Britain sending 900 more troops to Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ain-troops.html

That's a lot of troops. Probaby the type of committment that could have been made many years earlier if so many forces were not in Iraq.

[geoffrey]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ain-troops.html

That's a lot of troops. Probaby the type of committment that could have been made many years earlier if so many forces were not in Iraq.

Not really, they've got plenty of soliders in Britain. It's a very small component relative to the Canadian commitment, and has nothing to do with Iraq.

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ain-troops.html

That's a lot of troops. Probaby the type of committment that could have been made many years earlier if so many forces were not in Iraq.

Not really, they've got plenty of soliders in Britain. It's a very small component relative to the Canadian commitment, and has nothing to do with Iraq.

I was referring to the U.S. specifically. They are the ones who asked NATO to come in to replace troops that were needed in Iraq. ABC News is reporting tonight that every local command they visited have asked for more troops.

[GostHacked]

This proves that Afghanistan should have been their priority from the start, which it became a back burner issue when Iraq was invaded.

The US, UK and Canada were all involved with Afghanistan. Canada opted out of the Iraq plan (in my view) because they had to deal with one problem at a time. Now all of a sudden the focus is back on Afghanistan, the focus should have STAYED there. And now more troops are needed? That tells me someone really fudged up.

[geoffrey]

Do you really think the US is obligated to do everything in the world? These are the same people that don't think the US should do anything.

Of course NATO should step up, Canada, Britain, France, ect., all have an equal obligation to actions such as Afghanistan, and what seems to be shaping up finally in intervention in Darfur (lead by the Americans mind you). The US might lead the way, and do the real work, but to say the US isn't pulling it's weight because of their commitments in Iraq is just infantile. When Canada or Europe contribute an relatively equal amount of troops to world security, then I'll take your claims seriously.

[jdobbin]

This proves that Afghanistan should have been their priority from the start, which it became a back burner issue when Iraq was invaded.

The US, UK and Canada were all involved with Afghanistan. Canada opted out of the Iraq plan (in my view) because they had to deal with one problem at a time. Now all of a sudden the focus is back on Afghanistan, the focus should have STAYED there. And now more troops are needed? That tells me someone really fudged up.

I just hope that we can do as well as we did in Kabul at stabilizing a rough area.

But as I mentioned, American attention on ABC News tonight as well as Congress has focussed on Afghanistan and how the mission is understaffed by the Americans. NATO is picking up some of the slack but it should not have come to this. This is a problem that might have been dealt with a year and a half ago.

[jdobbin]

Do you really think the US is obligated to do everything in the world? These are the same people that don't think the US should do anything.

Of course NATO should step up, Canada, Britain, France, ect., all have an equal obligation to actions such as Afghanistan, and what seems to be shaping up finally in intervention in Darfur (lead by the Americans mind you). The US might lead the way, and do the real work, but to say the US isn't pulling it's weight because of their commitments in Iraq is just infantile. When Canada or Europe contribute an relatively equal amount of troops to world security, then I'll take your claims seriously.

The U.S. began the mission in Afghanistan and it is the American public themselves that are wondering if the mission wasn't hampered by moving a large amount of the force to Iraq to deal with the insurgency there.

While NATO is moving in troops now, this is a problem that could have been dealt with one and half years ago.

No one is saying the U.S. isn't pulling its weight. What people are saying was the mission was not complete when they began a new mission.

[geoffrey]

Do you really think the US is obligated to do everything in the world? These are the same people that don't think the US should do anything.

Of course NATO should step up, Canada, Britain, France, ect., all have an equal obligation to actions such as Afghanistan, and what seems to be shaping up finally in intervention in Darfur (lead by the Americans mind you). The US might lead the way, and do the real work, but to say the US isn't pulling it's weight because of their commitments in Iraq is just infantile. When Canada or Europe contribute an relatively equal amount of troops to world security, then I'll take your claims seriously.

