Afghanistan

[ScottSA]

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue through the flourish of rhetoric. You seem to be saying that it ought to be the Afghans, and in the same breathe that the Afghans can't do it yet. So in effect you're setting up a catch 22. I'm sure when the Taliban inclined folks in Afghanistan find that the cost is not equal to the benefit of fighting on, and as the Afghans become increasingly able to handle the fight, they;ll shoulder more of the burden.

I'm saying the Afghans won't do it when the Canadians are present. The Canadian military this week was just saying that the Afghan Police bug off and make Canada do the work. Often, Canada has to clean up a mess of the ANP's own making. The Afghan military faces similar unreliability quotients. Often the just the allies take on jobs themselves rather than contributing at all.

The Catch 22 is of Afghanistan's own making. They want Canadians but as long as they are there, the police and military won't do their jobs.

So your solution is to pull Canadians out and leave everything to collapse under the Afghans?

[jdobbin]

So your solution is to pull Canadians out and leave everything to collapse under the Afghans?

I think I've said a few times is that Canada should serve its time in place and if NATO or the Afghans can't find someone to replace us, it says more about our allies than us.

As soon as everything thinks that Canada is a permanent fixture in place, the less they think about what they have to do themselves to make the situation better.

[Argus]

The problem with that approach is you first have to put in place a government capable of resisting the advance of the barbarians, and the current government does not have that capacity. I say dump it and put a brutal warlord in place, then help him and his man crush the other warlords and get out.

Because a brutal warlord is the only kind that's going to survive in that wretched place.

I disagree. Anyone we put into place will be the enemy of people from the start.

We should have destroyed al Qaeda, destroyed Taliban military and economic targets and flown the coop and waited to see what would happen. If they became a threat again, hammer again and again and again.

Instead, we are traffic cops for a narco state.

This was a one-shot deal. If we hammered them and left them to their own devices the resulting chaos, misery, civil war and death would have been blamed entirely on us - by people like you, btw. The idea that if the Taliban arose in control after such chaos that we could feel free to go back and hammer them again is absurd. The left would have hysterics. The UN would go bananas. There is no way in hell we could do as you suggest because liberals would never allow it.

[Moxie]

So your solution is to pull Canadians out and leave everything to collapse under the Afghans?

I think I've said a few times is that Canada should serve its time in place and if NATO or the Afghans can't find someone to replace us, it says more about our allies than us.

As soon as everything thinks that Canada is a permanent fixture in place, the less they think about what they have to do themselves to make the situation better.

I agree, we should leave when our mandate is up. Let the lazy members of Nato step up to the plate and do some of the hard work. The Germans and the Belgiums have been in the safe zone long enough, let them come out of their safe zones and participate under a Stabalization Mandate and toss the "Peace Keeper" mandate they are hiding behind. We've done our share, our boys are going to need a rest. We are a small military and if we over-tax our troops the long term side effects will distroy the back bone of the Military.

[jdobbin]

This was a one-shot deal. If we hammered them and left them to their own devices the resulting chaos, misery, civil war and death would have been blamed entirely on us - by people like you, btw. The idea that if the Taliban arose in control after such chaos that we could feel free to go back and hammer them again is absurd. The left would have hysterics. The UN would go bananas. There is no way in hell we could do as you suggest because liberals would never allow it.

The Liberals had no problem participating in a blockade of Iraq and enforcing the no-fly zone. That meant supporting ground attacks from the air as well.

You certainly wouldn't have heard complaints from me about attacks in and out to eliminate threats. And after September 11, there was no one who was going to raise a peep about attacking al Qaeda bases and the Taliban if they continued to harbour them.

My concern all along for Iraq and Afghanistan is that any attempt to make-over those countries was doomed to failure since the driving force came from outside rather than inside.

At the moment, what you are proposing is a commitment that lasts...forever. Do you actually think that Afghanistan will take care of itself if they can rely on Canada to do the job with no timetable in place?

[bush_cheney2004]

...At the moment, what you are proposing is a commitment that lasts...forever. Do you actually think that Afghanistan will take care of itself if they can rely on Canada to do the job with no timetable in place?

Forever is a long time...methinks you exaggerate a bit. Canada was in Cyprus for 29 years. Others seem to have a rub about other NATO allies joining in the fray, not the underlying policy. In the end, it may not be Afghanistan relying on Canada at all, but Canada will certainly be interested in what happens there, one way or another.

[weaponeer]

This was a one-shot deal. If we hammered them and left them to their own devices the resulting chaos, misery, civil war and death would have been blamed entirely on us - by people like you, btw. The idea that if the Taliban arose in control after such chaos that we could feel free to go back and hammer them again is absurd. The left would have hysterics. The UN would go bananas. There is no way in hell we could do as you suggest because liberals would never allow it.

