NDP- LAYTON "Invite Taliban to Peace Talks"

[Argus]

And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces?

We stayed in Cyrprus for 30 years. The way to make Afghanistan secure is to aid the new elected government in establishing itself, in building up its power and miltiary and strengthening its position as the leader of the mishmash of tribal groups and warlords in Afghanistan. How you do that is time, force, bribery, assasination, and lots of hard work and negotiation. And yes, it takes time in a place like that. As for the countryside, until recently there weren't enough troops to begin to try and persuade the locals to fight back against the Taliban. Realistically, there still aren't enough troops there.

I'm sure that ArmyGuy is sincere and really believes what he says, but his is only one soldier's opinion. I've talked to a friend's brother who served over there and he is pessimistic about what will happen. He said that out in the villages, the locals support the Taliban wholeheartedly and they kept their eyes on any local that came close.

I've heard nothing of that from any other source. Mostly, the locals wish both sides would go away. Some local chiefs and warlords probably side with the Taliban for a variety of strategic reasons, but the Taliban did not make themselves loved. And if they had such local support they wouldn't need to recruit so many of their fighters from the Pakistani border tribes.

He also mentioned that there were many soldiers who didn't like the direction of the Canadian military but they would never come out in public and say what was on their mind, because if they did, they would be marginalized and isolated.

Kinda sounds like they're a marginal few, don't it?

The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism.

The NDP believes in the mythos of peacekeeping, in the legend of the noble Canadian soldiers standing between the two combatants, ever smililng, reassuring them with our neutrality and wisdom and persuading them with our irrefutable common sense and gosh darn good old Canadian values. I don't know that there was ever much to that, but what there was died in Yugoslavia.

The truth is that peacekeeping as we knew it is gone. It was based upon standing between two national armies and gaining full agreement from both governments before going in. When was the last time that happened? Now the UN inserts itself into fights which mostly involve non-governmental forces, guerrilas and terrorists. Most don't have the discipline or the integrity to honour peace agreements, and have little or no respect for the blue helmets because all they care about is force and they know the blue helmets have none. Those Hutu rebels who slaughtered the Belgian peacekeepers did so just because they wanted to. I mean, they weren't even in their way. They just wanted to kill them, and they did not fear the UN one whit.

That kind of peacekeeping would be utterly impotent in Afghanistan. The Taliban would walk all over them, kill them, and simply go about their business.

So you either say "go ahead, kill and maim and slaughter as you want. We'll file stern protests somewhere" - or you stop them. Stopping them involves fighting them. It's really that basic.

[Argus]

People who lean towards diplomacy and tolerance don't join the Taliban. How hard is it for you to wrap your mind around that? It's like appealing to the moderates in the Heritage Front. How many people who are "moderate" do you think join the Heritage Front?

So going by what you are saying, every member of the Taliban are cold blooded killers?

By definition - yes. They are self-selected for it.

How about the Nazis?

Was every nazi of 40s Germany a cold blooded killer?

The Nazis were a national political party with many goals and ideas. A lot of people joined the Nazis for a wide variety of reasons, not excluding personal ambition and pride in their nation. But the only people recruited to join the Taliban are those willing to slay all the "infidels", and all members of the government, and anyone who works with them.

Here is a interesting artcile that will explain why there is hope for the Taliban, and why they are not like Al Queda and why there is hope to bring some of them over.

Why The Taliban Aren't Terrorists

You apparently didn't read your own cite. What the article said was there were many Pashtun tribe members (meaning elders) who support the Taliban, who they(we) are hoping can be persuaded to drop their support.

It did not say anything about persuading the Taliban themselves.

[Argus]

First, because there were insufficient troops to take advantage of the route of the Taliban. Second, now that they have been reinforced, they are moving out into areas the Taliban have resettled to, to areas they have not been challenged in for some years. It is not a matter of things getting that much worse, but of the NATO forces now moving into Taliban strongholds which were largely untouched.

By your logic, the American-led mission should have brought in enough solders to reinforce 5 years ago? If they had, perhaps we could have seen a lot less suffering in the last 5 years. And the question remains, how come they didn't bring in the required manpower 5 years ago?

Because Rumsfeld is an idiot and his president knows very little about anything.

That is what the military is for. Or would you rather wait and fight over here?

The military could be used to protect our sovereignty such as troops in the far north or to prevent genocide from happening such as what happened in Rwanda.

