What do Canadians want in Afgan and why ?

[Army Guy]

As most here in this forum know i recently returned from a tour of duty in Afgan. And have for a long while been trying to defend our nations decission to be there, and have been answering a long list of questions as to our involvement and giving a soldiers piont of veiw..

Perhaps i'm looking at this from the wrong direction, instead of me defending the mission perhaps someone out there can tell me why we need to pull out NOW...

Below is a poll that suggests that over 54 % of our nation does not agree with our involment in Afgan. Perhaps one of those 54 % can explain to me WHY ? and how you decided on this course of action. As a soldier that has completed 2 tours in Afgan, i like so many thousands of soldiers would like to know why ? and what do you know that we do not ?

CTV poll

[GostHacked]

I don't think this mission helps Canada out in any way shape or form. It was an initiative on the War on Terror. The US had big involvement there, but now they are tied down in Iraq a couple blocks over. Afghanistan was not solved before aother can of problems was opened up. Coalition of the willing is left to do the rest of the job without major US involvement.

It does not help us in any way.

Canada does not get the resources.

I have had a couple friends do tours in Afghanistan as well. One of them is questioining the overall mission and wants to have a pull out. But like in Iraq, pulling out will create a void were terrorism has a good chance to take back the country and put it in the hands of the Taliban. Something inside me says more troops at the start would have been needed to shorten the conflict. Besides Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with the war on terror. They are both just distractions.

Screwed if we stay (unless strategy changes drasticly) and screwed if we leave. Afghanistan has not affected my life for the good or better. I do not feel safer, or less safe. I am still going about my daily life.

The mission should have been Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[scribblet]

They want Canada to be isolationist, they don't care what happens to the people, especially the women if we pull out. They view Canada as strictly peacekeepers, but ignore the fact that the soldiers carry guns and actually use them on peace keeping missions.

IMHO, its part of BDR and ADR, it all ties in to the paranoia about Bush, they just can't get past it.

I do agree that Canada is shouldering too much of the burden. If NATO doesn't supply more troops etc. for the heavy lifting in the same area we are, then I think that would be justifiction for pulling out of that area, and sticking to re-building efforts. Canada can't do it all on their own.

Thanks for your work and effort in helping these people - kudos.

[Keepitsimple]

Afghanistan has not affected my life for the good or better. I do not feel safer, or less safe. I am still going about my daily life.

The mission should have been Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

As with many of the complainers, it's always about me, me, me. They don't seem to have the humanity to put themselves in the shoes of Afghan women and children....and that's in addition to the objective of ridding the world of a terrorist haven. Finally, this poster lost all credibility with his last comment - forget about Afghanistan, let's bomb Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And while I'm at it, Jack Layton would have us pull out of Afghanistan and immediately send us to Darfur - an area that has specifically says it does not want interference from Western countries. Does anyone remember the catastrophe that was Somalia?

So many armchair generals with so few principles and so little committment.

[scribblet]

Further to this, there are many who would take this opportunity to make Afghanistan Harper's Iraq, which is part of the push. Pulling out of Afgh. now is playing right into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who want nothing more than to destroy Afghan democracy.

[sharkman]

I don't think this mission helps Canada out in any way shape or form. It was an initiative on the War on Terror. The US had big involvement there, but now they are tied down in Iraq a couple blocks over. Afghanistan was not solved before aother can of problems was opened up. Coalition of the willing is left to do the rest of the job without major US involvement.

It does not help us in any way.

Canada does not get the resources.

I have had a couple friends do tours in Afghanistan as well. One of them is questioining the overall mission and wants to have a pull out. But like in Iraq, pulling out will create a void were terrorism has a good chance to take back the country and put it in the hands of the Taliban. Something inside me says more troops at the start would have been needed to shorten the conflict. Besides Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with the war on terror. They are both just distractions.

Screwed if we stay (unless strategy changes drasticly) and screwed if we leave. Afghanistan has not affected my life for the good or better. I do not feel safer, or less safe. I am still going about my daily life.

The mission should have been Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Canada is not there to help Canada, but to help Afghanistan, a nation that needs help getting back on its feet! It doesn't depend on whether you feel safe or not. Feelings are very subjective and changable. Making important decisions bases on them is foolhardy.

