O'Connor on the Afghan War

[tml12]

I am not in the military but because the person who made that claim was I am willing to take his claim over yours.

And I asked for his citations as well and he didn't give any either. What he gave was his opinion.

What he told us was his assessment based on his analysis of the armed forces by being a soldier...that is something one may not be fully able to sight.

[tml12]

It would be one thing for Canada to challenge the U.S. if Canada didn't rely on the U.S. to defend Canada.

The United States defends it's "interests".

If Canada really wants to challenge the U.S., it should build an armed forces like it had at the end of World War II...the fouth largest in the world. Until then, the U.S. will just laugh at its "junior partner."

I am with you on the "Build up our armed forces".

The US should laugh at its junior partner. Infact, I doubt we are even that.

So when the US is seeking our "support" in order to lend a voice of credibility to their actions, it is just as important for us not to waste that credibility by simply signing the dotted line.

If you are suggesting that if we had a larger military, then we would have "just cause" to openly challenge the US, then I disagree.

France has a larger military than us, with nuclear weapons. They were completely opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, and where neither listened too, nor laughed at.

Let them laugh at us, but after that, build up our military. Go forward with actions that will make the Military and Canada Proud, and continue to pick our foreign engagements with as much wisdom, information and knowledge as possible to set goals that are achievable.

Yes, France has a larger military than us with nuclear weapons (and a foreign legion, which because the French are so weak it relies on to protect itself) and that is exactly why it can stand up to the U.S. The U.S. does not pay to defend France like it pays to defend Canada. If Canada's neighbours were any other country, Canada would be more or less be open to a foreign invasion...Canada in many ways takes U.S. support for granted.

[jdobbin]

Mulroney was, in many ways, "Liberal lite." He was great on free trade but bad in others areas.

Yet, while he may have made cuts to the military, his cuts were nowhere near as bad as the Liberals who seemed to indicate that they did not even believe this country should have a military...at the very least, they certainly discouraged ordinary Canadians from signing up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

For the Canadian Forces, the Mulroney years began with hope but ended with disappointment. Most members of the CF welcomed the return to distinctive uniforms for the three services, replacing the single green uniform worn since unification (1967-70). A White Paper proposed boosting the CF's combat capability, which had, according to Canadian Defence Quarterly, declined so badly that Canada would have been unable to send a brigade to the Gulf War had it desired to. The CF in this period did undergo a much-needed modernization of a range of equipment from trucks to a new family of small arms. Many proposed reforms, however, failed to occur, and according to historian J.L. Granatstein, Mulroney "raised the military's hopes repeatedly, but failed to deliver." In 1984, he had promised to increase the military budget and the regular force to 92,000 troops, but the budget was cut and the troop level fell to below 80,000 by 1993. This was, however, in step with other NATO countries after the end of the Cold War [1]. The Mulroney government would undertake a defence policy review, publishing a new statement in late 1991, but political considerations meant that no comprehensive policy for the post-Cold War era was arrived at before the government's defeat in 1993. According to Granatstein, this meant that Canada was not able to live up to its post-Cold War military commitments.

[Fortunata]

...if Canada didn't rely on the U.S. to defend Canada.

Defend from whom? Conservatives has used this tripe as mantra for too long. We've been invaded by one country ever, that being the US.

[Catchme]

The Liberals are guilty of many things when it comes to starving the military for people and equipment but this willful re-writing of history indicating that Chretien didn't participate in Iraq was because the military was incapable of going is just not supported by any evidence.

You are quite correct jdobbin, they are re-writing history with those claims, just as O'Connor did with his saying we were in Afghanistan for "retribution".

[Wilber]

As far as the Iltis, the military believed they had the right vehicle for the narrow streets of Kabul. That proved to be wrong. Thankfully, once the military indicated they needed heavier vehicles, Martin go the G-Wagons sent out.

The Liberals are guilty of many things when it comes to starving the military for people and equipment but this willful re-writing of history indicating that Chretien didn't participate in Iraq was because the military was incapable of going is just not supported by any evidence.

The Iltis replacement was the LUVW from GM. Contract signed in 2002 deliveries to be completed in late 2004, The contract for G Wagons wasn't even signed until Oct 03 with deliveries to be completed at the end of 06. It was more of a panic replacement.

I don't maintain that Chretien didn't send troops to Iraq because we didn't have the capability. It had never stopped him before. Just that we didn't have the capability.

