Canadian troops making things worse: Afghan legislator

[daddyhominum]

We've been down that US policy road before. What policy don't these people like. The one where the US says you have anything to do with murdering americans and you'll get your ass kicked.

Extracted from Jack Layton's speech to the NDP Convention which you can read at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/4283

<begin quote>

Friends, Canadians believe in peace.

That doesn’t mean we think Canada is an island.

There is a time and a place for answering the call.

Canadians are prepared to fight wars that are right for our country. We’ve done so proudly. That’s why we’re so proud of our veterans.

But on this mission, Stephen Harper is out of touch with ordinary Canadians.

Canadians are not warmongers.

Canada does not commit its soldiers to war just because that will get our prime minister in good with an administration of a certain sort in Washington.

Canada doesn’t commit soldiers to war without clear goals.

Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without a plan.

Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without a fraction of the numbers or resources needed to make a difference.

Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without knowing what victory is.

And Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without the certainty that their efforts are part of a carefully constructed and balanced mission that holds real prospects of making the world a safer place.

Canada doesn’t do those things.<end quote>

There are very serious errors in the speech, imo. The first error is his implication that Canada is 'warmongering' by supporting the NATO mission and the elected government of Afghanistan. In fact, cooperation with other nations was a stated policy of the previous government and continues as a policy today. Canadian foreign policy requires multilateralism for military engagement, at present.

A second error is his claim that the mission lacks goals. As he cannot be that poorly informed, one must assume he is deliberately misleading the delegates. In the multilateral effort borne by Nato under the UN guidance and with support of the elected Afghan government goals are very clearly established, including specific goals for Canada's forces within the multilateral action.

A third error is his claim that there is no plan for the Afghan theatre. That is so egregious that it defies description.

A fourth false claim is with regard to troop levels and equipment and supply. I have no doubt that Canadian soldiers are among the best equipped in the NATO effort and that still leaves room for improvement. But his comment on troop numbers is ridiculous. Canada sends troops into dangerous duty as peacekeepers and instructors in very small groups compared to the numbers sent to Afghanistan. He must be unaware of the role special forces from Canada played in the defeat of the Taliban.

Fifthly, he suggest that Canada doesn't know what victory is. He could ask Army Guy who stated what victory was pretty clearly in this thread.

Finally, his grandiose claim that Canada only engages to make the world a safer place is insulting to us all. Canada has militarily supported all kinds of efforts to make a few people safer and Canadians are honoured world wide for that.

Jack Layton is just not ready for the big tent.

He obviously lacks any appreciation or understanding of the Canadian soldier, military and its importance in furthering the national goals of Canada and the Canadian desire to help others achieve what this country has achieved .

[watching&waiting]

I sat through a painful NDP position by Jack Layton on todays question period. I can only say that this guy and his party are just not out of step with reality but also not being able to see what the all this was really about. The plea from the Afghanistan MP was because her constituents were so very desperately poor and she thought that Canadian aid would be better spent there, then in the fighting. This was ma plea for money and support. Not so much a plead for removing the troops.

Layton just does not get it, that talking with the Taliban does not work, and if you want them gone then it will take brute force to do the job. If this MP had more aid given to her area, she would never have come forward to the NDP. Other then touching moments and picture ops, there really is not much to say.

It is going to be real interesting to see what will happen when the new cession starts, as you will have the Bloc in favour to support the Softwood Lumber, but it will have to be the Liberals to support the mission in Afghanistan, as so far only a couple NDP members will vote to continue in Afghanistan, and I do not think that the Bloc will be all that interested in continuing that mission. I can tell you this though, I will not even allow any NDP supporters on my property during the next election, and will make sure the dogs keep them at bay. This whole thing about which 90% of their party just voted for, is 100% against what I stand for and want my Canada to stand for. Even though I do not think that there would ever be a chance of the NDP ever being a government, it just burns my buns to see the degree of negative support for our country, when we are trying to do the right thing and take on the good fight. We are there because that was and still is where the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin and Al Queda are. It was right for us to enter into that fight and it still is right and the just thing to do. We did not go into Iraq and I believe we were right not to do so. But Afghanistan is a whole other story. We should bring our troops home when the job is done, but yes we will need more help from other NATO allies as well. This is a NATO mission and removing ourselves at this time would hugely effect our position within NATO. If we are just going to cut and run, then we might as well just stay here at home and never extend our help to anyone unless they can garantee us no danger. I personally take the NDP's point of view as a disgrace of our once proud armed forces, who have been trained to fight back those that would threaten the weak and helpless here at home and abroad.

