Afghanistan

[M.Dancer]

The US no longer "occupies" germany. The US as part of NATO has bases in Germany.

[Wilber]

Who knows but if it contributes to peace in the region it's a good thing and worth doing. Too bad a lot of the free world won't give them much credit for it.

Oh, they'll give the soldiers credit. They just might not reward the government that sent them there.

How about the people who sent them there and have kept them there? There have been many governments in the US since the Korean War, which happened incidentally under a Democrat administration.

[jdobbin]

OTTAWA (CP) - Recent combat deaths in Afghanistan have shocked many Canadians, but analysts say the country was warned a year ago that this could happen.

Warnings about mission were there to see

This is all true. The Conservatives extended the mission though till 2010.

[uOttawaMan]

Breaking News:

"Canadians shocked that soldiers are not granola munching , cookie giving, blanket bearing targets, and are actually combat ready. More at 6."

[Argus]

OTTAWA (CP) - Recent combat deaths in Afghanistan have shocked many Canadians, but analysts say the country was warned a year ago that this could happen.

Warnings about mission were there to see

This is all true. The Conservatives extended the mission though till 2010.

What's that got to do with anything?

The point I'm making is that the Liberals set up this mission, and knew damned well how dangerous it was going to be. Other nations, ie the Germans, negotiated special agreements so that they would not be sent to the more dangerous zones. While the British and Canadians are down south fighting, the Germans are up north relaxing.

But the Liberals didn't do that. They agreed to go in fighting, and to go south, where the danger was at its worst. They told everyone about it in advance. So to hear some Liberals backpedal now, like their current two-faced defence critic, and claim that the mission has changed, and try to lay the blame on the tories is absolutely disgusting. I can understand the NDP. They're granola crunching morons. But the Liberals are just greasy weasels trying for some short-term political advantage at the possible cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

[jdobbin]

How about the people who sent them there and have kept them there? There have been many governments in the US since the Korean War, which happened incidentally under a Democrat administration.

I'm not referring to Korea.

[jdobbin]

What's that got to do with anything?

The point I'm making is that the Liberals set up this mission, and knew damned well how dangerous it was going to be. Other nations, ie the Germans, negotiated special agreements so that they would not be sent to the more dangerous zones. While the British and Canadians are down south fighting, the Germans are up north relaxing.

But the Liberals didn't do that. They agreed to go in fighting, and to go south, where the danger was at its worst. They told everyone about it in advance. So to hear some Liberals backpedal now, like their current two-faced defence critic, and claim that the mission has changed, and try to lay the blame on the tories is absolutely disgusting. I can understand the NDP. They're granola crunching morons. But the Liberals are just greasy weasels trying for some short-term political advantage at the possible cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The Liberals did agree to go to the area of fighting. But they set a deadline.

The mission parameters did change. Our deadline was quite clear and the reasons for setting the timeline was quite clear.

[Argus]

What's that got to do with anything?

The point I'm making is that the Liberals set up this mission, and knew damned well how dangerous it was going to be. Other nations, ie the Germans, negotiated special agreements so that they would not be sent to the more dangerous zones. While the British and Canadians are down south fighting, the Germans are up north relaxing.

But the Liberals didn't do that. They agreed to go in fighting, and to go south, where the danger was at its worst. They told everyone about it in advance. So to hear some Liberals backpedal now, like their current two-faced defence critic, and claim that the mission has changed, and try to lay the blame on the tories is absolutely disgusting. I can understand the NDP. They're granola crunching morons. But the Liberals are just greasy weasels trying for some short-term political advantage at the possible cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The Liberals did agree to go to the area of fighting. But they set a deadline.

The mission parameters did change. Our deadline was quite clear and the reasons for setting the timeline was quite clear.

In what way have the mission parameters changed? Also, I'd like a cite regarding this "deadline" and that it was not going to be extended.

[jdobbin]

In what way have the mission parameters changed? Also, I'd like a cite regarding this "deadline" and that it was not going to be extended.

You must have missed this article. It has already been posted in here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...orce_login=true

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/...thened-and.html

[jdobbin]

Three British soldiers killed on Wednesday.

Casualties are now double what they were during the Iaq war.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69613.html

[Argus]

In what way have the mission parameters changed? Also, I'd like a cite regarding this "deadline" and that it was not going to be extended.

You must have missed this article. It has already been posted in here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...orce_login=true

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/...thened-and.html

This article says absolutely nothing about mission parameters being changed. It suggests, without evidence, that the mission was based on certain assumptions which the Liberals made which have turned out to be incorrect. But even if that were true - and there is no evidence it is, that's a far cry from saying the mission has changed. It was well known that this mission would be different, would be much more dangerous. I found several references to Bill Graham's tour of Afghanistan shortly after we landed as the "pre-body bag tour", because it was a certainty we would take casualties.

By the way, there is no point whatever in using a Globe article for a citation when you require a subscription to read it.

So there has been no change in the mission parameters.

I'll continue to wait for some evidence about the "deadline" Graham had stated.