Why should we go into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, would we 'get the resources' there? Would it help out Canada to go there instead? Or does it just FEEL better?

[jdobbin]

Below is a poll that suggests that over 54 % of our nation does not agree with our involment in Afgan. Perhaps one of those 54 % can explain to me WHY ? and how you decided on this course of action. As a soldier that has completed 2 tours in Afgan, i like so many thousands of soldiers would like to know why ? and what do you know that we do not ?

The Harper government hasn't done a great job of explaining the mission or its objectives. The seemingly hesitant support from NATO doesn't sit well with Canadians and no one has given reason why Canada's strategy is better than say, the Dutch one.

Issues of Pakistan and now Iran's support for the war also give pause to many people.

The open ended commitment makes people wonder if we could be fighting the same battles five, ten or fifteen years down the line.

Will Afghanistan will be able to ever take care of its security or will Canada might be a permanent fixture there?

[runningdog]

hi Army Guy. I would quickly like to say THANK YOU for the sacrifices you and the others in the military have had to go through in Afganistan and I hope that every last member of the military gets home to their loved ones in one piece.

In answer to your question (why are people against the mission), I have heard from many sources that if we were over there on a strickly "peacekeeping" mission, as Canada used to be known for, they would be behind it 100%. However, rightly or wrongly, the mission is being percieved as just an extention on the Iraq war (which seems to be based on false pretenses, ie WMD). Also, some have suggested that we are there to help the American forces secure a southern route for an oil and gas pipeline. I really can't offer an opinion one way or the other, as I have never been over there and I don't really trust what our MSM tells us half of the time.

[scribblet]

And while I'm at it, Jack Layton would have us pull out of Afghanistan and immediately send us to Darfur - an area that has specifically says it does not want interference from Western countries. Does anyone remember the catastrophe that was Somalia?

So many armchair generals with so few principles and so little committment.

That is something I can't reconcile. Those who want our troops out of Afghanistan are more than willing to put our troops in harms way in another hostile area that doesn't want Western interference. How do they explaint that?

[noahbody]

Below is a poll that suggests that over 54 % of our nation does not agree with our involment in Afgan.

To me, this is only another example of how irresponsible the media is in this country. For it to mean something, the objective of the poll would have to be to survey informed Canadians. Tom, Dick and Harry still think Afganistan has something to do with oil.

[Shakeyhands]

They want Canada to be isolationist, they don't care what happens to the people, especially the women if we pull out. They view Canada as strictly peacekeepers, but ignore the fact that the soldiers carry guns and actually use them on peace keeping missions.

Your outcry seems hollow as you sure didn't care about the women and children before 9/11, in fact I bet you never gave it a second thought, what about Darfur or any of the other places where there are genocides happening?

As far as my opinion goes, I believe we do need to help Afghanistan out of this, but lets do more of the infrastructure building goes, more clean water and projects where we can actually make a difference. I have two daughters in the military (one at RMC (Army) and one at Carlton (Navy) ) who will most likely find themselves in the theater and I hope by the time that happens its simmered down a bit and we can focus on building the country up in a meaningful way and having to stop the people who want to harm them are gone.

[Army Guy]

I don't place much faith in polls, as they don't mean much and change day to day. And the numbers have pretty much been consistant for a while now....

My objective here was to have some of those 54 % explain to me and the thousands of other soldiers why we should pull out of Afgan NOW ? and how they come by thier opinions. Not to get into a pissing contest but rather a debate, only this time with them defending there opinions rather than me doing it all of the time...and who knows maybe even an old army guy can learn something.

The Harper government hasn't done a great job of explaining the mission or its objectives.

I've heard this said a thousand times, i've read the governments explaination, i've read DND's explaination, and find it very clear, but maybe it's just me, and my miltary background. What do you think needs clearing up...

DND's explaination.

The open ended commitment makes people wonder if we could be fighting the same battles five, ten or fifteen years down the line.

We've had many opened ended commitments before, Cyprus, Bosina, Germany, why is this one different...or is it really about Cas suffered..

In answer to your question (why are people against the mission), I have heard from many sources that if we were over there on a strickly "peacekeeping" mission, as Canada used to be known for, they would be behind it 100%.