The Liberals had no problem participating in a blockade of Iraq and enforcing the no-fly zone. That meant supporting ground attacks from the air as well.

You certainly wouldn't have heard complaints from me about attacks in and out to eliminate threats. And after September 11, there was no one who was going to raise a peep about attacking al Qaeda bases and the Taliban if they continued to harbour them.

My concern all along for Iraq and Afghanistan is that any attempt to make-over those countries was doomed to failure since the driving force came from outside rather than inside.

At the moment, what you are proposing is a commitment that lasts...forever. Do you actually think that Afghanistan will take care of itself if they can rely on Canada to do the job with no timetable in place?

Hi Jdob,

I hear it's been raining alot in the "Peg", hope your not under water:)

The Libs participation in the Iraq no-fly zone consisted of having Canadian Forces Air Weaqpons Controllers (guys like me) aasigned to USAF AWACS aircraft, we had no fighters in Saudi or Turkey at all. We controller the USAF and RAF fighters over Iraq. The prob with no-fly zones, blockades, etc is you have to have an end state. They too, cannot go on forever, they drain resources.

The big prob with Iraq is that Saddam eventually had to be dealt with. A huge opportunity was lost after GW1 in 1991, UN should have kept going, or perhaps we should have directly supported the post war uprisings.

The entire philosiphy of "Nation Building" in my experience is folly. Americans cannot build a nation other than the USA, Canadians no matter how well intentioned cannot build any nation other than Canada. When anyone attempts Nation Building, you always do it with your own pre-set morals, values and prejudices. You naturally try to build a nation like your own. Good intentions, yes, but it does not work.

Afghanistan is not Canada, the USA or any other country, other than Afghanistan. Yes we should help, give technical advice, instill some "international" accepted norms, but any country has to ultimatly stand up on it's own two feet. "We can help lift the up, but we cannot carry them".

The entire reason we are in Afghanistan, and we have all as Caandians forgotten this I feel, is to hunt down and kill AQ. The talibs, they harboured AQ, they are not even the real reason we are there, AQ is. AQ is still active and very dangerous, they do not have any love for Canada, and I fear we will see it on our shores one day.

Everyone thinks that once the Afghanistan mission is over in 2009, our troops will come home and all will be as it was. Nonsense, once we are out of Afghanistan we could find ourselves in combat chasing AQ in Somalia, Darfour, or God knows where else.... AQ has declared war on the western world....it ain't over by a long shot......

[jdobbin]

Hi Jdob,

I hear it's been raining alot in the "Peg", hope your not under water:)

The Libs participation in the Iraq no-fly zone consisted of having Canadian Forces Air Weaqpons Controllers (guys like me) aasigned to USAF AWACS aircraft, we had no fighters in Saudi or Turkey at all. We controller the USAF and RAF fighters over Iraq. The prob with no-fly zones, blockades, etc is you have to have an end state. They too, cannot go on forever, they drain resources.

The big prob with Iraq is that Saddam eventually had to be dealt with. A huge opportunity was lost after GW1 in 1991, UN should have kept going, or perhaps we should have directly supported the post war uprisings.

The entire philosiphy of "Nation Building" in my experience is folly. Americans cannot build a nation other than the USA, Canadians no matter how well intentioned cannot build any nation other than Canada. When anyone attempts Nation Building, you always do it with your own pre-set morals, values and prejudices. You naturally try to build a nation like your own. Good intentions, yes, but it does not work.

Afghanistan is not Canada, the USA or any other country, other than Afghanistan. Yes we should help, give technical advice, instill some "international" accepted norms, but any country has to ultimatly stand up on it's own two feet. "We can help lift the up, but we cannot carry them".

The entire reason we are in Afghanistan, and we have all as Caandians forgotten this I feel, is to hunt down and kill AQ. The talibs, they harboured AQ, they are not even the real reason we are there, AQ is. AQ is still active and very dangerous, they do not have any love for Canada, and I fear we will see it on our shores one day.

Everyone thinks that once the Afghanistan mission is over in 2009, our troops will come home and all will be as it was. Nonsense, once we are out of Afghanistan we could find ourselves in combat chasing AQ in Somalia, Darfour, or God knows where else.... AQ has declared war on the western world....it ain't over by a long shot......

Hey weaponeer! Hope you have been safe in the last months.

It's not the rain that's been so bad, it's the tornadoes. We've been okay here but no one can remember when so many tornadoes have rolled in day after day.

I agree that no fly zones and blockades need some sort of timetable but I think everyone will agree that they are easier to manage and less costly on resources than a full ground presence.

