Commons vote could undermine Afghan mission, says MacKay

[Wilber]

We have told our allies we will do a job. We have given our word and they are depending on us to keep it. What other reason does an honorable person need?

I can see it now.

Gee guys, we know there are two thousand of us here and our general is running the show but our naturaly superior Canadian morality prevents us from actually killing anyone. Unfortunately you are going to have to do the dirty work while we stay back here lookin good and telling you how to do it. Sorry chaps.

Geez, wouldn't that make you proud to be a Canadian soldier.

[Black Dog]

We have told our allies we will do a job. We have given our word and they are depending on us to keep it. What other reason does an honorable person need?

Gee I dunno: how about a clear idea of how long we're going to be there, what we hope to accomplish and why in god's name we're buying this pollyannna crap about freedom and democracy.

[Wilber]

We have told our allies we will do a job. We have given our word and they are depending on us to keep it. What other reason does an honorable person need?

Gee I dunno: how about a clear idea of how long we're going to be there, what we hope to accomplish and why in god's name we're buying this pollyannna crap about freedom and democracy.

We are there trying to prevent Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base to attack others. To do so we have to try and help Afghanis to form some kind of government that is not an international pariah. You are quite right when you say this may not be possible and no one knows how long it may take, if in fact it is. This does not automatically mean it is not worth doing.

Do you ever take it upon yourself to do anything without a written guarantee and your ass completely covered? Keeping your word even though it may come at a personal cost to yourself?

I've never though of freedom and democracy as "pollyanna crap".

[Black Dog]

We are there trying to prevent Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base to attack others.

I thought Al Qaeda was on the run, scattered and broken, its leaders dead or in custody? Or am I behind on my right-wing talking points?

To do so we have to try and help Afghanis to form some kind of government that is not an international pariah. You are quite right when you say this may not be possible and no one knows how long it may take, if in fact it is. This does not automatically mean it is not worth doing.

So, you're saying that even if failure is assured (and history is not on our side here) we should still take a kick at the can anyway, regardless of how many lives or dollars it costs us? Try explaining that one to the families of the Canadians who are inevitably going to spill blood in a lost cause.

I've never though of freedom and democracy as "pollyanna crap".

No but trying to bring these things to a country with no experience with them, ravaged by war, sharply divided along tribal and sectarian lines, where the general population is against western infidels is definitely an excercise in futility.

[Wilber]

I'm not saying failure is insured, you are. I'm saying it is not guaranteed. Evidently you won't attempt anything without one.

This is not a left or right wing issue. Some people cannot seem to separate their politics from their country's welfare. What is is your plan for the Taliban, Al Qaed and Afghanistan, turn it back into the same country it was before 9/11 2001?

[Black Dog]

I'm not saying failure is insured, you are. I'm saying it is not guaranteed. Evidently you won't attempt anything without one.

I suggest you take a look at the history of Afghnistan. Other countries have tried what we're trying and failed.

This is not a left or right wing issue. Some people cannot seem to separate their politics from their country's welfare. What is is your plan for the Taliban, Al Qaed and Afghanistan, turn it back into the same country it was before 9/11 2001?

Well, I don't see how Canada's Afghan campaign impacts our country's welfare. As for our plan for Afghanistan, I say pull out the troops. Keep supporting local organizations trying to develop democratic institutions at the grassroots level. And don't expect any miracles.

As for the Taliban, well, they're stil out there and there basic ideas are stil supported by most of Afghanistan's population; idealogically, there's not much difference between the Taliban and teh warlords we're working with.

Al Qaeda is a different story: their continued existence depends on us following their "imperialist Crusaders" script and so far, we've obliged.

So here's what it boils down to: the Muslim world doesn't hate us for our freedoms, they don't hate us for what we are or what we believe. They hate us for what we do, for supporting Israel, for occupying their holy places and their countries, for a host of greivances (some real, some imagined). Going into their countries and killing more of them isn't going to change their views. So. Eiher we re-think how we relate to teh Muslim world or we keep doing what we're doing now, which is repeating the errors of the past.

[Wilber]

"Well, I don't see how Canada's Afghan campaign impacts our country's welfare. As for our plan for Afghanistan, I say pull out the troops. Keep supporting local organizations trying to develop democratic institutions at the grassroots level. And don't expect any miracles."

Don't be ridiculous. That would be expecting miracles. I'm sure you will be at the head of the list when it comes to volunteers. How long would you expect to live?

"As for the Taliban, well, they're stil out there and there basic ideas are stil supported by most of Afghanistan's population; idealogically, there's not much difference between the Taliban and teh warlords we're working with.

