Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

[Saturn]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...cfc8da2&k=75000

As Canadian soldiers traded fire with Taliban insurgents west of Kandahar yesterday, a new article in the prestigious international journal Foreign Affairs warned that Afghanistan is "sliding into chaos" and that the NATO-led coalition is doomed to fail without a dramatic change in strategy.

Author Barnett Rubin, a respected global authority on Afghanistan, says no amount of military sacrifice by NATO countries can produce dividends in Afghanistan without a substantial and co-ordinated infusion of economic aid and a willingness to dismantle Taliban command centres in Pakistan.

[Highlander]

That we have to deal with Pakistan sooner or later should be obvious. They are allied with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, while giving lip service to their allegiance to the West.

[Figleaf]

NO /world/sou

[Canuck E Stan]

NO WAY! Pakistan is our loyal ally in the "War" on "Terror".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4772134.stm

If only Chretien and the Liberals had an advisor to tell them about Pakistan, maybe they wouldn't have gone there.

Martin and the Liberals had an advisor,didn't use him,stayed in Afghanistan for what they thought was the right thing to do.

But that was a long time ago (two years) and now the Liberals are in opposition and anything the new government does can't be good...because...well, because the natural governing party isn't in power anymore.

[Riverwind]

NO WAY! Pakistan is our loyal ally in the "War" on "Terror".

With allies like this:

Pakistan signed an agreement with the area's tribal leaders that made everything easier for the Taliban and al-Qaeda — and, therefore, more ominous for the Canadians and other NATO forces. The agreement stipulated that Pakistan would withdraw forces from the area in exchange for a pledge by tribal leaders to prevent people from crossing into Afghanistan.

Pakistan's central government essentially gave up trying to control the tribal areas. The result has been a political vacuum into which the Taliban and other militants have moved. It's widely believed that some elements of Pakistan's security forces support the Taliban, either because they sympathize with the Taliban's ideology or prefer a weak Afghanistan.

who needs enemies?

[mikedavid00]

That we have to deal with Pakistan sooner or later should be obvious. They are allied with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, while giving lip service to their allegiance to the West.

Pakistan are the third largest group of Immigrants via country of origin and Liberal supporters in Canada.

I don't think Canada is about to go into Pakistan.

How about, we stop letting Pakistan into the UK and Canada. There's a crazy thought!

[jdobbin]

If only Chretien and the Liberals had an advisor to tell them about Pakistan, maybe they wouldn't have gone there.

Martin and the Liberals had an advisor,didn't use him,stayed in Afghanistan for what they thought was the right thing to do.

But that was a long time ago (two years) and now the Liberals are in opposition and anything the new government does can't be good...because...well, because the natural governing party isn't in power anymore.

Utter crap. Khan is recorded as saying don't go to Afghanistan? Cite?

[mikedavid00]

NO WAY! Pakistan is our loyal ally in the "War" on "Terror".

Bush sez so, so it must be true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4772134.stm

I do believe that Mushariff is bending over for the US. Also, keep in mind that he is in suclusion and has many groups out to do nothing but kill him for this reason.

The people of Pakistan have too many extremests.

Oh well, they're all coming here to Canada and UK to take advantage of our lax immigration and refugee policies.

[Canadian Blue]

Unless something is done about the Pakistan border, I am afraid we might see a pullout from Afghanistan before the job is done. However, I am optimistic that we can still have success in Afghanistan, and I don't see that much chaos right now as Afghanistan isn't in the middle of a civil war.

[mikedavid00]

Unless something is done about the Pakistan border, I am afraid we might see a pullout from Afghanistan before the job is done. However, I am optimistic that we can still have success in Afghanistan, and I don't see that much chaos right now as Afghanistan isn't in the middle of a civil war.

All that will happen are gangs from Pakistan will secure regions of Afganistan and then try to invade the central gov't.

And the age old Islamic fight for power will continue - this is why I feel we should pull out of Afganistan. It's not worth our time.

I'll say again we should not be letting citizens of those countries involved into Canada under any circumstances.

