Afghanistan

[JMH]

Give the men and women everything that they need. TANKS..............F-18's I dont care. GIVE IT TO THEM.

ADD another 2500 troops to back them up. I dont care.

Canada is their on behalf of our NATO obligations...............like it or not. It isn't going to change.

Give our troops 3 TIMES what they need. This is no time for bickering.

Give them what they need to WIN!..........today and tommorow.........and the rest of this shitty time .

They need support from their people, and they need hardware thats usefull in a time of WARRRR!!!.

[gerryhatrick]

Your wish to see the troops well supported is commendable.

As always, they have all the "support of the people".

And who is bickering over giving them what they need, btw?

[JMH]

Your wish to see the troops well supported is commendable.

As always, they have all the "support of the people".

And who is bickering over giving them what they need, btw?

The sending of tanks seems to be an issue with many.....as though it's the WRONG THING TO DO.

You tell me who it is, that bickers in this way?

[gerryhatrick]

The sending of tanks seems to be an issue with many.....as though it's the WRONG THING TO DO.

You tell me who it is, that bickers in this way?

There's nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of a strategic move. I haven't been following the debate, so I couldn't tell you who's involved or what they're saying, but I would never try to stifle it.

[JMH]

The sending of tanks seems to be an issue with many.....as though it's the WRONG THING TO DO.

You tell me who it is, that bickers in this way?

There's nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of a strategic move. I haven't been following the debate, so I couldn't tell you who's involved or what they're saying, but I would never try to stifle it.

Thank you. I've just sat down to think about how the average Canadian would think about this. I'm a former ground soldier and natuarally I have issues concerning past deployment.

I don't wish to be rude with anyone.

I feel that it is immperative that Canadians pressure the current Gov. to send many immplements for the ground forces. We simply cannot walk away from the obvious situation that we find ourselves in. There is NO WAY OUT. There is no political venue left.........it is done.

Our men need the tanks, they need Canadian air support, they need everything that Canada can offer.

This cannot be half-way. It costs soldiers lives. If we commit to a UN sancioned war.........a NATO war..................there is but ONE objective.

When Canada commits to fighting, we will WIN. Period. To do otherwise would disgrace our history and the people (my people) of this country.

Thats it.

[JMH]

The sending of tanks seems to be an issue with many.....as though it's the WRONG THING TO DO.

You tell me who it is, that bickers in this way?

There's nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of a strategic move. I haven't been following the debate, so I couldn't tell you who's involved or what they're saying, but I would never try to stifle it.

Thank you. I've just sat down to think about how the average Canadian would think about this. I'm a former ground soldier and natuarally I have issues concerning past deployment.

I don't wish to be rude with anyone.

I feel that it is immperative that Canadians pressure the current Gov. to send many immplements for the ground forces. We simply cannot walk away from the obvious situation that we find ourselves in. There is NO WAY OUT. There is no political venue left.........it is done.

Our men need the tanks, they need Canadian air support, they need everything that Canada can offer.

This cannot be half-way. It costs soldiers lives. If we commit to a UN sancioned war.........a NATO war..................there is but ONE objective.

When Canada commits to fighting, we will WIN. Period. To do otherwise would disgrace our history and the people (my people) of this country.

Thats it.

By the way.........have you seen the price on VIAGRA? WOW..........kidding

[Charles Anthony]

By the way.........have you seen the price on VIAGRA? WOW..........kidding

The double and triple Afghanistan posts and threads are just as funny.

In fact, the redundant multiple QUOTES are even more hilarious.

[gerryhatrick]

When Canada commits to fighting, we will WIN. Period. To do otherwise would disgrace our history and the people (my people) of this country.

Thats it.

I have no problem giving them everything they need to win - with "win" defined as a defined goal. Saying that anything short of that would "disgrace our history and the people" I'm not comfortable with.

If the Senlis Council report is accurate then it's possible that Country is rising up as a people against us and our enemy includes many besides the Taliban. That would mean the strategic move of departing would need to be considered. I can't adopt the "stay the course" attitude of Bush et al because sometimes the course needs a re-adjustment.