There have been many people who have criticized George Bush Sr over not going into Iraq to remove Saddam. The problem is that he didn't receive the authority to more than push Iraq out of Kuwait. Unlike his son, George Sr was able to cobble together a much wider coalition and full U.N. support. If Bush Sr. had pushed into Iraq, he might have faced the same problems his son has got now. He certainly said so in 1992 that it was one of the reasons he didn't march in to take over Iraq.

It would appear the new training ground for al Qaeda is Pakistan and Iraq. The doctors that tried to attack Britain last week appear to have gotten support from al Qaeda in Iraq. Sad to say but al Qaeda didn't have training ground in Iraq until the U.S. got there.

I'm afraid that Canada will get bogged down trying to build up Afghanistan while threats elsewhere go unchecked. You're right that al Qaeda is mobile. We have to be too. I think the Afghan government has got to know that they cannot depend on several years of occupation by our forces. They have to ready soon to take over. Canada has to be prepared to get in and get out fast of hot spots around the world.

[jdobbin]

Six NATO soldiers killed along with interpretor.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/04/a...istan-nato.html

Six NATO soldiers and an Afghan interpreter have been killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, news agencies reported Wednesday.

The nationality of the soldiers has not been released.

More than 2,000 Canadian soldiers are stationed in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan as part of a NATO-led mission in the country.

Some other media is reporting that it was a Canadian convoy but that hasn't officially been confirmed.

Condolences to the soldiers involved.

Update: The news conference confirmed it was a Canadian vehicle that was blown up. Very sad news.

I was going to post this earlier. This was Layton's new conference this morning.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0704?hub=Canada

The prime minister needs to engineer a scaleback of military operations in Afghanistan in the face of mounting civilian and military deaths, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Wednesday as six more NATO troops were reported killed.

Layton said Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to show leadership by urging the United States to stop high-altitude bombing in the war-torn country and withdrawing Canadian troops from what he characterized as a hopeless mission.

"It's the wrong mission; it's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals,'' said Layton, adding his party will ensure the issue is front and centre in coming federal byelections.

I believe that Layton spoke before it was announced that it was Canadians killed.

I disagree with him about an immediate pull-out. We should simply fulfill our duties until 2009 and offer whatever help we can to the Afghans after that.

I seriously think we should focus on rapid in and out responses to threats.

[jdobbin]

The latest poll on what people think of Afghanistan.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0712?hub=Canada

A growing number of Canadians, especially in Quebec, say the rising death toll among troops in Afghanistan is too high a price to pay for helping the troubled country, suggests a new poll.

A Canadian Press-Decima Research survey shows 67 per cent of those asked believe the number of casualties has been unacceptable, a five-percentage-point rise from a poll taken a little over a month ago.

Only 25 per cent of respondents said the number of killed and wounded was acceptable, in a survey taken following the most recent deaths of six soldiers in a roadside bomb attack.

Bruce Anderson, CEO of Decima Research, said Canadians are clearly becoming more doubtful about whether progress is being made, in light of the deaths of 66 soldiers and one diplomat in Afghanistan.

If there is an election this fall, Harper will probably have to say with certainty that the troops come home in 2009. Anything short of that could cost votes in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

A separate poll asked what Canadians thought about a world war and whether Canada would ever be part of the U.S.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/...333227-sun.html

The online poll found 46 per cent of respondents thought there will be another world war within the next 50 years.

Almost one-in-four said they think it will happen in less than 100 years, while 13 per cent thought it would take longer. Seventeen per cent said it would never happen.

If a third world war were to take place, it would involve nuclear bombs and start in one of the world's hot spots, says Canadian historian Michael Bliss.

"We'll be lucky if nuclear weapons aren't used in the next 20 years in the Middle East," said Bliss.

"You have two countries with nuclear weapons, Israel and Pakistan," said the former University of Toronto professor. "Pakistan, which could dissolve into civil war. Israel, which if it got its back against a wall, would probably use nuclear weapons."

A thousand Canadians were asked in the survey whether they think Canada would become part of the United States. Sixty eight per cent said it would never happen.

This last poll was an online one which I distrust in principle.

Edited July 14, 2007 by jdobbin

[KO2]

The pole says to me that Canadians have a determination to remain independent in face of a feeling of the pessimism of a looming global conflict.

By my way of thinking this is a great statetment about our optimism as a nation overall.

Edited July 14, 2007 by KO2

[bush_cheney2004]

A thousand Canadians were asked in the survey whether they think Canada would become part of the United States.

Why? What is the nature of this persistent neurosis and oft repeated "question"??

Canadians who want to part of the USA do so in a most straightforward way...they move there.

[KO2]

"Canadians who want to part of the USA do so in a most straightforward way...they move there."

that works both ways, I assure you, so means nothing as a point of argument.

