Harper Interview Sets the Record Straight

[Ricki Bobbi]

There are a lot of people out there that support the military but not the mission. And anyone who says that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the soldiers is talking garbage. I can see many people moving to the NDP, especially if Iggy wins the Liberal leadership and if the war in Afghanistan doesn't change for the better.

How can you support the military but not supporting them doing their job?

Say what you will but public opinion is moving towards the direction of the mission and the position of the Government.

Just take a look at today's Toronto Star. Two columns supporting the mission.

The last major public opinion poll published shows the majority of Canadians support the mission.

Seems like things are going right for a majority.

Just think of it four (or so) more years of Prime Minister Harper.

[gerryhatrick]

There are a lot of people out there that support the military but not the mission. And anyone who says that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the soldiers is talking garbage. I can see many people moving to the NDP, especially if Iggy wins the Liberal leadership and if the war in Afghanistan doesn't change for the better.

How can you support the military but not supporting them doing their job?

What Rovik has said is not how you dishonestly portrayed it.

You can support the military AND support them doing their job, and still not support the mission.

You need to seperate the soldiers and their capabilities and the job they do from the civilian policy they're tasked with doing.

Show them some respect by not playing word games with them and using them for the political benifit of your party.

[Topaz]

I still think its a mistake being in Afghanistan and we'll pay for it. Of course the troops want to be there, they want to help the people and I can understand that, BUT I don't trust the present govt of this country and he has former warlords in his govt. His father was killed by the Taliban and so he has his own reasons and the US has it reasons for wanting him there! The Taliban had stopped the drug trade there and as far as the treatment of women, I'm against want they did to them. We have to understand this is not the only country in the Middle-East that treats women this way. In the news it says if the people are going to be worse off with NATO in there then the people will turned against NATO and help the Taliban just like the people of Iraq turned against the US and Britain. As far as Harper goes, he been coached by alot of people as to how to treat the opposition and how they always pound on them in "Question period" about the scam, how what they did do or didn't do! WE all know what the Libs did or didn't do and I would just like for THIS government to TELL Canadians what they are going to do!! So far, I see only the NDP, trying to help the people of this country and if the BLOC wasn't there, Harper wouldn't have a prayer!

[watching&waiting]

If the bloc was not there, we would see a CPC majority, as the liberal would not have any more seats then they do presently in Quebec. The NDP are not helpful and they are only grandstanding the far left because they know that is their own base support and they are playing to it as expected, but Layton just does it in such an awful way that I can not see him ever getting more seats then he did last time out. In fact it looks to me like they will get fewer seats next time round.

[Hicksey]

There are a lot of people out there that support the military but not the mission. And anyone who says that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the soldiers is talking garbage. I can see many people moving to the NDP, especially if Iggy wins the Liberal leadership and if the war in Afghanistan doesn't change for the better.

How can you support the military but not supporting them doing their job?

What Rovik has said is not how you dishonestly portrayed it.

You can support the military AND support them doing their job, and still not support the mission.

You need to seperate the soldiers and their capabilities and the job they do from the civilian policy they're tasked with doing.

Show them some respect by not playing word games with them and using them for the political benifit of your party.

As much as it pains me to admit it, Gerry is 100% right here.

We should always seperate the troops from their missions. They merely perform the will of their first in command. They would perform those duties no matter which political party that gave the orders.

Though many of its members are conservative, the armed forces themselves are one of the few truly non-partisan arms of government left.

And Gerry, don't think that the Liberals and NDP would not continue to use them as armed social workers to pander to the special interests of their base if they were still in power. All parties use them. The conservatives aren't any less guilty of than the Liberals have been.

The only discernable difference between the use of the military of the Liberals and CPC, is that the conservatives are actually asking them to function as a military -- and apparently you don't like that. I suspect your motives are of the knee-jerking anti-american variety.

So I ask this. The Liberals usually send our troops around the world to save the downtrodden. Considering the atrocities that were routinely committed against both Afghans and Iraqis, why are they not as worthy of our help as the citizens of Darfur? Or are we not willing to bear the considerable risk of helping the people whose safety will be more difficult to procure? What risks are we prepared to send our troops into?

