To defeat terrorism, we must leave the Middle-East

[dre]

One of the problems the Left makes in these kinds of discussions is blaming everything on the West while exempting the locals of any responsibility for their own actions, their own ignorance, or their own violence. These are backward societies, centuries behind us in most respects, and barbaric in many ways.

Theres some truth to that, but we knew all that before we embarked on operation "OOPS! - SHOULDA THOUGHT THAT THROUGH!", and turned Iraq into a bigger breeding ground for terrorism than Afghanistan ever was. These things were completely predictable.

And this has nothing to do with the left. The real problem is that the people that planned these misadventures didnt take that into account. Remember how the Iraqis were going to greet American troops as liberators because they were so happy with the removal of Saddam and prospect of democracy? They were going to welcome us with open arms, and the project would take a "few months" and cost a "few million dollars".

[Moonlight Graham]

Of course you don't see imminent threats Moonlight. You choose not to see.

Rue, please tell me the imminent security threats facing Canada right now? If you think ISIS is one of them, that's really BS, because as I've explained before on this thread, they didn't attack us first, they weren't much of a threat to Canadian soil except for future hypothetical imaginings. Parliament voted to start airstrikes on ISIS 2 weeks before ISIS sympathizers committed attacks on Canadian military (not civilian) targets. The Harper government is partly culpable or inciting those attacks on Canadian soldiers. The boogie man is on the other side of the world, they have no means to attack us from there. If they choose to attack us within Canada, killing them in the ME will have little to no effect in deterring that, it will just incite Muslims in Canada more to radicalize and attack us here.

Your other comments are ridiculous. No one in Canada sits around ordering attacks for the hell of it. Your inference the army is being used unnecessarily flows from the fact you close your eyes and ears to world conflict and think if you block your eyes and ears it won't exist. The boogy man is out there and people are dying while you deny their continuing deaths.

I'm very aware of what's happening in the world. But we aren't the world's police, and it's impossible to be so. ISIS and the Syrian civil war is mainly a regional problem, and it should be solved by the region. There's boogy men all over Asia and Africa, but we don't fight them all. Around 4 million civilians died over the last 15 years in the DRC in central Africa during the Congo Wars but did we go there for humanitarian reasons, did we? We don't get ourselves involved in the countless conflicts in Africa because it serves the West no strategic purpose, especially after the fall of the USSR. We didn't help out in Darfur, didn't help in Rwanda, but we should help in times of mass genocide. But regional problems and civil wars should be dealt with by those people, and we should help out everywhere there is dire humanitarian assistance needed. You simply don't understand our military limitations, and the problems it has actually made far worse. ISIS wouldn't exist without the Iraq War, that's a guarantee. Got rid of one boogy man that was little to no threat to Canadian or US soil, created a worse one.

When the USSR fell we should have just sipped wine and removed ourselves from the ME entirely. The region would have dealt with Saddam and Islamists. Germany and Japan have removed themselves from global conflicts since WWII and they've done quite well, joke's on us, we have a far safer geographic location.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

. Remember how the Iraqis were going to greet American troops as liberators because they were so happy with the removal of Saddam and prospect of democracy? They were going to welcome us with open arms, and the project would take a "few months" and cost a "few million dollars".

To be fair, they pretty much did. Unfortunately, the Americans had no idea what to do from there, had no substitute government in mind, no idea what to do about the economy, and fired tens of thousands of soldiers and police who suddenly had no way to feed their families. In moves Al Quaeda, Iran, and others, and suddenly bombs are going off everywhere.

[Moonlight Graham]

One of the problems the Left makes in these kinds of discussions is blaming everything on the West while exempting the locals of any responsibility for their own actions, their own ignorance, or their own violence. These are backward societies, centuries behind us in most respects, and barbaric in many ways. The attempt to rebrand them as modern democracies is doomed to fail, and I've been saying that for some time. Democracy is for civilized people, which means people capable of compromise and peaceful disagreement. The peoples of this region are not at that stage.

I completely agree. The "democracy" projects in Afghanistan and Iraq are absolute stupidity and doomed to fail. We wasted a lot of money and blood in Afghanistan trying to stabilize a country that isn't going to be stable any time soon, not without a brutal dictator like Assad or Gaddafi or Saddam. We're not going to do much better than Assad in Syria, the only difference between him and the Saudi monarchy is that he's Shia and therefore allied with Iran...who hate us for very good reason because of our intervention in their internal politics post-WWII (re: the Shah) and our subsequent support for their enemies post-1979.