[gerryhatrick]

Sounds like something is fishy here. The only policy Canada is following is to get rid of the Taliban terrorists. All I hear from this shill is American bashing, nothing about getting rid of the Taliban. Looks like we've let another terrorist sympathizer into the country whos first stop was to see old Jack Taliban and his gang of sympathizers.

The legislator said

"They continued the policy of the U.S. and our people don't agree with U.S. policy, and this is why there is no positive results right now."

THAT is "America bashing" in your view? Saying that a US policy isn't working equals "America bashing"?

You need to work on your objectivity a bit I'd say.

It would help if she explained what aspects of this "policy" she doesn't like.

Maybe she did. The entire transcript of what she had to say is not available in the Western media link provided, I would guess.

So, perhaps you shouldn't assume that wasn't explained.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Maybe she did. The entire transcript of what she had to say is not available in the Western media link provided, I would guess.

So, perhaps you shouldn't assume that wasn't explained.

Again pedantic and annoying in the response.

The link didn't provide the support it was purported to. In response the poster says, maybe you should look it up.

With such intellectually obtuse opposition it is pretty obvious why the Conservatives will form government again after the next election.

[daddyhominum]

Maybe she did. The entire transcript of what she had to say is not available in the Western media link provided, I would guess.

So, perhaps you shouldn't assume that wasn't explained.

Apparently she did call for the withdrawal of foreign troops as reported on the NDP website.

Copied from:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4194

<begin quote >

Afghan politician says NATO mission has not brought more peace to the region

Fri 8 Sep 2006

QUEBEC CITY - Malalai Joya, the youngest member of the Afghan National Assembly, today appeared at the NDP Federal Convention in Quebec City supporting Jack Layton and the NDP's criticism of the NATO-led mission in southern Afghanistan.

Joya, who was elected in 2005 in Farah province, has worked to protect women's rights and is the head of the Organization of Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities. She brought a clear message: foreign troops in Afghanistan have not achieved any fundamental changes.

"When the entire nation is living under the shadow of the gun and warlordism, how can its women enjoy very basic freedoms?" asked Joya. "Contrary to the propaganda in certain Western media, Afghan women and men are not 'liberated' at all."

Joya expressed her sorrow for the deaths of Canadian soldiers, and voiced her support for Jack Layton and the NDP as they call for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.

"I think that if Canada really wants to help Afghan people and bring positive changes, they must act independently, rather than becoming a tool for implementing the policies of the US government."

Joya noted that her country needs help to rid itself of corruption and to rebuild after years of violence, but she said that foreign soldiers under this mission are not the ones who will bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. Joya summed up her views in a single sentence:

"No nation can donate liberation to another nation."

<end quote>

She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea.

[jbg]

*snip*

She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea.

I'm confused. So, you support the efforts to liberate Afghanistan from the fascists?

[daddyhominum]

*snip*

She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea.

I

'm confused. So, you support the efforts to liberate Afghanistan from the fascists?

"No nation can donate liberation to another nation."

<end quote>

She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea.

She said no nation can donate liberty.

World War 2 donated liberty to most of western europe.

The defence of S.Korea donated liberty to S.Korea.

Joya could not have said that no nation can donate liberty to another nation if she was aware that liberty had been donated to western european nations by World War 2 allies and that S. Korea had maintained its liberty becuse of the United Nations war against N. Korea.

[fellowtraveller]

Here is a number that I believes says it all: 2 million.

That is the number of Afghan refugees that returned to the country immediately after the NATO invasion of the country ousted the Taliban. After, not before. They have remained and will remain because both their present and their future are markedly better.

Start from there.

[Charles Anthony]

She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea.

She said no nation can donate liberty.

World War 2 donated liberty to most of western europe.

The defence of S.Korea donated liberty to S.Korea.

Interesting results.

Do Eastern Europe and North Korea exist in the world of liberty?? It sounds like trade-offs were made between people who controlled and dictated liberty.

Joya could not have said that no nation can donate liberty to another nation if she was aware that liberty had been donated to western european nations by World War 2 allies and that S. Korea had maintained its liberty becuse of the United Nations war against N. Korea.

Did all of that "donated liberty" come for free?

[Wilber]

Interesting results.

Do Eastern Europe and North Korea exist in the world of liberty?? It sounds like trade-offs were made between people who controlled and dictated liberty.

What trade-offs? Name one thing that North Korea has which the South would want. Name one Eastern European country that is yearning to have Soviet or Nazi troops back on their soil and their government run from Moscow or Berlin.

Did all of that "donated liberty" come for free?

No, it came at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.

[gerryhatrick]

Here is a number that I believes says it all: 2 million.

