The Many Positions of Stephen Harper

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/22012007/21/ste...-walk-iraq.html

There are quite a few.

[BC_chick]

Yes, Paul Wells is brilliant. That column is in the current issue of Maclean's, and it's bang-on about Harper's harpercrisy.

Love the wit too:

By December 2005, Harper had his story more or less straight. He wrote to the Washington Times: "While I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country." How Liberal of him. In 2003 it was Chrétien who supported Saddam's removal and would not commit Canadian troops. Remind me why that made Harper so angry?

[Topaz]

This is one reason by we voters have to make sure of our vote. For ie. Khan was a former military commander in Pakistan before coming to Canada. Could he not be a double-agent here? I'm not saying he is but we have to be cautious in todays world. Khan also knew that if he ran for the conservatives, he wouldn't have won! The PM needs to be very open-minded on foreign affairs, and govern for Canada not our allies. Harper wanted the PMO bad and I still believe Canada is not ready for Harper. He needs more experience in government and in life!!

[Keepitsimple]

By accident or not, Canada made the right move in staying out of Iraq...but let's not be so smug. It's easy to bash bush through a revisionist view of Iraq. I would have liked the US to give the UN another 2 or 3 months to make Hussein comply with detailed inspections but in fact Iraq had many, many chances. While there were some inspectors who were still sceptical that Iraq had WMD, all the major countries were positive that he did have them - and they stated that fact time and time again. Coupled with the intelligence was the reasoning that if he didn't have them, why not let the UN have an unrestricted look at everything? It made no sense and enforced the intelligence community's view that he had them - now proven to be wrong. So let's not get caught up in saying "Lies, lies, all lies". It was intel shortcomings and Hussein being a cutthroat buffoon. All very unfortunate. I don't think there would be as many naysayers if Bush had made better decisions and Iraqis were in full control of their own free country. But it didn't work out that way. The UK, Australia, US and Canada have been allies through World Wars and other conflicts. September 11th - lest we forget - took over 30 Canadian lives - murdered. Our first instinct should always be to stand by our allies - that's where Stephen Harper was coming from. It's pretty easy to look back and say he's changed positions - but things have chnaged - information that was not available then is common knowledge now. Isn't it interesting that Paul Wells drags this story out now?

[tml12]

By accident or not, Canada made the right move in staying out of Iraq...but let's not be so smug. It's easy to bash bush through a revisionist view of Iraq. I would have liked the US to give the UN another 2 or 3 months to make Hussein comply with detailed inspections but in fact Iraq had many, many chances. While there were some inspectors who were still sceptical that Iraq had WMD, all the major countries were positive that he did have them - and they stated that fact time and time again. Coupled with the intelligence was the reasoning that if he didn't have them, why not let the UN have an unrestricted look at everything? It made no sense and enforced the intelligence community's view that he had them - now proven to be wrong. So let's not get caught up in saying "Lies, lies, all lies". It was intel shortcomings and Hussein being a cutthroat buffoon. All very unfortunate. I don't think there would be as many naysayers if Bush had made better decisions and Iraqis were in full control of their own free country. But it didn't work out that way. The UK, Australia, US and Canada have been allies through World Wars and other conflicts. September 11th - lest we forget - took over 30 Canadian lives - murdered. Our first instinct should always be to stand by our allies - that's where Stephen Harper was coming from. It's pretty easy to look back and say he's changed positions - but things have chnaged - information that was not available then is common knowledge now. Isn't it interesting that Paul Wells drags this story out now?

I think that's a pretty fair argument.

[Remiel]

So, am I not allowed to be smug, even if I never thought he had nuclear weapons? The only reason everyone thought he had nuclear weapons was because George W. Bush said so. Nevermind that we all know he ignored his own intelligence, nevermind that he ignored that Hussein despised Al Qaeda. The whole affair was a bloody sham from start to present. It wasn't just some inspectors that were skeptical, it was the very top inspector that was skeptical. Yet he was ignored. And we now know why. I'm still waiting for justice for the Canadians killed in the World Trade Centre, yet it is not in Iraq.

[Who's Doing What?]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/22012007/21/ste...-walk-iraq.html

There are quite a few.

Typical Politician. Good for a few laughs though.

[newbie]

So who is Mr. Dithers now??

