Hillier says SOME troops upset

[Peter F]

Betsy:

The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.

What waffling?

[betsy]

Betsy:

The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.

What waffling?

Hello?

Remember Chretien sitting on the fence???

That was the time, btw, when my attention was drawn to Harper for the very first time....and he was the only one who stood behind the Americans, reminding us of our obligations as allies!

Chretien was too concerned with political points, knowing that looney-left Canadians were anti-Bush...no matter what! The only Canadians who did anything useful were those many so-called "ordinary" citizens, such as those who accommodated the Americans stranded because of airport closures and our firemen who rushed to NY to do the right thing!

Our anti-semitic government was especially hesitant to support Bush lest they lose favour with Arafat and the other dysfunctional lunatic leaders in the Muddled East. You want waffle - well flip this around in your mind a while...drawn as a Quick Pick from my modest and disorganised file on such issues - think what I could come up with if it was still important, six years after the waffle began...

"Lewis MacKenzie

National Post

Thursday, April 24, 2003

Is there to be no end to the humiliation we must endure resulting from Ottawa's mismanagement of the Iraq/Afghanistan file? When will I be able to start my speeches in both the United States and Europe with something other than an apology?

A mere few months ago the sides were being chosen for the pending U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. For those who followed the issue all indications pointed toward Canada committing a modest military contribution along lines similar, but slightly larger, than promised by Australia -- ultimately the third-largest allied contingent behind the U.S. and Britain.

In February, to the surprise of most -- at home and abroad -- the Prime Minister stood in the House and announced Canada would not participate in any war in Iraq, but would take on the command and control of the United Nations' peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. Major-General Cam Ross who was responsible for preparing options for the government's consideration for both Iraq and Afghanistan resigned, indicating that Canada was not capable of taking on the Afghanistan peacekeeping leadership role.

The government immediately went into full spin mode pronouncing that the Afghanistan option was in fact a plan submitted by the military and that in a democracy it was the political leadership who decided the employment of the army not the generals -- Ouch! Low blow, but a good sound bite.

Under questioning the Minister of National Defence, renowned for his honesty which, while refreshing, occasionally gets him into trouble with his boss, admitted that the plan for the Afghanistan option was only prepared by the military after he, the Minister, directed the military to do so. When the plan was finally submitted it clearly stated that that the option was not feasible without a "partner." In other words, Canada was not capable of taking on the leadership task in Afghanistan without major assistance from some other country's military. Nevertheless, the PM continued to stress that Canada would lead the UN's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan thereby making a major contribution to the ongoing war against terrorism.

The fact that the UN force in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the war against terrorism was conveniently ignored. ISAF's mandate restricts its operations to the capital, Kabul. For all intents and purposes, ISAF is a security force for Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government. Mind you, for all intents and purposes President Karzai is merely the mayor of Kabul as, sans the security provided by the UN, he cannot venture outside the city into the areas controlled by the warlords. The war against terrorism in and around Afghanistan is currently being fought by U.S.-led coalition forces operating out of Kandahar -- the very force Canada abandoned last July because of inadequate resources.

As General Ross was the military's corporate memory on the Iraq/Afghanistan file, he agreed to stay on until this summer. In an ironic twist, soon after the PM's decision that Canada would "lead" the Afghanistan mission, General Ross was dispatched abroad to various capitals to find the elusive "partner" that Canada needed to make it all work. This was no small task considering more than 400 military personnel are employed running the Kabul airport -- skills that the Canadian military has been forced to contract out to civilians due to budget cuts over the past 10 years. Likewise the need to provide and man a hospital for the 4,500-man force -- whoops, we were forced to "civilianize" a good deal of our medical support in our military so we would need help with that too -- not to mention the overall communications infrastructure and support for the mission's command headquarters that we no longer have. Hmmm, looks like any partner country would end up providing the vast majority of the resources to "lead" the mission so presumably it would want to provide the leader too.