Yes, a very cute, old fashioned notion. The military is there to protect Canada wherever it seems best to establish that protection. In a world crawling with organized terrorist groups with unlimited numbers, setting the defence line at your borders inevitably invites breeches. That is why seventeen nations are in Afghanistan, to prevent it from becoming a home and training centre for international terrorists again. Realistically, we can't hope to stop terrorism, but if they have to scurry around underground instead of openly parading at large military training bases, well, it sets them back and makes things much more difficult. Osama used to live like a Pasha, with a large, comfortable base surrounded by many thousands of his followers. Now he lives in caves in the mountains somewhere with a few dozen bodyguards, constantly moving from place to place to stay ahead of the assasins. That doesn't absolutely prevent him from organizing new attacks on the west, but it makes things more difficult.

Maybe you are right or maybe you are not. You would be definately right if things were going great for the coalition forces, but they are not. Their current techniques are not working

It does not sound like you actually know much about what is going on there. So I'll take your opinion with a few grains of salt. It takes more than a few years to rebuild a nation, especially when most of the world's attention and resources is focussed elsewhere.

My goodness, resorting to insults now, I must have hit a nerve.

What insult?

And you must forgive me, I didn't realize that you were the world's foremost expert in the Afghanistan Conflict. Guess whatever the rest of us say must be wrong if it doesn't fit your views

I don't speak Klingon, but I recognize it when I hear it - or at least, I'd know that Spanish wasn't it.

In other words, while I'm not an expert Afghanistan, I can assess and evaluate the illogic in someone else's statement with a fair degree of ease.

[tml12]

Dear Rovik,

"And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces?"

We keep Afghanistan secure by working with our friends and allies and by winning the peace of the Afghan people. Is Afghanistan more secure? I don't know. Will it be less secure if we cut and run? Most definitely.

"I'm sure that ArmyGuy is sincere and really believes what he says, but his is only one soldier's opinion. I've talked to a friend's brother who served over there and he is pessimistic about what will happen. He said that out in the villages, the locals support the Taliban wholeheartedly and they kept their eyes on any local that came close. He also mentioned that there were many soldiers who didn't like the direction of the Canadian military but they would never come out in public and say what was on their mind, because if they did, they would be marginalized and isolated. And no matter what role the military has, people will always respect the soldiers as it should be."

That is based on a lot of speculative information and "he said, she said" stuff. What is the direction of the Canadian military? Our soldiers are working with allies to make Afghanistan a better place and of course in war you are wary of somebody who might be the enemy.

"The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism."

I'll accept that as a fair statement.

"One can't compare Afghanistan to WW2. In WW2, the enemy had one of the great military powers of its time and wanted to control the world. They even had subs off Canada's Atlantic coast. In Afghanistan, we have a small ragtag group whose technology doesn't even come close to the coalition. To even consider comparing the two is really pushing it."

I don't believe I compared the two wars. I compared Canada's role in each war and that was/is to defend the freedom we enjoy as Canadians. I love the myth "America Fights Wars, Canada Makes Peace." It is the biggest lie if there ever was one and it degrades Canada's veterans and our current military. They worked hard and shot and killed the enemy in cold blood because they were at war. We didn't work for peace until the enemy was defeated. We did it in World War II and we will do it in Afghanistan as well. Pulling out would embarass us in front of our allies and give the Taliban and its terrorist allies exactly what they want.

[Wilber]

The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism.

To keep a peace you need two parties who want peace, then you step in and do what they have already decided. Of course someone else had to do the real work before you got there.

[jbg]

Imagine that Jack Layton hosts a big pow-wow at the YMCA or wherever it is the NDP has its get-togethers. Among the invitees are David Orchard, Joe Clark, and Carole Jamieson. And after several days of discussions, sing-alongs, and hugs, they emerge from the YMCA with many new policy announcements. Flanked by his three new friends, Jack Layton announces that Canada will be cancelling NAFTA, pulling out of Afghanistan, and keeping Kyoto.

If they hold that pow-wow in some remote desert part of Afghanistan, and accompany it with an ecumenical worship service covering the various denominations of the attendees, that might not be a bad idea.

However, let them keep their heads about them.

[jbg]

And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces?

You're asking the wrong question. The question is, would we rather fight them there or in the streets of Toronto, Calgary and Montreal. Just ask any Israeli.

[jdobbin]

You're asking the wrong question. The question is, would we rather fight them there or in the streets of Toronto, Calgary and Montreal. Just ask any Israeli.