That is the number of Afghan refugees that returned to the country immediately after the NATO invasion of the country ousted the Taliban. After, not before. They have remained and will remain because both their present and their future are markedly better.

Start from there.

That's interesting. Do you have a link for that?

[Canuck E Stan]

Here is a number that I believes says it all: 2 million.

That is the number of Afghan refugees that returned to the country immediately after the NATO invasion of the country ousted the Taliban. After, not before. They have remained and will remain because both their present and their future are markedly better.

Start from there.

That's interesting. Do you have a link for that?

How's this?

Paktribune

In the past five years, more than 4.6 million Afghan refugees have returned home from abroad, and started their new lives in this middle Asian country.

[gerryhatrick]

Here is a number that I believes says it all: 2 million.

That is the number of Afghan refugees that returned to the country immediately after the NATO invasion of the country ousted the Taliban. After, not before. They have remained and will remain because both their present and their future are markedly better.

Start from there.

That's interesting. Do you have a link for that?

How's this?

Paktribune

In the past five years, more than 4.6 million Afghan refugees have returned home from abroad, and started their new lives in this middle Asian country.

That's a very good link, thankyou.

Your comment is incorrect though, in a couple of respects.

Minor point, it wasn't a NATO invasion. It was a US led invasion with UN backing.

Beyond that the implication of your post is wrong.

When you said

"Here is a number that I believes says it all: 2 million.

That is the number of Afghan refugees that returned to the country since....."

you are implying that the post 9-11 action has made the nation more livable/desirable/ect.

But considering this portion of your link:

A sea of Afghans fled their homeland during the Soviet invasion war from 1979 to 1989, and the following Afghan civil war and the U.S.-led war against the Taliban in late 2001.

it is clearly unknown how many of these reternees are returning since the US-led invasion. Obviously people will flee war, and after 9-11 they experienced war.

[Remiel]

What she is implying is that liberation comes from within, from people overcoming social inertia and moving past the status quo of corruption and oppression. In that sense, we can perhaps empower people to liberate themselves by ousting governments like the Taliban, but unless the good people take up the reins, then they will slide back toward the bad people and our efforts will have been for naught.

Also, to say that World War II liberated most of Western Europe is at best a clumsy way of expressing what you really meant. Those people in Western Europe had their liberty taken away in the early stages of the war, and then they got it back with the help of the Allies before the war ended. Western Europe is not a very good comparison, however. Liberty was the norm, and the war lasted only five years. In Afghanistan, the oppression of the Taliban was the norm, so moving past it takes more of an effort, as the institutions and infrastructure that support liberty either don't exist, or are few and far between.

[jbg]

Also, to say that World War II liberated most of Western Europe is at best a clumsy way of expressing what you really meant. Those people in Western Europe had their liberty taken away in the early stages of the war, and then they got it back with the help of the Allies before the war ended. Western Europe is not a very good comparison, however. Liberty was the norm, and the war lasted only five years. In Afghanistan, the oppression of the Taliban was the norm, so moving past it takes more of an effort, as the institutions and infrastructure that support liberty either don't exist, or are few and far between.

Actually, Afghanistan had a stable parliamentary constitutional monarchy for a long time before 1973, when the Soviets, backing Taracki, I think (or maybe that was the 1978 coup) overthrew the monarch.

As for Western Europe, Germany and Austria only had a brief interwar interlude with freedom. It didn't work spectacularly well.

[Remiel]

Perhaps I did overstate the case. I stand by the first point in that paragraph, however. Too though, if the last time Afghanistan had a stable government was 1978, that is 23 years before the invasion of Afghanistan by us. That is a year long than I have been alive, long enough for a generation to grow up without the benefit of liberty.

By the same token, measured from the end of World War II, that would be 1921 in Germany. They had a lot of political and economic turmoil, and that lead to the rise of the Nazis, but were they really a physically oppressed people in the same sense as the people of Afghanistan for the entire span from 1921 to 1944?

Also, when someone says " most " of Western Europe, doesn't that mean at least nine countries out of the sixteen or so major ones in the West must of been under significant oppression before the war?

Lastly, does anyone here have some insight into the governments of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan?

[Yaro]

Yawn, my prediction of 6 months ago is pretty much right on schedule. So I guess its time to make another.

1 year from now people will be discussing Afghanistan as a hopeless situation, somewhere which can have no positive outcome. 2 years from now we will be withdrawing because it was moronic to think that we could change anything their. 3 years from now people will be talking about how Afghanistan is our own little "mini-Vietnam".

Its pretty amazing the presumption and arrogance going on in Canada right now, 20 years ago it was the type of thing you only saw out of the US. I guess its just one more way we are walking down that the same path the US did only 20 years later.