[jdobbin]

By accident or not, Canada made the right move in staying out of Iraq...but let's not be so smug. It's easy to bash bush through a revisionist view of Iraq. I would have liked the US to give the UN another 2 or 3 months to make Hussein comply with detailed inspections but in fact Iraq had many, many chances. While there were some inspectors who were still sceptical that Iraq had WMD, all the major countries were positive that he did have them - and they stated that fact time and time again. Coupled with the intelligence was the reasoning that if he didn't have them, why not let the UN have an unrestricted look at everything? It made no sense and enforced the intelligence community's view that he had them - now proven to be wrong. So let's not get caught up in saying "Lies, lies, all lies". It was intel shortcomings and Hussein being a cutthroat buffoon. All very unfortunate. I don't think there would be as many naysayers if Bush had made better decisions and Iraqis were in full control of their own free country. But it didn't work out that way. The UK, Australia, US and Canada have been allies through World Wars and other conflicts. September 11th - lest we forget - took over 30 Canadian lives - murdered. Our first instinct should always be to stand by our allies - that's where Stephen Harper was coming from. It's pretty easy to look back and say he's changed positions - but things have chnaged - information that was not available then is common knowledge now. Isn't it interesting that Paul Wells drags this story out now?

There were 24 Canadians killed on September 11. Canada was not smug at the time. We tried to get deadlines for compliance and a U.N. resolution that would have authorized the use of further force. The U.S. was moving with unseemly haste and there were a number of people who asked what the outcome would be for Iraq as a nation following invasion.

There *were* questions about the intelligence leading up the the invasion. They were shouted down.

Canada did stand by its ally. We did all we could do gather support for their position but in the end the U.S. decided to invade without the same level of support that George Bush Sr had expertly gathered together for the first Gulf war.

Chretien acted in Canada's best interest and was attacked for the position by Harper. Now, Harper tries to brush aside what he would have done as prime minister.

Why is Wells bringing it up now? Because Harper is convinced that Khan has the correct policy. What that policy is is anyone's guess because Harper won't make it public.

[jdobbin]

I think that's a pretty fair argument.

One that you wouldn't have supported had it is been the Liberals.

[weaponeer]

Good evening all,

For the record I think going into Iraq was a mistake. Taking out Saddam was not, the way it was done was. The whole idea about Canada staying out of Iraq is a bit of a myth, we were involved in some ways.

First, PM Chretien, & I am no fan, made the right choice by not commiting Canadian ground forces. I have stated in other posts, we had none to commit. Keep in mind at the time we had a Battle Group in Bosnia, and another in Afghanistan.

What Chretien did was increase our commitment to Afghanistan, allowing the US Army to re-assign a brigade destined for Khandahar to Iraq. This was good for the US, because they could commit another of their units to Iraq. Another thing Chretien did was allow Canadian Forces pers on exchange with US & UK forces to participate with their units. I know, because I was on of them. So yes, we did have a "small" hand in it.

As for the overall invasion, perhaps if we were involved more things would have been different. I am only speculating here. Perhaps the US may have listened to our counsel and tapped our experiences from the Balkins. Perhaps they would have listened to our ideas, perhaps not, we'll never know.

As I stated in the begining, I think taking out Saddam was good idea, I would have done it much differently...

[tml12]

I think that's a pretty fair argument.

One that you wouldn't have supported had it is been the Liberals.

Again, I don't think the U.S. should have gone in. Once they did, realizing that this is the country that pays for our defense also, I think it's hypocritical for us to say "we're not going in."

[jdobbin]

Good evening all,

For the record I think going into Iraq was a mistake. Taking out Saddam was not, the way it was done was. The whole idea about Canada staying out of Iraq is a bit of a myth, we were involved in some ways.

First, PM Chretien, & I am no fan, made the right choice by not commiting Canadian ground forces. I have stated in other posts, we had none to commit. Keep in mind at the time we had a Battle Group in Bosnia, and another in Afghanistan.

What Chretien did was increase our commitment to Afghanistan, allowing the US Army to re-assign a brigade destined for Khandahar to Iraq. This was good for the US, because they could commit another of their units to Iraq. Another thing Chretien did was allow Canadian Forces pers on exchange with US & UK forces to participate with their units. I know, because I was on of them. So yes, we did have a "small" hand in it.

As for the overall invasion, perhaps if we were involved more things would have been different. I am only speculating here. Perhaps the US may have listened to our counsel and tapped our experiences from the Balkins. Perhaps they would have listened to our ideas, perhaps not, we'll never know.

As I stated in the begining, I think taking out Saddam was good idea, I would have done it much differently...

Canada did indeed have troops available for Iraq. This was what the debate was about just prior to Gulf War 2 on March 20, 2003.

The Canadian military was preparing for the Iraq war through the latter part of 2002 and into 2003.

I've never said Canada didn't have troops as part of U.S. units. Art Eggleton approved that measure on March 20, 2001.