I keep hearing this but for some reason the ones who ask people to do the fighting believe someone else should do the job.

I'm not referring to you but to Bush and Cheney who somehow didn't make it overseas in Vietnam.

There were people back then who said that a domino theory was taking place and if you didn't wanted the Commies in your own backyard, you had to fight them in Vietnam.

[jdobbin]

deleted

[Wilber]

You're asking the wrong question. The question is, would we rather fight them there or in the streets of Toronto, Calgary and Montreal. Just ask any Israeli.

I keep hearing this but for some reason the ones who ask people to do the fighting believe someone else should do the job.

I'm not referring to you but to Bush and Cheney who somehow didn't make it overseas in Vietnam.

There were people back then who said that a domino theory was taking place and if you didn't wanted the Commies in your own backyard, you had to fight them in Vietnam.

Why then don't you listen to the people who are doing the fighting instead of constantly pushing your own dogma?

I don't believe anyone in Vietnam actually attacked anyone outside of Vietnam. Why do you and others keep using the US as a reference point? Don't you think Canada is capable of doing anything other than what the US doesn't do? One reason we are in Afghanistan is because of a NATO commitment we made nearly 40 years ago. I like the idea of living in a country that lives up to its commitments. It's Canada's commitment not the US's and I for one think we should be gown up enough to do something on our own without always referring to the US. Just because they are involved doesn't automatically make it the wrong thing to do.

[scribblet]

I'm here in Afgan right now, taking a few minutes i have to myself to write this as i believe the message is important to me and the many other that are serving here and in Canada.

Mr. Layton is calling for our return and using the deaths of my comrads to drive this message home to you guys on the home front.

It is

The theme is the same "are we making a differance" YES, would you go back "YES"

Canadians need to hear this message. We are the ones that see everyday the improvements here in AFGAN, we are the ones that are spilling our sweat, blood,and tears here.

The least Canadians can do is listen, we're not asking you to don a uniform and walk in our boots just listen to what we have to say. We need your support, not 40 % not 60 % but we need everyones support.

I know most Candians do support our soldiers "with exception of those few that gave out those one finger salutes in Edmonton" But we need Canadians to support the mission, we need to read in the news that Canadians are 100% behind us, with your support we can accomplish anything "including bring peace to a region that has not seen peace for a long time. It's in our history to accomplish the unthinkable, the impossiable, Vimy Ridge comes to mind,along with a long list of others proving we Canadian soldiers, can accomplish anything with your support.

Thanks for posting this and stay safe.

[M.Dancer]

I have no doubt that they would argue against war even if it meant their own deaths.

I don't think they are that principled

[Hicksey]

I have no doubt that they would argue against war even if it meant their own deaths.

I don't think they are that principled

What I meant is that they are so fixated on being anti-war that it would blind them and make it impossible to realize whether or not they are in danger.

They cannot see the forest through the trees.

[non legitimus carborundum]

Why would we care what Layton and the NDP think?

The NDP (thank goodness) will never form a government and probably never even get a meaningful

'loyal opposition' status.

Layton is a jackass and in any sane society would be gainfully employed polishing fire hydrants.

[jbg]

Layton is a jackass and in any sane society would be gainfully employed polishing fire hydrants.

No, performing is bodily elimination of liquids on them.

[M.Dancer]

Why would we care what Layton and the NDP think?

The NDP (thank goodness) will never form a government and probably never even get a meaningful

'loyal opposition' status.

Layton is a jackass and in any sane society would be gainfully employed polishing fire hydrants.

Unforunately you are only half right. As we've seen in the past, Layton and his NDP can play the deal maker and tip the balance. As you no doubt know, the BQ have not supported the afghan mission, couple the BQ with the NDP and a handful of leaderless liberals and what you get is Layton calling for a debate on the best way for Canada to capitulate.

[M.Dancer]

If someone werre to ask me if the afghan mission should be debated I would loudly say yes. But not a debate like Jack wants, how to surrender in Pashtan, but how the mission will best help the Afghan people.

1. Do we need more troops?
   
2. One more or two more battalions?]
   
3. Do we need to ship a leopard company?
   
4. Can we provide our own air support?
   
5. Should there be a combat engineer company?
   
6. and so on.....
   

[Army Guy]

I sadly find myself back at the main camp again, to honor and send off my friends,comrads, brothers in arms, a sad day full of tears, (ya even Army guys cry) a few smuggled illigal beers, even some laughs as we all sit around thinking of happier times with our fallen comrads.