Al Qaeda is a different story: their continued existence depends on us following their "imperialist Crusaders" script and so far, we've obliged."

Yes the Taliban are still out there. The majority of the population still supports them? Do you have a credible reference to that effect or is that an opinion? The difference between them an the warlords is that the warlords don't actively support people who fly aircraft into buildings, blowing up railway stations, night clubs, embassies etc. They don't destroy Buddhist rock carvings that are thousands of years old. In many ways including its age, Islam is where Christianity was during the Inquisition. A good portion of it has some growing up to do.

If you want to be their appologist, fill your boots, you won't get any satisfaction from me.

I've read a lot about the history of Afghanistan and have the same concerns but it is better to fight Al Qaeda on their turf than ours. Maybe we can help out the average Afghani a little while we are at it but if not, so be it.

[Black Dog]

Yes the Taliban are still out there. The majority of the population still supports them? Do you have a credible reference to that effect or is that an opinion? The difference between them an the warlords is that the warlords don't actively support people who fly aircraft into buildings, blowing up railway stations, night clubs, embassies etc. They don't destroy Buddhist rock carvings that are thousands of years old.

I didn't say they suppported the Taliban precisely. But most would probably support an dIslamic government where women are second class citizens and sharia is the law of the land. Afghanistan is a very conservative country.

In many ways including its age, Islam is where Christianity was during the Inquisition. A good portion of it has some growing up to do.

It took democracy 800 years, countless wars, a Reformation and an Enlightenment to develop in the western world. Do you think the Islamic world (which doesn't even recognize the separation of church and state) is going to adopt the west's hard-earned principles because we say so. In short: how long do you willing to put Canadian lives on the line to play nursemaid to democracy in Afghanistan?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

I suggest you take a look at the history of Afghnistan. Other countries have tried what we're trying and failed.

We are not thier to conquor them, nor are we there to force them into democracy, we thier to assist them in rebuilding thier nation. Most Afganis are tired of war and want peace.

As for the Taliban, well, they're stil out there and there basic ideas are stil supported by most of Afghanistan's population; idealogically, there's not much difference between the Taliban and teh warlords we're working with.

Yes the Taliban are still out there, operating in small groups when it is to thier advantage. And some of the population still supports them through fear of retribution. but that does not mean they will blindly follow another taliban regime. In fact most Afganis will tell you thier are glad the Taliban is no longer running the show.

The biggest difference between the Taliban and the warlords is that the Taliban can not let go of the control they once had over the entire population. The Warlords are in it for profit and recongnition of thier clan over the other clans . And as the nation begins to grow the warlords will become the next target or obsticle of the government. But i think they are many years away from that phase.

Going into their countries and killing more of them isn't going to change their views. So. Eiher we re-think how we relate to teh Muslim world or we keep doing what we're doing now, which is repeating the errors of the past.

If you mean using Iraqi type military tatics and laying siege to entire cities then i would agree with you. But thats not what is happening in Afgan. Yes we are applying force when it is nessicary, but only to those that are using force against us. But we are also working on rebuilding schools ,hospitals, digging wells, establishing diplomatic relations with warlords, clan leaders improving the quality of life for the average Afganis citizen and all of this has shown results in Kabul, and giving time will show results in Kanadar as well.

I didn't say they suppported the Taliban precisely. But most would probably support an dIslamic government where women are second class citizens and sharia is the law of the land. Afghanistan is a very conservative country.

I'd say lets give them the basic building blocks for now, lets worry about what type of government they will adopt later, hopefully they will choose one with a healthy mix of both modern islamic and modern democratic. One fact remains it will not happen over night, nor will it happen before Canada mandate is over next winter. If Canada could stay in Cyprus and Syria for 20 or more years than why not Afgan.

[Black Dog]

We are not thier to conquor them, nor are we there to force them into democracy, we thier to assist them in rebuilding thier nation. Most Afganis are tired of war and want peace.

I think such distinctions are lost on a country that has seen three successive western powers invade it over the past 130 years, each claiming to be there to help the people.

Yes the Taliban are still out there, operating in small groups when it is to thier advantage. And some of the population still supports them through fear of retribution. but that does not mean they will blindly follow another taliban regime. In fact most Afganis will tell you thier are glad the Taliban is no longer running the show.

And they probably told the Taliban they were glad the Soviets were no longer running the show. Now, I don't doubt that people were unhappy with the Taliban (even though some are electing ex-taliban officials to the government); all I am saying is that the religious, conservative culture of Afghanistan alowed the Taliban to grow and prosper and that culture remains the dominant one today, which means promoting western liberal democratic ideas is an uphill fight.

