Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

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?

I've never posted there but notice it seems to be one of your major concerns. Thanks for stopping by again.

[jbg]

Lets hope not.....

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

I remember going to a lecture, while I was in middle school, back in 1970, where the lecturer described NATO as a "paper alliance". I now have no doubt he was right.

[jdobbin]

I remember going to a lecture, while I was in middle school, back in 1970, where the lecturer described NATO as a "paper alliance". I now have no doubt he was right.

Even the British are wondering about the success of the mission with so little support.

However, they also mentioned the lack of progress from Afghan forces. In a lot of cases, it is the Afghan forces causing the problems.

[jdobbin]

It has not been a very good couple of days.

It is being reported that 6 NATO soldiers have been killed in fighting. One German civilian is dead, another is a hostage. Twenty-three Korean civilians are being held hostage.

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

A roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan killed four American soldiers Monday, while two NATO troops died elsewhere and a battle in the country's poppy-growing heartland killed more than 50 suspected militants, officials said.

Meanwhile, a purported Taliban spokesman said the hard-line militia has extended until Tuesday its deadline on the fate of 23 South Korean hostages who were seized last week.

The bombing targeted U.S. soldiers conducting a combat patrol in the eastern province of Paktika, Gov. Mohammad Ekram Akhpelwak said.

Norway said one if its soldiers was killed in central Logar province, and NATO said a sixth soldier was killed in the south, though the soldier's nationality was not made public.

[ScottSA]

It has not been a very good couple of days.

It is being reported that 6 NATO soldiers have been killed in fighting. One German civilian is dead, another is a hostage. Twenty-three Korean civilians are being held hostage.

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

A roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan killed four American soldiers Monday, while two NATO troops died elsewhere and a battle in the country's poppy-growing heartland killed more than 50 suspected militants, officials said.

Meanwhile, a purported Taliban spokesman said the hard-line militia has extended until Tuesday its deadline on the fate of 23 South Korean hostages who were seized last week.

The bombing targeted U.S. soldiers conducting a combat patrol in the eastern province of Paktika, Gov. Mohammad Ekram Akhpelwak said.

Norway said one if its soldiers was killed in central Logar province, and NATO said a sixth soldier was killed in the south, though the soldier's nationality was not made public.

6 soldiers? OMG...that's almost a tenth of the death toll of the quietest day on the western front! Oh Gosh. Guess we'd better run away fast. Thanks for the update! I had no idea it was so serious.

[capricorn]

If it has not been a very good couple of days, does this mean that the days preceding those days were good days?

[jdobbin]

6 soldiers? OMG...that's almost a tenth of the death toll of the quietest day on the western front! Oh Gosh. Guess we'd better run away fast. Thanks for the update! I had no idea it was so serious.

Oh my! Is that how you measure success? By how it compares to World War I? Should we do it by casualties or how many days fought? Ooowee. Thanks for you contribution!

[Moxie]

When the Hill gets back to business I think Canadians want to hear what the future holds regarding our Mission in Afghanistan. I want to know (yes I realise the mission is fluid) what are our goals and what have we done to date. I don't want the troops placed in further danger by party leaders squabbling in public visa vie the media but as a Canadian I have a right to know the basics of the Mission are and it's mandate.

[capricorn]

When the Hill gets back to business I think Canadians want to hear what the future holds regarding our Mission in Afghanistan. I want to know (yes I realise the mission is fluid) what are our goals and what have we done to date. I don't want the troops placed in further danger by party leaders squabbling in public visa vie the media but as a Canadian I have a right to know the basics of the Mission are and it's mandate.

Canadians have every right to know what is the mission, what are the objectives and what are the timelines. The Harper government has done a poor job of providing answers to these questions. Keeping in mind that this is a NATO initiative, backed by the UN, the answers to many of these questions are found right here:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagena...d=1134650705195

The document called "The Afghanistan Compact" opens in MSWord.

