Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan

[killjoy]

Leafless

Well we can make it a semantic argument over the word occupation but I believe the difference is clear. It is based on the idea of permanent annexation. The occupiers are government. The occupiers are the law. This is contrary to the situation in Afghanistan with NATO. Annexation is not the motive. We do n0ot make their rules or enforce their laws. We know and they know that we don't have a tenth of the manpower to do that. They also know we want to leave soon or later. That's not just something people keep saying.

We can't force them to choose our democracy or our laws. They choose. That's the idea. That's the difference. It may very well be a 'different' democracy than we envision. I say to that; "good". Not all democracies are 'Western-style'. India is a great example of a poor and very religiously diverse country that has made a success story out of democracy - their way. Is it Shangri-la? No of course not.

Soviet Union on the other hand occupied to annex and create another Bloc-style country. Permanently.

.

[Argus]

As far as peacekeeping goes well that didn't do crap for Rwanda and it easily could've. All 'we' had to do in Rwanda is be willing to shoot and they would've parted the mobs to let refugees out and stayed clear of any'safe zones'....but what good is a safe zone or escorting refugees if you cant shoot? If it's well known by everyone that you won't?

Ask the Muslims of Bosnia.

What people don't seem to get is that the time of peacekeeping is over. That was a time when the blue helmets were respected, when it was assumed that if you, as some pissante rebel warlord or dictator, killed off some blue helmets, the world would come down on your head. I'm not sure if that concept died in Rwanda, where Belgian UN troops were hacked to death without any reprisals, or in the Yugoslavian mess, where they were routinely kidnapped, abused, shot at, and pushed aside with contempt by all sides because they weren't allowed to fight back. After Sbrenica even the civilians knew how worthless the UN peacekeepers were. Perhaps peacekeeping was dying even then, but Sbrenica drove a stake through its heart.

It is ironic that the best symbol of the death of UN peacekeeping is a picture taken of a Canadian UN soldier handcuffed to a bridge in Serbia by as a hostage against American bombing.

So perhaps we did or did not start peacekeeping, but mushy-headed, lilly livered liberalism at the UN, again, led by Canada, certainly played a major part in killing the idea. We were heavily involved in not taking action in Rwanda too, in the person of the Ex Cdn CDS Baril (I think) at UN HQ insisting that no "hostile" action be taken against the Hutus despite Dallaire's pleas to raid weapons caches.

[Leafless]

killjoy

You wrote- " Well we can make a semantic argument over the word occupation"

By all sense of the word Afghanistan is occupied probably will be fo a long time. See links below.

You also wrote- " We can't force tham to choose our democracy or laws."

Mr. Harper said in a previous link- " We do believe we're making progress." " It's all part of taking a country that was run by probably one of the most evil regimes in the world and turn it into a modern, democratic society."

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do...ge=../index.cfm

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...22-5-2006_pg3_1

[killjoy]

Leafless

killjoy

You wrote- " Well we can make a semantic argument over the word occupation"

By all sense of the word Afghanistan is occupied probably will be fo a long time. See links below.

Well like I say I'm not going to get into semantics over the word occupation. We don't have enough troops there to occupy in the traditional sense. Regardless of the meaning of the word or it's relation to what we are doing are you claiming you do not see the difference between what NATO is doing and what, say the Soviet Union did in '79? Or what Hitler and the Soviet Union did to Poland or France? The bottom line is we are not there for keeps and their government is intact. This doesn't strike me as occupation anymore than UN troops are 'occupying' south Korea.

You also wrote- " We can't force tham to choose our democracy or laws."

Mr. Harper said in a previous link- " We do believe we're making progress." " It's all part of taking a country that was run by probably one of the most evil regimes in the world and turn it into a modern, democratic society."

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...22-5-2006_pg3_1

What can I say, Leafless? It’s neither my fault or the Afghan peoples’ fault if Harper is unaware of the previously existing democracy in Afghanistan in ‘92 that was overthrown by the Taliban through till 94. Perhaps he is aware and thinks the reporter wants a quick sound byte instead of a decent explaination. We are not trying to install democracy. We are reviving it.

.

[KrustyKidd]

In the months ahead, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will deploy thousands more troops to Afghanistan as part of its ongoing mission to “support the Government of Afghanistan in providing and maintaining a secure environment in order to facilitate the re-building of Afghanistan.” Troop levels are expected to rise from about 8,000 in January to 17,000 by the end of October.