[jdobbin]

This article says absolutely nothing about mission parameters being changed. It suggests, without evidence, that the mission was based on certain assumptions which the Liberals made which have turned out to be incorrect. But even if that were true - and there is no evidence it is, that's a far cry from saying the mission has changed. It was well known that this mission would be different, would be much more dangerous. I found several references to Bill Graham's tour of Afghanistan shortly after we landed as the "pre-body bag tour", because it was a certainty we would take casualties.

By the way, there is no point whatever in using a Globe article for a citation when you require a subscription to read it.

So there has been no change in the mission parameters.

I'll continue to wait for some evidence about the "deadline" Graham had stated.

It was available for free when it was originally posted. You didn't read it back then obviously.

Here is a link that seems to work.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/st...LANG21/TPStory/

[Argus]

This article says absolutely nothing about mission parameters being changed. It suggests, without evidence, that the mission was based on certain assumptions which the Liberals made which have turned out to be incorrect. But even if that were true - and there is no evidence it is, that's a far cry from saying the mission has changed. It was well known that this mission would be different, would be much more dangerous. I found several references to Bill Graham's tour of Afghanistan shortly after we landed as the "pre-body bag tour", because it was a certainty we would take casualties.

By the way, there is no point whatever in using a Globe article for a citation when you require a subscription to read it.

So there has been no change in the mission parameters.

I'll continue to wait for some evidence about the "deadline" Graham had stated.

It was available for free when it was originally posted. You didn't read it back then obviously.

Here is a link that seems to work.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/st...LANG21/TPStory/

The word "deadline" does not make an appearance in this citation, which, btw, is by a senior member of the Liberal Party - which automatically means he's a liar. You don't get to be very high in the Liberal party by treasuring honesty. All he says is, to paraphrse "Things are much worse than we thought they'd be".

Interestingly, nowhere within his article does he suggest he or his minister or his party shoujld bear one iota of blame for deciding to get us into this mission, nor for being wrong about what it would entail.

So as I said, the mission parameters have not changed, and there was no deadline, merely an initial one year commitment which might well have been renewed as many others have in the past.

[jdobbin]

The word "deadline" does not make an appearance in this citation, which, btw, is by a senior member of the Liberal Party - which automatically means he's a liar. You don't get to be very high in the Liberal party by treasuring honesty. All he says is, to paraphrse "Things are much worse than we thought they'd be".

Interestingly, nowhere within his article does he suggest he or his minister or his party shoujld bear one iota of blame for deciding to get us into this mission, nor for being wrong about what it would entail.

So as I said, the mission parameters have not changed, and there was no deadline, merely an initial one year commitment which might well have been renewed as many others have in the past.

It was a timeframe agreed upon prior to the mission.

At any rate, the Conservatives did extend the mission. The initial committment could have been honored and the troops would have been back in 2007.

There was nothing to suggest the Canada had to continue another stint.

[Argus]

The word "deadline" does not make an appearance in this citation, which, btw, is by a senior member of the Liberal Party - which automatically means he's a liar. You don't get to be very high in the Liberal party by treasuring honesty. All he says is, to paraphrse "Things are much worse than we thought they'd be".

Interestingly, nowhere within his article does he suggest he or his minister or his party shoujld bear one iota of blame for deciding to get us into this mission, nor for being wrong about what it would entail.

So as I said, the mission parameters have not changed, and there was no deadline, merely an initial one year commitment which might well have been renewed as many others have in the past.

It was a timeframe agreed upon prior to the mission.

At any rate, the Conservatives did extend the mission. The initial committment could have been honored and the troops would have been back in 2007.

There was nothing to suggest the Canada had to continue another stint.

Certainly true, but nothing to say we wouldn't either. We have extended previously, and at other times have left, then returned after six months or a year or so. Your assumption that everything would be done and gone by 2007 is just that. Nor does it suggest that anything which has happened to date would have been any different had the Liberals been re-elected. The best you can do is wait until 2007, and then claim that if the Liberals had been in power we'd have been gone and so "this wouldn't have happened" - whatever the "if" is. Though that too would still be just an assumption.

[jdobbin]

Certainly true, but nothing to say we wouldn't either. We have extended previously, and at other times have left, then returned after six months or a year or so. Your assumption that everything would be done and gone by 2007 is just that. Nor does it suggest that anything which has happened to date would have been any different had the Liberals been re-elected. The best you can do is wait until 2007, and then claim that if the Liberals had been in power we'd have been gone and so "this wouldn't have happened" - whatever the "if" is. Though that too would still be just an assumption.

The only thing that is obvious now is that Harper has taken ownership of this particular file. This past six months could have been blamed on the Liberals but in light of the extension that probably can't happen.

As Don Martin has said in the National Post this week, it is now a no-win situation for Harper unless Afghanistan can be made safe.

If that happens then Harper will likely be seen as courageous and rewarded politically for it. If this story continue into next year, the Liberals probably won't have to say a thing. The situation will speak for itself.

