Afghanistan

[jbg]

It does not matter how many polls in the world there are, Afghans want things different. And it is Afghans who should be listened to, no one else matters, it is their ground they are on.

Apparently the opinions of people working in the World Trade Center don't count.

[Catchme]

It does not matter how many polls in the world there are, Afghans want things different. And it is Afghans who should be listened to, no one else matters, it is their ground they are on.

Apparently the opinions of people working in the World Trade Center don't count.

No, their opinions ceased to matter the minute GWB stopped looking for Osama in 2003.

Not that their opinions really mattered in Canadian military deployment in the first place. And please refrain from responding about the 20 odd that were Canadians. because we were NOT there for the purposes of retribution.

[weaponeer]

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsroom/...cat=114&id=2494

Here's a good link to a "human" story about a Canadian coming home...

[Catchme]

Will the real Hillier please stand up, it seems he is of the same ilk as those he partisanly supported. Hillier is apparently real good at talking out of both sides of his mouth, or has he been coached on what he should say? Found more than I was bargaining for when I went researching Hillier as promised.

Is this Hillier?

General Hiller saying that: “we’re in Afghanistan to help Afghans. …We’re not there to occupy a country. We’re there to help Afghan men, women, and children rebuild their lives.”

or is this Hillier?

General Hillier- These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties... We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

and then there is this Hillier comment.

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

Some interesting thoughts by this blogger:

Between Hillier's recent spate of commentary and Major-General Andrew Leslie's recent poison on Candian airwaves, it is clear that there is some kind of media operation underway. The target is the Canadian population. The objective is to try to develop a level of racist bloodlust. The means is pretty basic American propaganda.

My speculation is that a bunch of these guys went to the US on some kind of exchange and were told by some Washington PR firms to put certain messages into the media upon their return to Canada, and the Canadian media is eating it up, though the consequences will be dire.

http://www.killingtrain.com/archives/2005_08.html

The 2nd is a link to the propaganda being fed to the military regarding the CPC governing, and their promised actions to the military in return for their support.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/39090

In light of the election results, I thought you might find it useful to have all the news releases the Conservatives issued during the campaign dealing with defence to allow you to reach your own conclusions whether the promises have been kept (keeping in mind the platform was likely developed with a majority government in mind).

http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/CPC%202006%20Defence

And so much the sweet words here saying, that the Canadian military was not war mongering control the world type. And so much for a supposed acknowlegement that Canadians are not warlike etc etc. Found a nice tag line of one of the members at army.ca called Reccesoldier:

I can easily imagine a world without violence. A world without hatred. A world of love, peace, kindness and understanding.

I can also imagine that we should attack this world, for they wouldn't expect it and our losses would be minimal.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,57697.0.html

It seems that Can Blue's calling Canadians pathetic could be typical thinking by some of the Canadian military personal.

Then there is this pap below, that is being fed to them, by an opium dealing, torturer, woman oppressing creep, that was trained by the CIA, no wonder they are so supportive of Karzi as opposed to Canadians who pay their wages and who they are allegedly defending.

If the greatness of life is measured in deeds done for others, then Canada's sons and daughters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan stand among the greatest of their generation," Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan

[margrace]

Well of course, if Hillier wants his job he had better tow the party line as decreed by Mr. Harper. Will the counties pulling out of Iraq send in help to rebuild Afghanistan for the Afghanistan people or for the pipe line that Haliburton wants build across their country.

[WestViking]

Well of course, if Hillier wants his job he had better tow the party line as decreed by Mr. Harper. Will the counties pulling out of Iraq send in help to rebuild Afghanistan for the Afghanistan people or for the pipe line that Haliburton wants build across their country.

Hillier committed the unpardonable (to the Liberals) sin of telling the truth. Our military withered under Liberal rule, ill equipped and undermanned. Chretien committed troops to Afghanistan and they arrived via rented transport in green uniforms that stood out in the desert as there was no desert clothing, without adequate body armor and a host of other equipment problems.

Just because the liberal / left does not want to hear about it does not make Hillier a shill for anyone.

[Army Guy]

catchme:

Will the real Hillier please stand up, it seems he is of the same ilk as those he partisanly supported. Hillier is apparently real good at talking out of both sides of his mouth, or has he been coached on what he should say? Found more than I was bargaining for when I went researching Hillier as promised.

No, what you found are quotes from a man who leads our nations military period. A department within our government charged with defending this country, and her interests within our borders and aboard....

And in carrying out that task the use of force or the threat of force is used, when diplomancy has failed...

Liberals are pissed off at the fact that he has publicly pionted out some of thier down falls, and i repeat some of thier down falls, including destroying the so called liberal myth that we are a peace keeping force... Thier pissed off because they have been accused of placing our nations security on the bottom of the pile...Your security, and mine security. they have placed members of our military lives at stake, in doing so, without reducing our commitments... They are pissed because he is pionting a finger and they are at the other end...