[gerryhatrick]

As much as it pains me to admit it, Gerry is 100% right here.

We should always seperate the troops from their missions. They merely perform the will of their first in command. They would perform those duties no matter which political party that gave the orders.

I feel your pain, and appreciate your honesty.

And Gerry, don't think that the Liberals and NDP would not continue to use them as armed social workers to pander to the special interests of their base if they were still in power. All parties use them. The conservatives aren't any less guilty of than the Liberals have been.

I agree, but that kind of usage is of the mission variety. The Liberals did send the troops to Afghanistan to begin with and they were shifted to the South under them as well.

I'm not referring to that kind of usage. When I complain about the "using" of the troops (and I know from your response above you already understand this) I'm complaining about those who would attempt to tie support for the troops to the mission.

They are, and must always be, seperate. Ricki Bobbi and Stephen Harper wish to blur that seperation because they see a political benifit in doing so.

And I will condemn any government for doing that.

So I ask this. The Liberals usually send our troops around the world to save the downtrodden. Considering the atrocities that were routinely committed against both Afghans and Iraqis, why are they not as worthy of our help as the citizens of Darfur?

Everyone is worthy of our help, but we cannot help everyone. Why don't we send our troops tomorrow into North Korea to militarily cut a swath for aid to reach the starving? Why don't we invade China to bring freedom to the oppressed? I don't want to argue the "life under Saddam" vs. life in Iraq now and weigh the relative suffering of the population and judge the various attrocities. The reasons for going into Iraq were a shopping list, but the main one was BS. I'm very happy the Canadian government of the time made the decision it did, because it was quite obviously a mistake. It was quite obviously an intimidation job by an impatient US administration that was not going to be swayed from it's long held desire to topple Saddam.

As for the Afghans, we're there until 2009. Let's see how much we can help. If it becomes more and more like Iraq is now then my judgement is we'll be doing more harm than good. All the platitudes about saving the world from terrorism will be so much bullsh#t if the reality on the ground starts to resemble Iraq, which is driving the war on terror bus backwards.

[M.Dancer]

Hmmm, 49% of Canadians *don't* think we should exit in 2009.

But support for the mission will crumble?

I support the mission but my support is not open ended. No one needs a Pyrrhic victory or an unwinnable war. I am willing to assist Afghanistan for 10 years but after that, if there is no improvement then they will have to cope on their own and our support will go to the refuggee camps that will be the result of NATO withdrawing.

[M.Dancer]

Call me crazy, but if the Red Star is supporting military action then it is likely a majority of Canadians will support it.

You're Crazy.

The Star doesn't support the mission, Rosie is not the star but a columnist. In this case, a columnist who differs from the editors opinions. The stars headlines over the past 2 months have been the most biased slanted and leading headlines I have ever seen in a candian paper (including the Sun).

[sharkman]

Call me crazy, but if the Red Star is supporting military action then it is likely a majority of Canadians will support it.

You're Crazy.

The Star doesn't support the mission, Rosie is not the star but a columnist. In this case, a columnist who differs from the editors opinions. The stars headlines over the past 2 months have been the most biased slanted and leading headlines I have ever seen in a candian paper (including the Sun).

Yeah, they keep a token 'conservative' writer on staff so they can say they are balanced. Come on, everyone knows they're balanced, right?

[M.Dancer]

Call me crazy, but if the Red Star is supporting military action then it is likely a majority of Canadians will support it.

You're Crazy.

The Star doesn't support the mission, Rosie is not the star but a columnist. In this case, a columnist who differs from the editors opinions. The stars headlines over the past 2 months have been the most biased slanted and leading headlines I have ever seen in a candian paper (including the Sun).

Yeah, they keep a token 'conservative' writer on staff so they can say they are balanced. Come on, everyone knows they're balanced, right?

Except Rosie is not a conservative writer. Far from it.

[Shakeyhands]

You know what jackass? I have two daughters that are in the Canadian Forces and will most likely find themselves in or near Afghanistan in the next 2 or 3 years, if we are going to be there, I want a very clear stament as to what our goals and objectives are, until then I will not support Harper NOR will I support this open ended mission with no goals and measuring criteria. At this point, the only thing we are doing is being BR's for the US in their war.

