Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

[Fortunata]

I don't think anyone thinks Canadian soldiers deliberately target civilians but is it too much to imagine that we are concerned about civilian casualties? They didn't ask for this war.

Further, I'm getting tired of this "Chretien" didn't care for the troops, Martin hated the military but Stevie loves us. It's all BS. Chretien and Steve have agendas which may or may not have anything to do with making lives better for Afghans. At the very least Chretien should be given credit for sending the armed forces to live up to our NATO agreement - an attack on one country is an attack on us all sorta thing.

Steve? Well personally I think Steve's support of the mission has more to do with power and sucking up to Bush than it does to making lives better for individuals in Afghanistan. I don't like Steve and I don't think he has an altruistic bone in his body. He has calculated how much this will raise "him" on the world stage and in the US.

[Charles Anthony]

Infact the military told him at the time that this mission was to complicated for our military...

Why did the military say it was too complicated at the time?

[Catchme]

Infact the military told him at the time that this mission was to complicated for our military...

Why did the military say it was too complicated at the time?

Exactly Charles! And I agree with fortuna's post as well re: Not blaming individual military personal for the deaths of women and children and Harper's motives especially!

Army guy in response to your comments below:

Army Guy said:Why, because we have signed on to the NATO agreement, no where in that agreement does it state ya we'll agree to assist you when your attacked but we will not take place in offensive operations. Lets make it clear that over 30 Canadian lives were taken on 9/11...that they the Taliban and Al Quada brought this attack to our doorstep...We also answered the call of the elected Afgan government to assist them in providing a secure enviroment for thier citizens and to assist in re-building thier nation. And inorder to do all that "first" we need a safe and secure enviroment. That can not happen if everyone is in camps waiting for the taliban to go just fade away.

30 Canadian lives being lost in 911 have no bearing on today's Afghanistan, nor on what we are speaking of in this thread, other than it was an excuse to go into a country that had NOTHING to do with 911. Hence the promises of reconstruction money and efforts that have NOT been followed through on.

There was NO elected Afgan government back then for us to answer the call. The elections came after we went in there to "reconstruct".

The environment is not safe and secure after 4 years, in fact it is worse than ever, as I said earlier, when something is NOT working businesses, governments, and organizations usually change actions instead of trying to make what is not working work. The fact that they are not suggests that they do not want things to work in the manner that the "official" mandate says. Apparently, there is actually another mandate, that is unknown that they are working from.

Army Guy said: What is the piont in getting involved if thats all Canadians want us to do...why even be here... Canadian soldiers don't sit behind the wire and watch thier allies do all the fighting we came here to help not sit around, now you may say this is not about what Canadian soldiers want ...we pay them to follow orders, SORRY, but just how many would volunteer under those guidelines, not many....

One could ask the same question of many of our leaders, what military experience did crieten have, when he decided to send us here in the first place...hell he did'nt even like the military...Infact the military told him at the time that this mission was to complicated for our military...So don't blame this on harper when it was clearly the liberals that you have to thank...

Exactly, my point why should our military even be there? Most Canadian military that I know, did not sign up to go to war, they signed up to peace keep, there is a big difference. And I know, I did not sign up to wage war, I signed up to Peace Keep.

The NATO commitment should have ended after the initial term was up and should NOT have been extended.

Chretien may not have had military experience but he at least had years of governing experience, and had a majority mandate from Canadians. Neither of which Harper has. The fact that the military said it was too complicated does not support your position. In fact, it supports mine.

First of all, we can see the pressure that was imposed upon Chretien by the USA to fulfill our NATO commitments even when the military says no.

Second, because the military recommend NO, common sense says Canada should have gotten out of there at our first opportunity before we threw, and throw, away more Canadians lives.

Thirdly, Canada's military went to Afghanistan, to avoid the quagmire mess in Iraq, and still support our NATO partner the USA. The mission was supposed to be short term, the reason why it isn't is because Harper extended it, and then proceeded to make things worse.

Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan.

[Army Guy]

Fortunata:

don't think anyone thinks Canadian soldiers deliberately target civilians but is it too much to imagine that we are concerned about civilian casualties? They didn't ask for this war.

If everyone thought that way the question would never been asked. Concern is one thing but to suggest it is being done to boast kill counts is another..And they did ask, thru thier elected government.