SO when he explains why we are in Afgan he is translating orders from our government and what our military mission is there.

General Hiller saying that: “we’re in Afghanistan to help Afghans. …We’re not there to occupy a country. We’re there to help Afghan men, women, and children rebuild their lives.”

And when he is describing the taliban, the enemy chosen by our government, and those that elected them. he describes them as they are.

General Hillier- These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties... We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

And how would you describe our nations military, what exactly do you think our main function is...He wants the public to be clear that we are not handing out candy and teddy bears that so many canadians believe in. But we are closing with and destroying the enemy as that is our job...And that means we armed with wpns, rifles, armoured vehs, aircraft , and ships all designed for one purpose to extinguish our enemies lives...

Equipment that the liberals have been neglecting to give us.

And this is funny that i have to explain this to a liberal, i could see a NDP'er but history has already shown us that liberals have used our military to fight our nations enemies more than any other party in fact twice as much... Or is it that the liberal party has changed now to a more senstive, peace loving party, who would perfer to stick thier heads in the sand and kiss our enemies asses, in hopes they will just leave us alone...

DO some research and find out exactly what shape our military is in, compare our numbers with other nations and you'll find we are extremily lacking in defensive means.

.We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

And so much the sweet words here saying, that the Canadian military was not war mongering control the world type. And so much for a supposed acknowlegement that Canadians are not warlike etc etc. Found a nice tag line of one of the members at army.ca called Reccesoldier:

Your link is not to what you have quoted, it would be nice to see what context the quote was being used.

Then there is this pap below, that is being fed to them, by an opium dealing, torturer, woman oppressing creep, that was trained by the CIA, no wonder they are so supportive of Karzi as opposed to Canadians who pay their wages and who they are allegedly defending.

If the greatness of life is measured in deeds done for others, then Canada's sons and daughters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan stand among the greatest of their generation," Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan

Thats a pretty big accusation, i just curious if there is proof of any of this what action has been taken, and did we know any of this when the liberals sent us over there. of course the fact that he paid our military members a compliment is not the issue ,right...

[White Doors]

good post Army guy

[jdobbin]

The Liberals have committed to Afghanistan until 2009 but say they will leave after their commitment to NATO.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070222/...an_liberals_col

"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009," Liberal leader Stephane Dion said in a speech in Montreal.

I think this will certainly distinguish the NDP and Liberal policy. It remains to be seen whether the Tories will try to commit to 2011 as some expect this year.

[Army Guy]

jdobbin:

The Liberals have committed to Afghanistan until 2009 but say they will leave after their commitment to NATO.

think this will certainly distinguish the NDP and Liberal policy. It remains to be seen whether the Tories will try to commit to 2011 as some expect this year.

It's also been said that the liberals would back an extension if there was suffient postive progress...

I personally don't think announcing any further commitment at this time will benifit anyone, and could only hurt the CPC in there numbers. I don't see the benifit do you..but saying that i really don't see us leaving in 2009 either...

[madmax]

I think this will certainly distinguish the NDP and Liberal policy. It remains to be seen whether the Tories will try to commit to 2011 as some expect this year.

They may or may not. But really whether they leave it at 09 or 12, they will be looking for an exit strategy sooner or later. The difference between that strategy, 2 to 4 years.

Pakistan isn't going anywhere, and we aren't going to do anything about it.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....191&qpid=188779

The latest round of verbal sparring started on Friday, when Ali Mohammed Jan Aurakzai, governor of Pakistan's vast North West Frontier Province, told a press conference that Afghanistan has brought the insurgency upon itself.

"It is developing into some sort of a nationalist movement, a resistance movement, sort of a liberation war against coalition forces," Mr. Aurakzai said.

The NWFP governor, a retired lieutenant-general, was appointed in May of 2006, after Pakistan had waged a bloody and unsuccessful campaign against insurgents in the lawless border province. Less than four months later, Mr. Aurakzai brought an official end to the fighting with a controversial peace deal that gave Taliban fighters amnesty on condition that they stop their violence.

The U.S. military, which patrols along the nearby Afghan border, has complained that the agreement gave insurgents more freedom inside Pakistan and has resulted in a sharp increase in cross-border attacks.

Mr. Aurakzai defended the peace deal, saying that infiltration of militants across the border causes, at most, 20 per cent of the fighting inside Afghanistan.

"With the passage of time, [Taliban] strength has been swelling and today they've reached the stage that a lot of the local population have started supporting the militant operations," the Pakistani governor said.

with allies like these....

BTW.

Read full article for Afghanistans rebuttals.

[jdobbin]

It's also been said that the liberals would back an extension if there was suffient postive progress...