[Canuck E Stan]

Utter crap. Khan is recorded as saying don't go to Afghanistan? Cite?

So back then(two years ago),Martin and the Liberals look his advice and pulled out......not.....and why not?

Was it.....because they felt it was the right thing to do and stay and help the Afghans, or was it because politically they didn't care less about why they were there and felt it wasn't politically advantageous with a minority government to pull out.

Gosh, Harper has a minority government and he's staying because he thinks it's the right thing to do for the Afghans.

[Canadian Blue]

I might not agree with everything Harper has done, however whether you like the man or not he has shown alot of principle with regards to his stance on Afghanistan. If he wanted to become more popular he would have anounced a timeline to pullout, however still hasn't.

[jdobbin]

So back then(two years ago),Martin and the Liberals look his advice and pulled out......not.....and why not?

Was it.....because they felt it was the right thing to do and stay and help the Afghans, or was it because politically they didn't care less about why they were there and felt it wasn't politically advantageous with a minority government to pull out.

Gosh, Harper has a minority government and he's staying because he thinks it's the right thing to do for the Afghans.

Since Khan was only elected in 2004, I'm not sure what advice he has given any Liberal leader.

I've seen no claim by him that he was ever rejected by Martin for advice, do you?

[Jean_Poutine]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...cfc8da2&k=75000

As Canadian soldiers traded fire with Taliban insurgents west of Kandahar yesterday, a new article in the prestigious international journal Foreign Affairs warned that Afghanistan is "sliding into chaos" and that the NATO-led coalition is doomed to fail without a dramatic change in strategy.

Author Barnett Rubin, a respected global authority on Afghanistan, says no amount of military sacrifice by NATO countries can produce dividends in Afghanistan without a substantial and co-ordinated infusion of economic aid and a willingness to dismantle Taliban command centres in Pakistan.

Since you won't do critical analysis of what you read for yourself, I'll do it for you.

First, it's shoddy journalism to lean heavily on one source as this article does.

Second, the author asserts that most of the 36 soldiers killed last year were killed in fighting, but that isn't true. A quick check at CBC, which keeps reports of all people that are wounded and killed, shows that 17 were killed by mines/IEDs and suicide attacks, 5 by accidents and friendly fire, and 14 in combat.

I don't like using statistics much because we're talking about people not numbers, but it's important to be accurate in order to understand it and minimize the risk in the future. For example, using Chinooks to fly troops and supplies around would reduce the risk of mines/IEDs and suicide attacks, which as you can see, is the highest risk, and where it is necessary to use ground vehicles, make sure they have very good armor. There is a reason why the troops have nicknamed highway 1 "Ambush Alley". Canada is buying Chinooks, but they won't be ready for a few years. However, in the mean time, the government could try to buy some used helicopters or lease some, yet I don't hear anything about that. So, if you're concerned about saving lives, you may want to raise that issue rather than going around acting like chicken little screaming: the sky is falling!

Also worth noting is that the deaths of 4 soldiers in Operation Medusa may have been preventable. According to an article from the Globe & Mail, the area that their platoon went into had pamphlets warning the Taliban and civilians that NATO forces were coming. Also, air strikes were supposed to be used to soften the area up before they went in, but that was called off. So, they went in light, without any air strikes ahead of time, to fight an enemy that had advance warning. I would say that that's a f*ck up on the part of NATO planners.

In Operation Falcon's Summit, pamphlets were dropped once again to give warning, but Canadian forces went in heavy with tanks, LAV IIIs and howitzers. Critics argued that it showed the futility of the mission because they have to keep doing bloody operations like Operation Medusa, but they didn't have to fire a shot. The lesson here, and I think it can also be applied to the military budget as well, is that it's better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it.

Third, the author uses a favorite talking point of critics: "Opium poppy production in the country reached a record...." This is true, but it is also true that poppy production has declined in some provinces. Rather than making a blanket statement about poppy production in Afghanistan as a whole, it seems to me that it would make more sense to see if the methods used to reduce production in some provinces could be applied to provinces where it's a major problem.

