Dion Won't Topple Government

[Jean_Poutine]

Perhaps you might start a separate thread that focuses soley on Afghanistan, as opposed to this thread, which is trying to determine if Dion is clever or not.

I am interested in such a discussion.

I replied to what was already in the thread as it relates to Canadian policy and Afghanistan.

If you're interested a discussion about whether or not Dion is clever, why did you make a lengthy post that has little to do with that?

[Jean_Poutine]

Bosnia Peace Keeping

Kosovo Peace Making

Afghanistan WAR

If we are comparing Wars, then Afghanistan is closing in on a Vietnam timeline. A Soviet Afghan timeline.

And has surpassed our participation in WW2. Our participation in Korea. Our Participation in WW1. It has also surpassed our participation in the war of 1812.

You make it sound as though Canada has been in Kandahar since 2001. There are relatively peaceful parts of the country. Other countries have been criticized for having their troops there instead of the south, remember? If you're going to argue semantics, even Kandahar cannot compare to the intensity of WW1 and WW2. To suggest that Aghanistan belongs in the same category as a world war and has been continuing longer with a high intesity of fighting the whole time is hyperbole.

Here's what General Andrew Leslie had to say about the timeline in 2005:

Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie says the lengthy stay may be necessary to help that country break out of "a cycle of warlords and tribalism."

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture," he said.

But, he said, the commitment is a necessary one.

"There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for," Leslie said, in remarks reported in Monday's Toronto Star newspaper.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/08/08/...tan-050808.html

and here's what General Rick Hillier had to say recently about changing the focus of the mission:

Changing the focus of Canada's Afghan mission to stress reconstruction over combat, as demanded by Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe, would be folly, says the country's top soldier.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, says the fighting aspects of the mission are vital to the redevelopment of the country.

"We're doing the security operations not because we want to do them, but because they are absolutely essential to do," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/061217/n121706A.html

[madmax]

You make it sound as though Canada has been in Kandahar since 2001. . To suggest that Aghanistan belongs in the same category as a world war and has been continuing longer with a high intesity of fighting the whole time is hyperbole.

Here's what General Andrew Leslie had to say about the timeline in 2005:

Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie says the lengthy stay may be necessary to help that country break out of "a cycle of warlords and tribalism."

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture," he said.

"There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for," Leslie said, in remarks reported in Monday's Toronto Star newspaper.

I mentioned all the "Wars" Canada has been in except Boer War. You choose Bosnia, which was a peacekeeping mission. I did not suggest Canada has been in Kandahar since 2001. Canada has been in Afghanistan, actively fighting since 2001. Particularly our help in Anacoda saved many US 10th mountain division lives.

We are engaged in combat operations. We have been doing such for 5 years going on 6 years. We have 2 years to get this mission right. The current mission is flawed. It needs to be changed, or we are going to lose any chance of participating in a successful 20 year venture.

These two Generals, have had to respond to some very bad circumstances because of some very poor communication to the Canadian People. Infact, in news conferences, these guys have performed poorly, and yet Leslies is telling it as he sees it.

As for Hillier. He talked a bold good game.

Gung Ho for him.

If you want to help Hillier out, sign up.

Hillier doesn't have my respect any longer.

If not, my buddies whom have been to Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, many times over, will tell you in no short order.... sorry, what they told me, is going to stay with me.

It's war and we need to win this and the current mission is wrong and misguided.

Gille Duceppe is just playing politics, and Hillier must defend what he is doing in Afghanistan.

That doesn't mean they are right in what they are doing. And these simplistic statements to a very complicated problem will only provide cover for so long.

[Jean_Poutine]

I mentioned all the "Wars" Canada has been in except Boer War. You choose Bosnia, which was a peacekeeping mission. I did not suggest Canada has been in Kandahar since 2001. Canada has been in Afghanistan, actively fighting since 2001. Particularly our help in Anacoda saved many US 10th mountain division lives.

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue semantics. I referred to the timeline in which it takes to stabilize a country. In both Bosnia and Afghanistan, Canadian forces have been involved in clearing mines and destroying munitions. So, there are similarities in some of the work that's being done. Also, 25 Canadians died in Bosnia. So, it wasn't without risk.

The Afghanistan mission is not a peacekeeping mission, but it is not the same as major wars of the past. Canada spent over 15% of GDP on WWII, and today, a little more than 1% is spent on defence. Over a million Canadians served in WWII compared to roughly 14,000 in Afghanistan. I think you're being a bit disingenuous and melodramatic by comparing the two as if they're the same and saying that Afghanistan has lasted longer as such.

