Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

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.

I wouldn't call the Lebanon attack a success either. It has had a huge fall-out for the Israeli government.

[Harry Nads]

Some of the comments in this thread are disturbing. I fully understand that most of you just want to see a peaceful resolution, one way or the other. However, many of you are refusing to look at the big picture. Like it or not (and I know that many of you communist NDP'ers don't like it) Canada lives and breathes by the capitalist system. Quite frankly, if we don't pounce on Afghanistan now we'll miss our chance.

The Americans made a grave error by allowing us to obtain more power and a stronger foothold in the hot regions. Now is our chance to rally our people around this mission and make something out of it. Not for Afghanistan, for Canada. You can quote me on this too as my supporters already know full well that I stand behind Canada in the prolonged occupation of Afghanistan.

I hope that you all vote and that you are open to emerging political parties. You can't rely on the Conservatives or Liberals to figure out how to deal with Afghanistan.

[jbg]

The Americans made a grave error by allowing us to obtain more power and a stronger foothold in the hot regions.

Why a "grave error"? Your country has always had one of the most disciplined and fiercest militaries around.

[Harry Nads]

Why a "grave error"? Your country has always had one of the most disciplined and fiercest militaries around.

jbg, in no way was I taking a swipe at our military. What I meant was that they made the mistake of letting another nation gain more power. Their loss is our gain so it's great for Canada but only if we play our cards right.

[ScottSA]

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.

That's because people like you start a thread every day, like clockwork, clamouring for immediate surrender.

[jbg]

Why a "grave error"? Your country has always had one of the most disciplined and fiercest militaries around.

jbg, in no way was I taking a swipe at our military. What I meant was that they made the mistake of letting another nation gain more power. Their loss is our gain so it's great for Canada but only if we play our cards right.

When the chips are down, functionally, the US, Brits, Aussies and Canadians, the great WW I and II allies, stand together or fall together. Even when Crouton (sp) was in power, I lost no sleep over the fact that a Canadian was manning NORAD on September 11, 2001.

[jdobbin]

That's because people like you start a thread every day, like clockwork, clamouring for immediate surrender.

Can't recall saying anything about surrendering. Thanks for stopping by though.

[ScottSA]

That's because people like you start a thread every day, like clockwork, clamouring for immediate surrender.

Can't recall saying anything about surrendering. Thanks for stopping by though.

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood the reasons for you posting unending doom and gloom scenarios about Afghanistan, calling Harper's plan foolish, and scraping up every bit of anti-Afghanistan propaganda you can find and dumping it here. There must be another reason you're doing it. Care to share that reason with us?

[jdobbin]

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood the reasons for you posting unending doom and gloom scenarios about Afghanistan, calling Harper's plan foolish, and scraping up every bit of anti-Afghanistan propaganda you can find and dumping it here. There must be another reason you're doing it. Care to share that reason with us?

I think to get the hysterically funny replies from you.

[jbg]

The constant bickering on this thread over supposed "personalities" is boring. Some people need to get outside.

[White Doors]

Why a "grave error"? Your country has always had one of the most disciplined and fiercest militaries around.

jbg, in no way was I taking a swipe at our military. What I meant was that they made the mistake of letting another nation gain more power. Their loss is our gain so it's great for Canada but only if we play our cards right.

power in Afghanistan? Who cares? We are not imperialists.

Besides, there is nothing there anyways.

[ScottSA]

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.........

Well said. In fact, even the British pounded and thrashed pacified the hill tribes as a matter of course all the way up to the early 20th century, and it was so heavily dictated to influenced by Britain that it only got its full independence in 1919. As was demonstrated yet again in 2001, Afghanistan is rather a cakewalk for set piece battles, and its southern regions are harder to pacify because there are lots of rocks to hide behind and the hill tribes haven't much changed since the 3rd century BC.