Now why don't you go support this mission, by being in Afghanistan, that you so fervently defend?

I didn't realize members of your family were forced to join the military Shakey. The decision of your children to join the military doesn't give you the right to behave in such a manner. Swearing at me is ignorant and indefensible.

We live in a free society. People who join the military are defending our rights, including the right to freedom of speech.

Your asking me why I don't go to Aghanistan is flippant and insulting.

Your swearing at my for responding to your flippancy with the same degree of flippancy is unfathomable. What gives you the right to behave in this manner?

Get over yourself.

I encouraged both my children to attend RMC (1 in and 1 at Civ. U because of career path) and stand behind them and that no matter what. Part of standing behind them is doing whatever I can to make sure that they are used correctly by our Government. By making sure that our government doesn't put them in danger unnecessarily. I certainly don't think that changing the words to the song half way through is doing them a service... do you?

[JAh-man]

I've not once seen a pro Afghan war article in the Toronto Star..

Here's todays

Gen. Rick Hillier is fighting a war on two fronts: in Afghanistan and at home.

He's doing this now, restored to the more publicly prominent position he formerly held — before somebody put the gag on — because of a government that cannot explain itself adequately and a prime minister sadly lacking in oratorical skills. (Though this is no excuse for Stephen Harper not speaking directly to the country, over the airwaves, with an articulated mission statement on what Canadian troops are doing halfway around the world, how that operation's surging and waning grind should be reasonably measured.)

It is, quixotically, the hearts and minds of Canadians that most urgently need to be won anew if the formidable challenge overseas is to have any chance of success, a far from sure thing.

Every time a flag-draped casket comes back to Trenton — and the 40th Canadian soldier slain, Trooper Mark Andrew Wilson, will emerge from the belly of a transport plane today or tomorrow — the domestic heart seizes a little more, collective minds recoil. This is our precious blood that's being spilled.

"Every death takes a piece of my heart," says Hillier, who's the first to acknowledge that, while he's been under fire as a soldier in-theatre, especially in the Balkans, never has he personally experienced so relentless a risk as this, what Canada's 2,300 troops are facing daily in Kandahar — in ground combat, from roadside ambushes, from suicide bombers, even from "friendly fire" bombardments.

Those troops may be doing it willingly, indeed with astonishing fervour for the task, given their losses; the dead and the injured.

But they are doing it directly at the bidding of their government — this one, the last one.

If, increasingly, without the support of their fellow citizens.

It is disingenuous to separate "the mission" from "the soldiers."

The soldiers are the mission; they certainly look at it that way.

A great many of the shrillest voices raised in opposition to the Afghanistan deployment have a long and well-documented aversion to all things military. These are the same individuals who raged against the war in Afghanistan after 9/11, mostly because it was U.S.-led — and the Americans are, you might have heard, responsible for global terror. (This is, essentially, the Osama bin Laden/Ayman al-Zawahiri manifesto.)

Lips were zipped when the Taliban toppled so easily from power and when Kabul exploded with joy as the Northern Alliance rode into the capital.

The same dissidents have crept back to their rhetorical platforms, cravenly conflating Afghanistan with Iraq, and coalescing now — dishonestly, in my view — around Canada's sacrifices, purportedly pointless and for a doomed cause.

But they're far from alone or politically homogenous. The polls say so: Fifty-nine per cent of respondents, in the latest pulse-taking, agreed that Canadian soldiers "are dying for a cause we cannot win."

Hillier doesn't believe in polls.

There's good reason for his skepticism. The question referenced above is loaded with spin, formatted to elicit a particular response.

"The soldiers don't believe in polls, I don't believe in polls," Hillier says. "Unless you put the question this way: Would Canadians be content to allow, because of inaction — partly on our nation's part — the Taliban to reassume control of Afghanistan, with all their extreme ways, and with the whipping of women because their heels click when they walk on asphalt.

"I think the answer's a resounding `No.'"

Yet those polls are worrisome enough, to the military and the Conservative minority government, that both seem anxious to re-engage the public in the problems and possibilities of Afghanistan, in the commitment this country made as a main combat troop contributor to the NATO-led (UN-created) International Security Assistance Force, and the gone-astray reconstruction component of that sweeping mission.

