Dion makes a firm stand on pulling troops from Kandahar

[Canuck E Stan]

Toronto Star

In his speech, Dion said a Liberal government would withdraw Canada's 2,500 troops from Kandahar in 2009, but left the door open for soldiers to go elsewhere in the country.

"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009," Dion said.

"We need a new government that will be able to say very clearly `Yes, we end the mission in 2009 ...

Is this what the left wanted from Dion....a Liberal government that would stick to it's conviction and pull the troops out of Afghanistan.....er Kandahar. (snicker,snicker,snort )

[Cameron]

Oh how nice...we can join France up in the north feeding goats and issuing parking tickets....

[jdobbin]

Is this what the left wanted from Dion....a Liberal government that would stick to it's conviction and pull the troops out of Afghanistan.....er Kandahar. (snicker,snicker,snort )

Why is that Canada has to be on the front line beyond 2009? Our NATO allies, despite what the NATO chief says, are not getting support from the majority of NATO members.

[Wilber]

It will be interesting to see if our military posters react to this. I wonder what they will think of being left in the line of fire for over a year and a half knowing they will be yanked if Dion wins the next election regardless of what they accomplish before then.

[August1991]

Iceland (NATO member, pop. 300,000 - less than Edmonton) assures Kabul's airport:

Iceland taking the lead in running the Kabul airport shows that small nations can make big contributions to NATO’s operations, the NATO Secretary General said on a visit to Reykjavik, 18 June.

Link

No single soldier wins a war but no good fight is won without honest individual effort. Canadians should do what we can - in the past, we assumed the burden of defending civilization in this world. The torch has been passed...

[geoffrey]

Eventually some other country is going to have to help us out in the South. We don't have the resources to make this a never ending mission.

If we transfer up to the North and the French or Germans come South in 2009, I think we can take on a more passive role with dignity intact. The mission has to involve all NATO, not just Canada, the US, the Brits and the Dutch.

There should be a rotation between the nations involved from North to South and back agian. Every couple of years.

I think Dion saying we're going to leave the South in 2009 to force another country to step up, is a wise decision. That is, along as we are secretly prepared to remain if the Euro's continue to be the fairweather friends of NATO that they've been.

[Saturn]

It will be interesting to see if our military posters react to this. I wonder what they will think of being left in the line of fire for over a year and a half knowing they will be yanked if Dion wins the next election regardless of what they accomplish before then.

Canada cannot win this even if we sent our entire military there and got them all killed. This was meant to be a team effort and if our allies don't take it seriously, I see no point in further overextending our military for nothing. In fact our allies are so appreciative of our efforts, Bush regularly forgets to even mention that we are making a contribution (to save his ass really). In a year and a half, Bush will be out of office along with the need to save his ass.

[Wilber]

[Canada cannot win this even if we sent our entire military there and got them all killed. This was meant to be a team effort and if our allies don't take it seriously, I see no point in further overextending our military for nothing. In fact our allies are so appreciative of our efforts, Bush regularly forgets to even mention that we are making a contribution (to save his ass really). In a year and a half, Bush will be out of office along with the need to save his ass.

Canada should do what is right. Why can't you guys get over what Bush thinks? Who cares what he thinks. A lot can change in a year and a half, particularly if Bush is gone, Why commit ourselves to leaving now? It may be precisely the wrong thing to do when the time comes. I don't have a problem with saying that our commitment isn't open ended if we don't get more help but I have an ethical problem with saying we are just going to get up and leave on a particular date regardless of the situation.