The biggest difference between the Taliban and the warlords is that the Taliban can not let go of the control they once had over the entire population. The Warlords are in it for profit and recongnition of thier clan over the other clans . And as the nation begins to grow the warlords will become the next target or obsticle of the government. But i think they are many years away from that phase.

So it's not heir ideas, it's their ambition that's the problem?

If you mean using Iraqi type military tatics and laying siege to entire cities then i would agree with you. But thats not what is happening in Afgan. Yes we are applying force when it is nessicary, but only to those that are using force against us. But we are also working on rebuilding schools ,hospitals, digging wells, establishing diplomatic relations with warlords, clan leaders improving the quality of life for the average Afganis citizen and all of this has shown results in Kabul, and giving time will show results in Kanadar as well.

Again, I don't doubt there is some good being done at the local level. But it's a drop in the ocean. And frankly, I don't think the west has the stomach or the heart to spend the kind of time and money to get Afghanistan into a reasonable condition.

I'd say lets give them the basic building blocks for now, lets worry about what type of government they will adopt later, hopefully they will choose one with a healthy mix of both modern islamic and modern democratic. One fact remains it will not happen over night, nor will it happen before Canada mandate is over next winter. If Canada could stay in Cyprus and Syria for 20 or more years than why not Afgan.

Because our job in Cypress was merely to act as a buffer between two western nations. We weren't there to rebuild the place and we certainly weren't up against the kind of opposition and obstacles we face there. I guess my biggest suspicion is that we'll throw up some schools and dig some wells and then bugger off and say "well, we gave it a shot" as the place falls apart.

[Wilber]

"I think such distinctions are lost on a country that has seen three successive western powers invade it over the past 130 years, each claiming to be there to help the people."

The British were there several times, to exert influence and keep the Russians out. Prop up their favorite government yes but I don't recall that they ever said they were there to help the people. I don't think our primary reason for being there is to help the people although it would be a nice bonus if we could.

I really don't care what type of government Afghanistan chooses as long as it is one that doesn't actively encourage and support international terrorism. If they do, they can expect there to be consequences.

[Argus]

I agree that this kind of thing should be debated in Parliament but not after the fact.

Canadians are not clear about the mission. It's not enough to say that any discussion about the mission is undermining the troops and expect people to be satisfied with that.

We had a debate before they went, and that doesn't seem to have enlightened people. Unsurprising given most people pay very little attention to the news anyway beyond who what awards show and what movie whore is pregnant with whose brat.

Those who want a debate, other than self-serving politicians, are simply reflexively anti-military and anti-american and want a chance to complain - or at least, give like-minded politicos the chance to complain.

[yorkman]

We are there to simply prop up a puppet President put in place by the American government and a former oil consultant with connections to the Bushes. Not for much more as far as I can see. Particularly when you scrape away all the rhetoric coming from Hillier, MacKay and Harper. They are obviously singing from the same hymn book as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield......we will not cut and run; we don't want to harm morale by opposing the mission; we must support our troops; etc. Of course we support our troops but we don't have to support their mission.

Also, I didn't realize that the Afghan people were anxious for us to be there. We're not their to rebuild the nation at all. We're there to fight insurgents and kill them. And eventually we will be killing innocent people which will lead to more recruits for the Taliban or whomever else wants to fight the occupiers. And we are them now!

No support from this quarter. Sad for our soldiers and their families for the suffering they will be facing over the years ahead. Especially as it will all be for nought.

I still think that those who are so gung-ho about us being there should be doing everything in their power to encourage their children and grandchildren to sign up soon so they can fight the good fight and bring our way of life to the Afghans!!!

[Argus]

I don't see any purpose to a debate. I grant you that a debate should be held before troops are sent overseas to this sort of mission. But now that they're there, and being shot at, what purpose would a debate serve? We're certainly not going to cut and run. That would be disastrous for our international reputation. So what's the point?

Oh no! Not our reputation! Why if we cut out now all the other kids will whisper about us in the hallway. And we can just forget about being invited to any parties for a while.

Funny. When you guys on the left are pushing things like wide-open refugees and immigration, foreign aid and respect for the UN, when you're crowing about how the UN finds us the greatest little sand box on Earth and babbling about how foreigners won't like us any more if we put conservative policies in place, well, our reputation is of prime importance. But now, it's just something you shrug off.