[jdobbin]

I don't maintain that Chretien didn't send troops to Iraq because we didn't have the capability. It had never stopped him before. Just that we didn't have the capability.

Had Harper been prime minister, I expect 2000 troops would have gone ready or not.

[Wilber]

I don't maintain that Chretien didn't send troops to Iraq because we didn't have the capability. It had never stopped him before. Just that we didn't have the capability.

Had Harper been prime minister, I expect 2000 troops would have gone ready or not as well.

Quite possibly, it's what politicians seem to do.

[weaponeer]

It's all a moot point anyway, we are not there.

Canadas military does not have the capability to tangle with a modern well equipped military. That was a major factor why we did not go. Personelly, I am glad we did not go.

Canadas Airforce; our only combat aircraft is the CF18. We only have 80, we bought 138, lost 16 in accidents, mothballed 42. Our CF18 fleet in 2003 did not have secure radios (a prob that pauged NATO in Balkins), does not have secure data links, or modern fire control radars. We also lacked robust PGM capabilities. We had less than 10 targeting pods for the whole fleet. After the 1st upgrade phase was complete, some of these shortfalls were met, the rest will be completed in upgrade phase 2. Helos, we currently have no helos in the CF inventor capable of operating in combat conditions. Proof, we have none in A-stan, and it's a low intensity conflict. This will change with the new Chinooks & Cyclones.

Canadian Army; most powerful army weapons system is our 66 Leopard tanks. They are LOE1's, bought in 1976. They are armed with 105mm gun, modern tanks start at 120mm. They are great for a low intensity war like A-stan, talibs have no tanks, only thing that threatens them is RPGs, and very large IED. They would not be able to withstand intense combat against modern tanks. The LAV3 is a great peice of equip, however it is not designed to stand up to tank fire. The are not as heavily armoured as US Bradleys or Brit Warriors. IN 2003 the army lacked modern artillery, with precision ammo, that has now changed with the new m777 & the Excalibor rounds.

Our Navy was in the Persian Gulf during the invasion in 2003. One of our ships, cannot remember which was attached to a USN carrier BG.

There were many Canadians involved in the invasion, on exchange with Britsih & US units, including myself on USAF AWACS.....

[Catchme]

Canadas military does not have the capability to tangle with a modern well equipped military. That was a major factor why we did not go.

It was NOT a factor, let alone a major one, in why we did not go, stop trying to re-write history, thank you!

[scribblet]

name='weaponeer' post='178458' date='Jan 24 2007, 04:49 AM']

Canadas military does not have the capability to tangle with a modern well equipped military. That was a major factor why we did not go.

Thanks for the info (and armyguy) I'm not up on military capabilities etc. but I'll believe you and armyguy rather than spurious partisan statements about rewriting history.

We did send six war ships to the Persian Gulf when Chretien said "we will be supporting the campaign against OBL and the ruling Taliban militia". Not sure what gunboats could do against a land locked country though. Guess it was a symbolic gesture.

[Argus]

This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

This wasn't diplomacy. It was a cheap political move that Harper has carefully tried to distance himself from ever since given what Iraq turned into.

Do you actually think Chretien deciding not to support the US on Iraq was anything but a cheap political move? Anyone who thinks that decision was in any way connected to morality or a sense of right and wrong obviously never knew anything about the Chretien government. Not going was based on massive polling - nothing more. What's-in-it-for-us has been the keystone in every Liberal decision map for the last thirty years.

[Argus]

What do you mean, " Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?."

The Chinooks were sold to the Dutch. The Dutch are using them in Afghanistan. Mulroney sold them.

To be fair to Mulroney, his government approved a plan to replace those helicopters with the EH101, a perfectly sensible, rational plan which the opposition opposed for crass political purposes, and which Chretien went on to exploit in the following election and then cancel. Instead we paid huge penalties totaling many hundreds of millions of dollars, huge costs in maintaining obsolete equipment - and, of course we got canoe museums, blond joke books, and hundreds of millions of dollars in largely useless pork projects in Liberal ridings.

[Argus]

So, what O'Connor said was we Canadians are in Afghanistan for retribution purposes and nothing else.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. What was said was that we had an obligation to respond when our people were murdered (you disagree) and that staying in Afghanistan to help support the new democracy was an obligation as a state interested in international peace and the advancement of peoples. To leave would be to abandon Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban and their ilk.

Let's look at the first O'Connor reason, beyond of course hisprimary one of retribution:

The Democratically elected government wants us there.