[Moonlight Graham]

To be fair, they pretty much did. Unfortunately, the Americans had no idea what to do from there, had no substitute government in mind, no idea what to do about the economy, and fired tens of thousands of soldiers and police who suddenly had no way to feed their families. In moves Al Quaeda, Iran, and others, and suddenly bombs are going off everywhere.

The fundamental problem in Iraq, much of the ME, and most of Africa is that in a world of nation-states it's very hard to have a consistently peaceful nation-state when you have 2 or more different "nations" (cultural or religious groups etc.) within one state. We even see it in Canada with the Anglos vs Quebec vs aboriginals. The solution is a government that panders to the needs of all nations, or lets each significant nation have it's own self-determination of local government, or if this doesn't work lets the unhappy nation separate and form it's own nation-state. Failure to do either of the 3 will (and has) lead to civil war, every time.

[Bonam]

I wasnt talking about the total death toll. And the project was a success... the axis powers were defeated. So I wouldnt call it a mistake, or a waste of time and money like the GWOT. Bonham has a point about inflation though. As far as US spending, WW2 cost 4 trillion of todays dollars and the GWOT has cost 2. But the fact the two are even vaguely comparable is shocking.

I didn't mean that the US entering WWII was a mistake, but rather that the diplomacy that led to WWII happening in the first place was a mistake. Whether you want to blame the Treaty of Versailles or the policy of appeasement or the unwillingness to intervene militarily until after disaster had already struck, those mistakes had far larger cost and consequence than anything related to the war on terror.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

.....When the USSR fell we should have just sipped wine and removed ourselves from the ME entirely. The region would have dealt with Saddam and Islamists. Germany and Japan have removed themselves from global conflicts since WWII and they've done quite well, joke's on us, we have a far safer geographic location.

Canada did not have a significant military footprint in the ME immediately after the Soviet Union collapsed. However, Canada vigorously supported several missions and "illegal" military attacks on a sovereign nation in Eastern Europe (Chretien's Kosovo War) even though there was no "imminent threat" to Canada, just a burning desire to scratch the "Responsibility to Protect" itch after failing in Rwanda.

The U.S. continues to have a large military presence in Japan and Germany.

[Rue]

Bush's last comment is fair. It did not. After WW2 Canada's role in the ME was peacekeepers in the Sinai and Golan Heights. The Arabs and Israel greatly respected their role. They were trusted by both sides but terrorism in those days was far different than it is today. The Fedayeen of the past operating out of the Sinai were not Hamas or Hezbollah. They were terrorist but they did do to their civilians what Isil, Hamas and Hezbollah does today. They were for the most part trained and controlled by Nasser to make surprise attacks on kibbutzim in the night. They liked to come in and shoot or kill pregnant women or babies yes. I know first hand living not far away from Ber Sheva in the Negev on a kibbutz. We knew what they did. More often then not they were taken care of swiftly. They did not know how to fight men just babies and pregnant women.

[Army Guy]

Why am I subsidizing the arms industry and manufacturing industry with my tax dollars? Just about any government military action where they need to buy these machines of war is on the taxpayers dime. If we're going to subsidize a segment of our economy, I'd rather we build subway systems or highways or hospitals etc.

We obviously need a military, but our goals should be to use it as infrequently as possible to achieve our security needs and national interests.

Because like any other industry it provides jobs, good jobs that pay well, for not only skilled tradesmen, but unskilled labor as well. We are after all talking about Canada's arms industry, which is not all that large....And most importantly we are talking jobs in the manufacturing sector, which is very short at the time, do you really think we can pick and choose, what is a good job and what is not....

I had a conversation about this with derek, only about shipbuilding, and outsourcing all our equipment to defend our own country and foreign interests, we need the ability to make and maintain these tools of war, and while it may not be a priority of most Canadians to support these manufacturers, the majority also want those dollars spent on our military to benfit Canada in some way...with the building nation investing an equivalent sum back into the nation....that is why we have the GM plant in London, that builds LAV's.....and since the Canadian military does supply enough business to this plant to keep it open, they sell to other nations......

[Army Guy]

We need to accept the consequences of our actions. This is part of the advancement of humanity. I'm sure the guy putting food down for his family will be willing to do a job making something that destroys less. Like perhaps, something in renewable energy. Why can we not promote and invest in things that we know will not harm and destroy others and instead, will work to improve things.

Look at the rise in jobs in renewable energy in Germany.

Like i already pointed out, long ago we decided to purchase LAV's for our military, part of the contract was for GM at the time, was to invest part of the contracts worth here in Canada, and they did built a plant staffed it with Hard working Canadians....it was part of getting the most out of our tax payers money.......But Canada's military does not require any more LAV's, so now we export them to keep those hard working Canadians work.....and paying taxes.....I to wish we could build renewable energy or something peaceful, but right now there is a shortage of manufacturing jobs here in Canada can we afford to pick and choose what kind of manufacturing jobs we have...