More detailed information on the Compact can be found in the following NATO site:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html

Canada's contribution is not easily measured independently from what all NATO partners have accomplished as a whole. This should not be an excuse. The more information provided to Canadians, the more easily we will gain an appreciation of the progress and roadblocks to progress in liberating Afghanis from the clutches of the Taliban and planting the seeds of democracy.

The only way we can get the answers we want is to press our MPs to ask the tough questions.

[jbg]

It has not been a very good couple of days.

It is being reported that 6 NATO soldiers have been killed in fighting. One German civilian is dead, another is a hostage. Twenty-three Korean civilians are being held hostage.

I have news for you. This is a war. If they fight over here, the casualties will be a lot more than six per day.

Ask any Israeli.

[M.Dancer]

6 soldiers? OMG...that's almost a tenth of the death toll of the quietest day on the western front! Oh Gosh. Guess we'd better run away fast. Thanks for the update! I had no idea it was so serious.

Oh my! Is that how you measure success? By how it compares to World War I? Should we do it by casualties or how many days fought? Ooowee. Thanks for you contribution!

Neither, but hand wringing and chest pounding over an insignificant amount of casualties (insignificant as in having no tactical impact) is simply childish even for a partisan hack like yourself.

[jdobbin]

I have news for you. This is a war. If they fight over here, the casualties will be a lot more than six per day.

Ask any Israeli.

We have seen how Israel screwed up strategically when they invaded Lebanon. It didn't get their soldiers back nor did it really contribute to their security.

And the other day, they released more Palestinian prisoners. Something they were loath to do a while but hope to get better results with.

Edited July 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Neither, but hand wringing and chest pounding over an insignificant amount of casualties (insignificant as in having no tactical impact) is simply childish even for a partisan hack like yourself.

It certainly seems to bring the child out in yourself. Want to take a few more shots while you're at it? Does it make you feel better?

If we go by tactical losses, Iraq is insignificant as well. You think people's reaction to that war is hand wringing and chest pounding?

[M.Dancer]

If we go by tactical losses, Iraq is insignificant as well. You think people's reaction to that war is hand wringing and chest pounding?

I wasn't aware of NATO being in Iraq. For that matter, it isn't in Sudan either.

Being a partican hack certainly brings the irrelevant out in you.....

[Charles Anthony]

Boys,

stop the nitter-nattering. Calling eachother "childish" and "partisan hack" is unnecessary. It does not matter who started it. This just escalates.

Stop it now.

[jdobbin]

I wasn't aware of NATO being in Iraq. For that matter, it isn't in Sudan either.

Being a partican hack certainly brings the irrelevant out in you.....

Personal attacks don't become you.

I didn't bring up NATO or Sudan so I have no idea what you are talking about.

My reference was to your comment on tactical losses being insignificant. We've heard this argument used in Iraq and after a while, it doesn't work anymore to convince people.

Success is ultimately measured in peace and security and the ability of Afghanistan to take care of itself. Attacks have increased in 2007 and Afghanistan has resumed its position as a narco-state. And now the war threatens to escalate into Pakistan.

[M.Dancer]

I wasn't aware of NATO being in Iraq. For that matter, it isn't in Sudan either.

Being a partican hack certainly brings the irrelevant out in you.....

Personal attacks don't become you.

I didn't bring up NATO or Sudan so I have no idea what you are talking about.

My reference was to your comment on tactical losses being insignificant. We've heard this argument used in Iraq and after a while, it doesn't work anymore to convince people.

Success is ultimately measured in peace and security and the ability of Afghanistan to take care of itself. Attacks have increased in 2007 and Afghanistan has resumed its position as a narco-state. And now the war threatens to escalate into Pakistan.

I'm aware you have no idea what the topic is. That's why you brought up Iraq. Which is a ploy of the partican hacks who desparetly want to link the american exeperiance in Iraq with Afghanistan. Whether the argument is understood or not is has no bearing on its veracity. Mind you, partisan hacks have little interest in veracity, only scoring points.