Yes, quite the occupation. One foreign soldier for every fifteen hundred people. In order to keep this on a track of reality, let's try just calling it what it is; helping prop up a democraticly elected government in the face of non democratic forces. In short, the government occupies the country and, that government is at risk of being destroyed by non democratic forces. Hence, the requesed and given aid in the form of support from outside forces such as ours and others.

As for your Mobilization Against War and Occupation crew, try plugging in that name along with the keywords 'socialist' and 'terrorist' to see what kind of interesting hits you get.

From the article;

On July 14, 2005, Gen Rick Hillier announced that Canadian troops deployed to Afghanistan will target “detestable murderers and scumbags”. He stated, “They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.” Gen Hillier also told media that the Canadian Military is “not the public service of Canada” and “not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people.”

Responses from every major political party in Canada have been supportive of the racist, war-mongering comments made by Hillier.

So, they are a pro Taliban organization it seems. If they don't view Taliban as 'destestable murderers and scumbags' then they must feel that democracy is not as good as what the Taliban wish to instill again. Hence, they are anti democracy groups and it is no wonder they are against all of this support.

Why though? Easy, they are socialists and in order for socialism to work, capitalism and democracy have to fail. Take a look at any steering comittee on any anti war group. The heads are all the same; Socialists and socialist connected.

[killjoy]

n the months ahead, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will deploy thousands more troops to Afghanistan as part of its ongoing mission to “support the Government of Afghanistan in providing and maintaining a secure environment in order to facilitate the re-building of Afghanistan.” Troop levels are expected to rise from about 8,000 in January to 17,000 by the end of October.

Yes, quite the occupation. One foreign soldier for every fifteen hundred people. In order to keep this on a track of reality, let's try just calling it what it is; helping prop up a democraticly elected government in the face of non democratic forces.

Just to add a detail; this compares with the 115000 or so Soviet occupiers left over to withdraw from Afghanistan.

One should see the numbers to make the comparison, in terms of deciding whether it's 'occupation' or 'help'. If 115000 Soviets couldn't occupy Afghanistan because of the resistance by Afghans then how is it we're still there if they didn't want us there by vast majority?

.

[KrustyKidd]

If 115000 Soviets couldn't occupy Afghanistan because of the resistance by Afghans then how is it we're still there if they didn't want us there by vast majority?

Good point. Hence, it is an occupation only in the minds and rhetoric of those with other agenda. And, those who are too stupid to know they are 'useful idiots.'

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKidd,

One should see the numbers to make the comparison, in terms of deciding whether it's 'occupation' or 'help'. If 115000 Soviets couldn't occupy Afghanistan because of the resistance by Afghans then how is it we're still there if they didn't want us there by vast majority?

It actually isn't a good point, because it isn't compared to the soviet occupation in year two.

[KrustyKidd]

It actually isn't a good point, because it isn't compared to the soviet occupation in year two.

Bull. If one hundred thousand could not occupy it, then how are eight able to do it? They can't. Therefore, nobody except morons, idiots, socialists, terorist supporters and generally those who are too stupid to know they are supporting them say that it is. You must have read the post wrong or something as I know you are none of those.

[killjoy]

It actually isn't a good point, because it isn't compared to the soviet occupation in year two.

No but it does represent a number of trained modern and well supplied soldiers who couldn't hold Afghanistan. Compared with the 8000+ NATO forces there now (exclusive of the 20000 US troops there as well). Plus the fact we are not receiving up to 50% casualty rates nor are we seeing the kind of force the Taliban used to have. In fact they are unable to use the organized military-style tactics they were originally using, like soldiers. Now they need to turn to the simpler, media-headline-grabbing IED and road-side bombs. It's backfired more than once or twice simply because the terrain doesn’t suit this tactic as well. You just start ignoring the roads.

here is a better breakdown:

"One month after the invasion there were as many as 40,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and during the first year the occupation forces were reorganized. Some 10,000 of the troops such as the support forces of the 40th Army, its artillery and SA 4 brigades, several FROG battalions, and a tank regiment were useless in a guerrilla war and were sent back to the Soviet Union in mid 1980. These heavy units were replaced by infantry units, more helicopter gunship, and other light forces more appropriate for guerrilla warfare. United States estimates were that there were about 85,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan by late 1980 and about 100,000 by the end of 1981. The Soviets could not reduce troop strength any more than this without risking control of key points in Afghanistan because they could not rely on the Afghan army."