Germany also has one of the largest Military industrial complexes in Europe.....but i do get your point.

[Army Guy]

Not even the US has been able to defeat terrorism. What exactly are you proposing here?

I don't think Canadians want a massive Military, there is no need for it really, but for a nation that has one of the largest coastlines in the world, one of the largest land masses in the world....should have a military alittle larger than the one we currently employ....Not for world domination, but for all the reasons we employ them for.....

Winnipeg floods years back had all 3 Army brigades, (the whole Army) plus thousands from the navy and airforce and it was still not enough.....Ice Storm 2 Army Brigades, plus half of the third, along with once again pers from the airforce, and navy....and when taking alook at the big picture they really were not big disasters....what would we do if Canada had it's own Katrina....or BC has a major earthquake.....

Don't get me wrong the military does a lot more than provide assistance during crises like the ones mentioned above. But if we have a problem with dealing with small crises, what do we think will happen during a medium or large crises strike....or do we just shrug it off, and say shit happens.....

[Moonlight Graham]

Because like any other industry it provides jobs, good jobs that pay well, for not only skilled tradesmen, but unskilled labor as well. We are after all talking about Canada's arms industry, which is not all that large....And most importantly we are talking jobs in the manufacturing sector, which is very short at the time, do you really think we can pick and choose, what is a good job and what is not....

I support having a military to defend our borders and the borders of our closest allies. I don't support getting involved in wars where one of the primary purposes is to please the arms industry lobbies and give them more business. Where do you think radical jihadists like ISIS are getting their weapons, tanks etc. I don't support killing people or inciting war so we can make money because I'm not a sociopath. I'd rather people lose jobs than lives.

[Army Guy]

I support having a military to defend our borders and the borders of our closest allies. I don't support getting involved in wars where one of the primary purposes is to please the arms industry lobbies and give them more business. Where do you think radical jihadists like ISIS are getting their weapons, tanks etc. I don't support killing people or inciting war so we can make money because I'm not a sociopath. I'd rather people lose jobs than lives.

Those new LAV's are going to the Saudis, not ISIL or some terrorist group....It's the Canadian people that agreed if we are going to spend our tax dollars on our military it should always benefit Canadians some how, Hence the London Plant.....I'm sure the sale of these LAV's was approved by our government prior.....not just some CEO of some arms industry.....

[Army Guy]

Thank you for a response which obviously took some time, patience and was well worth reading.

We might disagree at length about whether the term "warrior nation" should be applied to Canada. Since there is no objective criteria for such a designation then it must be a subjective evaluation. By my personal definition, a warrior nation is one which declares war as a usual foreign policy rather than a last resort as an action or reaction to opposition. That is why I differentiate between the actions of Canada under previous leaderships with those of the United States.

We both have quite different visions of Canada's role in the world and the feelings of most Canadians. I believe that one of the results of the diversity of our population, especially that part which is created by those fleeing war, makes Canadians very reluctant to send our young into battle. I agree with that philosophy. I also believe that the criteria for sending our military into battle is spelled out in what is now called the Powell Doctrine. I had followed his career and agree with him wholeheartedly.

My perception is that while Canadians commemorate battles - win or lose - the Americans celebrate battles and wars (mainly those which they win). We also obviously disagree on the need for a strong military for Canada - hence the name that you chose for your avatar. It will be interesting to see if the next leadership of Canada continue to follow American leads and parallel USA policy or will try to create a distinct Canadian foreign policy. As to the use of our military, I have a few ideas I intend to post within the next few weeks and I hope you will share your opinion on them.

I always read and consider your well thought out posts.

But i did attach some subjective evaluation. If a nation spends most of it's time, effort, and funding to such actions then one could easily come to the conclusion that Combat mission are given more attention, and therefore more importance.

This is Canada, we don't declare war on a whim or with any regularity....Now we do send our troops on mission that have been approved by the UN council, or has the approval of so many nations that the UN does not make any waves to counter that move...

Your losing me here, i thought you were reffing to the Harper government and it's current policies....and yet it was under liberal leadership we took on the Afghan mission....and it was under Harper's leadership that ended the mission early...

I agree with you that Canada's population is diverse, not sure if it is to the point that, this is why they are reluctant to go to war....but i would say it must be reflected in there some where.

I to agree with Ret Gen Colin Powells doctrine, and while it is a good piece of work it is not the end all of doctrine, it also is written for not only governments to follow but citizens as well.....While Nations and Militaries have a responsibility to follow it as close as possible.. It also needs the citizens to also up hold their end of the bargain as well....