[Remiel]

I don't think Vietnam will ever be used as a good analogy for Canada in Afghanistan. Perhaps there is some of the same misguided adventurism, but so far, we've chalked up three (or still just two?) accidental civilian deaths, and thirty some odd of our own people.

Compare that to the indiscriminate bombing, shelling, killing, raping, pillaging, etc. in Vietnam and it becomes apparent that the best comparison is no comparison at all. The presence of armed combat and opposing ideologies is about the only similarity.

I don't think that we are making great progress in Afghanistan, but I am still idealistic enough to believe that we can if we get our act together and begin pushing a full-scale " war " , the kind fought by countering the enemies every effort, both in combat and without. The kind of war fought with weapons, words, and construction workers. I really think we have forgotten how to wage the kind of war we need to win this conflict, if we ever knew. Not the kind of war the self-righteous hawks want, where you indiscriminately kill everything in your path. An extemely discriminate war, on every front.

[Argus]

Its pretty amazing the presumption and arrogance going on in Canada right now,

Well, you would know.

[Yaro]

I don't think Vietnam will ever be used as a good analogy for Canada in Afghanistan. Perhaps there is some of the same misguided adventurism, but so far, we've chalked up three (or still just two?) accidental civilian deaths, and thirty some odd of our own people.

Although Canadian military history is limited in scope next to the US it is certainly no less brutal. All military commit atrocities, some to a degree more then others but not as significant as we would like to believe. Many soldiers in the Canadian military are good honorable people that would never kill an unarmed man or rape a 12 year old girl but like every military there are those that would or could be pushed that far under extreme duress.

I don't think that we are making great progress in Afghanistan, but I am still idealistic enough to believe that we can if we get our act together and begin pushing a full-scale " war " , the kind fought by countering the enemies every effort, both in combat and without. The kind of war fought with weapons, words, and construction workers. I really think we have forgotten how to wage the kind of war we need to win this conflict, if we ever knew. Not the kind of war the self-righteous hawks want, where you indiscriminately kill everything in your path. An extremely discriminate war, on every front.

And this is what people are not getting, its not a shortcoming in our desire, the skill of our men, or our national will. It is the facts of the situation which make what we are trying to accomplish an impossibility, the fact that right next to Afghanistan a country of 28 million people, which is one of the most difficult terrains in the world to try to control, a country with a generations long history of feudal warfare and resistance and a generations long history of desensitization to brutality that would make a Canadian soldier vomit. It is the fact that they share a border with an unfriendly nuclear power that allows virtually unlimited movement across the border and is of a size significant enough to supply an unlimited number of enemies along with the sympathy to do so.

Afghanistan is unwinnable. It was before and it will continue to be until Pakistan is dealt with. Want to squish Muslim fundamentalism? Try understanding it and using Religions natural predator, education.

Well, you would know.

If I am arrogant it is the natural result of knowing you.

[M.Dancer]

Afghanistan is unwinnable. It was before and it will continue to be until Pakistan is dealt with. Want to squish Muslim fundamentalism? Try understanding it and using Religions natural predator, education.

How can afghanstan be unwinnable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

[Yaro]

How can Afghanistan be unwinable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. The essential reason we can't win in Afghanistan because we are making no progress and they can sustain this situation indefinitely, we cannot. They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up.

[M.Dancer]

How can Afghanistan be unwinable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. The essential reason we can't win in Afghanistan because we are making no progress and they can sustain this situation indefinitely, we cannot. They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up.

That my point...we don't have to conquer it, we aren't trying to conquer it, afghans already have it...we are there to help the afghan gov't regain control. I am aware individual pakistanis in the hinterland support the taliban....but getting them new weapons is hard. The are on the way out. 5 to 10 years max.

[M.Dancer]

They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up.

10 to 1 would be a failure. I belive the ratio we are seeing is something in the neighbourhood of 200 to 1.

[Wilber]

How can Afghanistan be unwinable when it has been won so many times? At present the winners are ruling the place...we have an edge, we are not fighting the afghan army or even the afghan liberation forces....we are fighting the losers of the last war. They are without international support. Without a friendly ear. All they have are caves on the border.....

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. The essential reason we can't win in Afghanistan because we are making no progress and they can sustain this situation indefinitely, we cannot. They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up.

Since when were we trying to conquer Afghanistan? The British fought three wars in Afghanistan and the last two were successful. They didn't conquer and colonise Afghanistan but that was never their intent. They were successful in influencing Afghan foreign policy in their favour which was their intention and is a large part of the reason we are there now. They to were fighting regimes, not the country.