Further, I'm getting tired of this "Chretien" didn't care for the troops, Martin hated the military but Stevie loves us. It's all BS. Chretien and Steve have agendas which may or may not have anything to do with making lives better for Afghans. At the very least Chretien should be given credit for sending the armed forces to live up to our NATO agreement - an attack on one country is an attack on us all sorta thing.

And like you i'm getting tired with people blaming the whole Afgan sit on Mr. Harper, when all he's done is extended the mission and ensure that equipment we needed for combat was purchased..

As for Crietien and hating the military, perhaps you can show me what he accomplished inregards to our military, perhaps you can explain to me which party was holding the reins when our military was slashed and allowed to slip into it's worse condition in over 50 years. And i will admit the PC also had a small part to play in that.

OH yes they did buy us those lovely subs, the world famous LSVW truck with thier tactical quite brakes, Griffon helos that are inferior to the older versions we had, they did sell those terriable chinnok helos we had to the dutch that we now beg to use, lets not forget cancelling the Sea king helo replacements and then purchasing the same helo for SAR, not to mention gutting monies for training ,for improvements to our infra struture, most of it over 30 years old...Your right where is my loyalities Mr. Crietien i salute you and the liberal party. It might be BS to you, but you were not the one forced to drive down town Kabul in a open air Iltis jeep and told that DND could not afford any replace vehs because the whole Afgan deployment was coming out of it's budget...yes Martin did rush the LUVW purchase to replace the Iltis another veh unsuitable for Afgan replaced by Nyalia armoured patrol veh puchased by the Cons.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

First let me thank you for putting your butt out there on behalf of our country. However, I must admit that I attend the Diocese of "Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism". So, in that light, I have slim hope that this 'war' will ever be won the way it is presently being fought. The Russians were ruthless, dropped millions of anti-personnel mines, etc, had state of the art equipment, and still 'lost'.

The mission is going about while not killing the right people, in my opinion. What I by that is, the fighting will continue ad nauseum as long as there are people (clerics and Imams) teaching others that the Canadians (and NATO) are fighting against Islam and for occupation, rather than self-determination. Would not 'targetted strikes' (read: Assassination) against a key few be far more effective that patrolling, waiting to get attacked, and then returning fire?

[Catchme]

Fortunata:

don't think anyone thinks Canadian soldiers deliberately target civilians but is it too much to imagine that we are concerned about civilian casualties? They didn't ask for this war.

If everyone thought that way the question would never been asked. Concern is one thing but to suggest it is being done to boast kill counts is another..And they did ask, thru thier elected government.

And like you i'm getting tired with people blaming the whole Afgan sit on Mr. Harper, when all he's done is extended the mission and ensure that equipment we needed for combat was purchased..

yes Martin did rush the LUVW purchase to replace the Iltis another veh unsuitable for Afgan replaced by Nyalia armoured patrol veh puchased by the Cons.

No you're wrong they did not ask, we were there before they had an elected government!

You're also wrong about who purchased the Nyala's! It certainly was not Harper's government

From DND's own web site:

BG–05.036 - November 29, 2005

The nature of Canada's role in bringing stability to Afghanistan and other failed and failing states is rapidly changing. The realistic threat of terrorism, suicide bombers, riots, explosive devices and well-armed militia is altering the operational environment for Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces will increase its presence in Afghanistan in February 2006 by deploying approximately 2,000 personnel to the volatile and dangerous region of Kandahar.

Canadian soldiers face a complex and demanding mission in diverse landscapes ranging from mountainous, isolated and remote regions to busy urban centres with large populations. Gone are the days of heavy armoured formations. Today's Army needs to be mobile, responsive and flexible, and today's soldier needs the right equipment to meet the challenges of the new security environment.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view...s_e.asp?id=1833

Notice the date of the purchase announcement was: Nov 29 2005, for the Nyala APV's, and Harper did not come into office until January 23 2006, 2 months after the announcement. So perhaps you should adjust your thinking about what government actually bought them, as it was the Liberals under Martin, not Harper who bought them. And if Harper's government is taking credit for it amongst the military in Afghanistan they are liars and deceivers!

The DND link also list all the other equipment that Martin bought that is now in Afghanistan. Moreover, while looking for evidence to see if Harper bought anything more for Afghanistan that is currently in use there, I could find nothing. Not saying he didn't but cannot find evidence.

[Fortunata]

Notice the date of the purchase announcement was: Nov 29 2005, for the Nyala APV's, and Harper did not come into office until January 23 2006, 2 months after the announcement. So perhaps you should adjust your thinking about what government actually bought them, as it was the Liberals under Martin, not Harper who bought them. And if Harper's government is taking credit for it amongst the military in Afghanistan they are liars and deceivers!