Fourth, Pakistan is a problem, but some people have a tendency to exagerate it as though a sea of ten foot tall Taliban are about to flood the border. Former NATO commander General James Jones said in an interview that while it's difficult to put a number on it, he estimates that hard core taliban are in the thousands and moderates that do it for money are in the tens of thousands. So, that's not a million man army as some would like to suggest.

I do agree that Pakistan should be pressured, but just because we don't read it in a headline doesn't mean it's not happening. The US has helped Pakistan financially with billions of dollars since 9-11, and they have troops at risk along the border too. They are going to want to see a return on their investment. Recently, Pakistan has been coming out in the press and talking about what they are doing, and announcing plans to do more. Now I know people are skeptical of what the Pakistani government says, and I agree with that, but I think it's revealing that Pakistan is talking to the media about it. Generally, governments do that when they are feeling pressure.

It's also likely that the Taliban has lost the support of some people because they are killing civilians. If losing support when civilians are killed is a problem for NATO, it stands to reason that the same would apply for the Taliban, and the Taliban are far worse when it comes to endangering civilians.

Some people also talk about ethnic groups as though everyone from one ethnic group is going to think the same way, but that, again, is a generalization.

I'll wrap up by saying that when faced with a huge problem there are generally two types of reactions:

1) getting overwhelmed and saying it's impossible

2) taking a step back, and breaking it down into smaller more manageable pieces

I'd say the people that go around talking about Afghanistan being doomed fall into category 1. Acknowledging problems, but breaking them down into detail and offering some constructive criticism is helpful. Simply using rhetoric like "doomed to fail" doesn't help anyone -- except maybe the enemy.

[jdobbin]

Fourth, Pakistan is a problem, but some people have a tendency to exagerate it as though a sea of ten foot tall Taliban are about to flood the border. Former NATO commander General James Jones said in an interview that while it's difficult to put a number on it, he estimates that hard core taliban are in the thousands and moderates that do it for money are in the tens of thousands. So, that's not a million man army as some would like to suggest.

I do agree that Pakistan should be pressured, but just because we don't read it in a headline doesn't mean it's not happening. The US has helped Pakistan financially with billions of dollars since 9-11, and they have troops at risk along the border too. They are going to want to see a return on their investment. Recently, Pakistan has been coming out in the press and talking about what they are doing, and announcing plans to do more. Now I know people are skeptical of what the Pakistani government says, and I agree with that, but I think it's revealing that Pakistan is talking to the media about it. Generally, governments do that when they are feeling pressure.

Pakistan has left two border provinces to do pretty much do as they like. Frontline recently went in and it is like a mini-Taliban state.

Pakistan has not bowed down to American pressure. They attack threats to its own government but have given free reign to the Taliban to attack Pakistan.

[Catchme]

Nice that Peter MacKay is over in Afghanistan trying to make the optics look good back home, after the mess of the Offensive Operation Medusa and in spite of what is actually going on there. And what is really going there that Mackay is trying to cover up, you ask?

Starving Afghans sell girls of eight as brides

Villagers whose crops have failed after a second devastating drought are giving their young daughters in marriage to raise money for food

While the world has focused on the war against the Taliban, the suffering of the drought-stricken villagers, almost 2.5 million of them, has largely gone unnoticed.

Najibullah, 39, is a farmer. He sold his eight-year-old daughter Somaya for $3,000 (£1,560). She is engaged to a 22-year-old man from the village, Mohammed, who has also gone to Iran to earn the money to pay the bride price.

'He has already paid a deposit of $600, which we used to buy warm clothes and food,' said Najibullah. For her part, Somaya knows she is getting married but does not know what that means.

Zarigul is 40 and also from Houscha. 'Our children are very weak from lack of food and we are worried that they will die. We feed them boiled water and sugar. We have no vegetables for them, just potatoes. Last year we had vegetables. We need help - food for ourselves and our animals.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story...1984396,00.html

[Canadian Blue]

What's Peter Mackay trying to coverup???

How was Operation Medusa a mess?