Yes, I do think our international reputation is important. I don't want us seen as weak-kneed cowards and unreliable allies like the Spanish. I don't want to become the butt of jokes. I guess it's a matter of pride in country. Because however screwed up and misruled this country is, and however many smarmy, ignorant, self serving idiots are in it, it's still mine.

I could have made a moral argument, of course, that being there is the right thing to do, or a logical argument, that it was the right thing to do. But I didn't think either of those would be very important to you.

[Argus]

We are there to simply prop up a puppet President put in place by the American government and a former oil consultant with connections to the Bushes. Not for much more as far as I can see. Particularly when you scrape away all the rhetoric coming from Hillier, MacKay and Harper. They are obviously singing from the same hymn book as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield......we will not cut and run; we don't want to harm morale by opposing the mission; we must support our troops; etc. Of course we support our troops but we don't have to support their mission.

This is just so terribly mindless, the kind of raving nonsense one finds among many left wing conspiracy theory sites, especially in the US.

Also, I didn't realize that the Afghan people were anxious for us to be there.

I'm sure the smarter ones, the ones who are tired of all the fighting and killing, who are tired of the extremist religion and the endless poverty, have hopes we can do something better for them.

But we're not, in the end, there to make Afghanistan into a great place to live. We're there to set up a strong enough government that crazies won't be able to set up shop at will.

No support from this quarter.

There is attitude among those who have never known discomfort or danger that this is the natural state of affairs, and that military action is only acceptable when the threat to that comfort and safety is direct and immedate. Of course, by then it's too late. But such thinking tends to be narrow, by definition.

[Argus]

And they probably told the Taliban they were glad the Soviets were no longer running the show. Now, I don't doubt that people were unhappy with the Taliban (even though some are electing ex-taliban officials to the government); all I am saying is that the religious, conservative culture of Afghanistan alowed the Taliban to grow and prosper and that culture remains the dominant one today, which means promoting western liberal democratic ideas is an uphill fight.

So it's not worth a try? Tell me, if it were a Nazi government which took power in, say, I dunno, Austria or France, would you be so set on leaving them alone? Hey, it was their own values which allowed such a group to take power, so there's no point in trying to oppose it, right? And too bad for those who are being brutalized, because after all, their own culture allowed it to happen.

[Wilber]

We are there to simply prop up a puppet President put in place by the American government and a former oil consultant with connections to the Bushes. Not for much more as far as I can see. Particularly when you scrape away all the rhetoric coming from Hillier, MacKay and Harper. They are obviously singing from the same hymn book as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield......we will not cut and run; we don't want to harm morale by opposing the mission; we must support our troops; etc. Of course we support our troops but we don't have to support their mission.

Also, I didn't realize that the Afghan people were anxious for us to be there. We're not their to rebuild the nation at all. We're there to fight insurgents and kill them. And eventually we will be killing innocent people which will lead to more recruits for the Taliban or whomever else wants to fight the occupiers. And we are them now!

No support from this quarter. Sad for our soldiers and their families for the suffering they will be facing over the years ahead. Especially as it will all be for nought.

I still think that those who are so gung-ho about us being there should be doing everything in their power to encourage their children and grandchildren to sign up soon so they can fight the good fight and bring our way of life to the Afghans!!!

[Wilber]

We are there to simply prop up a puppet President put in place by the American government and a former oil consultant with connections to the Bushes. Not for much more as far as I can see. Particularly when you scrape away all the rhetoric coming from Hillier, MacKay and Harper. They are obviously singing from the same hymn book as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield......we will not cut and run; we don't want to harm morale by opposing the mission; we must support our troops; etc. Of course we support our troops but we don't have to support their mission.

Also, I didn't realize that the Afghan people were anxious for us to be there. We're not their to rebuild the nation at all. We're there to fight insurgents and kill them. And eventually we will be killing innocent people which will lead to more recruits for the Taliban or whomever else wants to fight the occupiers. And we are them now!

No support from this quarter. Sad for our soldiers and their families for the suffering they will be facing over the years ahead. Especially as it will all be for nought.

I still think that those who are so gung-ho about us being there should be doing everything in their power to encourage their children and grandchildren to sign up soon so they can fight the good fight and bring our way of life to the Afghans!!!

Whoops, wrong button.

And here I was thinking that it was our former Liberal government that sent our troops to Afghanistan and it was our former Liberal government that redefined the mission and that General Hillier ( who was made defense chief under the former Liberal government) made his statement concerning expressing his view of the mission when the former Liberal government was still in power.