[jdobbin]

Well said. In fact, even the British pounded and thrashed pacified the hill tribes as a matter of course all the way up to the early 20th century, and it was so heavily dictated to influenced by Britain that it only got its full independence in 1919. As was demonstrated yet again in 2001, Afghanistan is rather a cakewalk for set piece battles, and its southern regions are harder to pacify because there are lots of rocks to hide behind and the hill tribes haven't much changed since the 3rd century BC.

The first Anglo-Afghan war ended in a massacre of British forces.

The second Anglo-Afghan War resulted in a defeat of Afghan forces but the British retained little influence over the tribal areas. In short, they feared another massacre. They put in a man whom they thought they could influence and who was acceptable and pulled out.

The British didn't have to stay in Afghanistan until 1919. They believed their presence was ultimately destabilizing and that they could do more by having the right person in place than having 50,000 troops there.

I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't know about this.

As you say, Afghanistan has been set in it ways long before and will remain set in their ways long after. One of those ways is fighting. Whenever they have the option of fighting someone from the outside than inside, they take that instead.

[ScottSA]

Well said. In fact, even the British pounded and thrashed pacified the hill tribes as a matter of course all the way up to the early 20th century, and it was so heavily dictated to influenced by Britain that it only got its full independence in 1919. As was demonstrated yet again in 2001, Afghanistan is rather a cakewalk for set piece battles, and its southern regions are harder to pacify because there are lots of rocks to hide behind and the hill tribes haven't much changed since the 3rd century BC.

The first Anglo-Afghan war ended in a massacre of British forces.

The second Anglo-Afghan War resulted in a defeat of Afghan forces but the British retained little influence over the tribal areas. In short, they feared another massacre. They put in a man whom they thought they could influence and who was acceptable and pulled out.

The British didn't have to stay in Afghanistan until 1919. They believed their presence was ultimately destabilizing and that they could do more by having the right person in place than having 50,000 troops there.

I shouldn't be telling you anything you don't know about this.

As you say, Afghanistan has been set in it ways long before and will remain set in their ways long after. One of those ways is fighting. Whenever they have the option of fighting someone from the outside than inside, they take that instead.

Well, the 1st anglo-afghan war ended in a massacre because it was a retreat of the diplomatic mission from Kabul through the Khyber Pass, not because it was any kind of "war" per se. That single event has built itself into a legend that overshadows the actuality that Afghanistan has been under the sway of whichever Great Power wanted to dictate to it at any given time.

The hill tribes are the totality of the legend. And frankly, they are more or less inconsequential except as a haven for bad guys.

[jdobbin]

Well, the 1st anglo-afghan war ended in a massacre because it was a retreat of the diplomatic mission from Kabul through the Khyber Pass, not because it was any kind of "war" per se. That single event has built itself into a legend that overshadows the actuality that Afghanistan has been under the sway of whichever Great Power wanted to dictate to it at any given time.

The hill tribes are the totality of the legend. And frankly, they are more or less inconsequential except as a haven for bad guys.

The British were harassed all the way out of Afghanistan the first time round even though they believed they were getting safe passage out. The delay of trying to fight and retreat left them short on resources and time.

The major point about all this is the British believed it was wiser to have a person they had influence on rather than a large force in place.

I had no problem supporting the initial intervention. It was justified. I became alarmed at how the U.S. started to lose focus when Iraq came into the picture. When Canada came to the scene, I was supportive as elections were being called and we were an important part of that process of security. I thought that with a new government in place, everyone was on a timetable to departure.

The move to the south concerned me when Martin committed the forces down there. However, we were led to believe that Afghan forces were to follow. We also knew there was a deadline in place.

We now hear the Afghans are two years or more behind schedule on that and with the extension the Conservatives put in place, we still have no idea how long it will be before someone replaces us. No one, not even Afghan forces seems willing to step in there.