[jbg]

The pole says to me that Canadians have a determination to remain independent in face of a feeling of the pessimism of a looming global conflict.

Was that the North Pole or South Pole talking? Magnetic or geographic?

[bush_cheney2004]

"Canadians who want to part of the USA do so in a most straightforward way...they move there."

that works both ways, I assure you, so means nothing as a point of argument.

It wasn't a point of argument...unless you are looking for one. Still, I shall not hold my breath waiting for the poll which asks Americans if "they think the United States would become part of Canada".

[weaponeer]

What does any of this have to do with Afghanistan?????

[White Doors]

The pole says to me that Canadians have a determination to remain independent in face of a feeling of the pessimism of a looming global conflict.

Was that the North Pole or South Pole talking? Magnetic or geographic?

LOL

[Moxie]

I'd be a little worried if a POLE started asking me questions.

Weaponeer I can across this quote do you know who wrote it?

In times of war and not before, god and soldier men adore.

But in times of peace with all things righted, god is forgotten and the soldier "SLIGHTED".

Wow how true is that quote, the NDP and the Liberals take every opportunity to slight our military in the press. Wise words and very true.

[weaponeer]

I'd be a little worried if a POLE started asking me questions.

Weaponeer I can across this quote do you know who wrote it?

In times of war and not before, god and soldier men adore.

But in times of peace with all things righted, god is forgotten and the soldier "SLIGHTED".

Wow how true is that quote, the NDP and the Liberals take every opportunity to slight our military in the press. Wise words and very true.

The NDP slight the military because they hate us, they do not respect the military, police etc..... The lib, they like the military, sort of, but they use us as a whipping boy thinking they are scoring points with the Canadian public.

Libs scare Canadians, "if we buy new fighter planes we will have to close hospitals, and through little old ladies out on the streets", when they know it's not true.

Canadians need to grow up, mature, stop whining about soverignty and do something about it. I have been in the CF 19 years, and have worked extensivly with the US military. They do NOT want to defend Canada, they want us to do it ourselves, properly!!

[jdobbin]

British report on NATO allies letting Britain and Canada down in Afghanistan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/18072007/3/worl...ish-report.html

NATO's military mission in Afghanistan is being "undermined" by some alliance members' failure to provide adequate troops amid signs the Taliban are gaining strength, a report by Britain's Parliament has concluded.

The report published Wednesday by the House of Commons defence committee warned the entire campaign is at risk if NATO members continue to refuse to deploy additional soldiers and increase development aid.

The report also blames serious strategic mistakes such as corrupt police and growing civilian casualties.

Britain has complained its forces, along with Canadian, U.S. and Dutch soldiers, are the only ones from the 37,000-strong NATO force who are fighting the Taliban in the most violent areas.

This news is certainly not lost on Canadians.

[M.Dancer]

This news is certainly not lost on Canadians.

Canadian troops praised

James Arbuthnot, the committee's chair, singled out the more than 2,000 Canadian troops participating in the mission for their "extraordinarily good" work, but said additional help is needed for their successes to take hold.

"There are too few countries who are providing support for this mission," Arbuthnot told CBC News on Wednesday in an interview from London.

"The British troops and the Canadian troops are working extremely well alongside each other, and we must not allow the sacrifices that they are making and the work they are doing to be frittered away by a failure to support them from other countries."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/18/a...to.html?ref=rss

Lets hope not.....

[jdobbin]

Lets hope not.....

It will be hard for any Canadian leader to extend beyond 2009 with so little support from the rest of NATO.

[ScottSA]

Lets hope not.....

It will be hard for any Canadian leader to extend beyond 2009 with so little support from the rest of NATO.

Or from people like you, who know not a damned thing about the place and are determined not to. And it's sad, because your mind is made up, not by the mission itself, but by the government that supports the mission. If the liberals were in power you'd be all over it. You are one of the most transparently partisan posters on this board.

[jdobbin]

Or from people like you, who know not a damned thing about the place and are determined not to. And it's sad, because your mind is made up, not by the mission itself, but by the government that supports the mission. If the liberals were in power you'd be all over it. You are one of the most transparently partisan posters on this board.

Yup. That's me. Thanks for stopping by. Headed back to the race thread?

[ScottSA]

Or from people like you, who know not a damned thing about the place and are determined not to. And it's sad, because your mind is made up, not by the mission itself, but by the government that supports the mission. If the liberals were in power you'd be all over it. You are one of the most transparently partisan posters on this board.

Yup. That's me. Thanks for stopping by. Headed back to the race thread?

Is there something you'd like to get off your chest? Is there an issue you have with the "race thread," or are you waiting for instructions from Liberal HQ before addressing it?

Edited July 18, 2007 by ScottSA