I've spent some time reading old news papers and getting caught up on news from home on the web. And with all that has happened in the last couple days was floor by some of the crap that has made headlines in our country. a PERFECT example below, How could these guys come up with this garbage, why would they attempt to kick dirt on the reputation that "we" have paid for in blood,sweat, and today tears.

I really hope Canadians are taken note. I really hope that those that believe that crap would take a few minutes to educate themselfs on the situation here, and to make an intelligent decission for themselfs.

I would love to take the whole NDP party out on patrol, and show them the real terrorists ,and thier handy work.

My Webpage

I'd like to thanks those for thier kind words, and it does matter, and it does mean something to hear them.

The computer i'm using is not the fastests so i'll pack it all in one post.

Rovik:

It saddens me that when someone doesn't support the "mission," they are often portrayed as not supporting the soldiers and unpatriotic. This is something that the Republicans in the US have been good at during the Iraqi war and now many Conservatives and some Liberals are doing now. It's a sad ploy to try to embarrass people to accept the situation in Afghanistan.

I hope you did not get the wrong message from my last post, It was not my intention to embrass anyone into supporting the mission, nor did i intend to say that you do not support Canada's soldiers. my message was that without the support of the Canadian people, all that we do here is for not. And for the the vioce of our soldiers not to go unheard.

I might be more for it if it was making a difference, but it doesn't seem to be (especially outside the larger centres.) It's funny,I remember on CNN a few years ago, they interviewed a soldier who said they were making a difference but fast- forward to now and we see a civil war in Iraq, thousands continue to die, people's living standards have dropped, not increased and the terrorists have a bigger sway in Iraq then they did before the war.

This is not Iraq, please do not mix the two, I'm not the only soldier to come out and say we are making a difference. but we have just arrived in the southern portion of Afgan, you need to have patients (spelling)

peace is not a fast food business. give us the time to prove to all that it can be done.

Personally, there is a couple of things that bother me about this. First, the fact that Canadian's role has changed from a peacekeeping role to a more aggressive killing role which put them in harm's way and risk heavier casualities then in times past. Second is how the Conservative government pushed the extension of the mssion without much of a debate. They knew it would be harder to past once the original mandate had finished, because by then, people would see the heavy casualties and there would be more opposition to it. In my opinion, what the Conservatives did was tricky and underhanded and done to appease the Americans.

Not true, we've always had an aggresive role in Afgan, even up north. Fighting is heavier down south because we've moved into thier turf. We are not here to appease the americans but to assist the afgans, anything more than that is just bashing. There is no safe peacekeeping mission, the whole objective is to help those in need, and thats what we are doing here in Afgan.

I'm sure that ArmyGuy is sincere and really believes what he says, but his is only one soldier's opinion. I've talked to a friend's brother who served over there and he is pessimistic about what will happen. He said that out in the villages, the locals support the Taliban wholeheartedly and they kept their eyes on any local that came close. He also mentioned that there were many soldiers who didn't like the direction of the Canadian military but they would never come out in public and say what was on their mind, because if they did, they would be marginalized and isolated. And no matter what role the military has, people will always respect the soldiers as it should be.

I can give you examples of other soldiers opinons as the one below.

My Webpage

My Webpage

The locals support whom ever is going to support them, thats why its so important for us to destroy the Taliban and start rebuilding this country. As for keeping an eye open ,yes a combat zone will do that, we've all heard of murphys law...As for the direction of the military, yes there is big changes, but years of neglect from our government is to blame for that, changes are needed to just stay afloat, and carry the Canadian flag on all these missions.

The NDP believes in peacekeeping, which in my mind is a form of militarism.

the NDP does not know the first thing about peacekeeping, to them it's about a plane load of soldiers and a box of teddybears. Peacekeeping is about keeping the peace in a war zone, keeping two fully armed combatants apart with little more than a rifle and bino's. well over 110 Canadians soldiers have died peacekeeping. but that is another story.

Anyways got to go, my rides is getting ready to head back.

PS tell the NDP party we are holding talks with the taliban all week panjwai district there welcome to stop by have a tea, shoot the poop with the bad guys or maybe explain to all us how we've become a bunch of terrorists..

[southerncomfort]

This is not Iraq, please do not mix the two, I'm not the only soldier to come out and say we are making a difference. but we have just arrived in the southern portion of Afgan, you need to have patients (spelling) peace is not a fast food business. give us the time to prove to all that it can be done.