[Topaz]

There's so many avenues of this question, and perhaps there not just one answer to it. When I was growing up my parents told us to look around at your friends and see what mistakes they made in in life and try not to do the same. So using that as a guide, we should look at the US, a super-power military has spent over 300Billion on Iraq. My question is, how much tax $$ are they will to spend? How far are you willingly to go into debt to fight this war? We've been told that this war of terror, Afghanistan and Iraq is a bottomless pit in money and in time. What happens when we don't have enough troops in the military? How many soldiers are you willing to lose before you start to think this could be a mistake? IF the military stays all voluntary and these people know what they may not come back alive or maimed for life, then I have no problem with this. Of course, there always the possibility that Canada will have terror attacks as a revenge. Are you willing to live with fear the rest of your life, look at the fear the Americans citizen has to deal with. I think that Parliament should have more answers to this and I find the Minister saying that we will get them at a appropriate time! What's the appropriate time??

[myata]

I agree. Afganistan proved to be a tough nut for greater military powers before (British, Soviets).

As in any project or undertaking, the questions that need to be discussed and answered should be:

- what is the strategy used to win this war (I wonder if to base it solely on the number of killed Taleban is the best one - they are all local and have families while NATO no matter how many lollipops they hand out to kids will always be viewed as foreigners);

- criteria to assess progress (or lack thereof);

- clearly defined goals;

- contingency plans in case things don't develop as expected;

- cost (i.e how much, in resources, time, lives) we're willing to invest.

And, to keep this from spinning out of control (as American adventure in Iraq seem to be headed to) the discussion should be ongoing. We owe it to the people on the ground - and it has nothing to do with abandoning the mission (although it can be one of the possible outcomes - it'd be foolish to deny that).

[killjoy]

Simple question to all: what happens if we fail/leave?

Please read what the Taliban was doing in the 5 years before 9/11 before answering.

.

[myata]

No matter what happens if / after the mission fails, we'll have to live with the outcome and manage the consequences. Locking yourself in a desperate mission will only prolong suffering and raise casualties.

No I'm not saying that's what it looks at this point. However, checks must be in place to react quickly in case it starts turning that way.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear killjoy,

Simple question to all: what happens if we fail/leave?

As to failure, myata above raises some good points. Without establishing criteria to measure success or failure, labels such as this become moot. Mind you, any good business owner sets up these guidelines beforehand (usually within the framework of a business plan) so that even if they are behind schedule, they still can see if the eventual outcome will be worth continued investment and effort, or not. (This is my biggest beef with continued investment in Afghanistan, the lack of a 'business plan')

There was a very good "Yes, Minister" episode regarding the implementation of 'success or failure criteria' before projects were undertaken, and the Civil Service was adamantly opposed. Accountability and gov't don't go together.

Leaving would not exactly be failure, for it would be done by choice. I will refer you to the thread I started some time ago, called "Does Islam need a country?"

Please read what the Taliban was doing in the 5 years before 9/11 before answering.

They had outlawed music, kite-flying and destroyed millenia old statues of Buddha (and then sacrificed numerous sheep and cattle to atone for tardiness in the operation). They also became a 'state sponsor' of terrorism. However, they were becoming increasingly unpopular in their own country. No one will ever know if they would have been thrown out internally. The biggest question is, "Do the people of Afghanistan want democracy (and a secular one at that)?" If the answer is no, then we should leave. If we forcibly set one up, it won't survive the week after we leave anyway.

Now, it seems, Osama Bin Laden has issued a 'call to arms;' to join him in Africa, (Sudan, likely) and Sudan will likely become the next 'Afghanistan'.

[M.Dancer]

However, they were becoming increasingly unpopular in their own country . No one will ever know if they would have been thrown out internally

That's a bit of an understatement....considering the Taleban was fighting a civil war with the Northern Alliance.

I would say that yes they would have eventually been defeated, but withouty the intervention, the war would still be on today....(no hint of irony)

[killjoy]

I think you guys misunderstand the meaning I attribute to my question.

What would happen if we never went there?

What would happen if we left?