Once again Catchme if your going to start making accusation's you have to back them up with FACTS.

Right now the biggest problem is Pakistan, and another problem is that many NATO nation's aren't sending troops down to the south.

If we can't improve the situation in the next year, I'm not sure we'll have success in Afghanistan.

[Catchme]

Already way ahead of you again canadian blue, posted a whole new thread about it, as well as this travesty of Afghanis starving and having to sell their daughters that you did not respond to.

[Canadian Blue]

Which is in part due to the Taliban insurgency. How would you expect us to do reconstruction and Aid work when our soldiers are coming under enemy fire, and threatened by IED's daily? Simply saying doomed to fail isn't really offering anything constructive is it, except for maybe demoralizing our soldiers.

Once again, you haven't seemed to offer any solution's, other than going on a rant.

What was Peter Mackay trying to cover up again?

[Saturn]

Which is in part due to the Taliban insurgency. How would you expect us to do reconstruction and Aid work when our soldiers are coming under enemy fire, and threatened by IED's daily? Simply saying doomed to fail isn't really offering anything constructive is it, except for maybe demoralizing our soldiers.

Once again, you haven't seemed to offer any solution's, other than going on a rant.

What was Peter Mackay trying to cover up again?

Nice try to divert the discussion to splitting hairs and avoiding the real issues.

The reality is that the Afghan mission is failing just as the Iraq mission.

There are 2 real options:

1) Expend far more resources and do what's required to finish the job.

2) Pull out and stop taking casualties and wasting resources for nothing.

Of course, the Conservatives, Republicans, etc. are going for the unrealistic wasteful approach somewhere in the middle: Do a third of what's necessary to do the job; consequently, achieve nothing while taking unnecessary casualties and wasting resources.

In the future, the Conservatives, Republicans etc. should refrain themselves to smaller targets, such as Serbia, where they can both satisfy the military and weapons industries and avoid casualties and excessive spending.

[Canadian Blue]

Nice try to divert the discussion to splitting hairs and avoiding the real issues.

The reality is that the Afghan mission is failing just as the Iraq mission.

There are 2 real options:

1) Expend far more resources and do what's required to finish the job.

2) Pull out and stop taking casualties and wasting resources for nothing.

Of course, the Conservatives, Republicans, etc. are going for the unrealistic wasteful approach somewhere in the middle: Do a third of what's necessary to do the job; consequently, achieve nothing while taking unnecessary casualties and wasting resources.

In the future, the Conservatives, Republicans etc. should refrain themselves to smaller targets, such as Serbia, where they can both satisfy the military and weapons industries and avoid casualties and excessive spending.

No, its not avoiding the real issue its facing realities. A common argument I hear is that Canada is spending too much time on the combat instead of the reconstruction efforts, however it is hard to do reconstruction while being fired upon.

As well here is the problem were facing in Afghanistan, the biggest problem is the Pakistan border, and the mission could fail if we don't address that issue. Also European nation's have to start sending some forces to the south in order to alleviate the strain on the Canadian's, Dutch, American's, and British. I'm not going to advocate a pullout though unless we have exhausted attempts to make the mission a success. We can't cower simply because of some casaulties.

[Catchme]

Nice try to divert the discussion to splitting hairs and avoiding the real issues.

The reality is that the Afghan mission is failing just as the Iraq mission.

There are 2 real options:

1) Expend far more resources and do what's required to finish the job.

2) Pull out and stop taking casualties and wasting resources for nothing.

Of course, the Conservatives, Republicans, etc. are going for the unrealistic wasteful approach somewhere in the middle: Do a third of what's necessary to do the job; consequently, achieve nothing while taking unnecessary casualties and wasting resources.

In the future, the Conservatives, Republicans etc. should refrain themselves to smaller targets, such as Serbia, where they can both satisfy the military and weapons industries and avoid casualties and excessive spending.

No, its not avoiding the real issue its facing realities. A common argument I hear is that Canada is spending too much time on the combat instead of the reconstruction efforts, however it is hard to do reconstruction while being fired upon.