No, no Catchme, you MUST be wrong. Army Guy has said LIBERALS BAD, BAD, BAD; they hate the military, only Conservatives love the military and back the military. In one breath he says Chretien is bad because the Armed Forces said we couldn't go into Afghanistan and Chretien didn't listen and sent them anyways then with his next breath he says bad,bad Canadian people that want us to pull out. I mean, c'mon talk about being a brainwashed Con or something. Is this what the army teaches these guys?

[mikedavid00]

Don't waste your time Army Guy. She is a partisan hack playing politics with Canadian soldiers lives.

Here is why we are in afgahnistan (10 second clip):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiYT1ywtXxA

Notice how the woman are covered head to toe in blue and how their eyes aren't even allowed to show. They are leading completely appressed lives as slaves.

Also, don't think for a minute that the same women in those video's wouldn't come to Canada and support radical forms of Islam. They have been brainwashed after all.

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

No you're wrong they did not ask, we were there before they had an elected government!

I guess your right if we were talking about the previous Taliban run government, then you would be right they did not invite us in , infact they refused out right this the same government that oppressed it's people thru terror and religion...Infact they did tell the west the would stand toe to toe with there good friends and allies Al Quada. so i guess this is my question to you, was the west justified invading Afgan.

But your not right , when it comes to the now elected government which invited us to stay and establish peace and security.

You're also wrong about who purchased the Nyala's! It certainly was not Harper's government

You are right , the martins liberals did arrange the orginal purchase of the Nyala's in fact they did purchase a whooping 230 plus million on new equipment for the Afgan mission.. It was the Cons whom funded the purchase of the remaining Nyala's off that contract..But i don't recall slamming the Martin Liberals in fact i did piont out they did rush in the LUVW's as a replacement for the Iltis jeeps...But come on in todays world 234 million dollar investment is peanuts when martin and cretian knew what state the military was in before they sent us in...but back to Mr Cretian what is it that he done that the Defense dept should be so greatful for...

The DND link also list all the other equipment that Martin bought that is now in Afghanistan. Moreover, while looking for evidence to see if Harper bought anything more for Afghanistan that is currently in use there, I could find nothing. Not saying he didn't but cannot find evidence.

Do you think that all the liberal spending in the 12 years they were in power can add up to what the cons have spent on the miltary in thier first term of office...I'll leave you with this question Do you think our current military is capable of defending this nation in it's current state.

Fortunata:

No, no Catchme, you MUST be wrong. Army Guy has said LIBERALS BAD, BAD, BAD; they hate the military, only Conservatives love the military and back the military. In one breath he says Chretien is bad because the Armed Forces said we couldn't go into Afghanistan and Chretien didn't listen and sent them anyways then with his next breath he says bad,bad Canadian people that want us to pull out. I mean, c'mon talk about being a brainwashed Con or something. Is this what the army teaches these guys?

It is kind of ironic is it not, but historical fact that Yes DND and the CDS did advise the Crietian Government that at the time DND was not ready for this mission and full scale combat, we did not have the equipment nor the cash to support it. (so yes i do piont a finger at the liberal party for sending us) Because his sending us thier unprepared cost the lives of some of my comrads for a few polictical pionts (yes it has left a bad taste in my mouth) But really what chioce did we have ( leave the military was an option) but if you know Canadian soldiers, that was not an option...

And now i've been preaching that we should stay...and the liberals are screaming for our return, "the Mission has changed" BS, nothing has changed except public polls, and the liberals are fishing for more votes....(hey it worked for the NDP)

So why should we stay, because it is us the "military" that have poured our blood sweat and tears into making this mission a sucessful one, and we do not want all that effort to go to waste because it gets a few votes, because the mission has not changed, and the job is not finished ... we do not see Afgan has a waste of lives, or a waste of time or a lost cause... We do not chase votes or get discourage easily the only thing we chase is achieve our governments objectives. All that being said there may come a time when we can no longer achieve those objectives and that time we can say it's time to go home...but that time has yet to come...

So i'll tell you what the Military teaches us, leadership, Loyality, honour, integrity, something i did not see in previous liberal governments, something that has been missing in Canadian polictics for quit sometime. The cons may not have all those qualities but thier rein has just started, and time will judge them by thier actions just as time is judging the liberals for thier actions.

[Who's Doing What?]