I personally don't think announcing any further commitment at this time will benifit anyone, and could only hurt the CPC in there numbers. I don't see the benifit do you..but saying that i really don't see us leaving in 2009 either...

I don't think we will commit to the front lines if the fight is still thick in 2009 and we still have very little support from NATO and if Pakistan continues to supply Taliban.

[jdobbin]

They may or may not. But really whether they leave it at 09 or 12, they will be looking for an exit strategy sooner or later. The difference between that strategy, 2 to 4 years.

Pakistan isn't going anywhere, and we aren't going to do anything about it.

It is Pakistan that makes me think very grimly about Afghanistan's future. Pakistan has let a mini-Taliban state set up within its borders who are intent on continuing the fight in Afghanistan.

[Spike22]

Afghanistan: in the Thesaurus it shows up as a "poppy growing shithole, loved by vacationing Pakistani's and terrorists alike".

Canada we like to solve the worlds problems however this is a cultural issue the hardest enemy to fight. Hundreds of years of inbred retards living there who are dumb as dirt that would gladly sell their mother's soul to plant a bomb against innocent people. (OK they can be bribed for $50) the next minute you are having tea with them. What a delightful place. We are in a no win situation given the limited resources provided for such a huge area.

By the way where the hell is Bin Laden hiding. Surely to god the western world has some intel on the dude by now?

[madmax]

Canada we like to solve the worlds problems however this is a cultural issue the hardest enemy to fight.

We are in a no win situation given the limited resources provided for such a huge area.

By the way where the hell is Bin Laden hiding. Surely to god the western world has some intel on the dude by now?

Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan crossing the Afghan border at will if need be. Along with Ayman Alzawarhi and Omar. Training camps are operating in Pakistan. The Pakistani ISI has one of the largest sources of Human intelligence in the region. Unfortuneately they have a large element that supports the "Taliban" as the organization that can provide stability in Afghanistan and align the Pashtun elements with their country.

Western Intelligence may be good, but the Human Intelligence of the western world is substandard.

Only recently, have NATO forces realized that Afghan operatives and sources can provide more accurate information then all the Satellite and drones scanning the region. This has been the main reason claimed for the success in attacking and killing a number of higher Taliban elements. But this can continue for years with no resolution and a never ending line of leaders and recruits for the cultural issues you imply above.

[Canadian Blue]

Osama Bin Laden is probably dead...

[madmax]

Osama Bin Laden is probably dead...

He is a busy dead person. But not nearly as busy as Ayman.

I wish Bin Laden was dead. But that is wishful thinking not fact.

And I am not into a Polynewbie style conspiracy debate.

[Catchme]

A military at war with peacekeeping

Canadian forces want more than just to keep the peace

James Travers

National Affairs Columnist

OTTAWA–Canadian soldiers are fighting something in Afghanistan beyond the Taliban, opium warlords and entrenched corruption: They are struggling with an image of themselves the military loathes and the country loves.

Led by Rick Hillier, arguably the most aggressive and political chief of the defence staff ever, the armed forces, particularly the army, are tearing down the dated poster of Canada as the world's peacekeeper. The clear signal flashing home from Kandahar is that Canadians in war zones are combat-ready troops who can also keep the peace, not do-gooders who in a pinch can be pressed into action.

..Does any of this make Afghanistan a fool's mission? Not necessarily. But together they reinforce persistent doubts about why Canada is there,

It's also true peacekeeping is not what the military wants to do. It doesn't want to go back to Africa where it's most needed and it doesn't like working without the U.S. logistics safety net.

But there is pressing international need for militaries as sophisticated as Canada's. And there is the discipline democracies impose on armies to deliver what the public orders, not what generals want.

If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/185216

[Canadian Blue]

I think their might be a reason the military loathes the peacekeeping image catchme. You should know firsthand that few members of the military consider themselves peacekeepers first, and many believe that the peacekeeping image has overshadowed their accomplishments in combat.

[Wilber]

"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009," Liberal leader Stephane Dion said in a speech in Montreal.

Is this really a smart thing to say? After all, who is going to be in a big rush to come and help if we are not staying anyway. Why bother, just deal with it when it happens. Might not something like. While we are committed until 2009, unless we begin to see more help within the the year it is extremely unlikely that we will extend that commitment. Be more appropriate. It would put the ball in their court, without slamming the door on our options should things change significantly and might actually get our people some help before they leave. I can't help but think this statement is directed at the possibility of an early election and has little to do with the situation in Afghanistan.

If Dion should win, it could amount to sentencing our guys to the status quo for two years. No additional help and continuing to take casualties for two more years knowing that they are leaving regardless. No wonder the bulk of the military has little use for the Liberal Party.