Note the year-two comparison is 85000. I also think the last part about the inability to trust the Afghan army is paramount to the point here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...cs-invasion.htm

.

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

You wrote- " Good point. Hence it is only an occupation only in the minds and rhetoric with those of other agenda. And those to stupid to know they are 'useful idiots'.

Afghanistan is an occupied country defined under the title a 'beligerent military occupation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._of_Afghanistan

http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/AfghanWarlords

[killjoy]

Afghanistan is an occupied country defined under the title a 'beligerent military occupation'.

Well actually, Leafless, even under the definitions you put forth with those links it still isn't occuptaion. From your link:

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army."

The territory is not under authority of a hostile army. The Afghan government are the ones with the authority.

.

[KrustyKidd]

Beat me to it. I'll take the rest though.

Art. 43.

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

The authority is with the Afgan government.

More

Significant contemporary belligerent military occupations

* Western Sahara — by Morocco

Disputed to be a military occupation by local population

* Northern Cyprus — occupied by Turkey, claimed by Republic of Cyprus

Disputed to be a military occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area

* The West Bank by Israel since 1967 (see Israeli-Palestinian conflict)

* Golan Heights and East Jerusalem — annexed by Israel[2]

* Lower Kuril Islands: Kunashir/Kunashiri, Iturup/Etorofu, Shikotan, Habomai — annexed by Russia (which considers the matter non-negotiable)

Other

* Kashmir — held in part by Pakistan, People's Republic of China and India, parts or all claimed by all three.

Your second link was a rummage sale of ionformation, what exactly supports your point? The third was a rant.

[killjoy]

For purposes of an update, yesterday I said this;

We can't force them to choose our democracy or our laws. They choose. That's the idea. That's the difference. It may very well be a 'different' democracy than we envision. I say to that; "good".

and this;

"I think our image is fantastic in Afghanistan. We need to overcome money however. Money greases the wheels over there and although it sounds harsh and brittle a lot of support is found when you can alleviate some poverty while your at it (fix a bridge, build a school)..."

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about:

"Canadian program presents alternative to Taliban"

""It's a uniquely Canadian approach," said an official of Canada's provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. "It's never been done before. The whole point is community participation. If an insurgent comes to burn your school, you're more likely to defend it if it's your own school."

The program, known as Confidence in Government, is being launched with $900,000 in CIDA funds for Shah Wali Kot district, where the meeting was held yesterday. Local leaders will consult their people on how to spend the money. If successful, the program will be expanded across the province, and it could be emulated by other international donors who are watching closely.

While CIDA is talking of schools and medical clinics, the program is equally important to Canadian military commanders, who see it as a way of neutralizing the Taliban threat. "It's a useful counterinsurgency tool," said Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of Canada's provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar.

At yesterday's meeting, the tribal elders heard their leaders heaping praise on the CIDA program. "This program is totally different: It will be decided by you," provincial council representative Mohammed Qassi told the meeting. "It's not up to us to decide, it's up to you. This is like a seed -- if you help us with this program, others will come, and government programs can be implemented.""

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...GHAN22/TPStory/

.

[KrustyKidd]

"Canadian program presents alternative to Taliban"

But Kiljoy, the Russians couldn't occupy the country with ten times as many troops.

[killjoy]

double post. sry.

[killjoy]

Krusty

One of the most depressing things about the Western and especially Canadian view of any conflict over the past 20 years, whether we've been involved or not, it seems that to every individual it's somehow 'all about them' and they immediately choose a side and begin playing one of the many roles of our childish self-centred Hollywood-driven world-is-a-stage culture. It's part of ones' fashion, the way they see themselves, almost never about the reality. A lot of it has to do with daydreams of the idealistic '60's, of which most of our population is either a member of, or the spawn of, and the 40's (WWII) which was the last 'real war' of our social conscience. (don't know exactly why Korea always slips under the radar but it does). People hear about Haiti or Bosnia or Rwanda and either it's WWII and we all have to fight or it's Vietnam and either you're a 'support the troops'-type or a 'give peace a chance'-hippie-type (which is ironic since most of those we would identify as 'hippies' weren't responsible for the changes and initiatives that advanced the 60's, it was regular people).

