrote in a report that U.S. forces had discussed the hospital with the country director of the medical charity group, presumably in Kabul, according to two people who have seen the document."

[bush_cheney2004]

Was watching some politico shows on Sunday. On PBS ......

If he is correct, that money could sure be used for better and more efficient purposes.

PBS is great....lots of Canadians watch PBS and many other U.S.media outlets (e.g. Sunday mornings) for information and entertainment. If there is a "war crimes" trial, I am sure there will be a large audience north of the border as always, but don't count on that happening anytime soon.

[On Guard for Thee]

PBS is great....lots of Canadians watch PBS and many other U.S.media outlets (e.g. Sunday mornings) for information and entertainment. If there is a "war crimes" trial, I am sure there will be a large audience north of the border as always, but don't count on that happening anytime soon.

MSF is pursuing an intervention under the Geneva Conventions. If the US let's that happen (which is doubtful) we might actually get some good info. from a US network.

[Big Guy]

Only 11,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2015.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/afghan-civilian-casualties-hit-record-11000-2015-160214071436972.html

Anybody still think we did not waste 170 Canadian military lives and $billions on our "excursion" in Afghanistan?

There have been about 30,000 civilians killed in Libya since we sent our planes in their to depose Gaddafi.

And we wasted a few hundreds of thousands with a commemoration ceremony eher in Canad:

“We are celebrating a great military success: the success of Canada's participation in Operation Unified Protector and Operation Mobile, respectively the NATO mission to Libya and Canada's contribution to it,” PM Harper 2011

Now we are entangled in yet another civil war.

Will Canadians never learn?

[Army Guy]

What a crook of shit....at what point in time, is our mission in Afghanistan going to stop being held accountable for deaths long after our departure....one could just as easily say it is because of our departure that these deaths have gone up.....11,000 thousand deaths who is to blame for them....let me guess NATO bombers, Drones....maybe just maybe it's the terrorists.....Nah can't be....we don't point fingers at terrorists.....we don't hold them responsible....or what's the other one oh ya it's big corporations and their lust for resources and oil......

Or maybe , I know this sounds crazy, but maybe the military was right, we should have stayed and finished the job.....

[eyeball]

What was that job exactly again? How can you finish something when nobody even knows what it was you set out to do?

Leave war up to soldiers - why not a bunch of big military industrialists, lobbyists and politicians while you're at it. I'll bet you're in a big public sector union too aren't you?

Who cares about a few greedy resource companies weasling their way in between all that?

[Big Guy]

...

Or maybe , I know this sounds crazy, but maybe the military was right, we should have stayed and finished the job.....

That excuse "maybe we should have stayed to finish the job" has been discredited by history. Just what would Afghanistan looked like if we would have stayed to finish the job? How would we know that the job was "finished"?

Like Somalia or Vietnam or Libya or Iraq? Just what civil war have we been involved in where we stayed and "finished" the job?

“Study the past if you would define the future.” - Confucius

[Army Guy]

That excuse "maybe we should have stayed to finish the job" has been discredited by history. Just what would Afghanistan looked like if we would have stayed to finish the job? How would we know that the job was "finished"?

Like Somalia or Vietnam or Libya or Iraq? Just what civil war have we been involved in where we stayed and "finished" the job?

“Study the past if you would define the future.” - Confucius

Has it been discredited.....what are the facts, well we know what the security situation was before we came, we know what is when we where there, and now we know what it is after we left.....what we can only speculate is what would it be like if we had stayed......

Funny you bring up all the conflicts that were ended by public influence.....maybe if we ever finished something we started it might have a different outcome.....but that's just guessing....oh wait....there are examples in history WWI, WWII , the cold war.....something is not right here....can it be....

[Big Guy]

Civilians start wars and civilians decide when the war is over.

[eyeball]

Civilians start wars and civilians decide when the war is over.

Civilian populations can certainly have an influence in the end of war, when they've had enough for example. Civilians can also be really lax in allowing their governments or religions to lead them into war but to say civilians act collectively to decide to invade another country or maneuver their country into a position where war is inevitable is a little to simplistic. Your statement makes it sound like civilians just order their governments to send armed forces halfway around the world if and when they feel like it.

Overthrowing a tyrant or civilians deciding to engage in a civil war is also not the same.

Edited February 15, 2016 by eyeball

[Big Guy]

Civilian populations can certainly have an influence in the end of war, when they've had enough for example. Civilians can also be really lax in allowing their governments or religions to lead them into war but to say civilians act collectively to decide to invade another country or maneuver their country into a position where war is inevitable is a little to simplistic. Your statement makes it sound like civilians just order their governments to send armed forces halfway around the world if and when they feel like it.