Watched this last night. So I missed the "Little Mosque...."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

Don't ever get the idea that the Taliban and Al Qeada are beaten into submission.

Don't ever think they aren't going to attempt another 9/11 if given the chance.

Don't think this ends with Afghanistan.

Few more sad facts:

1. The Taliban in Afgahnistan was setup and put in power by the Pakistani ISI (Inteligence).

2. Many of these ISI are still loyal to the Taliban.

3. The Pakistani Govt. is afraid to act in force due to the loyalty of some ISI and Military members to the Taliban.

4. Pakistani Religious Parties raise money, clothing and blankets for the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan.

5. 50,000 british troops in the 1930's could not secure the Tribal areas of Pakistan.

6. Truckloads of Jihadists regularly move across the Tribal Lands Pakistani/Afghan border to participate in fighting.

7. The Pakistani govt made a deal with the Taliban, where they actually gave them money so the Taliban could repay some of its dept to Al Qeada.

So many more but I have to stop.

[Canadian Blue]

No, no Catchme, you MUST be wrong. Army Guy has said LIBERALS BAD, BAD, BAD; they hate the military, only Conservatives love the military and back the military. In one breath he says Chretien is bad because the Armed Forces said we couldn't go into Afghanistan and Chretien didn't listen and sent them anyways then with his next breath he says bad,bad Canadian people that want us to pull out. I mean, c'mon talk about being a brainwashed Con or something. Is this what the army teaches these guys?

I find the military is fairly conservative, but I've met some NDP and Liberal members.

It is kind of ironic is it not, but historical fact that Yes DND and the CDS did advise the Crietian Government that at the time DND was not ready for this mission and full scale combat, we did not have the equipment nor the cash to support it. (so yes i do piont a finger at the liberal party for sending us) Because his sending us thier unprepared cost the lives of some of my comrads for a few polictical pionts (yes it has left a bad taste in my mouth) But really what chioce did we have ( leave the military was an option) but if you know Canadian soldiers, that was not an option...

And now i've been preaching that we should stay...and the liberals are screaming for our return, "the Mission has changed" BS, nothing has changed except public polls, and the liberals are fishing for more votes....(hey it worked for the NDP)

So why should we stay, because it is us the "military" that have poured our blood sweat and tears into making this mission a sucessful one, and we do not want all that effort to go to waste because it gets a few votes, because the mission has not changed, and the job is not finished ... we do not see Afgan has a waste of lives, or a waste of time or a lost cause... We do not chase votes or get discourage easily the only thing we chase is achieve our governments objectives. All that being said there may come a time when we can no longer achieve those objectives and that time we can say it's time to go home...but that time has yet to come...

So i'll tell you what the Military teaches us, leadership, Loyality, honour, integrity, something i did not see in previous liberal governments, something that has been missing in Canadian polictics for quit sometime. The cons may not have all those qualities but thier rein has just started, and time will judge them by thier actions just as time is judging the liberals for thier actions.

I second that, as well remember which party disbanded the Airborne Regiment. When a government abandons it's troop's that not a very good sign.

[Canadian Blue]

Thirdly, Canada's military went to Afghanistan, to avoid the quagmire mess in Iraq, and still support our NATO partner the USA. The mission was supposed to be short term, the reason why it isn't is because Harper extended it, and then proceeded to make things worse.

Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan.

I doubt it, we went to Afghanistan due to the Taliban alliance with Osama Bin Laden. Where do you think Al Queida was operating out of?

I don't believe the mission was ever meant to only be short term, and it wasn't to avoid Iraq.

Exactly, my point why should our military even be there? Most Canadian military that I know, did not sign up to go to war, they signed up to peace keep, there is a big difference. And I know, I did not sign up to wage war, I signed up to Peace Keep.

So far from my experience in the military few recruit's have ever said they joined just so they could wear a baby blue beret. I believe that our main priority is to protect Canada and to serve it's interest's overseas.

As well they would have been in a shock in Basic when they found out they would be shooting a C7.

OH yes they did buy us those lovely subs, the world famous LSVW truck with thier tactical quite brakes, Griffon helos that are inferior to the older versions we had

Funny thing about the LSVW is when they are emphasizing sound and light discipline while setting up a rad det, and all you hear is the screech of the brakes.

Steve? Well personally I think Steve's support of the mission has more to do with power and sucking up to Bush than it does to making lives better for individuals in Afghanistan. I don't like Steve and I don't think he has an altruistic bone in his body. He has calculated how much this will raise "him" on the world stage and in the US.