Some said Chretien committed to Afghanistan because it had U.N. sanction and Iraq didn't. Some say that the U.S. asked Canada to do it so they could free up 2000 soldiers. That information is still protected by the Official Secrets Act. One thing is clear: Canada had troops available. The military was prepared.

The argument that Canada could not have gone regardless in inaccurate. We would have likely been assigned southern Afghanistan along with the British.

http://www.dnd.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=490

Repatriation: On July 13, 2002, the 3 PPCLI Battle Group ceased operations and began preparing to return to Canada. Following a brief stay in Guam, part of the planned reintegration process, the soldiers arrived in Edmonton, Alberta, on July 28, 2002, and July 30, 2002. The soldiers not based in Edmonton then continued on to their homes in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Kingston, Ontario; and Trenton, Ontario.

[jdobbin]

Again, I don't think the U.S. should have gone in. Once they did, realizing that this is the country that pays for our defense also, I think it's hypocritical for us to say "we're not going in."

The U.S. has made it clear that Canada makes its own decisions. We didn't beef when they were slow to the party in World War II.

As for not contributing, we remained an ally. We contributed in Afghanistan, we allowed overflights, we kept our troops on the exchanges, we remained in Bosnia, we continued security in the Gulf, we cooperated on intelligence, we supported the U.S. in the U.N.

All of this was not enough for Harper who wanted Canadian soldiers in Iraq.

[tml12]

Again, I don't think the U.S. should have gone in. Once they did, realizing that this is the country that pays for our defense also, I think it's hypocritical for us to say "we're not going in."

The U.S. has made it clear that Canada makes its own decisions. We didn't beef when they were slow to the party in World War II.

As for not contributing, we remained an ally. We contributed in Afghanistan, we allowed overflights, we kept our troops on the exchanges, we remained in Bosnia, we continued security in the Gulf, we cooperated on intelligence, we supported the U.S. in the U.N.

All of this was not enough for Harper who wanted Canadian soldiers in Iraq.

I think weaponeer made it clear we more or less went anyway.

As for the WWII comparison, you cannot compare situations. Canada and the U.S. were both military powers and then, unlike now, we were not relying on a foreign country to pay for our defense.

[jdobbin]

I think weaponeer made it clear we more or less went anyway.

As for the WWII comparison, you cannot compare situations. Canada and the U.S. were both military powers and then, unlike now, we were not relying on a foreign country to pay for our defense.

Canada was not a military power prior to World War 2.

As for your argument that the U.S. pays for Canada's defence and this means we have no choice but to go fight in wars they are fighting in: This means Vietnam as well? What exactly is your argument here. Canada has no choice?

Canada did not more or less go. We had troops attached to units. It didn't mean Canada was part of the coalition of the willing. In fact, it was clear we were not. We did remain allies though.

[weaponeer]

3 PPCLI BG, do you know what kind of BG they are This is important to understand the Iraq war requirnments. The Iraq invasion was a Blitzkrieg style, mechanized, manouver warfare operation. The Cf is not equipped for this style of warfare. There's no debate, we cfannot do it!!!

3PPCLI BG returned to their home base in Edmonton. As you quoted, some of the soldiers went on home to Winnipeg. Do you know why?? Because they were from the 2PPCLI BG, and 3PPCLI borrowed them to make a full BG. Other troops went home to Trenton, why, because they were from Petawawa's 3RCR BG, again borrowed to give 3PPCLI BG full strength!!

Keep in mind here, another BG was in Bosnia at the same time, another BG have moved to Afghanistan to replace 3PPCLI BG that came home. No my friend, there was no troops to send. Our Airforce was not wanted after the problems over Kosovo in Allied Force. Our Navy was present in the Persian Gulf.

There were NO GROUND TROOPS training for Iraq, did not happen. The Canadian Army only has 9 BG "on paper". At the tyime of the raq war 6 were fully committed to other things...

[Leafless]

PM Chretien said Canada will not fight in Iraq without the backing of the U.N.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03/17/ch...iraq030317.html

[jdobbin]

There were NO GROUND TROOPS training for Iraq, did not happen. The Canadian Army only has 9 BG "on paper". At the tyime of the raq war 6 were fully committed to other things...

You have no cites that they would not have been involved. If Canada did not have any troops available or able, why did the Canadian military plan on a force for Iraq in 2003?

[weaponeer]

The Canadian Army only has 3 regular force Regiments. Forget militia, they do not count. Each regt has 3 battalions, 2 mechanized (with Light armoured Vehicles) and one Light battalion (Airborne. artic warfare, jungle/forest) Each regt is centered around a brigade, there are 3 regts, & 3 brigades in the Canadian Army.