Early in the Afghan mission, all the parties agreed to send troops, as did the majority of citizens, except Eyeball and a few others......So off we went to War, but as it grew unpopular, the citizens failed in all it's responsibilities.....as long as the hockey games, and pogey checks came in on time everyone was cool.......Except those young men and women coming home in flagged draped coffins, taking that long journey down the highway of hero's......Canadians would take a pause, feel some regret, then go about their business.....So while we as Canadians love to point our fingers at someone else.....in this case we need to point those fingers inward.....

I think Canadians as a whole really need to sit down and discuss what a strong military really means, what is it we want them to do, and then put our money where our mouths are and ensure that not only is there funding there for them to do all these jobs, but the support as well....For me a strong military is not just about numbers, having a strong military is about having quality training, quality in our standards, and quality of personnel, all of these things along with strong professionalism, ethics, morals and values, but it must also have the tools to do the job, and most importantly the support of the majority of Canadians, who will voice their opinions if all of these things are not followed to a T.....whether our military is one or 100,000 strong...

I can't say that i'm looking forward to the next government, i am concerned about what the country is going to look like under a new government, "i'm hoping for a conservative one" particularly on how our entire security apparatus will look like in four years time..

Thanks for you kind words sir, while we may not always agree i do enjoy your posts which are thought provoking and require research, which lends itself to learning more about each topic......

[eyeball]

I didn't mean that the US entering WWII was a mistake, but rather that the diplomacy that led to WWII happening in the first place was a mistake. Whether you want to blame the Treaty of Versailles or the policy of appeasement or the unwillingness to intervene militarily until after disaster had already struck, those mistakes had far larger cost and consequence than anything related to the war on terror.

The GWOT is just another consequence in the same row of mistakes. WW2 was a consequence of WW1...which at the time was simply the latest squabble amongst the usual suspects, the stupidly rich and powerful.

It's all just been one big long stupid war and future historians a thousand years from now will very likely regard the last few hundred years and the next few hundred to come as one godawful Age of War or Stupidity. I wouldn't be surprised if they're still fighting it themselves.

The mistake of course is the unmitigated machinations of the stupidly rich and powerful. Nothing more nothing less. The funny thing is how outnumbered they are and yet we can't seem to do a damn thing about them. I guess we're just stupider.

Edited September 22, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Early in the Afghan mission, all the parties agreed to send troops, as did the majority of citizens, except Eyeball and a few others......So off we went to War, but as it grew unpopular, the citizens failed in all it's responsibilities...

As was predicted when you went.

I think Canadians as a whole really need to sit down and discuss what a strong military really means, what is it we want them to do, and then put our money where our mouths are and ensure that not only is there funding there for them to do all these jobs, but the support as well..

Further to that we need to discuss and develop binding Terms of Involvement that I think should include the requirement that any decision to invade other countries and regions have the support of a super-majority of at least %70 of Canadian voters in a mandatory referendum. I think you're blowing smoke myself regarding how serious you are about really going after the unreserved support of Canadians.

As for putting my money where the hawk's mouths are we should require invasions be funded with War-Bonds.

[Bonam]

The GWOT is just another consequence in the same row of mistakes. WW2 was a consequence of WW1...which at the time was simply the latest squabble amongst the usual suspects, the stupidly rich and powerful.

It's all just been one big long stupid war and future historians a thousand years from now will very likely regard the last few hundred years and the next few hundred to come as one godawful Age of War or Stupidity. I wouldn't be surprised if they're still fighting it themselves.

What's different about the "last few hundred years" than the years before that? The various tribes/states/nations of humankind have been fighting each other since before recorded history, and it's always been their leaders, "the rich and powerful" as you call them, that have made the decisions leading to these conflicts.

The only thing unique about today is that the most powerful tribes/states/nations no longer fight each other, and the annual death toll due to wars as a fraction of the population is the lowest in recent times.

The period after WWII is the longest period in recorded human history during which no major powers have directly fought each other, as far as I know.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Bonam

[Army Guy]

As was predicted when you went.

Further to that we need to discuss and develop binding Terms of Involvement that I think should include the requirement that any decision to invade other countries and regions have the support of a super-majority of at least %70 of Canadian voters in a mandatory referendum. I think you're blowing smoke myself regarding how serious you are about really going after the unreserved support of Canadians.

As for putting my money where the hawk's mouths are we should require invasions be funded with War-Bonds.

Even a clock is right twice a day Eyeball....

you have this thing with referendums thinking it will be the end all be all............ when we can't even get 70% to turn out to vote in a election....let alone in a referendum.....