The U.S. began the mission in Afghanistan and it is the American public themselves that are wondering if the mission wasn't hampered by moving a large amount of the force to Iraq to deal with the insurgency there.

While NATO is moving in troops now, this is a problem that could have been dealt with one and half years ago.

No one is saying the U.S. isn't pulling its weight. What people are saying was the mission was not complete when they began a new mission.

Rarely are all crisis in the world solved before the next begins. Assuming we can hand pick an issue of the hour and deal with it outright, is simply not viable. There are numerous situations that demand our attention, such as Iraq and Afghanistan and Darfur, not to mentioning the developing problems in Iran and North Korea.

The idea that the world only deals with one war at a time was outdated at the end of the second world war.

[jdobbin]

Do you really think the US is obligated to do everything in the world? These are the same people that don't think the US should do anything.

Of course NATO should step up, Canada, Britain, France, ect., all have an equal obligation to actions such as Afghanistan, and what seems to be shaping up finally in intervention in Darfur (lead by the Americans mind you). The US might lead the way, and do the real work, but to say the US isn't pulling it's weight because of their commitments in Iraq is just infantile. When Canada or Europe contribute an relatively equal amount of troops to world security, then I'll take your claims seriously.

The U.S. began the mission in Afghanistan and it is the American public themselves that are wondering if the mission wasn't hampered by moving a large amount of the force to Iraq to deal with the insurgency there.

While NATO is moving in troops now, this is a problem that could have been dealt with one and half years ago.

No one is saying the U.S. isn't pulling its weight. What people are saying was the mission was not complete when they began a new mission.

Rarely are all crisis in the world solved before the next begins. Assuming we can hand pick an issue of the hour and deal with it outright, is simply not viable. There are numerous situations that demand our attention, such as Iraq and Afghanistan and Darfur, not to mentioning the developing problems in Iran and North Korea.

The idea that the world only deals with one war at a time was outdated at the end of the second world war.

The Bush Doctrine has been that the U.S. can take on the Axis of Evil all at the same time. Conservatives in the U.S. today are complaining that the U.S. is appeasing North Korea and that a first strike should be contemplated with regime change and occupation.

Understandably, Bush is a bit hesitant because North Korea is so close to South Korea and could potentially be in the South Korean capital in less than a few hours through sheer numbers. Only a nuclear wepaon could stop it. Not exactly an appetizing solution for a president to make.

As for the argument that a crisis rarely comes one at a time, that's true. But it also means that you can be stretched thin as the U.S. is in Afganistan and you rob Peter to pay Paul. And now...when there is a real crisis with North Korea and Iran, the cookie jar is empty.

I just hope there is still enough in the cookie jar for Afghanistan.

[Rovik]

Of course NATO should step up, Canada, Britain, France, ect., all have an equal obligation to actions such as Afghanistan, and what seems to be shaping up finally in intervention in Darfur (lead by the Americans mind you). The US might lead the way, and do the real work, but to say the US isn't pulling it's weight because of their commitments in Iraq is just infantile. When Canada or Europe contribute an relatively equal amount of troops to world security, then I'll take your claims seriously.

The Americans dropped the ball when they went into Iraq in the first place. Their reasons for going in and in the process, arrogantly bypassing the UN was to find WMDs, which they didn't find and to fight terrorism which before the war, terrorist groups had little power in Iraq. In fact, the Al Queda has more sway in Iraq now then it did before the US went into Iraq. Many say that the real reasons for going into Iraq include, US control of oil resrves in Iraq, to satisfy Bush's anger toward Saddam after Saddam tried to assassinate his Dad in the early 90s and to provide a huge cash cow for companies such as Chaney's Haliburton.

They should have focused on Afghanistan at the time sending in soldiers that were instead directed to Iraq and many say that if they did, Afghanistan wouldn't be in as bad a mess as it is today and perhaps less people would be dying including Canadian soldiers.