We have 2 years to get this mission right.

What's magical about the number 2?

These two Generals, have had to respond to some very bad circumstances because of some very poor communication to the Canadian People. Infact, in news conferences, these guys have performed poorly, and yet Leslies is telling it as he sees it.

As for Hillier. He talked a bold good game.

Hillier doesn't have my respect any longer.

I disagree with your evaluation of their job performance. Further, based on everything I've read, I'd say your opinion of Hillier puts you in a minority. What I can tell you with complete certainty is that the people that post on the army forums have better things to say about Hillier than Jack Layton.

If not, my buddies whom have been to Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, many times over, will tell you in no short order.... sorry, what they told me, is going to stay with me.

That doesn't exactly add weight to what you're saying. People say all kinds of things over the internet which may or may not be true. I've given you names and quotes. I can give you links to articles in which soldiers in Afghanistan give their opinions with their names on the record. I would also encourage you to post your argument that Layton has it right on the army forums. In fact, here's a three page thread about the opposition: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=48373.0

[Jean_Poutine]

I think Lewis MacKenzie nails it:

The Afghan mission is not a failure

There's 'tradition' and then there's getting the job done, says retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie

LEWIS MACKENZIE

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

As the leader of a party that has little chance of governing the country, the NDP's Jack Layton can accept the political risk of holding up a mirror to the government's decisions and occasionally acting as our national conscience. On the subject of Canada's role in Afghanistan, however, I fear he is dead wrong and am left to wonder if he is following the polls and playing domestic politics on the backs of our soldiers.

Mr. Layton says that he and the NDP support our soldiers but question the wisdom and achievability of NATO's mission in Afghanistan. And, having said that, he goes on to say the mission is the wrong mission for Canada and is, at the very least, unclear. I can only assume Mr. Layton's call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2007, to pursue more traditional Canadian roles involving mediation and negotiation, is based on a widely held myth that we are better than the rest of the 192 nations in the United Nations at the dated concept of "peacekeeping."

Peacekeeping between states that went to war and needed an excuse to stop fighting worked relatively well during the Cold War and Canada played a role in each and every mission. Mind you, at the height of our participation in UN missions during the 1970s and '80s we had a maximum of 2,000 soldiers wearing the blue beret deployed abroad in places such as Cyprus and the Golan Heights. At the same time, we had 10,000 personnel serving with NATO on the Central Front in Germany, armed with nuclear weapons, ready and waiting for the Soviet hoards to attack across the East German border. Peacekeeping was a sideline activity. We did it well, along with others such as Sweden, India, Norway, Brazil -- but it was never even close to being our top priority.

The other Canadian myth that might have influenced Mr. Layton's ill-timed call for our withdrawal is the oft-quoted description of Canada's policies being "even-handed," "neutral" or "impartial." We never take a stand for fear of upsetting someone. But the facts surrounding even our exaggerated peacekeeping role explode this troubling myth. For example, in the approval process preceding the very first UN lightly armed peacekeeping mission -- stick-handled by Lester Pearson through a hesitant Security Council in 1956 -- Canada voted against the British and French and, by default, sided with Egypt. We took a stand.

To suggest, as Mr. Layton does, that we should pull out of the Afghan mission next year and return to our more "traditional" roles ignores one compelling fact. There will be no significant capability for any nation to carry out those "traditional" roles of nation-building in southern Afghanistan until those who are committed to stopping such undertakings are removed from the equation.

In other words, by leaving, we would be saying to the remaining 36 nations on the ground in Afghanistan, "Hey guys, this is getting pretty difficult. We have decided to leave and go home, but don't worry, when the rest of you have put down this insurrection and things are peaceful, we will return and offer our vastly superior skills in putting countries back together. So please, call us as soon as the shooting stops -- for good."

For all those who, like Mr. Layton, say the mission is imprecise, unclear, without an exit strategy, etc., let me disagree and say that to a NATO military commander the mission is crystal clear.

It is to leave Afghanistan as quickly as humanly possible -- having turned the security of the country over to competent Afghan military and police forces controlled in their efforts by a democratically elected national government. Sounds pretty clear to me.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

Globe & Mail

[jdobbin]

What's magical about the number 2?

If Canada looks like it will be fighting a low grade insurgency beyond two years with no signs that Afghanistan can take of itself, there will be less support for the mission. I think people are looking for progress and that means an Afghanistan that can defend itself.