What is your interputation of peacekeeping ? Canada as a nation has always had more troops and equipment on NATO run missions than it has ever had on Peacekeeping duties, Canada as strickly peacekeeping nation is a myth set out by previous governments.

To me, this is only another example of how irresponsible the media is in this country. For it to mean something, the objective of the poll would have to be to survey informed Canadians. Tom, Dick and Harry still think Afganistan has something to do with oil.

And how do you do that, the reason i ask is that is the whole reason i started posting in this forum to start with, but it's been my experance that most do not want to know, or refuse to see it any other way...which as you piont out is being backed up thru the media.

[jdobbin]

The Harper government hasn't done a great job of explaining the mission or its objectives.

I've heard this said a thousand times, i've read the governments explaination, i've read DND's explaination, and find it very clear, but maybe it's just me, and my miltary background. What do you think needs clearing up...

DND's explaination.

The open ended commitment makes people wonder if we could be fighting the same battles five, ten or fifteen years down the line.

We've had many opened ended commitments before, Cyprus, Bosina, Germany, why is this one different...or is it really about Cas suffered..

The Harper government doesn't really explain the strategy. They are also deadly quiet when questions arise on whether the Afghan government is meeting any benchmarks for taking care of itself.

Open ended commitments in the countries you mentioned didn't mean year end, year out battles. Germany was more or less squashed after the war. There was not insurgency or fight left in them. Bosnia was a hot war for a while but there is no long lasting insurgency there. Cyprus has had its flashovers but it has always been along the border, not everywhere in the country. And it certainly has been quiet there these many years.

Afghanistan has the potential to be a very long, very costly battle that may in the end have no resolution. This is what is at the heart of Canadian concerns over the war. It isn't about whether our troops are doing a good job. It's about whether Afghanistan will ever be able to take care of itself.

[Black Dog]

IMHO, its part of BDR and ADR, it all ties in to the paranoia about Bush, they just can't get past it.

Oh you kids with your zany acronyms. WTF? LOL?

Pulling out of Afgh. now is playing right into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who want nothing more than to destroy Afghan democracy.

Uh, you are aware that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan would qualify as "Islamic fundamentalists" right?

[White Doors]

IMHO, its part of BDR and ADR, it all ties in to the paranoia about Bush, they just can't get past it.

Oh you kids with your zany acronyms. WTF? LOL?

Pulling out of Afgh. now is playing right into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who want nothing more than to destroy Afghan democracy.

Uh, you are aware that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan would qualify as "Islamic fundamentalists" right?

I'm thinking he would know better than you one way or the other as he was actually over there.

[Black Dog]

I'm thinking he would know better than you one way or the other as he was actually over there.

Who? Sharkman? Nope.

[Remiel]

I think that the secretive nature of national defense makes it inherently difficult to sway people who would rather judge the value of a conflict " by the numbers " , at least when it is not clear how much progress is being made.

Polls are certainly misleading, because they make it impossible to tell how many have faith in war, and how many have faith in peace. It is the people that have faith in neither that make the best measure of support or opposition to a conflict.

[runningdog]

Army Guy said,"What is your interputation of peacekeeping ? Canada as a nation has always had more troops and equipment on NATO run missions than it has ever had on Peacekeeping duties, Canada as strickly peacekeeping nation is a myth set out by previous governments."

What a shame, then. I always pictured us as the buffer zone between the weak guy and the bully. We were there to help out the little guy in regards to clean water, rebuilding hospitals, schools, etc... Thanks for setting the record staight. It now seems like too many soldiers join because it's just a job and they do what they are told to do by those above. No offense, but unless you state differently, you are a soldier who takes orders and is told what to think. Your opinion is "given" to you without question. No matter what you say, it is now clear that you will only spout the "government line" in regards to Afganistans. Cheerio.

[White Doors]

What a shame, then. I always pictured us as the buffer zone between the weak guy and the bully. We were there to help out the little guy in regards to clean water, rebuilding hospitals, schools, etc... Thanks for setting the record staight. It now seems like too many soldiers join because it's just a job and they do what they are told to do by those above. No offense, but unless you state differently, you are a soldier who takes orders and is told what to think. Your opinion is "given" to you without question. No matter what you say, it is now clear that you will only spout the "government line" in regards to Afganistans. Cheerio.