Then why in the hell did Paul Martin and Jean Chretien go to Afghanistan. Was that to suck up to Bush and the US as well?

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

30 Canadian lives being lost in 911 have no bearing on today's Afghanistan, nor on what we are speaking of in this thread, other than it was an excuse to go into a country that had NOTHING to do with 911. Hence the promises of reconstruction money and efforts that have NOT been followed through on.

We would not be in Afgan today if it had not been for 9/11 period, As for that country having nothing to do with it is true however when they agree they will defend those responsiable it leaves little to discuss does it not, or do you think that those responsiable should have been left unpunished and left in afgan to plot more terror...

Exactly, my point why should our military even be there? Most Canadian military that I know, did not sign up to go to war, they signed up to peace keep, there is a big difference. And I know, I did not sign up to wage war, I signed up to Peace Keep.

I take it by your above statement that you are currently serving in the Canadian Armed forces, the last time i checked the Oath of allegiance no where did it mention peace keeping only, in fact no were does it mention you get to chioce at all , what it does mention is enemies of Canada both here and abroad. And your nation has declared the Taliban an enemy of Canada and is now currently engaging them on the battle field.

Don't like that perhaps you should inform your chain of command, and make an appiontment with clothing stores to turn in your uniform...But then again i think your full of shit in your claim of being military, peace keeping only you make me laugh, i signed up to travel the world and get a great tan how and i'm making out. How many tours in Afgan have you completed, most in my unit are avg 2 to 3 with no relief in sight

The fact that the military said it was too complicated does not support your position. In fact, it supports mine.

Your missing the piont it shows us that crietien did not take the advise of DND, and sent us anyways we were not ready for Afgan, ..He knew the current state of affairs in Afgan, and he knew the condition of his military, are you saying he knew something we in the military did not know, or like i was suggesting he did'nt care what it cost he wanted those polictical pionts...so he did not look bad for not getting involved in Iraq...Now that is showing leadership. Again i'm sorry and salute the liberal party...

First of all, we can see the pressure that was imposed upon Chretien by the USA to fulfill our NATO commitments even when the military says no.

Second, because the military recommend NO, common sense says Canada should have gotten out of there at our first opportunity before we threw, and throw, away more Canadians lives.

Thirdly, Canada's military went to Afghanistan, to avoid the quagmire mess in Iraq, and still support our NATO partner the USA. The mission was supposed to be short term, the reason why it isn't is because Harper extended it, and then proceeded to make things worse.

Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan.

Who declared it short term, if we are honouring NATO commitments then we are commited to the mission until our NATO partners declare it over. or are we now saying our commitment is good as long as it is short term....Much like you saying i only signed up for peace keeping...

Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan

The US still has more than triple the amount of troops than any other country involved has to say something plus the fact that they are pumping more troops in every month. sounds like the left us holding the bag.

[Canadian Blue]

Armyguy which unit and base are you at?

I'm a Sig Op, posted to Winnipeg.

Exactly, my point why should our military even be there? Most Canadian military that I know, did not sign up to go to war, they signed up to peace keep, there is a big difference. And I know, I did not sign up to wage war, I signed up to Peace Keep.

If you did sign up, then the recruiter must have really stretched the truth.

[Army Guy]

Fleabag:

Would not 'targetted strikes' (read: Assassination) against a key few be far more effective that patrolling, waiting to get attacked, and then returning fire?

No, don't get me wrong, there has been plenty of targetted strikes, actually pretty common and they do serve a purpose, but they are not as effective as having boots on the ground patrolling 24 hours a day, first it allows us to become familar with the area, the people, it allows us to monitor the re construction efforts , determine what a village needs in assistance or reconstruction efforts...it allows us to form a repore with the village it self, and some what protect them from roving taliban scumbags that punish them for talking to us or accepting our help.... i don't think you could ever replace patrolling...

[Army Guy]

Canadian Blue:

3 RCR, Pet ont (home of the real Army)

Infantry

[madmax]

Few more sad facts:

1. The Taliban in Afgahnistan was setup and put in power by the Pakistani ISI (Inteligence).

2. Many of these ISI are still loyal to the Taliban.

3. The Pakistani Govt. is afraid to act in force due to the loyalty of some ISI and Military members to the Taliban.

4. Pakistani Religious Parties raise money, clothing and blankets for the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan.