My point is that we are at war with the Taliban (by proxy of NATO) because they attacked, or supported/helped attack one of our NATO member states.

If we stay we are at war.

If we leave we will still be at war, and in all likelihood be going back there within 10 years or less at, most likely, a MUCH higher cost than we are even paying now.

No one will ever know if they would have been thrown out internally.

Technically you could say the same thing about Saddam, but it wasn't very likely, and even less so in this case, imo. It is my assessment that with the support and funding (and direction) from Taliban elements in Pakistan that this was never going to happen. Their apparent control over the poppy production also speaks to this....If a drug lord cant intimidate them then who will?

IOW, all the snazzy "shock & awe" may be coming from NATO's end, but the war wasn’t started by us and it won't be ended by anyone other than us either because the Taliban are surely not going to just come back home and put there feet up and retire. Maybe it's time we started understanding that this is, indeed, a "real war" and not just a peacekeeping mission where we can stay or go at our leisure?

.

[myata]

What if it isn't even possible to install a stable friendly to the West regime in these countries, ever?

You seem to be taking for granted it is. Yet there isn't much historic evidence to prove it. The choices we'll have would be i) permanently occupy them, at near infinite cost; or ii) leave (i.e., be kicked out) at the least convenient moment.

Again, we should consider all possibilities. Maybe, it's less costly and more efficient to contain the threat than to completely eliminate it.

[Argus]

What if it isn't even possible to install a stable friendly to the West regime in these countries, ever?

You seem to be taking for granted it is. Yet there isn't much historic evidence to prove it. The choices we'll have would be i) permanently occupy them, at near infinite cost; or ii) leave (i.e., be kicked out) at the least convenient moment.

Again, we should consider all possibilities. Maybe, it's less costly and more efficient to contain the threat than to completely eliminate it.

Perhaps it will be necessary to put in place some type of cordon sanitaire around some parts of the Muslim world whereby no one is allowed to leave. Let them stew in their own religious fervor.

[watching&waiting]

Afghanistan at this moment has an army that is approx 35,000 strong. It will need to double its size and also quadruple the size of the police forces in their country. This will allow them to secure a proper constitution of rights and laws and have the ability to enforce it while holding the insurgents at bay. This will probably take another 2 years or so. That is probably when Canada will be able to pull out of there completely.

I prefer the actions now taking place there as more and more insurgents come there and fight and die the less chance that they will come here to Canada. This way thay come to us over there, and at tha rate of approx 150 dead insurgents per Canadian killed. it is a price that could be much higher. Better there then here.

[jdobbin]

Simple question to all: what happens if we fail/leave?

Please read what the Taliban was doing in the 5 years before 9/11 before answering.

Would you categorize success as defeating the Taliban only to get another version of it in the government we support? Some right wing writers are concerned that is exactly what is happening.

[Durgan]

URL to the article

Afghanistan: Time for Truth 18 September 2006

Durgan.

by Eric Margolis

Foreign Correspondent

September 18, 2006

AFGHANISTAN: TIME FOR TRUTH

Do not believe what OUR media and politicians are telling us about Afghanistan. Nearly all the information we get about the five-year old war in Afghanistan comes from US and NATO public relations officers or `embedded’ journalists who merely parrot military handouts. Ask yourself, when did you last read a report from a journalist covering Taliban and other Afghan resistance forces?

Now, the official rosy view is being flatly contradicted by impartial observers.

The respected European think-tank, Senlis Council, which focuses on Afghanistan, just reported the Taliban movement is `taking back Afghanistan’ and now controls that nation’s southern half.

This is an amazing departure from claims by the US and its NATO allies that they are steadily winning the war in Afghanistan. Or, more precisely, winning it again, since the Bush Administration claimed to have won total victory in Afghanistan in 2001. At the time, this column predicted that victory was an illusion and the war would resume in force in 4-5 years.

According to the Senlis Council, southern Afghanistan is suffering `a humanitarian crisis of starvation and poverty…caused by `US-British military policies.’

Deflating optimistic western reports, Senlis investigators found, `US policies in Afghanistan have re-created the safe haven for terrorism that the 2001 invasion aimed to destroy.’ This is a bombshell.