Most ignorant statement in the thread winner!

[Remiel]

That is an awful thing to say. And completely baseless.

No one surrenders their freedom to think when they enter the military. When you sign up, you are joining a strictly regimented organization, where generally speaking you must follow orders, to the letter. That is not because the object of the game is to oppress the common soldier, it is because following orders, which implies following the plan, has proven over the millenia to be the best way, as a whole, to survive combat, given a half-way intelligent commander.

[White Doors]

I'm thinking he would know better than you one way or the other as he was actually over there.

Who? Sharkman? Nope.

my bad. thought you were responding to armyguy

[Catchme]

Army Guy said,"What is your interputation of peacekeeping ? Canada as a nation has always had more troops and equipment on NATO run missions than it has ever had on Peacekeeping duties, Canada as strickly peacekeeping nation is a myth set out by previous governments."

What a shame, then. I always pictured us as the buffer zone between the weak guy and the bully. We were there to help out the little guy in regards to clean water, rebuilding hospitals, schools, etc... Thanks for setting the record staight. It now seems like too many soldiers join because it's just a job and they do what they are told to do by those above. No offense, but unless you state differently, you are a soldier who takes orders and is told what to think. Your opinion is "given" to you without question. No matter what you say, it is now clear that you will only spout the "government line" in regards to Afganistans. Cheerio.

Yes, in order to do the gymnastics to come to this point; "Canada... has always had more NATO involvement", they of course add the equipment and personell in; WWII, the Korean Conflict, and the whole Yugoslavia debacle, and say "Canada as a nation....". Ignoring the truth that the majority of actions were peace keeping, they just did not have the personell and equipment numbers.

Canada supposedly went to Afghanistan as part of the 911 actions of finding Osama and Al Qeada.

And to participate in the reconstruction as promised by NATO.

The mission to find Osama stopped after 3 months there. So too should have our military involvement.

[Wilber]

And to participate in the reconstruction as promised by NATO.

The mission to find Osama stopped after 3 months there. So too should have our military involvement.

Trouble is, if you just try and do the former without doing the latter, Osama comes looking for you.

[Peter F]

Outside of ensuring the Taliban don't form the government of the Islamic Republic, I would prefer Canada not be involved.

We originally entered the conflict to aid the USA to overthrow the Taliban. We did so because the Taliban government was one of those governments aiding and abetting terrorism.

So the Afghans themselves with the tremendous support of the USAF and USN threw out the Taliban. Now, apparently, Afghans cannot defeat the Taliban themselves. The USAF and USN havn't gone away; the Afghans who overthrew the Taliban are still there, but now, it seems, what worked like a charm in 2001/2 is no longer sufficient. Why is that?

If the Afghans were quite capable of giving a shit-kicking to the Taliban then, Why are they unable to give a shit-kicking to the Taliban now?

What has changed? Why are Afghans no longer able to secure thier own future without NATO and Canadian aid?

[Figleaf]

I've already expressed my opinion on this, but I'll summarize it here again.

First, I agreed with the initial deployment to Afghanistan with NATO in response to the attack on our ally the United States (allegedly) by a group being sheltered and supported by the Taliban government. That obligation was completed after the Taliban were driven from power, and in my opinion Canada should have left then.

I disagree with the current/ongoing deployment because:

-There seem to be no criteria for success or progress in this mission;

-The mission is not appropriately supported by NATO;

-The government we are supporting in Afghanistan is of questionable merit;

-It is no longer clear that the people we are fighting are "The Taliban" or in fact that they are anything but normal Afghans on the wrong side of Karzai;

-I don't think it's Canada's obligation to spend lives and resources on Afghanistan; and

-I don't think Canada's participation will make any difference in Afghanistan in the long term.

Note that none of these reasons has anything to do with the various imaginative imputations war supporters have advanced on this thread to characterize war-skeptics' positions, and further note that none of the explanation offered on the DND website addresses these points. (BTW, who was responsible for the peculiar overuse of bold lettering on that webpage?)