5. 50,000 british troops in the 1930's could not secure the Tribal areas of Pakistan.

6. Truckloads of Jihadists regularly move across the Tribal Lands Pakistani/Afghan border to participate in fighting.

7. The Pakistani govt made a deal with the Taliban, where they actually gave them money so the Taliban could repay some of its dept to Al Qeada.

So many more but I have to stop.

Yup, While this is pretty much common knowledge to anybody doing anykind of research, I am glad you have pointed out these facts, and would have been pleased to see more of them, but I understand. Just how much do you try to inject into this forum.

Thanks for doing providing this info for everyone.

I

[madmax]

I second that, as well remember which party disbanded the Airborne Regiment. When a government abandons it's troop's that not a very good sign.

I agree. And when the leadership in Somalia aren't held properly accountable, a whole regiment and its history suffers even worse.

[Jean_Poutine]

Dear Army Guy,

First let me thank you for putting your butt out there on behalf of our country. However, I must admit that I attend the Diocese of "Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism". So, in that light, I have slim hope that this 'war' will ever be won the way it is presently being fought. The Russians were ruthless, dropped millions of anti-personnel mines, etc, had state of the art equipment, and still 'lost'.

The Russians didn't have the same mandate and support that NATO has, and the equipment they had was nowhere near as good as what NATO has. Even the Leopard tanks are better than what the Soviets used.

The mission is going about while not killing the right people, in my opinion. What I by that is, the fighting will continue ad nauseum as long as there are people (clerics and Imams) teaching others that the Canadians (and NATO) are fighting against Islam and for occupation, rather than self-determination. Would not 'targetted strikes' (read: Assassination) against a key few be far more effective that patrolling, waiting to get attacked, and then returning fire?

Meanwhile, Afghan forces continue to grow and the Taliban lose the support of moderates by killing civilians in attacks and torturing/killing them for cooperating with NATO. Personally, I think that'll make it pretty clear who the real enemy is.

[madmax]

I found these interesting. It shows some of the goings on facing troops in Afghanistan.

British troops in secret truce with the Taliban

Michael Smith, Times Online (UK), 1 Oct 06

BRITISH troops battling the Taliban are to withdraw from one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan after agreeing a secret deal with the local people. Over the past two months British soldiers have come under sustained attack defending a remote mud-walled government outpost in the town of Musa Qala in southern Afghanistan. Eight have been killed there. It has now been agreed the troops will quietly pull out of Musa Qala in return for the Taliban doing the same. The compound is one of four district government offices in the Helmand province that are being guarded by British troops. Although soldiers on the ground may welcome the agreement, it is likely to raise new questions about troop deployment . . . .

Tony Prudori

Editor, MILNEWS - Military News for Canadians

By Raymond Whitaker Published: 01 October 2006

"We headed off to what can only be described as the Wild West." Those are the words, not of a beleaguered British squaddie, but of a Canadian officer in a unit sent to help rescue our troops in the lawless Afghan province of Helmand. His account, emailed to family and friends back in Canada, is the most detailed to emerge from what commanders have called the most desperate fighting British troops have seen since the Korean War.

"A British company from 3 Para had been isolated and surrounded by Taliban in... Sangin district centre," the officer relates. "They had lost four soldiers and were being attacked three to five times a day. They were running out of food and were down to boiling river water." An attempt to air-drop supplies had failed, with the supplies landing in a Taliban stronghold, so the Canadians were ordered to conduct an immediate emergency resupply operation with their light armoured vehicles (LAVs).

"When we arrived in Sangin, the locals began throwing rocks and anything they could at us; this was not a friendly place," the officer reports. "We pushed into the district centre, and during the last few hundred metres we began receiving mortar fire." By the time they reached the British position, the Canadian convoy had to stay overnight. "We were attacked with small arms RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] and mortars three times that night. I still can't believe the Brits have spent over a month living there under these conditions."

A bloody choice: Iraq or Afghanistan? Britain must choose

If it does not, according to MoD documents leaked last week, we risk failure in both. Raymond Whitaker on a bloody dilemma

Published: 01 October 2006

You can see what is facing other countries, and obviously, for the UK, the cost of investing in two campaigns.

One thing we do have in our favour was the decision not to join the coalition of the willing.

[madmax]

The Russians didn't have the same mandate and support that NATO has, and the equipment they had was nowhere near as good as what NATO has. Even the Leopard tanks are better than what the Soviets used.