Two years is not a lot to ask for when it comes to seeing some sign of progress in Afghanistan. Canadians are not likely to give a blank check for a five or ten year or more commitment without evidence that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

[Jean_Poutine]

Harper's comments on this issue are also worth pointing out:

"I don't feel pressure by threats from the Liberals or NDP or Bloc to bring me down [on Afghanistan]," he said.

"If ultimately I were brought down on that, and even defeated on that, I can live with myself. I could not live with myself making a decision on Canada's role in the world and our strategic and defence interests if I knew I had done that for political reasons that were the wrong reasons. That I could not live with."

Mr. Harper said what does influence him is the notion the Canadian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan should not have died in vain.

"The most difficult part of the job I have is phoning every single Canadian family when there is a loss and talking to them," the Prime Minister said.

"And I have to tell you that what they ask of me, in almost every case, is their assurance that the government will not, because of political pressure, abandon a mission that their sons and daughters believed in and were prepared to give their lives for."

Some critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country's approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers.

But the Prime Minister rejected that analysis, saying Canada has an "aggressive military history" in two world wars.

"But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It's neither war nor peace-keeping. It's a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy."

Mr. Harper said he understands the New Democrat Party's position -- that Canada should not have sent its troops to Afghanistan and should withdraw now -- better than any of his political opponents because at least this party has been consistent. But he suggested he has less time for the two other parties.

"The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?"

"We've got guys there, they're in the most dangerous province in the country. Yes, we're trying to do development and humanitarian assistance and we're doing that. But the fact of the matter is that they've got guys shooting at them. And they've got the most concentrated group of enemy combatants right there. It isn't an option to cut down the military side of the operation. They have to do what is necessary to protect the local people and protect themselves. And nothing less."

Mr. Harper said it would be "completely irresponsible" to reduce Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

"If other parties want to go to the people and take that position -- 'We'd leave them there but we'd tell them not to defend themselves' -- let them explain that to the Canadian people."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...3ce6&k=1284&p=2

[madmax]

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue semantics. I referred to the timeline in which it takes to stabilize a country. In both Bosnia and Afghanistan, Canadian forces have been involved in clearing mines and destroying munitions. So, there are similarities in some of the work that's being done. Also, 25 Canadians died in Bosnia. So, it wasn't without risk.

It's you arguing sematics and you continue to do so. It is not unusual for military missions to be involved in clearing mines and destroying muntions. That's part of the job.

The Afghanistan mission is not a peacekeeping mission, but it is not the same as major wars of the past. Canada spent over 15% of GDP on WWII, and today, a little more than 1% is spent on defence. Over a million Canadians served in WWII compared to roughly 14,000 in Afghanistan. I think you're being a bit disingenuous and melodramatic by comparing the two as if they're the same and saying that Afghanistan has lasted longer as such Infact, in news conferences, these guys have performed poorly, and yet Leslies is telling it as he sees it.

You are very much fixated on WW2. If you are going to give me a history lesson, do all the wars. I have listed wars, I have mentioned timelines because you have done so. The Soviet/Afghan war lasted 10 year, they lost, it is still a war. Iraq is a war 3 years old. There are many wars, I have mentioned only the ones that Canada has participated in and differentiated them between Peace Keeping Missions, and Peace Making Missions and Don't mistake me for a fan of peace keeping operations. You choose a peacekeeping senario to compare a to war. BTW, committing a force to win WW2 helped ensure its success and victory. 14,000 in a country of 25 million, do you really think that this is enough to provide security and victory. Rumsfeld thought so.

I am asking you... Is afghanistan a war or a peace keeping operation?

You overlooked the part where I concur that Leslies is telling it as he sees it. It's not an optimistic view. It is straightforward, and the information came late.

I disagree with your evaluation of their job performance. Further, based on everything I've read, I'd say your opinion of Hillier puts you in a minority. What I can tell you with complete certainty is that the people that post on the army forums have better things to say about Hillier than Jack Layton.

That doesn't exactly add weight to what you're saying. People say all kinds of things over the internet which may or may not be true. I've given you names and quotes. I can give you links to articles in which soldiers in Afghanistan give their opinions with their names on the record. I would also encourage you to post your argument that Layton has it right on the army forums. In fact, here's a three page thread about the opposition:

Right Now, I don't care if I am in the Minority with regards to Hillier, whether it is in the Civilian segment or the Military Segment. I have been in the Army, I am not surprised that soldiers and military beauracrats would have better things to say about Hillier than Layton. In fact if you found me one good post in a military forum on Layton, I would sh*t my pants. In Afghanistan, we have an opinion from every soldier. Most of all the soldiers want to come home, and they don't want to be doing this operation in Vain. You want our soldiers there to make you feel good, for you to feel proud.