[jdobbin]

I'm aware you have no idea what the topic is. That's why you brought up Iraq. Which is a ploy of the partican hacks who desparetly want to link the american exeperiance in Iraq with Afghanistan. Whether the argument is understood or not is has no bearing on its veracity. Mind you, partisan hacks have little interest in veracity, only scoring points.

I'm sorry you feel you have to make your points by personally attacking.

Whether you like it or not, the U.S. among others, link Iraq and Afghanistan all the time in the war on terror.

While you think the losses are tactically insignificant, that only is only correct if victory is achieved. At the moment, it is hard to see that this will be the ultimate result and it is probably why Canadians are so dubious about the mission in the polls.

[M.Dancer]

I'm aware you have no idea what the topic is. That's why you brought up Iraq. Which is a ploy of the partican hacks who desparetly want to link the american exeperiance in Iraq with Afghanistan. Whether the argument is understood or not is has no bearing on its veracity. Mind you, partisan hacks have little interest in veracity, only scoring points.

I'm sorry you feel you have to make your points by personally attacking.

Whether you like it or not, the U.S. among others, link Iraq and Afghanistan all the time in the war on terror.

While you think the losses are tactically insignificant, that only is only correct if victory is achieved. At the moment, it is hard to see that this will be the ultimate result and it is probably why Canadians are so dubious about the mission in the polls.

Just over 600 allies have died in 6 full years of war in Afghanistan. This is a tactically insignificant number.

If Canadians are dubious it is becasue the politically motivated have spun the story to their advantage. Power hungry politicians like Taliban Jack have a speech ready for every time a Canadian die and non Leaders like Dion supported the mission when it was a liberal initiative. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most liberals who oppose the mission now supported it earlier, ain;t that a fact?

And these same non leaders have purposely mislead Canadians by suggesting that the war should be short when in fact it might take 10 or 20 years. Where we are now after 6 years is far better than we we were 7 years ago.....where we will be in 15 years depends on whether we can fight or are forced by the leftists to give afghanistan back to our enemies.

Much like during the second World War when the communists agitated for peace until Russia was attacked, then agitated for a second front, the left's world view is hampered by their political ideology. Luckily back then, the public was much harder to dupe than it is now.

[jdobbin]

Just over 600 allies have died in 6 full years of war in Afghanistan. This is a tactically insignificant number.

If Canadians are dubious it is becasue the politically motivated have spun the story to their advantage. Power hungry politicians like Taliban Jack have a speech ready for every time a Canadian die and non Leaders like Dion supported the mission when it was a liberal initiative. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most liberals who oppose the mission now supported it earlier, ain;t that a fact?

And these same non leaders have purposely mislead Canadians by suggesting that the war should be short when in fact it might take 10 or 20 years. Where we are now after 6 years is far better than we we were 7 years ago.....where we will be in 15 years depends on whether we can fight or are forced by the leftists to give afghanistan back to our enemies.

Much like during the second World War when the communists agitated for peace until Russia was attacked, then agitated for a second front, the left's world view is hampered by their political ideology. Luckily back then, the public was much harder to dupe than it is now.

I supported the mission when it was about going after al Qaeda and eliminating the threat. Like many Canadians, I was dubious about trying to re-build a nation. I didn't believe the U.S. was in it for the long run and their focus eventually turned to Iraq.

When the Liberals approved the extension to 2009, I was against it because I didn't think we would get proper back up from NATO. I think that concern has proven itself to those in Canada when so many nations just aren't there for us.

Afghanistan has proven itself to be untameable throughout its history.

The right wing is already angling for a fight into Pakistan. While Pakistan is indeed a threat to long term security of Afghanistan, I don't believe western Pakistan is any more tameable than Afghanistan.

No leader in Canada has been straight forward and said that the fight might last 20 years, Harper included. Canadians are drawing that conclusion all on their own and don't like the idea of the bulk of our forces being there for that long with attacks on the rise, little support from our allies, little indication that Afghanistan can take care of itself and the possibility that the war is about to head in Pakistan and maybe later, Iran.