As well here is the problem were facing in Afghanistan, the biggest problem is the Pakistan border, and the mission could fail if we don't address that issue. Also European nation's have to start sending some forces to the south in order to alleviate the strain on the Canadian's, Dutch, American's, and British. I'm not going to advocate a pullout though unless we have exhausted attempts to make the mission a success. We can't cower simply because of some casaulties.

Expending more resources will do nothing to help Afganis. They are starving to death and dying from diseases.

Our military rampages over their fields destroying what little does grow.

Our military has destroyed dikes that were used to irrigate fields.

Our military hold battles in their fields, using offensive military actions with tanks, an action that Canada has not used upon others since 1956 and the Korean War.

The people are having to sell their children to live, all because we have ravaged a country that had nothing to do with what we are supposed to be fighting against there. Instead of following the mandate to rebuild the country.

This is what Afghanis think of our being there, maybe we should listen and get out as they want:

"The population hates the government, hates the Americans and hates their friends because they are all liars," he said.

Get our military out of Afghanistan, they do not want us there for any reason!

Operation Medusa should never have happened, Canadian tanks should never have been sent there.

Our leaving would NOT cowering in the face of our casualities.

Our leaving would be because we are doing NOTHING good there now. Just how many more women and children have to die before we Canadians insist of our government that we get out? Some say we are they to make women and childrens life better, hah, there won't be any left by the time we're done.

The esculation of violence in the last few months is representative of the change in orders on the ground to offensive actions and nothing more. More people there just mean more people are going to die.

It is not the Taliban fighting against Canadians, they are in Pakistan, and in the mountains bordering, it is Afghanis against us who want us out of their country who are conducting the attacks nowadays it appears.

[Topaz]

I guess we all better make sure we all pay our income tax this year, since McKay is giving the Afghans $10 Million for their wages. They haven't been paid for a month, so I guess we know why the President of that country wanted us there now!! We also gave then winter coats to wear, gee aren't WE Canadians nice , to give so freely and unknowly!! For what's its worth, during my many surfing the news on the net, I did come across an article that said that Saudis and Pakistan, were behind the attack of 9/11 and this would also mean, inside job from the US, which I do believe some people did know about it. I guess this just means again no country can trust another 100%!

[Canadian Blue]

Expending more resources will do nothing to help Afganis. They are starving to death and dying from diseases.

Our military rampages over their fields destroying what little does grow.

Our military has destroyed dikes that were used to irrigate fields.

Our military hold battles in their fields, using offensive military actions with tanks, an action that Canada has not used upon others since 1956 and the Korean War.

More resources will help, because we'll then be able to do more against the Taliban, as well as deal with humanitarian problems.

Our military rampages over their fields, listen, when your coming under attack what do you do?

What's wrong with tank's, wouldn't it help in the battle field. I'm going to take a guess you know very little about military, or anything about what a military is suppose to do. As well before bashing our soldiers for the humanitarian problem in Afghanistan back up the idea that they are behind Afghan's dying from starvation.

The people are having to sell their children to live, all because we have ravaged a country that had nothing to do with what we are supposed to be fighting against there. Instead of following the mandate to rebuild the country.

Afghanistan had nothing to do with September 11th, I had no clue. Our mandate is to rebuild the country, however it's hard to rebuild a school when your coming under enemy fire, and deal with the threats of IED's daily.

Operation Medusa should never have happened, Canadian tanks should never have been sent there.

How else are we suppose to deal with people who kill Canadian soldiers?

Our leaving would be because we are doing NOTHING good there now. Just how many more women and children have to die before we Canadians insist of our government that we get out? Some say we are they to make women and childrens life better, hah, there won't be any left by the time we're done.

All of the soldier's I have talked to who have been over in Afghanistan think that what we are doing over there is good for the country, and many have stated that we are helping the situation by being there.

It is not the Taliban fighting against Canadians, they are in Pakistan, and in the mountains bordering, it is Afghanis against us who want us out of their country who are conducting the attacks nowadays it appears.

No it's the Taliban, I've been reading the reports coming in from Afghanistan, and it is the Taliban. The Taliban are mounting offensives from Pakistan.