The PPCLI, are in the 1st Brigade based out of Edmonton, RCR is based in Petawawa as the regt of the 2nd Brigade & the R22R is in the 5th Brigade in Valcartier QC.

Each brigade is divided into Battle Groups, that include an infantry battalion from on of the regts, attached HQ units, communications, military police, medical, dental, artilery, tanks (if required), recon, aviation (helos if rquired), combat engineers, logistics & maint and various other small units. On paper we have 9 BGs. In reality we would be hard pressed to field 6, and that would require stripping medical, comms, logistics, MP & other units from the Navy & Airforce.

With all that in mind, prior to the Iraq war, we had a BG in Bosnia & we had a BG in Afghanistan, each for 6 months. That means we had only 6 BGs in Canada, however, 2 of those BGs were training to REPLACE the BGs overseas in 6 months, they were not avail for Iraq. Also, if 2 BGs were overseas, that means 2 had just rotated home, meaning they were unavail because they would have been at a very low stae of readiness. Once a BG returns home, it's soldiers go on leave, take courses, are transfered to other units etc... These BG are in a training & reconstitution phase.

With 2 BGs overseas, 2 training to relpace them, and two in T&R phase, that only leaves "on paper" 3 BGs. In reality the troops to fully man these other 3 BGs do not exist. There would not be enough infantry, medical pers, comms pers etc... Also, on of these BGs would be designated the "replacement pool". This is used to quickly replace soldiers killed & wounded overseas.

The only way we could ahve activley participated in the invasion is if #1, one of the BGs in training was "re-roled" for Iraq, and #2 if that BG was rapidly re-equipped with modern Tanks, Mech Infantry, SP arty, attack helos, support helos, and our CF18's were quickly upgraded to modern standards. This was not going to happen, better to just increase the commitment to A-stan.

We eventually pulled out of Bosnia, whichfreed up troops for Afghanistan & future ops....

[jdobbin]

The only way we could ahve activley participated in the invasion is if #1, one of the BGs in training was "re-roled" for Iraq, and #2 if that BG was rapidly re-equipped with modern Tanks, Mech Infantry, SP arty, attack helos, support helos, and our CF18's were quickly upgraded to modern standards. This was not going to happen, better to just increase the commitment to A-stan.

We eventually pulled out of Bosnia, whichfreed up troops for Afghanistan & future ops....

There were a lot of forces sent to Iraq from places like Poland and Australia that didn't come with helicopter support and tanks.

Canada could have and would have gone had Harper been prime minister. The military wasn't saying they weren't capable. They were actually planning on going and were disappointed initially that Chretien had sent them to Afghanistan.

[weaponeer]

Poland sent special forces teams that helped the USN seals clear off the offshore oil platforms. For the record, Poland has a large well equipped (modern Russian equip) military. Australia my friend has a small but lethal armed forces. I have worked with these guys, they are seriuos!! They are equipped with modern M1 tanks (60 of them), modern IFVs, they have Eurocopter Tiger attack helos, they have Blackhawk helos, the have Chinooks. Their F18's have all the state of the art modern secure radios & data links, and they operate a fleet of 27 F111 bombers that ar.

[jbg]

I would have liked the US to give the UN another 2 or 3 months to make Hussein comply with detailed inspections but in fact Iraq had many, many chances.

Generally good analysis but I quibble with that part. Given the seasonal factor, 2-3 months = another year, since no one starts a fighting war in that part of the world during the summer. Frankly, we went in and fought with one hand tied behind our back; we should have put the fear of G-d in our opponents, and then tried gaining hearts and minds.

If you think that doesn't work, remember, Japan is the US's best ally aside from the Anglosphere countries.

[weaponeer]

Something kinda weird happened on my last post, computer when crazy. Sorry.

The Poles & Aussies are very well equipped. As for the CF wanting to go, perhaps, I never saw that. I saw great concern about what we could do, about what we would be getting ourselves into due to our equip & manpower probs. It is easier & cheaper to equip an amry to fight the talibs, then the RG.

[jdobbin]

Poland sent special forces teams that helped the USN seals clear off the offshore oil platforms. For the record, Poland has a large well equipped (modern Russian equip) military. Australia my friend has a small but lethal armed forces. I have worked with these guys, they are seriuos!! They are equipped with modern M1 tanks (60 of them), modern IFVs, they have Eurocopter Tiger attack helos, they have Blackhawk helos, the have Chinooks. Their F18's have all the state of the art modern secure radios & data links, and they operate a fleet of 27 F111 bombers that ar.

Australia did not have the M-1s in 2003. They had Leopards.

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

They did nor send aircraft to Iraq. They used U.S. helicopter support.

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