The US and NATO have been insisting any withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan - or from Iraq - will leave a void certain to be filled by extremists. These claims are nonsense, given that half of Afghanistan and a third of Iraq are already largely controlled by anti-western resistance forces.

Were it not for omnipotent US airpower, American and NATO forces would be quickly driven from Afghanistan and Iraq. If Afghan and Iraqi resistance forces ever manage to obtain effective man-portable anti-aircraft weapons, such as the US Stinger or Russian SA-18, the US-led occupation of those nations may become untenable. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980’s was doomed once mujahidin forces obtained American Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Last week, Canadian and British commanders boasted they were about to annihilate Taliban forces `surrounded’ around Panjwai and Zahri. They crowed an `estimated 500 Taliban,’ had already been killed.

A storm of bombing and shelling did kill many Afghans, but most of the dead `suspected Taliban militants’ turned out, as usual, to be civilians. NATO failed to show bodies of dead enemy fighters to back up its absurd claims.

When NATO forces entered Panjwai after weeks of air strikes and shelling, the supposedly `surrounded’ Taliban had vanished. Embarrassed British and Canadian commanders admitted `we were surprised the enemy had fled.’ Surprised?

Doesn’t anyone remember the Vietnam War’s fruitless search and destroy missions and inflated body counts? Don’t NATO commanders know their every move is telegraphed in advance to Taliban forces? Don’t they see what’s going on now in Iraq?

Did Canadian officers making such fanciful claims really believe Taliban’s veteran guerillas would be stupid enough to sit still and be destroyed by US air power?

Now, Canadian-led NATO forces are crowing about having finally occupied Panjewi. `Taliban has fled!’ they proudly announced. Don’t they understand that guerilla forces don’t hang on to fixed positions? Occupying ground is meaningless in guerilla warfare.

Seemingly immune to history or common sense, Canada is sending a few hundred more troops and a handful of obsolete tanks to Afghanistan. Poland, which will send troops anywhere for the right price, is adding 1,000 more soldiers next year.

US, British and Canadian politicians say they are surprised by intensifying Taliban resistance. They have only their own ignorance to blame.

Attacking Pashtuns, renowned for xenophobia, warlike spirits, and love of independence is a fool’s mission. Pashtuns are Afghanistan’s ethnic majority. Taliban is an offshoot of the Pushtun people. Long-term national stability is impossible without their representation and cooperation.

What the west calls `Taliban’ is actually a growing coalition of veteran Taliban fighters led by Mullah Dadullah, other clans of Pashtun tribal warriors, and nationalist resistance forces led by Jalalladin Hakkani and former prime minister, Gulbadin Hekmatyar, whom the CIA has repeatedly tried to assassinate.

Many are former mujahidin once hailed `freedom fighters’ by the west, and branded `terrorists’ by the Soviets. They represent national resistance to foreign occupation. In fact, what the US and its NATO allies are doing in Afghanistan today uncannily mirrors the brutal Soviet occupation during the 1980’s.

The UN’s anti-narcotic agency reports Afghanistan now supplies 92% of the world’s heroin. Production has surged 40% last year alone. Who is responsible? The US and NATO. They now own narco-state Afghanistan.

Dominating the main oil export route from Central Asia was a primary objective of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Ironically, instead of an anticipated oil bonanza, the US now finds itself mired deep in the Afghan drug trade.

Washington and NATO can’t keep pretending this is someone else’s problem. Drug money fuels the Afghan economy and keeps local warlords loyal to the US-installed Kabul regime.

Afghanistan’s north has become a sphere of influence of Russia and its local allies, the Uzbek-Tajik Northern Alliance led by notorious war criminals and leaders of the old Afghan Communist Party.

The US and its allies are not going to win the Afghan war. They will be lucky the way things are going not to lose it in the same humiliating manner the Soviets did in 1989.

In recent week, near panicky calls by British PM Tony Blair for more NATO troops to be sent to Afghanistan show that western occupation forces are on the defensive, fighting to hold their bases, and facing the specter of eventual defeat. Just, in fact, like every other invader that has ever occupied Afghanistan.