Suddenly every conflict no matter how big or small becomes WWII or Vietnam…not the actual wars mind you but the ‘mystique’ of them….the ‘legend’ of them. All one can do is shake their head.

Sometimes I wish the public would just turn off the tv and concentrate on domestic issues. We'd probably all be better off. While politicians squirm to align themselves with whatever the neurotic public is 'feeling' about a given situation from week to week they make hasty and bad decisions that affect a mission that will take time but is working.

In short what I mean is, for example: It wasn't NATO's fault the mission (over the entire 15 or so years) limped it's way like the Hunchback of notre dame, like the Frankenstein of public opinion it was, almost over the edge into disaster. In fact, imo, it was a disaster we are only now recovering from. It wasn't a disaster because of the "volatile nature of conflict", it wasn't a failure because the armed forces involved we incompetent, it was a failure because it was too little too late and a neurotic fumbling of a 'political will' driven bureaucracy.

It's a real sad state when it is the various world military leaderships that, complete with their imperfections, still really do seem to 'know what's best', while all around are clueless. That's very scary. Seriously, what happened to us?

Is it just too much information these days with the Internet and such?

.

[Leafless]

KrustyKidd

If you READ under examples of 'BELIGERENT MILITARY OCCUPATIONS', the last one reads " OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN BY THE U.S. AND NATO."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations

You must think Afghanistan is one democratic country.

How many civilians were killed by bombs trying to show what democracy is all about.

[killjoy]

You must think Afghanistan is one democratic country.

How many civilians were killed by bombs trying to show what democracy is all about.

What is your point? If it were 1 that would be too many for you so really your question is a rhetorical smoke-screen. Or are you trying to claim victimization for those people in order to try and prop up the illusion of righteousness ( "I don’t think people should die so if you disagree with me you like it when people die”)….sorta like calling yourself the ‘anti-war crowd’ in order to diminish the opposite position as supposedly ‘pro-war’….or the way ‘pro-life’ is meant to label the opposite side as “anti-life”.

Your point is non-existent. Or, alternatively, you’re the only one who thought civilians wouldn’t die.

I would point out though that the media rushed to say last night that it was like 20 Taliban killed and 30 civilians. Considering this morning they changed their story to 16 civilians and up to 50-60 Taliban dead and it still doesn't matter, then obviously the use of violence in any form (besides the fantasy one where no one gets hurt) is abhorrent to you making your previous arguments a little insincere, wouldn't you say?

I notice too this morning that even though the reports clearly state, "A U.S.-led coalition nighttime air strike against Taliban rebels in a southern Afghan village killed up to 80 suspected militants, the coalition said Monday. The local governor said 16 civilians were killed and 16 wounded.", the headline still reads "Scores killed in coalition air strike in Afghanistan", which, although accurate, is clearly intended to give the impression that almost exclusively civillians had died. Trust me, someone somewhere made the conscious descision to run with that headline over, say, "80 militants, 16 civilians die in coalition airstrikes", which is still 8 words, reads shorter and gives us the concise report right away without the intentional illusion of chaos of the first.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

If you READ under examples of 'BELIGERENT MILITARY OCCUPATIONS', the last one reads " OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN BY THE U.S. AND NATO."

And right beside it is a big red stop sign warning us:

"The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Please see the discussion on the talk page."

...which is just leading us to another discussion board full of people who are doing no more than we are....arguing the semantic meaning of the word occupation with people like you who are desperately pretending to not see the difference ... after the legal definitions were argued pointlessly over and over again when the language is clear and specific:

" 1. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

2.The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

Neither of these 'real-life', non-fantasy, legal conditions, nor the ones Krusty pointed out have been violated. You are wrong and a link to another argument on the subject is not proof otherwise, nor is it an actual legal definition....you linked us to an opinion.

.

[fixer1]

It must be nice to just sit here with all the knowldge and none of the strife. Before you condem anyone for taking a position that the Afghanistan mission is right or wrong, think about just how badly a people must have been beat down to allow the Taliban a chance to rule over them. They would need to have little left but their faith, and that is where entities lime the Taliban twist and turn the minds and wills of people, to go so far back in time, to where there were just simple rule of a man ruled his family and his faith ruled the man. This normally does not happen in the western world as we have always had much more to live for then just our mere existence.