This is the first glaring mistruth he spoke. They were not democratically elected, organizations around the world have attested to the fact the election was not a free or democratic one. Indeed NATO is propping up Karzi and nothing more.

No they haven't. Your links don't say that. The organizations you cite don't say that. Your hatred for the Americans has simply led you to "interpret" - putting it kindly - their feelings in that way. Perhaps the election wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else in that part of the world.

The next mistruth is that Canada has a responsibility to help as one of the world's richest countries.

Actually, no we don't, if that was the case there would be at least another 100 countries where would have to be doing the same thing.

Some people choose to observe their responsibilities, while others only care about themselves. Nothing new there.

What exact Canadian interests are being met, by our having a war with Afghans who do not want us in their country propping up a government they do not want?

You have presented no evidence that the Afghans don't want us, nor that they don't want their government.

[scribblet]

Evidence does point to Afghanis wanting troops to stay. I don't think there is any doubt as to what will happen if NATO leaves.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6129731

Afghan Leader Wants Canada's Troops to Stay

Listen to this story... by Richard Reynolds

Weekend Edition Saturday, September 23, 2006 · Thirty-five Canadian troops have died in Afghanistan in the past three months. This week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the Canadian parliament that the nation's troops are vital to the peackeeping effort.

This is a really good blog, worth a read

http://afghanreality.blogspot.com/2006/02/...know-about.html

At the heart of the problem lies a serious lack of awareness about and appreciation of the complexities of the obstacles confronting Afghanistan’s post-conflict recovery. No matter how much we might tend to distance ourselves from Afghanistan, the reality is that it is in Canada's interest to stay the course in Afghanistan. There are several significant reasons why Canadians should support Canada's long-term commitment in rebuilding Afghanistan.

First, the remnants of the Taliban backed by their Al-Qaeda supporters have recently emerged sturdily in undermining both reconstruction and political efforts aimed at restoring peace to Afghanistan. More specifically, past few months have witnessed an escalation in torching of the schools, orchestration of the suicide attacks and relentless attacks on government bodies, especially in the southern and eastern Afghanistan. In fact, the security issue is so cumbersome that it can not be dealt with by the Afghan government alone.

[jdobbin]

To be fair to Mulroney, his government approved a plan to replace those helicopters with the EH101, a perfectly sensible, rational plan which the opposition opposed for crass political purposes, and which Chretien went on to exploit in the following election and then cancel. Instead we paid huge penalties totaling many hundreds of millions of dollars, huge costs in maintaining obsolete equipment - and, of course we got canoe museums, blond joke books, and hundreds of millions of dollars in largely useless pork projects in Liberal ridings.

The Chinooks were not being replaced by EH-101s.

Sea Kings were to be replaced by the EH-101s.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/943-e.htm

Mulroney got rid of the Chinooks all on his own.

[jdobbin]

It's all a moot point anyway, we are not there.

Canadas military does not have the capability to tangle with a modern well equipped military. That was a major factor why we did not go. Personelly, I am glad we did not go.

It was not a major factor. It has never been cited as a major factor. And it isn't moot. It is a re-writing of why Canada never went.

[jdobbin]

Do you actually think Chretien deciding not to support the US on Iraq was anything but a cheap political move? Anyone who thinks that decision was in any way connected to morality or a sense of right and wrong obviously never knew anything about the Chretien government. Not going was based on massive polling - nothing more. What's-in-it-for-us has been the keystone in every Liberal decision map for the last thirty years.

Actually the poll numbers showed many Canadians would have supported the mission. I don't think it was a cheap political move because initially, it looked like the Americans were right and that the country fell like a house of cards and that they were going to find all the weapons.

You don't think Harper read the polls when he wrote a story for the New York Times?

The opposition was able hammer the Liberals for not being there and being anti-American.

I didn't disagree with not going. I disagreed with Chretien the way he went about it because it was never well explained or debated.

[jdobbin]

First, the remnants of the Taliban backed by their Al-Qaeda supporters have recently emerged sturdily in undermining both reconstruction and political efforts aimed at restoring peace to Afghanistan. More specifically, past few months have witnessed an escalation in torching of the schools, orchestration of the suicide attacks and relentless attacks on government bodies, especially in the southern and eastern Afghanistan. In fact, the security issue is so cumbersome that it can not be dealt with by the Afghan government alone.

I don't think it is disputed that some Afghans want Canada there. What is in dispute is whether Afghanistan can ever take care of itself when its neighbor harbours its enemy and undermines its sovereignty at every turn.