The USSR didn't need a mandate. It wasn't their policy to seek one

Even our Leopard Tanks cannot go up the mountains any better than the Soviet Ones.

Quite frankly, they may be great for our troops, but exemplify the failure that afghanistan has become 5 years on. And if you understand anything about tactics derived in virtually 25 years of assymetrical warfare. A bunch of breeding Jihadists lucky to have running shoes, no education and running around mountains in search of water, and maybe a bite to eat at a home of protection, firing off an RPG and setting off radio shack style triggered IED for the price of religion or a few rupees, vs $1 million to fly each tank and then the costs to operate them is exactly the game they want us to play. Tanks do not inspire friendship. It inspires fear, and demonstrates power. That transcends the population, not just the Taliban.

Meanwhile, Afghan forces continue to grow and the Taliban lose the support of moderates by killing civilians in attacks and torturing/killing them for cooperating with NATO. Personally, I think that'll make it pretty clear who the real enemy is.

You are half right, and half reading to much propoganda. The people will not support NATO if members of their family are killed by NATO forces period. I don't believe you could find a "moderate" Afghan unless he has been western educated. This is not the case with the vast majority of uneducated Pashtuns. The Taliban do not have to Torture or Kill anyone. All they need to do, which they have been doing, and is an old tactic from the 80s, is to mark a door, showing their turf. This shows they are around, and will be back. The people only have to think, hmm, will this foreing soldier be around in the next 5 years, or will it be our cousins, brothers or rival Pashtun Tribes. Once the soldiers leave an area, the Taliban/pashtuns can return, whether they are welcome or not, and settle scores of revenge at this time.

[Jean_Poutine]

I don't think anyone thinks Canadian soldiers deliberately target civilians but is it too much to imagine that we are concerned about civilian casualties? They didn't ask for this war.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Case in point: Click here and here and you can see Canadian forces trying to save children that were wounded in an attack that killed four Canadian soldiers. Do the Taliban make such efforts? Do they give a sh*t that their attacks on NATO wound/kill civilians? No and no.

Further, I'm getting tired of this "Chretien" didn't care for the troops, Martin hated the military but Stevie loves us. It's all BS. Chretien and Steve have agendas which may or may not have anything to do with making lives better for Afghans. At the very least Chretien should be given credit for sending the armed forces to live up to our NATO agreement - an attack on one country is an attack on us all sorta thing.

I didn't even have to get to the third paragraph to see that the truth is that you are partisan and uncomfortable with a fact that's been pointed out about the party you support. The fact that you will call Jean Chretien and Paul Martin by their proper names but won't do with same for Stephen Harper is a dead give away.

Harper was the only leader willing to restore what the Liberals cut in 1993, and that has nothing to do with the US or Bush.

Also, while the anti-American, partisan left-wingers want to accuse Harper of getting more involved in combat for Bush while they praise the Dutch for having the right approach, here's a video to watch:

http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/6735/a588a9e3/index.html

They are involved in the same sort of combat as Canadians.

[Catchme]

The fact that the military said it was too complicated does not support your position. In fact, it supports mine.

Your missing the piont it shows us that crietien did not take the advise of DND, and sent us anyways we were not ready for Afgan, ..He knew the current state of affairs in Afgan, and he knew the condition of his military, are you saying he knew something we in the military did not know, or like i was suggesting he did'nt care what it cost he wanted those polictical pionts...so he did not look bad for not getting involved in Iraq...Now that is showing leadership. Again i'm sorry and salute the liberal party...

First of all, we can see the pressure that was imposed upon Chretien by the USA to fulfill our NATO commitments even when the military says no.

Second, because the military recommend NO, common sense says Canada should have gotten out of there at our first opportunity before we threw, and throw, away more Canadians lives.

Thirdly, Canada's military went to Afghanistan, to avoid the quagmire mess in Iraq, and still support our NATO partner the USA. The mission was supposed to be short term, the reason why it isn't is because Harper extended it, and then proceeded to make things worse.

Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan.

Who declared it short term, if we are honouring NATO commitments then we are commited to the mission until our NATO partners declare it over. or are we now saying our commitment is good as long as it is short term....Much like you saying i only signed up for peace keeping...

Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan

The US still has more than triple the amount of troops than any other country involved has to say something plus the fact that they are pumping more troops in every month. sounds like the left us holding the bag.

Actually it has been awhile since I was in the military, well prior to 911, but that is not the point. Canada's military since the Korean War, excpet for the Yugoslavian disaster, has been focused on Peace Keeping tactics and ideology.