[jdobbin]

Is this really a smart thing to say? After all, who is going to be in a big rush to come and help if we are not staying anyway. Why bother, just deal with it when it happens. Might not something like. While we are committed until 2009, unless we begin to see more help within the the year it is extremely unlikely that we will extend that commitment. Be more appropriate. It would put the ball in their court, without slamming the door on our options should things change significantly and might actually get our people some help before they leave. I can't help but think this statement is directed at the possibility of an early election and has little to do with the situation in Afghanistan.

If Dion should win, it could amount to sentencing our guys to the status quo for two years. No additional help and continuing to take casualties for two more years knowing that they are leaving regardless. No wonder the bulk of the military has little use for the Liberal Party.

Since every other country in the world is now setting timetables for their troops, it seems churlish to say Canada shouldn't have a timetable.

[madmax]

Is this really a smart thing to say? After all, who is going to be in a big rush to come and help if we are not staying anyway. Why bother, just deal with it when it happens. Might not something like. While we are committed until 2009, unless we begin to see more help within the the year it is extremely unlikely that we will extend that commitment. Be more appropriate.

Not really. Sounds mushy, whiney and indecisive.

But the interesting thing about the turnabout with the Liberals is they are echoing the NDP, only the date is different. Especially since the NDP date is upon us:-). The CPC aren't any different only talking about the same with a date later then the Liberals.

This is from Laytons speech back in August 2006.

New Democrats are calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from the combat mission in southern Afghanistan. Withdrawal should begin as soon as possible - working with our international partners to ensure a safe and smooth transition - but with a view to having it complete by February 2007.

At least with the NDP and CPC I can see the difference with regards to the mission itself.

Laytons comparison between Liberals and CPC.

Stephen Harper wants to take Canada in the wrong direction. The Liberals now want to take Canada in every direction.

And as for the mission, here are some excerpts.

So is the strategic use of our highly-skilled and well-respected Canadian armed forces. Canada has a long history of stepping into the breach when called upon by our international allies. Unfortunately, the number of conflicts around the world today, including deepening tensions in the Middle East, mean that we must carefully choose where we can make the greatest difference.

New Democrats understand the need to send troops into combat and the risks involved. We support and have supported appropriate missions. Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success.

What are the goals and objectives of this mission and how do they meet Canada's foreign policy objectives?

What is the realistic mandate of the mission and how is it being enforced?

What are the criteria to measure progress?

What is the definition of success?

And what is the clear exit strategy for this mission?

What is interesting about this. Is that O Conner asked these questions first.

Two different perspectives on a difficult subject with the Liberals flip flopping around and grasping for an Identity.

[imatitlover]

Western Intelligence may be good,

You mean like those WMD and drones of death in Iraq that almost 3200 young Americans have died for so far?

[madmax]

Since every other country in the world is now setting timetables for their troops, it seems churlish to say Canada shouldn't have a timetable.

Every country committing troops has a timetable of sorts for every action. Of course Canada needs a timetable. This sounded ludicrous 6 months ago. Now everyone is suggesting just that. There is nothing wrong with having a plan of action. Setting Goals.

The mission in the south was expanded and extended to 2009. While I completely disagree with the mission and its extension. I think it is not physical possible for some 2,200 soldiers to run around, kill the enemy, and be all things to the Afghans: Reconstructionists, Humanitarian providers, Security providers, and counter insurgents. It is alot to ask of our Forces, while at the same time, we have not been successful in applying significant pressure on NATO to partake in these same roles weve taken on. We also can provide no clear solution to the recruitment and sanctuary for the Taliban and their allies, in Pakistan.

These are problems for the Afgan Government, and their military. Afghanistan has had no trouble finding recruits to fight the Soviets. Recruits to fight the Northern Alliance. So why are they having such a difficult time competing for recruits vs the Taliban?

We should not provide the above military duties/missions for an unlimited lenght of time.

[Canuck E Stan]

"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009," Liberal leader Stephane Dion said in a speech in Montreal.

Is this really a smart thing to say? After all, who is going to be in a big rush to come and help if we are not staying anyway. Why bother, just deal with it when it happens. Might not something like. While we are committed until 2009, unless we begin to see more help within the the year it is extremely unlikely that we will extend that commitment. Be more appropriate. It would put the ball in their court, without slamming the door on our options should things change significantly and might actually get our people some help before they leave. I can't help but think this statement is directed at the possibility of an early election and has little to do with the situation in Afghanistan.

If Dion should win, it could amount to sentencing our guys to the status quo for two years. No additional help and continuing to take casualties for two more years knowing that they are leaving regardless. No wonder the bulk of the military has little use for the Liberal Party.

You forget that Mr.Dion only talked about Kandahar,not the rest of Afghanistan. He can still do the flip/flop thing,after 2009.

I can see him saying "Ah,but they are not IN Kandahar,they are outside the city limits."

the rest of story.

but left the door open for soldiers to go elsewhere in the country.