Even Harper is seeing that no matter what he has done so far, it hasn't been enough for Canadians to think that Afghanistan is a mission Canada should commit to without any benchmarks or a deadline. As soon as some of the right thing realizes this, the better.

[M.Dancer]

Oh boy......

Afghanistan has proven itself to be untameable throughout its history.

Aside from the Greeks, Mongols and Arabs.......so basically this is a myth that likes to pop its head up every so often in hopes that someone will believe it. Sort of like telling William that no one has ever coquered Britain by sea before so don't try.........

The right wing is already angling for a fight into Pakistan. While Pakistan is indeed a threat to long term security of Afghanistan, I don't believe western Pakistan is any more tameable than Afghanistan.

Who care whether it is tamelable? The entire nation of pakistan isn't the problem. Believe it or not Pakistan has a very cosmospolitain intellgentsia and they probably wouldn't mind seeing the tribal areas brought into the late 19th century.....Pakistan as it is now doesn't exert full authority over the rtribal areas.....the solution would be to either empower Pakistan to regain control or to make supporting the Taliban unbearable for the tribals. Eitherway 90% of Pakistan will be unaffected.

No leader in Canada has been straight forward and said that the fight might last 20 years, Harper included

Gen. Hillier is on record that 10 years would be a minimum. Other leaders including those in GB, USA and Australia have said the war will be long rather than short.

[jdobbin]

Aside from the Greeks, Mongols and Arabs.......so basically this is a myth that likes to pop its head up every so often in hopes that someone will believe it. Sort of like telling William that no one has ever coquered Britain by sea before so don't try.........

Who care whether it is tamelable? The entire nation of pakistan isn't the problem. Believe it or not Pakistan has a very cosmospolitain intellgentsia and they probably wouldn't mind seeing the tribal areas brought into the late 19th century.....Pakistan as it is now doesn't exert full authority over the rtribal areas.....the solution would be to either empower Pakistan to regain control or to make supporting the Taliban unbearable for the tribals. Eitherway 90% of Pakistan will be unaffected.

Gen. Hillier is on record that 10 years would be a minimum. Other leaders including those in GB, USA and Australia have said the war will be long rather than short.

The tribal areas have never been brought to heel even when invading forces have been present. There is very little difference now in the tribal set-up than there was in earlier conflicts. There has always been warring going on and few instances of peace and security.

Pakistan only reacts to threats on its own authority when it comes to western Pakistan. They have given tacit support for the Taliban to continue attacks on Afghanistan from safe bases. They have provided training and money for attacks on the west. In short, they are doing everything Afghanistan was doing.

General Hillier is not the leader of Canada. Harper had said that Canada was going to be in it for the long haul but was ambiguous about the timeframe. He has since backed away from that statement because it began to sound to like Canada might be there forever. Other world leaders have mentioned how long they thought it would take but have also backed away from those statements.

Edited July 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

General Hillier is not the leader of Canada. Harper had said that Canada was going to be in it for the long haul but was ambiguous about the timeframe. He has since backed away from that statement because it began to sound to like Canada might be there forever. Other world leaders have mentioned how long they thought it would take but have also backed away from those statements.

That's because the surrender clique would demand that the war be won be such and such a date. Which like the position of the surrender parties is plainly stupid.

When Churchill was queried about a time table for the war, his response was....

"The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

[jdobbin]

That's because the surrender clique would demand that the war be won be such and such a date. Which like the position of the surrender parties is plainly stupid.

When Churchill was queried about a time table for the war, his response was....

"The Germans have received back again that measure of fire and steel which they have so often meted out to others. Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

People stuck with Churchill because he assured them of victory. He convinced people of his strategy and drew allies for his cause.

Harper hasn't be able to do any of these three things.

[jbg]

And the other day, they released more Palestinian prisoners. Something they were loath to do a while but hope to get better results with.

The Arab League visit to Israel, which implies recognition, probably played a role. And I wouldn't write off the Lebanon attack as having been a failure. The risk of igniting an Israeli attack still concentrates the mind wonderfully.