Thanks for the posts armyguy, and maybe you should offer jacko some scones with that tea.

[jdobbin]

Why then don't you listen to the people who are doing the fighting instead of constantly pushing your own dogma?

I don't believe anyone in Vietnam actually attacked anyone outside of Vietnam. Why do you and others keep using the US as a reference point? Don't you think Canada is capable of doing anything other than what the US doesn't do? One reason we are in Afghanistan is because of a NATO commitment we made nearly 40 years ago. I like the idea of living in a country that lives up to its commitments. It's Canada's commitment not the US's and I for one think we should be gown up enough to do something on our own without always referring to the US. Just because they are involved doesn't automatically make it the wrong thing to do.

Okay, I'll use Canada. We left Somalia because it just wasn't going to stop fighting with itself.

And the Liberals made a committment to the NATO force and it had a deadline. It was a deadline that the forces had asked for and that the Defence minister agreed to. We lived up to our committments.

I have no idea how long Canada will end up staying in Afghanistan and although our people on the ground are doing good work, they are undermined by the Karzai government's turn to extremism, Pakistan's complicity in training and shielding the attackers and the warlords growing poppies to fuel the war forever.

[Rovik]

We stayed in Cyrprus for 30 years. The way to make Afghanistan secure is to aid the new elected government in establishing itself, in building up its power and miltiary and strengthening its position as the leader of the mishmash of tribal groups and warlords in Afghanistan. How you do that is time, force, bribery, assasination, and lots of hard work and negotiation. And yes, it takes time in a place like that. As for the countryside, until recently there weren't enough troops to begin to try and persuade the locals to fight back against the Taliban. Realistically, there still aren't enough troops there.

Yes, but it was a very different type of mission; a much more "peacekeeping" one. Canada lost 28 soldiers in almost 30 years, while we have already lost more than that in about 4 years in Afghanistan. And in Afghanistan, we are actively going after the Taliban, while in Cyprus we only used force when attacked.

I've heard nothing of that from any other source. Mostly, the locals wish both sides would go away. Some local chiefs and warlords probably side with the Taliban for a variety of strategic reasons, but the Taliban did not make themselves loved. And if they had such local support they wouldn't need to recruit so many of their fighters from the Pakistani border tribes.

Yes, many Afghans are not fond of either side but on the other hand, after 5 years of Coalition forces, the Taliban can still count many Afghans (especially in the south) for support. And your mention of Pakistan brings up another issue. How do the coalition forces stop the infllux of Pakistani Taliban without actually going into Pakistan? And we know that the coalition forces won't go into Pakistan because Pakistan is an American ally.

Kinda sounds like they're a marginal few, don't it?

I believe you would be surprised, because I think it's more than a marginal few.

The NDP believes in the mythos of peacekeeping, in the legend of the noble Canadian soldiers standing between the two combatants, ever smililng, reassuring them with our neutrality and wisdom and persuading them with our irrefutable common sense and gosh darn good old Canadian values. I don't know that there was ever much to that, but what there was died in Yugoslavia.

The truth is that peacekeeping as we knew it is gone. It was based upon standing between two national armies and gaining full agreement from both governments before going in. When was the last time that happened? Now the UN inserts itself into fights which mostly involve non-governmental forces, guerrilas and terrorists. Most don't have the discipline or the integrity to honour peace agreements, and have little or no respect for the blue helmets because all they care about is force and they know the blue helmets have none. Those Hutu rebels who slaughtered the Belgian peacekeepers did so just because they wanted to. I mean, they weren't even in their way. They just wanted to kill them, and they did not fear the UN one whit.

That kind of peacekeeping would be utterly impotent in Afghanistan. The Taliban would walk all over them, kill them, and simply go about their business.

So you either say "go ahead, kill and maim and slaughter as you want. We'll file stern protests somewhere" - or you stop them. Stopping them involves fighting them. It's really that basic.

Well if the scenarios for peacekeeping has changed than procedures shoulld be adapted to reflect the changes and this would be dependant on the situation on the ground. And I do believe that the UN peacekeepers should have an aggressive role only to protect themselves or to prevent genocide from occurring such as what happened in Rwanda. One of the main problems in Rwanda was that fact that requests to send more peacekeepers to Rwanda was denied by the UN security council, namely by the US and France. The Americans and the rest of the permanent members of the security council have to much power with their ability to veto and this needs to be changed to make it a much more fair playing field.