We are in Afghanistan to show the people that there are many more things that can be part of their daily life, where law built by man can create a society that is more just and protecting of the people. The Taliban fears that the most and so they will fight it all the way. Yes it is a war, and there will be casualties on all sides including civillian. The people are now seeing a world that does have a much better sound to it then the old religiuos world, and that is what we are fighting the most. We are fighting a faith against a freedom to choose society. The government that is now in place is trying to train enough soldiers to make it so they can secure their own land. Until then we will have to stay in Afghanistan, along with our many allieds, and take the fight that needs to be fought, to the taliban supporters.

As for how the numbers of casualties can jump around it is easy to count our own dead and injured as we are in uniform. The insurgents are not. So it is easily done to think some were civiliand at first as they may look like any other. It will only be after the battle to have the towns people to say who was a civillian and who was not. This is not like a computer game where the kill and injuries are shown at the top of the screen. So people need to give our troops some slack. Just about every soldier we have over there say that they believe in the mission they have. So why are all those who know nothing and think about nothing the ones who are the first to condem the actions. Until you go and enlist and see this from the inside, your voices are nothing more then noise from the cheap seats

[Leafless]

Killjoy

You wrote- " What's your point "

My point is pertaining to Canada's involvement which seems to be nothing more at this time that to stand in line 'for a piece of the pie' as demonstrated by Canada employing or sending over Canada Development Corp. at this early stage in this divided war torn country.

The same thing in fact could have been accomplished (contracts concerning rebuilding) by participating in the Iraq conflict which in my view is a more legitimate war in the sense it was directly associated with the 'War on Terrorism' in which Sadam Hussein was given the oppurtunity to surrender intially which he refused. But if Canada did go into that war initially obviously it would not have been as peacekeepers and Canada unfortunately is improperly equipped to handle this kind of warfare.

Canada's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan was interupted with an increase in violence which at that point they should have left Afghanistan and possibly return at a later time when things have been neutralized to a more acceptable less violent condition.

The issue we are debating here is your view and my view of how Canada's role can change so drastically while employed as lower profile peacekeepers.

It's common knowledge Canada's military has been underfunded for years basically by Liberal mismangement and to rebuild it to the point necessary to provide a more functional military will take years of upgrading.

I think until that time has come Canada should maintain a low profile in peacekeepin has you never know what a possible set of circumstances can bring about in the way of Canada not being able to maintain an active role in what it is presently trying to do which could introduce adverse conditons risking or taking many lives or causing embarrassment to Canada as a country unable to maintain it's active military role.

Of course this as nothing to do with the men and women who serve in Canada's military.

[KrustyKidd]

Suddenly every conflict no matter how big or small becomes WWII or Vietnam…not the actual wars mind you but the ‘mystique’ of them….the ‘legend’ of them. All one can do is shake their head.

The peace crowd loves WWII because it is in the past and, they know that such an event is unlikely to be repeated thus enabling them to safely compare all other conflicts to it. While approving of the USA's actions during it, they forget that they were not only responsible for giving Hitler permission ala Chaimberlain but also keeping the US out of the war by providing Rosevelt the excuse to wait until Russia drained the German military by sacrificing millions of Russian kids lives.

Viet Nam was the first truely modern war in the sense of media accesability and in which the US military was hampered by it's own people back home from carrying out it's mission. Probably the biggest effect that Viet nam had was to pave the way for American failure in the future. Right up to this day the US has suffered from having to fight two conflicts whenever they do battle - one at home with the anti war crowd and the other with the actual enemy. It is a common fact that prior to Iraqi Freedom, the US always cut and ran whenever they took casualties to pander to this group.

While not actually wishing the US failed in Viet Nam, the effect of the peace movement was the same. And, with all losses being for nothing, there was now a feather in their cap showing how war means nothing to use for all future conflicts and, along with WWII, unlikely to be a repeat, they were safe to pander to whatever cause they wished. They began to be infiltrated by Greens, Reds, anarchists and whatever else, all bent on deriding any military activity the US carried out with the subversive element being the destruction of the USA itself.