The fact that NATO lets Canada down every single day is not lost on Canadians either.

[bush_cheney2004]

I didn't disagree with not going. I disagreed with Chretien the way he went about it because it was never well explained or debated.

Not the first time....Chretien did the same thing for the Kosovo in 1999.

[jdobbin]

Not the first time....Chretien did the same thing for the Kosovo in 1999.

It was one of the things I didn't like about Chretien. It was a seat of the pants way of doing things.

It is the mix between between being decisive and arrogant. People like leaders like Chretien and Bush when they are decisive but if the situation goes south, it looks like arrogance.

[tml12]

It's all a moot point anyway, we are not there.

Canadas military does not have the capability to tangle with a modern well equipped military. That was a major factor why we did not go. Personelly, I am glad we did not go.

It was not a major factor. It has never been cited as a major factor. And it isn't moot. It is a re-writing of why Canada never went.

jdobbin,

As prime minister, exactly what would your prescription be for Canada's military?

[tml12]

Do you actually think Chretien deciding not to support the US on Iraq was anything but a cheap political move? Anyone who thinks that decision was in any way connected to morality or a sense of right and wrong obviously never knew anything about the Chretien government. Not going was based on massive polling - nothing more. What's-in-it-for-us has been the keystone in every Liberal decision map for the last thirty years.

Actually the poll numbers showed many Canadians would have supported the mission. I don't think it was a cheap political move because initially, it looked like the Americans were right and that the country fell like a house of cards and that they were going to find all the weapons.

You don't think Harper read the polls when he wrote a story for the New York Times?

The opposition was able hammer the Liberals for not being there and being anti-American.

I didn't disagree with not going. I disagreed with Chretien the way he went about it because it was never well explained or debated.

CSIS believed Iraq had WMDs...Chretien claimed he stayed out because Canada is a peacekeeper and the war was not sanctioned by the UN. That was BS...no one in their right mind actually believes Canada is a peacekeeper except those most brainwashed by the Liberal myths of Canada. Canadians did not support the war because Chretien played down the CSIS reports. I also think weaponeer has demonstrated that our armed forces could not handle the invasion, even if that was not THE reason we didn't go in.

I think Harper wrote the story for the NY Times because the Liberal government was acting in an extremely unfriendly manner. Chretien's team couldn't control his government's volcanic eruption of anti-American sentiment, as well as his own blatant hatred for the U.S. Not that this would be justified in any civilized, developed country but it is quite ironic that the country in question is one that U.S. taxpayers pay to defend. Harper's letter was an attempt to ease Canada-U.S. relations...Harper recognized that Canada does not exist without the U.S., as well as the fact that Canada relies on the U.S. to pay for its defense as well as be the place where we send 90% of our exports.

Harper was acting in the best interests of Canada.

[Catchme]

'Argus' said:Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. What was said was that we had an obligation to respond when our people were murdered (you disagree) and that staying in Afghanistan to help support the new democracy was an obligation as a state interested in international peace and the advancement of peoples. To leave would be to abandon Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taliban and their ilk

No, I do not, tyvm, O'Connor stated and used the term "retribution", and that is a LIE on his part.

The Democratically elected government wants us there.

No they haven't. Your links don't say that. The organizations you cite don't say that. Your hatred for the Americans has simply led you to "interpret" - putting it kindly - their feelings in that way. Perhaps the election wasn't perfect, but it was better than anything else in that part of the world..

Yes, they do say that, all of them said without pause that everything leading into the election was corrupt. How can you have a uncorrupt election, when everything leading up to it was corrupt? BTW Where do you get me saying anything about Americans in hatred or otherwise, that is a red herring.

Some people choose to observe their responsibilities, while others only care about themselves. Nothing new there..

Your point has no basis or point to it in regards to what I said.

You have presented no evidence that the Afghans don't want us, nor that they don't want their government.

Oh indeed I have, presented a great deal more than double what others have provided saying Afghans want us there, all that was produced was "karzi" wants us there. Of course he does, he is corrupt and making a fortune off of opium production.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was one of the things I didn't like about Chretien. It was a seat of the pants way of doing things.

It is the mix between between being decisive and arrogant. People like leaders like Chretien and Bush when they are decisive but if the situation goes south, it looks like arrogance.

Agreed. It is said that the Canadian Prime Minister is the most powerful leader in the free world, and he/she is not even Head of State (technically). At least Clinton / Bush got Congress to vote on the matter of bombing people in far away places.