[Rovik]

By definition - yes. They are self-selected for it.

I'm sure there are many Taliban who are cold blooded killers but not all, for many of the reasons you mention about whay people joined the Nazis. Another example, is the IRA. Many people would have said that the IRA are a bunch of cold blooded killers who would never put their arms down but they did and there was a negotiated end

You apparently didn't read your own cite. What the article said was there were many Pashtun tribe members (meaning elders) who support the Taliban, who they(we) are hoping can be persuaded to drop their support.

It did not say anything about persuading the Taliban themselves.

The coalition could use the Pashtun as middle men to negotiate with the moderates in the Taliban, so in a way the coalition would be trying to persuade the moderate Taliban to drop thgeir support..indirectly.

[Rovik]

Yes, a very cute, old fashioned notion. The military is there to protect Canada wherever it seems best to establish that protection. In a world crawling with organized terrorist groups with unlimited numbers, setting the defence line at your borders inevitably invites breeches. That is why seventeen nations are in Afghanistan, to prevent it from becoming a home and training centre for international terrorists again. Realistically, we can't hope to stop terrorism, but if they have to scurry around underground instead of openly parading at large military training bases, well, it sets them back and makes things much more difficult. Osama used to live like a Pasha, with a large, comfortable base surrounded by many thousands of his followers. Now he lives in caves in the mountains somewhere with a few dozen bodyguards, constantly moving from place to place to stay ahead of the assasins. That doesn't absolutely prevent him from organizing new attacks on the west, but it makes things more difficult.

Yes. there are 17 nations but several have indicated that they only want to situated in safer parts of Afghanistan and in fortified bases such as the Germans. Seems like they don't want to send their troops in harm's way. And people must remember that while the Taliban are baddies, they are not baddies that have ever attacked or had notions to attack the West (at least before the war.) However, they were guilty of harbouring Al Queda, a terrorist organization and were rightly punished because of this. But if one's intention now was to destroy terrorist's training bases, then Afghanistan is not currently the place. In fact, it would be best to go after Pakistan if that was your intention.

I don't speak Klingon, but I recognize it when I hear it - or at least, I'd know that Spanish wasn't it.

In other words, while I'm not an expert Afghanistan, I can assess and evaluate the illogic in someone else's statement with a fair degree of ease.

Quite the coincedence...I feel the same way.

[Rovik]

I don't believe I compared the two wars. I compared Canada's role in each war and that was/is to defend the freedom we enjoy as Canadians. I love the myth "America Fights Wars, Canada Makes Peace." It is the biggest lie if there ever was one and it degrades Canada's veterans and our current military. They worked hard and shot and killed the enemy in cold blood because they were at war. We didn't work for peace until the enemy was defeated. We did it in World War II and we will do it in Afghanistan as well. Pulling out would embarass us in front of our allies and give the Taliban and its terrorist allies exactly what they want.

I hope you are right about "working for peace until the enemy was defeated," because it doesn't seem to be happening in Iraq and the danger in Afghanistan is that it could eventually mirror Iraq (I Hope it doesn't though.) Canada has been in Afghanistan for awhile now, and as far as I'm concerned that have done their duty. If another NATO country (that's not in Afghanistan) wants to come in and take over Canada's role than that's their business, but seeing that NATO is having problems getting members to provide troops, I would be surprised if another country would want to take Canada's role.

And regards to "pulling out." Didn't people say that the Communists would sweep the world once the US pulled out of Vietnam. Guess what? Communism didn't and in fact, is not as strong today as it was back then. And the real embarrasing thing for the US in that war was that they stayed in the war longer than they should have. It would have prevented needless deaths on both sides if they pulled out sooner. And i don't think the Canadians leaving in Feb 2007 would be pulling out because they would be completing the original mandate. I believe the Conservatives pulled a fast one by rushing that two year extension through the house

[Rovik]

And how do we keep Afghanistan secure? By keeping coalition forces in there perpetually? And is Afghanistan really much more secure (outside the larger centres) after almost 5 years of coalition forces?

You're asking the wrong question. The question is, would we rather fight them there or in the streets of Toronto, Calgary and Montreal. Just ask any Israeli.

I would categorize that as alarmism. The Taliban, though against Western values, have never planned to attack the West. They only wanted power in Afghanistan. You are using the same logic as Bush when he says that if they leave Iraq, the terrorists would come to the US next. The funny thing is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and in fact considered them hostile.