Overthrowing a tyrant or civilians deciding to engage in a civil war is also not the same.

My point is that in our democracies the military does not decide when to create and/or enter a conflict. We elect representatives who reflect our views. These representatives form a government. The government collects taxes et al to create and supply a military. This government is advised through different intelligence agencies as to what is happening in the world. When the government decides that there should be a military force applied somewhere to represent its better interests then it orders and directs its military to action.

If/when the government decides that it is no longer in its interests to have its military in action it then orders the military to come home.

The military fights who, what, where, why and when on direction from the civilian authority - our government.

[eyeball]

That's the theory at least.

[Topaz]

The reasons behind the ME wars are the problem. I have gone searching for the reason behind going into Afghanistan ans one article which was written in the early 2000's take through a time line about Enron, Cheney and the Taliban and it get really interesting when GW becomes president. http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/the_enron-cheney-taliban_connection/

[Army Guy]

Civilians start wars and civilians decide when the war is over.

You seem to be flip floppy here Big guy, was it not you just a week ago, selling the theory of a book, written by some University prof, that the Afghanistan conflict was being run by the military, that Gen Hillier was bulling the government into getting his way.....your above statement kind of flies in the face of that argument does it not....

So which one is it, civilians running the show, or the military.....

If/when the government decides that it is no longer in its interests to have its military in action it then orders the military to come home.

What you mean is when it is no longer popular with the people , because the collection of votes is what takes priority here is it not......I say that because most Canadians still can not find Afghanistan on a map, nor are the fully aware of what is best for the nation, or how to solve complex issues around the globe......

[Big Guy]

You seem to be flip floppy here Big guy, was it not you just a week ago, selling the theory of a book, written by some University prof, that the Afghanistan conflict was being run by the military, that Gen Hillier was bulling the government into getting his way.....your above statement kind of flies in the face of that argument does it not....

So which one is it, civilians running the show, or the military.....

What you mean is when it is no longer popular with the people , because the collection of votes is what takes priority here is it not......I say that because most Canadians still can not find Afghanistan on a map, nor are the fully aware of what is best for the nation, or how to solve complex issues around the globe......

I believe that if you reread my previous references that the Canadian government at the time used the intelligence that was available to them (including the assurance by newly promoted Hillier that we could easily handle the Afghanistan responsibilities as well as future commitments in other areas of the globe) .

Based on that intelligence the civilian government decided to send the military into Afghanistan to clean up what the USA had completed. Hillier was wrong and the government was wrong to take his evaluation and advice. Then "mission creep" began as governments changed and the new government took their eye off the mission and we ended up with that fiasco.

I do not think that any military could "bully" any Canadian government into any decision.

I believe that it is the civilians who run the show.

We are a well functioning democracy , not stratocracy.

I have far more confidence in civilian Canadians to be aware of what is best for the nation, and/or how to solve complex issues around the globe, than the members of our military.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Big Guy

[Army Guy]

I have re read your previous references including read of the book you used as a source to back up a lot of your argument. In that book the authors have made some serious claims such as the Gen was a very influential figure, who used that power to bully the government and the office of the PM to get his way. They also pin the a large portion of blame on the Afghan mission on the shoulders of the Gen.

But lets look at some of the facts, If the General did wield such power and influence why did it take so long to acquire the equipment necessary to wage war. things as simple as proper uniforms, ballistic plates, proper armoured wheeled vehs, proper armoured infantry vehs....Why was it left until the death toll demanded action ? other questions such as helo's, arty assets, even enough troops to accomplish the task, all went unanswered until the death toll mounted and Canadians demanded answers.....

Lets not even mention the General , newly promoted to CDS, is the new guy on the block, he has not had the time to develop contacts, establish himself within the position yet....To become this Bully with all wielding power he is claimed to have ...He was appointed CDS around Jan, Government announced it would double it's Kabul commitment from 600 to 1200 troops.....(remember this fact it comes in later) then in march the Government announces Canada will deploy to Kandahar....Just 3 months after the CDS takes office, the planning of a mission of this size takes a lot more than 3 months....nothing in government moves that fast, nor does it move that fast at NATO HQ's or the Coalition HQ which would have to find the mission a place to operate, Canadians would have to Recce the areas to find them suitable....this whole process takes a lot longer than 3 months....not to mention being brand new in the position , developing the power to Bully the government , well your asking us to swallow a lot....But wait there is more....