What also changed at this pont was the nature of active western warfare. No longer was it vast armies spread out and engaged across endless battlefeilds but rather politicaly subversive, intent on propaganda victories coupled with ever present threat. Into this atmosphere, suddenly, every conflict was wrong and, the US was at fault. The anti war crowd, now infiltrated and rotten to the core with socialists, communists and anarchists made it a point to omit any dictator backed by the east and concentrated only on the US.

Now we find ourselves at the beggining of a new type of war. Where the enemy is a collective of people with a common dream that has simmered for centuries. They don't meet us on the battlefeilds, they choose their own time and place to act and when they do, the target is not our military but rather the people themselves. Through the media, a recent phenomina, they show their strength to those who would join them and our weaknesses as they take out whatever target will suit their purposes. What hasn't changed is the anti war movement. They are still stuck in the era of an identifiable enemy and safe ground at home. All the whiule, the intent of the enemy is to eventually take this battle directly to us.

[KrustyKidd]

My point is pertaining to Canada's involvement which seems to be nothing more at this time that to stand in line 'for a piece of the pie' as demonstrated by Canada employing or sending over Canada Development Corp. at this early stage in this divided war torn country.

Canada's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan was interupted with an increase in violence which at that point they should have left Afghanistan and possibly return at a later time when things have been neutralized to a more acceptable less violent condition.

Cut and run when the enemy attacks. That inspires confidence and deters attack. What military school did you learn that brilliant tactic at?

The issue we are debating here is your view and my view of how Canada's role can change so drastically while employed as lower profile peacekeepers.

When the enemy consolidates and threatens the peace we are trying to keep. 'Peacekeeper' is a forceful name designating somebody who keeps the peace. 'Peace Cub Scouts' I think is what you must have thought Canada was sending over.

[killjoy]

Leafless,

Killjoy

You wrote- " What's your point "

My point is pertaining to Canada's involvement which seems to be nothing more at this time that to stand in line 'for a piece of the pie' as demonstrated by Canada employing or sending over Canada Development Corp. at this early stage in this divided war torn country.

Canada's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan was interupted with an increase in violence which at that point they should have left Afghanistan and possibly return at a later time when things have been neutralized to a more acceptable less violent condition.

I don't know where you get this and I sense this is going to be something we're going to argue about for 10 posts, but I can only say in the sincerest most polite way, that you have been misinformed. Where you get the idea that Canada's role in Afghanistan was mostly peacekeeping or initially peacekeeping and then 'peacemaking' later I really don't know.

From the earliest days of the operation and the first coalition offensive Canada was involved directly in attacking the Taliban and searching for/capturing them and al-Qaeda members. That was operation Apollo both in Oct. 2001 with warships, JFT2 and undisclosed units, and re-affirmed again in Feb. 2002 with:

"In February 2002, a contingent of 850 Canadian soldiers was deployed to Kandahar for six months as part of Operation Apollo. Integrated into the U.S. Army task force, the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group took part in offensive operations against the Taliban regime which had been aiding and harbouring terrorist groups. The Battle Group was supported by a squadron of Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles and combat support elements."

So right from the get go, AND I hasten to add, while the UN was still pondering the soon-to-be NATO led ISAF.

link for the quote;

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_polic...ribution-en.asp

link for the story;

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/1...x_sendoff011017

a simple timeline of Canada's involvement:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/timeline.html

The UN-mandated NATO-led ISAF force, part of operation Athena (that's a different operation entirely) is the closest thing to a 'peacekeeping' mission you will find in Afghanistan and it isn't a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense. It's simply gotten that name because it was mandated by the UN. They are not UN 'peacekeepers', even thought the mandate was achieved through the UN, they are NATO soldiers. But I will forget about that, I can live with it being called a 'peacekeeping mission' simply because it does suit the typical objectives to a degree, (except that it actually, like, works). The objectives of ISAF is to provide security, an interim policing force (which is needed less all the time) and to provide security during elections. :

ISAF’s mission is to help maintain security in Kabul and the surrounding areas so that the Afghan Transitional Authority and UN agencies can function. It also includes liaison with political, social and religious leaders to ensure that ISAF operations appropriately respect religious, ethnic and cultural sensitivities in Afghanistan. ISAF’s key tasks include:

* ensuring freedom of movement in Kabul and the region surrounding the city;

* force protection;

* provision to the Afghan Transitional Authority of advice on security structures and issues;

* assistance in the operation of Kabul International Airport; and

* assistance in the reconstruction of Afghanistan’s national armed forces.