"Yes, there are folks who are worried," Hillier told the Toronto Star in an interview. "They want to be assured that we're actually achieving things behind the fighting or dying or killing. Obviously, we need to walk through the mission, what the aims are, what we're doing in all of the mission, not just the combat operations in things like Operation Medusa."

This is difficult to quantify, for a home audience, and to some extent because we in the media have focused on the bang-bang narrative. But in our defence, that has been the main story these past six months.

Most Canadians care a great deal more about a soldier killed than a village well dug, a ring road around Kandahar City built, or the 150,000 Afghan women who have benefited from the Canada-funded micro-credit program for small businesses.

Culturally, Canadians want our soldiers — even though this isn't a peacekeeping mission, was never designed as such — to do good things, reputation-polishing things, helpful things that are faithful to our national values.

But all those fine objectives, which did and do still exist, are portrayed as intrinsically incompatible with an ever-more dominant combat assignment, a shift of mission that has been inflicted on ISAF by an enemy — and be clear about this, an enemy of Afghanistan as much as an enemy of NATO troops — that gains for itself disproportionate notoriety, as if they were mythical hordes, for every single soldier it kills.

When all it takes, really, is one remotely controlled IED or one poor, misguided, ruinously poisoned young Afghan (or Pakistani) to strap a suicide vest around his chest.

Against this landscape, reconstruction has faltered drastically in Kandahar and Helmand, particularly. Canada's losses, like Britain's, are crushing domestic support.

But fulfilling the humanitarian, economic and governance objectives can't happen — or can only occur in unsatisfying dollops — in an insecure, perilous environment.

Insofar as any of these internal goals have been met, it has been on the broad back of NATO's combat troops that have largely contained the neo-Taliban invasion, not allowing them to radiate into all the provinces that have remained, in the context of Afghanistan, largely peaceful.

"Security efforts in the south have been able to keep the Taliban on their back feet, constraining their activities largely to the south," Hillier says.

"Yes, they do occasionally get into Kabul and other places. But two-thirds, three-quarters of the countries, are moving along, some parts fast, some slow, some with a few steps forward and the occasional step backwards.

"The challenge now is keeping the Taliban knocked back on its feet and to continue supporting the population in a whole variety of ways so that they are confident their lives are actually going to get better.

"I was just there, in the villages of the Panjwaii area, and the vast majority of those villagers want nothing to do with the Taliban, which they view as a millstone around their neck. What they need are options, so that they can go away from the Taliban."

In the combustible southern provinces, the neo-Taliban can provoke, hunker and flit as best suit their purposes.

They can terrorize by executing teachers and burning schools and nailing their threatening night letters to the front doors of homes and shops.

They can — as will happen over this winter — concentrate their efforts on soft targets, which have such a big bang-for-the-buck impact: buses full of local contract workers, children clustering around soldiers handing out classroom supplies, women's right activists, humanitarian agencies and journalists.

This is not an insurgency; it's an incursion, an invasion, with dreams of reoccupation.

Yet war-battered Afghans are immensely brave and resilient.

If more Canadians shared their stamina, their spine, we'd be a greater people.

If not for Afghanistan, then for us. Or have Canadians so quickly forgotten what happened in Afghanistan the last time the world turned a blind eye, when the Taliban ruled, when Al Qaeda was embraced and 9/11 fomented.

Should Canadians break faith with Afghans, forfeit the passion that rages against injustice, the Taliban will be proven de facto right: that the treacherous West is never to be trusted.

[Shakeyhands]

Jah-Man... welcome to the board. We have a rule here regarding copyright infringment. Only post a snippet of what you want ot quote and provide a link to the article. Copying the whole article is not allowed.

[JAh-man]

Jah-Man... welcome to the board. We have a rule here regarding copyright infringment. Only post a snippet of what you want ot quote and provide a link to the article. Copying the whole article is not allowed.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1160345410322

[killjoy]

Well even though he's saying stuff I agree with, what Hiller says here is just so much rhetorical cheerleading. To be expected.

But this:

This is not an insurgency; it's an incursion, an invasion, with dreams of reoccupation.