Now that that the new Conservative government is in power and actually supports the actions taken by the former Liberal government, Liberals are suddenly having second thoughts. Surprise, surprise.

[Shakeyhands]

I can't believe harper said "cut and run"....

[Black Dog]

Funny. When you guys on the left are pushing things like wide-open refugees and immigration, foreign aid and respect for the UN, when you're crowing about how the UN finds us the greatest little sand box on Earth and babbling about how foreigners won't like us any more if we put conservative policies in place, well, our reputation is of prime importance. But now, it's just something you shrug off.

Unless you can point out what that has to do with me, I'll just give this the response it deserves:

...

Yes, I do think our international reputation is important. I don't want us seen as weak-kneed cowards and unreliable allies like the Spanish. I don't want to become the butt of jokes. I guess it's a matter of pride in country. Because however screwed up and misruled this country is, and however many smarmy, ignorant, self serving idiots are in it, it's still mine.

In oher words Canadians must die on a pointless, doomed mission so Argus' feelings don't hurt. Oookay...

I could have made a moral argument, of course, that being there is the right thing to do, or a logical argument, that it was the right thing to do. But I didn't think either of those would be very important to you.

Yup, especially coming from you.

So it's not worth a try? Tell me, if it were a Nazi government which took power in, say, I dunno, Austria or France, would you be so set on leaving them alone? Hey, it was their own values which allowed such a group to take power, so there's no point in trying to oppose it, right? And too bad for those who are being brutalized, because after all, their own culture allowed it to happen.

Argus: champion of global human rights, defender of the world's "goat-herders"? Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.

[yorkman]

You are right wilbur. And I disagreed with the Liberals decision as well. So there you go. THey shouldn't be there. There is nothing to gain except the approval of George Bush(whose support in the US is now at about 37 Per cent!!!) and that of Bill Clinton. Wow, I feel much better now!! A bad decision is a bad decision. If Harper continues down this road it is his burden, no one elses.

[geoffrey]

You are right wilbur. And I disagreed with the Liberals decision as well. So there you go. THey shouldn't be there. There is nothing to gain except the approval of George Bush(whose support in the US is now at about 37 Per cent!!!) and that of Bill Clinton. Wow, I feel much better now!! A bad decision is a bad decision. If Harper continues down this road it is his burden, no one elses.

You defeat poverty and oppression, both root causes of terrorism, through actions and not words.

Apathy is the west's greatest failure, and is well reflected in that comment.

[cybercoma]

"root causes" are a joke.

terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such.

dissent is not the same as deviance.

dissent is an acceptable form of protest against poverty and oppression.

deviance, or being murderers, is not.

Which solution makes more sense?

1) give the terrorists money, so they stop killing.

2) kill the terrorists, so they stop killing.

[geoffrey]

"root causes" are a joke.

terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such.

dissent is not the same as deviance.

dissent is an acceptable form of protest against poverty and oppression.

deviance, or being murderers, is not.

Which solution makes more sense?

1) give the terrorists money, so they stop killing.

2) kill the terrorists, so they stop killing.

I want to kill them, thats what I was saying about root causes. Muslim extremists are the ones doing the oppressing and starving their people, in order to recruit more desperate people to their cause. I'm not saying we are the oppressor. We, being the west, are the liberator.

We need to be in Afghanistan. Destroying the terrorists, and providing humanitarian and security support to the Afghani people will prevent another despotic regime arising.

Until all the extremists are dead, and democracy exists in this countries, terrorism will remain a threat to the west.

When I say apathetic west, I'm talking about those people in Canada that think we have no responsibility to help these people out in finding peace. And that takes sacrifice, and commitment to the war against terrorism. Which is also a war against people that inflict these root causes upon their people to gain support for the cause.

'Root causes' do exist and thats why they have their base to drawn suicide soliders from. Killing the terrorists has to happen first before we can let them solve those causes on their own though.

[Wilber]

You are right wilbur. And I disagreed with the Liberals decision as well. So there you go. THey shouldn't be there. There is nothing to gain except the approval of George Bush(whose support in the US is now at about 37 Per cent!!!) and that of Bill Clinton. Wow, I feel much better now!! A bad decision is a bad decision. If Harper continues down this road it is his burden, no one elses.

I may be right about how it came about but you and I have completely opposite views on the decision.

Whether we agree or not, our country has made a commitment. The question is, are we a country that can be depended on to keep its commitments or not?

I say we live up to our commitment, then reevaluate the situation as that commitment is coming to an end and decide what we want to do. The situation will change over that period and none of us know how, so now is not the time to debate it.