[GostHacked]

Because like any other industry it provides jobs, good jobs that pay well, for not only skilled tradesmen, but unskilled labor as well. We are after all talking about Canada's arms industry, which is not all that large....And most importantly we are talking jobs in the manufacturing sector, which is very short at the time, do you really think we can pick and choose, what is a good job and what is not....

How can one take comfort in supporting an industry that will result in someone else being killed? I am not talking accidental death, these weapons are made for one purpose, to kill.

[eyeball]

Even a clock is right twice a day Eyeball....

If I had a minute for every time I've been told that I'd have nothing but time on my hands.

you have this thing with referendums thinking it will be the end all be all............ when we can't even get 70% to turn out to vote in a election....let alone in a referendum.....

Note where I said a mandatory referendum for invasions.

You had this thing about support?

[GostHacked]

I don't think Canadians want a massive Military, there is no need for it really, but for a nation that has one of the largest coastlines in the world, one of the largest land masses in the world....should have a military alittle larger than the one we currently employ....Not for world domination, but for all the reasons we employ them for.....

Winnipeg floods years back had all 3 Army brigades, (the whole Army) plus thousands from the navy and airforce and it was still not enough.....Ice Storm 2 Army Brigades, plus half of the third, along with once again pers from the airforce, and navy....and when taking alook at the big picture they really were not big disasters....what would we do if Canada had it's own Katrina....or BC has a major earthquake.....

Don't get me wrong the military does a lot more than provide assistance during crises like the ones mentioned above. But if we have a problem with dealing with small crises, what do we think will happen during a medium or large crises strike....or do we just shrug it off, and say shit happens.....

If you are talking natural disasters, we don't need a military but a large civilian rescue group. But no matter how much you prepare, things like the ice storm in Ontario back in I think it was 98-99, just dragged on and on and on. Not even the US was able to cope as many of our utility crews assisted stateside to get things back to normal. And yeah, shit does happen. We live on a dynamic planet. tectonic plates move, quakes happen, extreme weather events cause havoc.

[eyeball]

What's different about the "last few hundred years" than the years before that?

The development of human rights for starters.

The various tribes/states/nations of humankind have been fighting each other since before recorded history, and it's always been their leaders, "the rich and powerful" as you call them, that have made the decisions leading to these conflicts.

And you figure staying the course is the way to go?

The only thing unique about today is that the most powerful tribes/states/nations no longer fight each other, and the annual death toll due to wars as a fraction of the population is the lowest in recent times.

That'll change sure as shoot.

The period after WWII is the longest period in recorded human history during which no major powers have directly fought each other, as far as I know.

Just keep holding that breath.

[Army Guy]

How can one take comfort in supporting an industry that will result in someone else being killed? I am not talking accidental death, these weapons are made for one purpose, to kill.

What are you saying it is unfathomable to support any industry that produces weapons designed for one purpose to kill ....Every since man could walk he has been searching for better weapons to kill with.....Man's entire history is constantly filled with someone killing someone one could argue it is in the genes.....it is what humans do, we use violence for what ever gains you seek.....Weapons are tools we use to use in this violence.....

Want to take the high ground, then perhaps we should stop using products that have been invented from this effort as well, things like Intra net,GPS,Digital cameras,some Anti Biotics,Can food, AMBULANCE SERVICES,MICROWAVE OVENS,TAMPONS AND PADS,Radar, sonar, radios, pesticides, aircraft, ships, trucks, all designed for the military, all invented to assist in killing bad guys....Do we stop using these products as well....

And what about the ability to defend one self or a nation.....what do you propose we use....and then once we have eliminated all the above what about products that can kill do we ban them as well....

[dre]

If I had a minute for every time I've been told that I'd have nothing but time on my hands.

Note where I said a mandatory referendum for invasions.

You had this thing about support?

The problem with referendums is the pro invasion side would always win anyways. Canadians supported the Afghanistand mission at first... The government more or less told us it would be quick, cheap, and easy. It wasnt until we realized how bad we suck at such missions, and realized we were going to be wasting blood and treasure there for a decade that public opinion turned against it.

Same goes for the latest round of idiocy we are now involved in over there. Polls I saw said that Canadians actually supported it.

People are easily lead into war. You just gotta bullshit them about the importance of the mission, and what will be entailed, and make people fear-dumb by trumping up the enemy and threat it faces, and people will come along. And if they dont you denounce them as unpatriotic traitors.

Hermann Goring said it nicely...

Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

[eyeball]

And what about the ability to defend one self or a nation...

Not picking fights with other nations around the world will prevent most from even considering attacking us. As for someone invading us, it's just so improbable as to be ludicrous...