Yet war-battered Afghans are immensely brave and resilient.

If more Canadians shared their stamina, their spine, we'd be a greater people.

If not for Afghanistan, then for us. Or have Canadians so quickly forgotten what happened in Afghanistan the last time the world turned a blind eye, when the Taliban ruled, when Al Qaeda was embraced and 9/11 fomented.

Should Canadians break faith with Afghans, forfeit the passion that rages against injustice, the Taliban will be proven de facto right: that the treacherous West is never to be trusted.

Yep. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Say it over and over again until everyone gets it.

.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I encouraged both my children to attend RMC (1 in and 1 at Civ. U because of career path) and stand behind them and that no matter what. Part of standing behind them is doing whatever I can to make sure that they are used correctly by our Government. By making sure that our government doesn't put them in danger unnecessarily. I certainly don't think that changing the words to the song half way through is doing them a service... do you?

You have all the right in the world to stand behind your children.

Swearing at posters on an anonymous message board isn't standing behind your child. It's rude and infantile behaviour.

Did you really chastise another poster for breaking a rule on the same thread where you called me a jackass?

Nice double-standard there pal.

Get over myself? I still stand by my word. You join the Taliban and I'll sign up for the Forces.

[Shakeyhands]

I encouraged both my children to attend RMC (1 in and 1 at Civ. U because of career path) and stand behind them and that no matter what. Part of standing behind them is doing whatever I can to make sure that they are used correctly by our Government. By making sure that our government doesn't put them in danger unnecessarily. I certainly don't think that changing the words to the song half way through is doing them a service... do you?

You have all the right in the world to stand behind your children.

Swearing at posters on an anonymous message board isn't standing behind your child. It's rude and infantile behaviour.

Did you really chastise another poster for breaking a rule on the same thread where you called me a jackass?

Nice double-standard there pal.

Get over myself? I still stand by my word. You join the Taliban and I'll sign up for the Forces.

you're kinda slow sometimes huh. I was not chastising Jah-man, I welcomed him to the board and informed him of the copyright rules, very nicely in fact.

It was no where near the chastising that you like to hand out to posters whom you don't agree with.

again, get over yourself.

[jdobbin]

Yet war-battered Afghans are immensely brave and resilient.

If more Canadians shared their stamina, their spine, we'd be a greater people.

The same day this story came out, another story said that Canadian soldiers were wondering out loud if Afghan soldiers were as committed as they could be to the fight.

http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?156866

[Ricki Bobbi]

you're kinda slow sometimes huh. I was not chastising Jah-man, I welcomed him to the board and informed him of the copyright rules, very nicely in fact.

It was no where near the chastising that you like to hand out to posters whom you don't agree with.

again, get over yourself.

OK shakey.

Anybody you want to freak out on?

Maybe you should get over your self. It's great you have kids. Doesn't give you a right to be foul-mouthed and pedantic.

To whom are you referring? Wouldn't be a poster who swore at me because they were unable to actually formulate a logical argument? Would it?

[killjoy]

The same day this story came out, another story said that Canadian soldiers were wondering out loud if Afghan soldiers were as committed as they could be to the fight.

cuz they just got there.

Same problem with us when we were there. There were communication problems and tactical differences. They were overcome. One of the problems imo is the feeling among them that NATO will always have access to air and arty and they pretty much don't. I think another problem might be that some of them are more used to the US.

Besides I'm not really understanding what your statement has to do with your quote from me, which was really a quote from Hiller, which I already said is going to be full of ra-ra bluster, which is not to say he doesn't know miles more about what we're talking about than either of us x 10, because he does. He sure as hell knows more than any journalist.

Any comment on this?

This is not an insurgency; it's an incursion, an invasion, with dreams of reoccupation.

Which is what I've been saying form day one, while trudging waist deep through all the, "CIA created the Taliban", and the, "What's Pakistan got to do with it?" and all the heaps of, "No one's ever occupied Afghanistan and they never will", and all stinking mounds of "Taliban are mostly Afghans and the Afghans all want us out and it's just like Iraq and and and".

.

[jbg]

Refreshing. A PM that says something, answers questions.