So, Why don't you sign up.

Are you too old?

What's the two years?

I have posted with regards to the 2 years in this thread, if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me again.

[Jean_Poutine]

If Canada looks like it will be fighting a low grade insurgency beyond two years with no signs that Afghanistan can take of itself, there will be less support for the mission. I think people are looking for progress and that means an Afghanistan that can defend itself.

Two years is not a lot to ask for when it comes to seeing some sign of progress in Afghanistan. Canadians are not likely to give a blank check for a five or ten year or more commitment without evidence that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

By the same token, however, I think Canadians have an obligation to get informed. While it may help if the Prime Minister speaks about it more often, but the press covers it every day. All Canadians have to do is pay attention. If development is of key interest, I would suggest the CIDA web site would be a good place to start.

[jdobbin]

By the same token, however, I think Canadians have an obligation to get informed. While it may help if the Prime Minister speaks about it more often, the press covers it every day. All Canadians have to do is pay attention. If development is of key interest, I would suggest the CIDA web site would be a good place to start.

I agree that Harper has to get out front on this. Otherwise, people will make their decisions based on coffins coming back from Afghanistan.

[Jean_Poutine]

I also reject the assertion that Canadian forces are simply on seek and destroy missions.

CTV's Murray Oliver said NATO has revealed it will be dropping flyers in various parts of the volatile Panjwaii district as the first phase of Operation Falcon's Summit.

"Some leaflets call on elders to reject the Taliban, and others call on what they call tier two Taliban; they believe they are farmers, local people who might be fighting for the Taliban but are not so committed, saying lay down your weapons and join NATO in developing your area.

"And the final ones are for the hard-core Taliban saying basically, leave the area or we're going to kill you."

If combat does become necessary, NATO hopes to operate in conjunction with local community leaders. There will also be an effort to recruit and train "auxiliary policemen" -- local people who will return to their home villages and act as a local militia against the Taliban, Oliver said.

"And what is hoped is that this will allow for development workers to come in and for some kind of work, reconstruction efforts and humanitarian efforts to then proceed -- something that after Medusa has not been possible," he said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1217?hub=Canada

Some 2,400 Canadian military personnel, including a 1,200-member battle group, have been based in the area since July as part of a NATO-led coalition. The Canadians are responsible for suppressing the Taliban here in the fiercely contested Kandahar region, and also promoting social and economic development.

"Those who are local, they cease being an enemy the instant they throw down their rifles," said Maj. Alex Watson, a Canadian liaison officer who serves as a conduit between Afghan officials and the Canadian military command here. "The battle is not for this piece of terrain or that city. The battle is between people's ears."

Rather than descend upon local villages in full fighting mode with cannon ablaze, coalition forces aim to coax their adversaries into submission rather than kill them.

They are hoping to entice wavering Taliban adherents to put down their weapons and instead accept peace offerings in the form of cargo containers stuffed with Yuletide treasures – farming implements, cooking oil, seeds for planting and other necessities of life, all scarce commodities in this war-ravaged territory.

Wherever the offer is spurned, however, coalition forces are prepared to respond in more bellicose fashion, training their weaponry upon Taliban fighters while trying to avoid civilian casualties.

"If only the average Canadian knew the massive firepower we have here that we're not using," said Watson. "But, if we suddenly lose our cool and use that firepower in an indiscriminate way, we might as well go back home."

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/162865

Keep in mind that the hard-core fighters are holding up development and have no respect for human life. As shown, however, pulling the trigger is not NATOs first choice.

[madmax]

Harper's comments on this issue are also worth pointing out:

[

Yes they are. He was more straight up then Paul Martin ever was with regards to the mission and he inherited it, I think he was straight in the interiview.

That said, regardless of how good this sounds about what we are doing, or the situation our troops are facing. The weakness of this mission will not be hidden in the long run.

[mikedavid00]

Canadians are not likely to give a blank check for a five or ten year or more commitment without evidence that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

Kyoto.

Sorry.. couldn't help it.

[geoffrey]

Canadians are not likely to give a blank check for a five or ten year or more commitment without evidence that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

Kyoto.

Sorry.. couldn't help it.

It's actually a good point. Except that no one is going to die in the later.

[jbg]

Canadians are not likely to give a blank check for a five or ten year or more commitment without evidence that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

Kyoto.

Sorry.. couldn't help it.

It's actually a good point. Except that no one is going to die in the later.

It's better to finally have a PM that tells the truth, or a resemble facsimile thereof.