None of what I mention is about surrender. It is about getting the Afghans to fight the battles they need to win security for their own nation. I don't buy this argument that we have to be there five or ten more years. The British didn't for good reason. It is too easy for the Afghans to rely on Canada and NATO for every aspect of their lives. They are going to have to step up and soon.

Likewise, NATO better come up with a strategy to get the Afghan forces in place in a much faster way because very little help is coming from the bulk of NATO membership.

Edited July 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[ScottSA]

The major point about all this is the British believed it was wiser to have a person they had influence on rather than a large force in place.

I had no problem supporting the initial intervention. It was justified. I became alarmed at how the U.S. started to lose focus when Iraq came into the picture. When Canada came to the scene, I was supportive as elections were being called and we were an important part of that process of security. I thought that with a new government in place, everyone was on a timetable to departure.

The move to the south concerned me when Martin committed the forces down there. However, we were led to believe that Afghan forces were to follow. We also knew there was a deadline in place.

We now hear the Afghans are two years or more behind schedule on that and with the extension the Conservatives put in place, we still have no idea how long it will be before someone replaces us. No one, not even Afghan forces seems willing to step in there.

None of what I mention is about surrender. It is about getting the Afghans to fight the battles they need to win security for their own nation. I don't buy this argument that we have to be there five or ten more years. The British didn't for good reason. It is too easy for the Afghans to rely on Canada and NATO for every aspect of their lives. They are going to have to step up and soon.

Likewise, NATO better come up with a strategy to get the Afghan forces in place in a much faster way because very little help is coming from the bulk of NATO membership.

You seem to be saying that all we need to do is "put a man in place" and leave. So the Afghans are behind schedule? So what? Is that reason to stay? And as for the move to the south, someone has to do it...why not canada? Why does it have to be the US? Wars are not won in weeks or days, and occupations can take decades. Bringing the fight to the enemy is the only way to shorten the time, and that's what Canadians are doing. But having people back home carping at every setback, whether real or imagined, is counterproductive. Either we fight this war or we don't. There isn't any "safe" or "short" way to do it.

[jdobbin]

You seem to be saying that all we need to do is "put a man in place" and leave. So the Afghans are behind schedule? So what? Is that reason to stay? And as for the move to the south, someone has to do it...why not canada? Why does it have to be the US? Wars are not won in weeks or days, and occupations can take decades. Bringing the fight to the enemy is the only way to shorten the time, and that's what Canadians are doing. But having people back home carping at every setback, whether real or imagined, is counterproductive. Either we fight this war or we don't. There isn't any "safe" or "short" way to do it.

Not just any man. Afghan forces.

And the fact that the Afghans are so far behind is an important one. We were told this was not going to be an occupation and if it is, the government should have the honesty to say so.

And the carping you complain about is better than ignoring the situation entirely. If the situation there is fraught with problems on a strategic level, better to shine a light on them. You say who cares about the lack of Afghan forces. Well, a lot of people care including our own military. We have to ask why they are two years behind schedule.

Canada should stick to its 2009 deadline. Time to light a fire under some feet to see where other people's commitment is in this war.

[ScottSA]

And the carping you complain about is better than ignoring the situation entirely. If the situation there is fraught with problems on a strategic level, better to shine a light on them. You say who cares about the lack of Afghan forces. Well, a lot of people care including our own military. We have to ask why they are two years behind schedule.

Canada should stick to its 2009 deadline. Time to light a fire under some feet to see where other people's commitment is in this war.

See, here you're making two opposing points. On one hand you say we ought to shine a light on the problems, presumably with an eye to fixing them, and on the other you're saying we should leave in 2009 regardless of the problems. It's quite obvious that you're focus is on discrediting the mission and leaving and not on fixing whatever problems exist. Running away only buys a bit of time Dobbin, and it does so at the cost of future generations who will have to deal with the global scourge of Islam.