All of the above includes military force as well as numerous road-side bomb and mine clearing initiatives. At any rate, Canada didn't join the ISAF mission until July 2003, more than a year after committed to offensive operations....and this link shows our earliest mission objectives;

"The infantry will carry out a variety of jobs under U.S. command. They will be asked to help hunt for remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters as part of the global campaign against terrorism that Washington began after Sept. 11. They may also clear landmines, as well as protect shipments of humanitarian aid coming into Afghanistan."

link: http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002...ops_020202.html

So, can we please put to rest this:

" Canada's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan was interupted with an increase in violence which at that point they should have left Afghanistan and possibly return at a later time when things have been neutralized to a more acceptable less violent condition."

and this:

" Originally our mission there was peacekeeping and advanced (due to an increase in hostility caused by the Iraq effort) to the stage of actual military engagement in pursuit of the Taliban in Afghanistan."

Those are non-factual misunderstandings, misrepresentations or otherwise myth. The is no doubt that Canada's first, predominant and current involvement in Afghanistan has always been 'peacemaking' and not peacekeeping and we (as the rest of NATO) have been involved offensive operations (bang-bang, shootie-shootie, kill-kill) from the moment we had boots on the ground. That the liberal government or the CBC or the Globe and Mail or CNN didn’t want to tell us about the world-record breaking sniper shot, or the 100’s we killed and 100’s more we captured or the presidential citations and medals that were received from the US (which, as you might imagine, don’t get given out for ‘peacekeeping' :-) ), or the air-strikes we targeted with ground recce, is neither your fault or mine but it has led to a severe misunderstanding of our mission there to date.

Also makes this...:

The issue we are debating here is your view and my view of how Canada's role can change so drastically while employed as lower profile peacekeepers.

... moot. We are not debating how 'Canada's role can change so drastically while employed as lower profile peacekeepers'. because that is incorrect.

It's common knowledge Canada's military has been under funded for years basically by Liberal mismanagement and to rebuild it to the point necessary to provide a more functional military will take years of upgrading.

This is true but also not :-) While it is true we are under funded it is not true that we can't handle the missions. In fact many of the US forces were very surprised to see us in LAV's. We don't have much of the good stuff but in this case that's ok because we have what we need. I remember an argument about this with someone who thought that the Afghan winter would affect the coalition forces a lot or a little. He believed it would be like the Germans experienced on the Russian steppe. I said, "you're kidding, right? If there's 2' of mud and a sandstorm and the blizzard and 4' of snow what do you want to be in? An APC with GPS uplink and thermal sensors, or on a horse?"

I think until that time has come Canada should maintain a low profile in peacekeeping has you never know what a possible set of circumstances can bring about in the way of Canada not being able to maintain an active role in what it is presently trying to do which could introduce adverse conditions risking or taking many lives or causing embarrassment to Canada as a country unable to maintain it's active military role.

Without belabouring the point about how we're peacemakers first and peacekeepers second in Afghanistan and always have been, I sincerely believe that Canadian forces especially, PPCLI especially, are far and away the BEST soldiers for this specific job. Canadian soldiers are EXTREMELY good at juggling diplomacy and combat know-how and when to use it which is a difficult science to say the least. They are, in my opinion and others (notably the Pentagon) the absolute BEST choice for this specific mission in Southern Afghanistan today. Frankly, imo, if we can't do it, nobody can.

I would like to finish off, Leafless , with the reaffirmation that I do not disrespect your opinion or your intellect. I say this because things like that don't always convey well over the Internet what with emoticons and bold or itialics and all.

"Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds. "

--Buddha

[Leafless]

killjoy

You wrote- " I would like to finish off, Leafless, with the reaffirmation that I do not respect your opion or intellect. I say this because things like that don't always convey well over the internet what with emotions or bold or italics and all.

Well, I did not start off with post #35 and my concerns, at any time, are not directed at the men and women in Canada's military especially concerning competence.

My concerns basically were levelled concerning the difference in the value and condition of the military in what can be best described as a rapid transiton in this area concering different governmental views between Conservative and Liberal leadership and the direct application of a more vibrant role.

My thoughts have always regarding the safety and well being of Canada's military abroad.

Have a nice day.