Enter NATO, always on the lookout for something to justify its continued existence, bearing in mind that its original mission to keep the Warsaw Pact at bay is somewhat dated. So what if Afghanistan is "out of area." The UN has proven inept in most peace operations since the end of the Cold War and NATO, having spent 50 years preparing for war that never came, is certainly militarily efficient. Thanks for the offer Canada -- we accept!

So let's get this straight: Our government announces no support for the United States in ridding the world of a genocidal maniac; it offers to lead a UN mission in Afghanistan (Kabul) as a smoke screen knowing full well that we won't be able to do the job; we ridicule the general(s) that pointed out the flaws in the plan; we quietly abdicate the UN mission's leadership role to someone else and agree to send 3,000 troops over one year to a theatre of operations where we withdrew 900 some nine months ago because we couldn't find replacements.

Isn't foreign policy supposed to be a source of national pride?"

And so began Canada's Mission to Afghanistan. Liberal waffling par excellence. Impressed??? Probably.

Fortunately we now have at least a competent government even if not a particularly impressive "National Will" - typically, the chicken-littles that are the left will run around agonizing over climate change instead of doing something that will actually make things better in the future and for their kids - getting rid of the threat that is terrorism... it's real, it is not going to go away, and it will take time and resources... better get used to it, or better prepare for a few changes...

[Peter F]

Betsy:

The Liberal waffling after 9/11 was inexcusable. Legally.

What waffling?

Hello?

Remember Chretien sitting on the fence???

That was the time, btw, when my attention was drawn to Harper for the very first time....and he was the only one who stood behind the Americans, reminding us of our obligations as allies!

Chretien was too concerned with political points, knowing that the looney left Canadians were anti-Bush...no matter what! The only Canadians who did anything useful were those so-called ordinary citizens, such as those who accomodated the Americans stranded because of airport closures and our firemen who rushed to NY to do the right thing!

What fence-sitting? I think you may be confusing the events leading up to the Iraq invasion as events that occurred after 9 sept 2001.

edit 1427pm:

Ah. I see you have clarified things somewhat with the addition of the Mckenzie piece.

The question here is Canada, as a member of NATO, coming to the USofA's defence as per the NATO agreement. America being attacked on 11 September 2000.

Ok, but what does that have to do with joining the co-alation of the willing in the attack on Iraq?

[betsy]

Ok, but what does that have to do with joining the co-alation of the willing in the attack on Iraq?

The war on terror was conceived only hours after the 9/11 attack.

The invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror. The search for Bin Laden started it and the war continues today in Iraq, in the West Bank, in Syria and in Afghanistan. In fact, all around the world where Muslims dwell.

Unfortunately, the coalition of the willing has lost its resolve. It's unlikely we'll do the right thing and move into Iran. The so-called Axis of Evil still exists. Don't ever imagine that this is over.

The only question is, will there be a will to see it through. If not, we'll pay a dear price.

[Catchme]

Ok, but what does that have to do with joining the co-alation of the willing in the attack on Iraq?

The war on terror was conceived only hours after the 9/11 attack.

The invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror. The search for Bin Laden started it and the war continues today in Iraq, in the West Bank, in Syria and in Afghanistan. In fact, all around the world where Muslims dwell.

Unfortunately, the coalition of the willing has lost its resolve. It's unlikely we'll do the right thing and move into Iran. The so-called Axis of Evil still exists. Don't ever imagine that this is over.

The only question is, will there be a will to see it through. If not, we'll pay a dear price.

The invasion of Iraq was NOT an extension of the WAR on TERROR, nice try at re-writing history but you are again in error.

Your thinking and verbage is truly "dominionist" in nature. And the real danger is those who will see see through the "dominist" lies.

[betsy]

The invasion of Iraq was NOT an extension of the WAR on TERROR, nice try at re-writing history but you are again in error.

Care to explain and support your statement?

[Catchme]

Nope, it is absolute fact, the invasion of Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 911.

[normanchateau]

Ok, but what does that have to do with joining the co-alation of the willing in the attack on Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror.

What evidence do you have for this novel idea? Bin Laden loathed Saddam Hussein and labelled him an "infidel" for his secular government.