[jdobbin]

See, here you're making two opposing points. On one hand you say we ought to shine a light on the problems, presumably with an eye to fixing them, and on the other you're saying we should leave in 2009 regardless of the problems. It's quite obvious that you're focus is on discrediting the mission and leaving and not on fixing whatever problems exist. Running away only buys a bit of time Dobbin, and it does so at the cost of future generations who will have to deal with the global scourge of Islam.

I don't see them as opposing views. Many people seem to want to ignore the problems because they say it discredits the mission. It doesn't. Focusing light on those problems doesn't mean that Canada has the ability to fix those problems. I think it is quite evident that Canada has to push the Afghans take up the security themselves. Likewise, until the end of 2009, we need to see more involvement from our NATO allies. It is their lack of support the is drawing increasing attention from Canadians.

We won't abandon Afghanistan if they are honestly trying to create peace and security. We just can't do the fighting for them indefinitely.

In the end, this is about your war on Muslims rather than what is the best strategic use of Canadian soldiers.

[jdobbin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...d=moreheadlines

As Afghan President Hamid Karzai prepares for a two-day meeting with President Bush at Camp David starting Sunday, his government is confronting contradictory pressures at home and abroad over how to secure the release of 21 surviving South Korean hostages, combat the aggressive Taliban insurgency and rein in Afghanistan's flourishing opium poppy trade.

Bush administration officials have described the meeting as a private "strategy session" between partners and a chance to reiterate unwavering U.S. support for Karzai's beleaguered government. But here, analysts and politicians say that in return for providing $10 billion in aid and more than 20,000 troops, U.S. officials may be pushing Karzai to take or accept harsh actions that many Afghans adamantly oppose.

Like Iraq, Afghanistan's government's failures has given the Taliban openings it might not otherwise have. It will be interesting what combination of pressure and support Bush will use on Karzai.

Karzai needs to show some progress or his government will collapse.

Edited August 4, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Like Iraq, Afghanistan's government's failures has given the Taliban openings it might not otherwise have. It will be interesting what combination of pressure and support Bush will use on Karzai.

Karzai needs to show some progress or his government will collapse.

Then it will "collapse". What kind of pressure and support will PM Harper provide, or is this just Bush's problem?

[jdobbin]

Then it will "collapse". What kind of pressure and support will PM Harper provide, or is this just Bush's problem?

The government has taken a hard line on the corruption that is causing a lack of faith in the government.

General Hillier spelled out what the attitude is on July 29.

Harper has said he won't stay without a consensus past 2009. There certainly won't be a consensus if the Karzai government is corrupt and/or incompetent.

Bush won't be president in 2009 so it won't be his problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

The government has taken a hard line on the corruption that is causing a lack of faith in the government.

General Hillier spelled out what the attitude is on July 29.

Harper has said he won't stay without a consensus past 2009. There certainly won't be a consensus if the Karzai government is corrupt and/or incompetent.

Bush won't be president in 2009 so it won't be his problem.

So are you saying it doesn't matter what Canada does either way? 2009 is 19 months away. Why do I get the feeling that all that is desired is a political reason to bail as soon as possible?

[jdobbin]

So are you saying it doesn't matter what Canada does either way? 2009 is 19 months away. Why do I get the feeling that all that is desired is a political reason to bail as soon as possible?

The decision to stay has to happen a lot sooner than that.

I think rebuilding Afghanistan ultimately has to be left to the Afghans to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

The decision to stay has to happen a lot sooner than that.

I think rebuilding Afghanistan ultimately has to be left to the Afghans to do.

Yes, of course, but what becomes of Canada' stated foreign policy objectives (i.e. Responsibility to Protect, justice, UN mission, yada yada, yada)?

Then there is the more direct issue of NATO membership and mission. Castigations of those members who will not directly engage the security threats will ring hollow after a 2009 retreat. I'm not convinced that Parliament will bail in 2009...some form of security mission will remain, not unlike the original ISAF objectives.

Hoping that the Americans abandon or pressure Afghanistan is just another way of relieving Canada from stated "values" and hard choices.