Lets introduce some other books written by other insiders shall we....How about Gen Hilliers books....I say books because he has written atleast 2 on this topic.... both mention some of the same comments on the mission....

He writes in the book that he wanted Canadian troops to stay in the much safer Kabul area where they were originally deployed, but the decision to send troops to the dangerous southern Kandahar region was made before he became military leader in 2004.

"It had already been largely decided that the Canadian presence in Afghanistan was shifting to the southern half of the country," Hillier writes.

"Even before I returned from commanding (the International Security Assistance Force in the fall of 2004), NATO had announced its intentions to expand the ISAF mission beyond Kabul in 2006, and planning was already well on its way for a move into Kandahar province by the time I landed back in Canada that fall."

He suggests it was then prime minister Paul Martin's decision-making that resulted in Canada's costly commitment in the south. To-date, 131 Canadian troops have died in Afghanistan.

www.ctvnews.ca/hillier-says-pmo-was-one-of-his-toughest-foes-1.445490 (sorry my link thing is not working properly you'll have to cut and paste the link).... there are many media reports on his books, from many different media companies just pick one....

SO basically Hiller is saying he recommended that DND increase it's effort to secure the Kabul airport a vital inter national airport, he also says that he did not recommend the move to Kandahar but instead recommended against it....This is now becoming a he said she said thing....and yet we have heard the Gen clearly say these things over and over again things such as:

It wasn't until Canada went to Afghanistan, though, that it recouped its standing among its allies. But moving to Kandahar in 2006, he says, couldn't have come at a worse time for Canadian troops.

or

The war gave the Taliban morale and effective insurgent tactics just when Canada landed in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. Oddly, he says he had no opinion on whether Canada should have supported the Americans in Iraq. On Afghanistan, he remains doubtful about NATO's mission, either in its deployment or its objectives.

://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/books/rick-hillier-stands-up-for-the-army-he-loves-65930627.html

Not comments that are made by a General trying to sell the mission, or it's expansion....but rather a general speaking his mind

Q: So was it a mistake for Canada to reduce its military presence in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006?

A: Probably the finger should be pointed at me for blame on that one. [As head of the army at the time] I successfully argued that we should reduce because the army was being run pretty hard and we hadn’t really set ourselves up to do that. That was the biggest strategic error, in hindsight, that I believe I made, because as soon as we went into operational pause, the urgency of getting the army up to speed and re-equipped and getting the units full of soldiers all disappeared. And the government got used to not paying the operational costs, which in any mission are going to be plus a billion dollars, so when we went back to it, that shock of the operational cost was big. But I’m not sure we had the ability to effectively have a presence on the ground there.

Q: You write that when you were chief of defence staff, some of the toughest battles were fought not in Kandahar but against the bureaucracy in Ottawa.

A: I liken it to a boa constrictor. We were at war in Afghanistan, with young men and women laying their lives on the line on a daily basis, and we were trying to move at lightning speed to give them the capabilities to reduce risks and ensure they were set up for success. What we did not see, from the vast majority of the bureaucracy back in Ottawa, was the same sense of urgency. Everything became difficult, really moved slowly, projects were often parcelled into very little bits and pieces. We had to fight a war in Ottawa to get things done, from getting the tanks upgraded to getting helicopters. We should’ve had those things from the time the need was identified, in weeks if not days. It took months, and in several cases years.

http://www.macleans.ca/general/gen-rick-hillier-on-his-biggest-strategic-error-the-talibans-comeback-and-whether-canada-should-stay-in-afghanistan-past-2011/

Are these comments from a general who has the ability to bully government into what it needs, to get his own way....they are full of doubt if you ask me....I am starting to think that your source was an attempt to paint the general as a scape goat....some of this liberal members are still in government now....and don't want the part image tarnished.....

I like you don't think a government could be bullied by one man, the info available to them would allow them to discount any bad advice given....I think that if you were going to point any fingers on the Afghan issue, the man in charge should own it , that was the PM and his cabinet......

I commend you for having a lot more confidence in your fellow citizens decision making process than I do, but using the afghan example was a poor choice on your part to prove that civilians make better informed choices than the military does....I also firmly believe that it is those bad choices by citizens that are reflected in governmental decisions and their time honored practice of chasing votes and acting on what is popular and not what is in the best interest of the nation....

I Think the responsibility rest entirely on the governments shoulders for this mission, and while in my opinion it was a worth while mission for our nation to under take...it was mishandled by most involved....with one exception the men and women who were on the ground trying to make it all work....