So, I was right about everything regarding who bought what, and who did what in what time frame and about us being not invited there. Just what is it that is known by you then and is not propaganada that you are being fed?

But we are all am wrong thinking the Liberals did support those in Afghanistan and that the CPC care oh so much more! And how are those field rations?

I am talking about reconstruction monies that the USA bailed on that was fairly consistently presented by me.

Fact of the matter is, those in Afghanistan are not even yet using anything the Harper government has said they were purchasing for the military.

It was brought to Canadians as a short term action, hence Harper having to extend it?

[Canadian Blue]

Actually it has been awhile since I was in the military, well prior to 911, but that is not the point. Canada's military since the Korean War, excpet for the Yugoslavian disaster, has been focused on Peace Keeping tactics and ideology.

I've been told by numerous instructor's that Canadian's have never been trained as "peacekeepers" but as fighting soldiers.

So, I was right about everything regarding who bought what, and who did what in what time frame and about us being not invited there. Just what is it that is known by you then and is not propaganada that you are being fed?

No we weren't invited there, why would the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden want us in Afghanistan?

But we are all am wrong thinking the Liberals did support those in Afghanistan and that the CPC care oh so much more! And how are those field rations?

I don't mind the field ration's, the Hungarian Goulash [not sure if the spelling is correct] I find is still the best. The Fish Filet being the worst.

It was brought to Canadians as a short term action, hence Harper having to extend it?

I think that the Martin Liberal's were going to extend it, why would they send the CF down to the south if they were going to pullout in a few month's.

[August1991]

I skipped through this thread and generally found it to be the blind leading the blind with the occasional personal insult thrown in. The posts of Army Guy and Jean Poutine seemed to rise above the others.

There are two issues here: The nature of Afghanistan society and the purpose of NATO's military intervention. There is a tremendous amount of rank ignorance in this forum on both issues. (As to Afghan society, imagine several educated Sri Lankans sitting around and talking about Alberta and Quebec.)

I have had passing experience with Afghanis and it's hard to imagine a more rough-hewn and traditional group. Our Canadian Ambassador in Kabul said that Afghan society will take five generations to change.

The Economist had a fascinating article in its holiday edition about the tribal code (Pushtunwali) of the Pushtu. (This code predates Islam and the Taliban had as much trouble with it as Westerners do. The stories about child brides usually derive from Pushtunwali and not Taliban Islamists.)

Here are two examples:

Last year, in one of the myriad such examples that arise in conversations in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan, the daughter of a prominent businessman in Gardez, Paktia's capital, eloped with her beau. So the businessman sold up his property, moved to Kabul and tracked down and killed his daughter's lover. His daughter, whom he must also kill if the stain is to be removed, has been given sanctuary by a human-rights organisation. Her prospects are not good. According to a Pushtu saying: “A Pushtun waited 100 years, then took his revenge. It was quick work.”

....

To settle disputes, Mr Kuchi has two main options. He can order a guilty party to compensate its victim with cash, a practice known as wich pur, “dry debt”, or he can order the two parties to exchange women, or lund pur, “wet debt”. By binding the antagonists together—just as in medieval European diplomacy—lund pur is considered more effective. Typically it involves exchanging a 15-year-old, a ten-year-old and a five-year-old girl, to be married into three succeeding generations of the enemy clan.

I'm not expecting CIDA to make any major changes in Afghan society anytime soon and talk of a Marshall Plan is comical. Development aid hasn't worked in Africa and it most certainly isn't going to work in Afghanistan.

30 Canadian lives being lost in 911 have no bearing on today's Afghanistan, nor on what we are speaking of in this thread, other than it was an excuse to go into a country that had NOTHING to do with 911.

Our military presence in Afghanistan has everything to do with September 2001. The Taliban gave sanctuary and sustenance to Al Qaeda. It was imperative that we remove the Taliban and ensure such a regime does not take root again in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

I frankly think this is a perfectly legitimate objective and from what I hear, NATO is well along in achieving it. The guys like Army Guy should be proud of what they have accomplished and we should be proud of them too.

IMV, this is what NATO's military mission in Afghanistan is: to set up a viable Afghan regime that will not be used by terrorists of al Qaeda's ilk. If the Taliban had never allowed al Qaeda into Afghanistan, NATO would not be in Afghanistan regardless of how many Buddhist statues the Taliban blew up.

Organizing programmes in feminist studies at the U of Kabul will be for another day.