A final point. US and NATO forces are not fighting `terrorists,’ as their governments claim. They are fighting the Afghan people. In the 1980’s, I saw mujahidin too poor to afford shoes strap 110lbs of mortar shells on their backs, and climb 6-8 hours over mountains through snow to bombard a Communist base, then trudge home. These are the people we are fighting. Anyone who knows Afghans know they will not be defeated, even if they must resist for an entire generation.

copyright Eric S. Margolis

[jdobbin]

Perhaps it will be necessary to put in place some type of cordon sanitaire around some parts of the Muslim world whereby no one is allowed to leave. Let them stew in their own religious fervor.

I suggested earlier that a rapid deployment force stationed near Afghanistan might have been preferable to what exists now.

Everyone says Canada can't let NATO down. NATO is letting Canada down at the moment.

[Wilber]

Perhaps it will be necessary to put in place some type of cordon sanitaire around some parts of the Muslim world whereby no one is allowed to leave. Let them stew in their own religious fervor.

I suggested earlier that a rapid deployment force stationed near Afghanistan might have been preferable to what exists now.

Everyone says Canada can't let NATO down. NATO is letting Canada down at the moment.

Where is near Afghanistan?

Much of NATO is letting the rest down, particularly Germany and France as they have the means to make the biggest difference.

[killjoy]

From the story:

US and NATO forces are not fighting `terrorists,’ as their governments claim. They are fighting the Afghan people.

Complete and utter transparent lie and anyone can see that. NATO is not lying but the media has no problem doing it, mostly because they will not have to deal with the consequences.

jdobbin:

would you categorize success as defeating the Taliban only to get another version of it in the government we support? Some right wing writers are concerned that is exactly what is happening.

As watching&waiting pointed out they need only become defensible and self-sufficient, that would be success for NATO as far as I can tell. What happens after that we cannot say. No one can. We'll have to take it from there. That's the way the cookies crumble in geopolitical affairs.

What they need now, imo is more production less destruction. As for rightwing writers, so what? I'm not 'rightwing' simply because you consider yourself (assuming) to be left wing and I stand on the opposite side of a debate from you. However, whatever, that's an understandable error.

Look I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone that things are going 'swimmingly' over there. I'm not going to say that it's easy or that it should be over soon. I'm not even going to say that long term this is going to work out in our favor, even if it appears favorable at sometime in the short term. Nor would I dare call anyone stupid for having anxiety over the situation there and it's not 'dumb' to expect that at sometime we may have to 'bug out'. I'm not saying it's "stupid" to have concerns about our force level and our casualty rates etc.

What I am saying is that for our own good we have little choice but to give it an honest try, including giving it enough time for an honest try. You can't go about jack booting your way around the world trying to change it but you can and should give it a try when opportunity presents itself. What I also say is that the situation is nowhere near as pessimistic overall in the country right now or even long term as the media suggests.

I also find it hard to keep my mouth shut when faced with blatant inaccuracies and untruths about the origin, current situation and possible outcomes of this conflict. Things like, "It could never happen because it's never happened before", and "the CIA created the Taliban" or "They're just savages" or any of 100 other things I've tried to address on this forum (90% of my posts are on this topic). If I can get people to see this and understand the disinformation that's being thrown around and they still think its a bad idea, well ok, all the power to them. I don’t think they’re stupid or dumb. But if it's based on BS....

.

[jdobbin]

Where is near Afghanistan?

Much of NATO is letting the rest down, particularly Germany and France as they have the means to make the biggest difference.

Uzbekistan.

[jdobbin]

Never said that I was left wing nor that you were right wing.

I supported the reasons for going into Afghanistan and became concerned that the U.S. was being diverted from the job just as Canada and others were arriving. Osama bin Laden is no longer in the country by all accounts. No one seems to be able to touch him in Pakistan and Pakistan is where the battle has to be fought when it comes to al Qaeda.

Canada is now committed to 2009-2010. We'll have to decide what level of success we'll accept in Afghanistan and what level of failure. If we have this same argument in 2010 about the deployment, it will be very sad indeed.