The esculation of violence in the last few months is representative of the change in orders on the ground to offensive actions and nothing more. More people there just mean more people are going to die.

Trust me the Taliban wouldn't really improve the situation. If you think the Taliban are better than Canadian troops and NATO, then make your argument.

By the way, that link only takes into account former members of the Taliban who are in government. Karzai want's us there.

Once again you can't go from one extreme to another, it takes time to rebuild a country. We can't expect it to become a liberal democracy overnight.

[Catchme]

canadian blue says: More resources will help, because we'll then be able to do more against the Taliban, as well as deal with humanitarian problems

Are you not listening? The Afghanis are about have a Jihad to get rid of the liars who have invaded their country with false promises.

Our military rampages over their fields, listen, when your coming under attack what do you do?

That is defensive you are speaking of, I am speaking of offensive actions by our military and we should

Leave the country instead of killing more of those you say your there trying to help. Why do you keep over looking this aspect?

What's wrong with tank's, wouldn't it help in the battle field.

We are not in battle, so NO they should not be there, nor were they until Harper took office, and then more Canadians started dying, so I guess tanks there really do very little protecting of Canadian military now do they?

I'm going to take a guess you know very little about military, or anything about what a military is suppose to do. As well before bashing our soldiers for the humanitarian problem in Afghanistan back up the idea that they are behind Afghan's dying from starvation.

Your guess would be wrong. And I know exactly why e were there, I was actually proud of the very successful efforts we were having in the beginning, until the USA's promise of reconstruction money did not come.

I never bashed our soldier, that is a red herring unworthy of this discussion. Stop putting words in my mouth.

War in a country always causes starvation, it does not take evidence to support that, plus there are links in this very thread that say so, apparently you did not read them. You were at the other read thats had a luink also, did you not read it?

Afghanistan had nothing to do with September 11th, I had no clue. Our mandate is to rebuild the country, however it's hard to rebuild a school when your coming under enemy fire, and deal with the threats of IED's daily.

Now why would we be there to rebuild? Your comment of not knowing is....

How else are we suppose to deal with people who kill Canadian soldiers?

Not launch an offensive that kills civilians and stil does no good, in fact it has made things worse so.... other means than bringing tanks in should have been undertaken, like insisting the uSA buck up promised reconstruction monies.

All of the soldier's I have talked to who have been over in Afghanistan think that what we are doing over there is good for the country, and many have stated that we are helping the situation by being there.

That would be hearsay information to me and to others reading this. I am sure others like I have heard reports otherwise.

No it's the Taliban, I've been reading the reports coming in from Afghanistan, and it is the Taliban. The Taliban are mounting offensives from Pakistan.

So, have I and the reports are saying Afghanis are joining the Taliban, as better the devil you know, than you don't. rember the facts in the article that started this thread, as it seems you may have forgotten.

Now in parliament the MPs are saying 'Forget about Pakistan and the Taliban; why are the foreigners here?'

"They are saying a thousand-headed dragon is here and it's the foreign armies. Just imagine, if the MPs are saying that in an official place, what will a simple person in a village be saying?"

Afghanistan wants us gone

Trust me the Taliban wouldn't really improve the situation. If you think the Taliban are better than Canadian troops and NATO, then make your argument.[/quot]

It is not up to me to make the argument, it is up to the Afghanis to state their case and they are stating it, some are just not listening.

a number of Afghan politicians said a mass uprising against NATO-led forces will soon begin, driving out the foreign troops and igniting a civil war.

Now in parliament the MPs are saying 'Forget about Pakistan and the Taliban; why are the foreigners here?

By the way, that link only takes into account former members of the Taliban who are in government. Karzai want's us there.

Is he the Dictator now propped up by Canada?

Once again you can't go from one extreme to another, it takes time to rebuild a country. We can't expect it to become a liberal democracy overnight.

The country was torn apart byfor NO reason our military was to go to reconstruct. Which they were doing, and slowly gaining ground until about a year ago, when somehow everything changed!