[jdobbin]

Troops More Likely to Die in Afghanistan than Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/07092006/3/worl...iraq-study.html

[gc1765]

Troops More Likely to Die in Afghanistan than Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/07092006/3/worl...iraq-study.html

I'm surprised by that. On American news I mostly hear about the casualties in Iraq and not about those in Afghanistan. On Canadian news, I don't hear as much about deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless it's a Canadian that is killed in Afghanistan.

At least the war in Afghanistan is justified, in my opinion.

[jdobbin]

I'm surprised by that. On American news I mostly hear about the casualties in Iraq and not about those in Afghanistan. On Canadian news, I don't hear as much about deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless it's a Canadian that is killed in Afghanistan.

At least the war in Afghanistan is justified, in my opinion.

It will only be justified if the new government of Afghanistan is better than the one it replaced. There is some evidence that it might be fairly extremist itself.

And if security cannot be established, it won't matter how justified people felt when it started, the government's popularity will be judged by how they improved things have become.

[gc1765]

I'm surprised by that. On American news I mostly hear about the casualties in Iraq and not about those in Afghanistan. On Canadian news, I don't hear as much about deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless it's a Canadian that is killed in Afghanistan.

At least the war in Afghanistan is justified, in my opinion.

It will only be justified if the new government of Afghanistan is better than the one it replaced. There is some evidence that it might be fairly extremist itself.

And if security cannot be established, it won't matter how justified people felt when it started, the government's popularity will be judged by how they improved things have become.

For me it will be justified so long as bin laden and his buddies are on the run and not capable (well, less capable) of carrying out further attacks. It will be justified if he is someday captured and brought to justice... though it has been 5 years, who knows if that will even happen.

You'll have to enlighten me on why the new government is extreme. I thought Karzai was fairly pro-western/reformist (well, compared to the Taliban that is). But then again I can't claim to be an expert on the issue, so I'm interested on hearing more information.

[jdobbin]

For me it will be justified so long as bin laden and his buddies are on the run and not capable (well, less capable) of carrying out further attacks. It will be justified if he is someday captured and brought to justice... though it has been 5 years, who knows if that will even happen.

You'll have to enlighten me on why the new government is extreme. I thought Karzai was fairly pro-western/reformist (well, compared to the Taliban that is). But then again I can't claim to be an expert on the issue, so I'm interested on hearing more information.

There is much being written about how the government is increasingly moving to become an Islamic republic with policies no better than what the Taliban had. You probably remember one case earlier this year when a Christian convert was going to be executed in Kabul. He was able to get out of the country but there is an increase in extremist violence or threats of violence as a result of a Taliban-like return to Islam.

Secretary Rice commented on this is May and there are reports the situation in official circles saying it is getting worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/03/religious.freedom/

While I can't be certain that bin Laden is not Afghanistan, most people's money is that he is in Pakistan. As O'Connor said yesterday, the Taliban cannot be defeated if they hide in Pakistan. It has become quite obvious the Taliban is well protected in that country and we can't get at them and are forced to fight on a battlefront not of our choosing.

If Canada defends Afghanistan only to see the official government we protect turn to extremism, it undermines the justifications for the war.

[jdobbin]

Explosion in Kabul kills 2 U.S. soldiers, many others.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/08092006/2/worl...l-kills-17.html

[Wilber]

Explosion in Kabul kills 2 U.S. soldiers, many others.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/08092006/2/worl...l-kills-17.html

It's a war. I think most of us have figured that out already.

[jdobbin]

It's a war. I think most of us have figured that out already.

And now statistically the casualties are higher than during the Iraq war. Security has worsed rather than gotten better. And O'Connor said the Taliban cannot be defeated so long as they hide in Pakistan.

[M.Dancer]

It's a war. I think most of us have figured that out already.

And now statistically the casualties are higher than during the Iraq war. Security has worsed rather than gotten better. And O'Connor said the Taliban cannot be defeated so long as they hide in Pakistan.

ummmm......maybe so but statistically, it's an apples and cement blocks comparison.

The study by the Royal Statistical Society said that since May an average of five soldiers a week had been killed out of the 18,500 in Afghanistan with Nato's International Security Assistance Force. Britain has about 4000 troops as part of the force. That is more than twice the death rate suffered during the 43-day fight for Iraq in 2003, when the UK lost 33 of its 46,000 deployed troops.

In a detailed statistical analysis of casualty figures, Professor Bird calculated that Isaf forces in Afghanistan were being killed at a rate equivalent to 14 a year out of every 1,000 personnel; UK forces, based largely in Helmand province, were suffering more than 11 deaths for every 1,000.

Firstly, this pertains to British Casualties. The Brits were not acting the tip of the spear during the war, but were concentrated around Basrah where, while not pacified, was not the roasd to baghdad. In afghanistan, the brits are on the front line fighting everyday.

Sheila Bird, vice-president of the Royal Statistical Society, argued that official Ministry of Defence casualty figures did not give a true picture of the risks troops faced because they failed to take into account the number of soldiers deployed in different campaigns.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-7-2006-107989.asp