What do Canadians want in Afgan and why ?

[scribblet]

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?

Gee I wish I were a kid.... BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

Your right, I should have said radical Islamists who would deny women schooling etc.

[Topaz]

As most military, your mission is to help the people of the country have their freedoms and that is why you and others are over there. BUT, the wars of today isn't that simple, there are too many unknowns that would change your mission, like what is happening in Iraq and how their military is a beaten down military, with alot of the soldiers on anti-depression medication or going AWOL, or even killing themselves so they don't have to go back to that hell. I don't want that for our troops! We don't know enough or trust the present government over there. He has former war-lords within his government, and I don't think we can 100% trust him. The treatment of women in the Middle-East is their customs in all the countries. Just look what they were going to do with the Afghani who switched to a Christian, they were going to kill him! I don't think getting rid of the Taliban is going to change the customs over there.As I said before, the Taliban was good enough to be invited to the White House to talk oil with Cheney and when Cheney never got what he wanted, they invaded. Canada still has respect in the world, let us not lose like the US has.

[bush_cheney2004]

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....

Oh..so you want "major" involvement? Having more troops than all others combined, as well as the most tactical air, intel gathering, and heavy airlift logistics just ain't good enough for ya, eh?

Afghanistan Military Fatalities By Country:

Country Total

Australia 1

Canada 54

Czech 1

Denmark 4

France 9

Germany 18

Italy 9

NATO 1

Netherlands 6

Norway 1

Portugal 1

Romania 4

South Korea 1

Spain 20

Sweden 2

UK 54

US 389

Total 575

389/575 = 68%

Canada is in Afghanistan because of NATO obligations. I'm glad that Canadian Forces are more committed than the fickle voters.

[BubberMiley]

BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

You're saying Bush, America, and Harper are deranged? How hateful of you.

[scribblet]

BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

You're saying Bush, America, and Harper are deranged? How hateful of you.

Nice try, but no cigar

[Figleaf]

Gee I wish I were a kid.... BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

Do you really expect people to understand those acronyms?

[capricorn]

Army Guy, this is how I see it. Ordinary Afghans are worn out by unending wars. All they want most is peace, the ability to raise families and the opportunity to build a better life, which is exactly what we have here.

From what I read, the majority of insurgents come from neighbouring countries. A fresh and steady supply of barbaric fighters is always available to block progress. That’s what cannot be contained. Looks to me that Pakistan and Iran in particular don’t want to impede that flow. In fact, I think most Arab states genuinely want us to fail. We do not have a steady supply of soldiers to match this massive pool of fighters. I don't want the lives of Canadian soldiers wasted trying to plug the hole in the dike.

I support the mission but I don’t want it extended beyond our present commitment to NATO, that is, February 2009. After that, Canada and its military can hold their head high for sticking it out.

Army Guy and his comrades are following orders. Let’s not forget that ours is a voluntary army and tours of duty to Afghanistan are also voluntary. They may be afraid to go but they have the courage to face and overcome that fear. That’s why I am proud of them and I thank them all.

[Army Guy]

Runningdog:

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.

Judging by your response, i've burst your bubble and your perception of our nations military and her soldiers. Perhaps you can piont out the shame in living up to our NATO commitments, and putting more emphases on them than actual peacekeeping operations. It was not my intention to take away any of our accomplishments done under peacekeeping operations, but rather inform you that more time and money is spent towards our nations defense and living up to it's defense pacts.

I'd also like to remind you that there is more to peacekeeping than providing clean water,building schools, handing out teddy bears etc, although that is part of it ,it is only a small part most peacekeeping missions have seen our soldiers involved in combat operations of one sort or another.

As for your opinion of soldiers only joining for a job, clearly shows me that you really do not know what a soldiers life is like, and i could think of thousands of easier ways to earn a living. Ones that do not involve strapping on 40 lbs of protective equipment, 40 lbs of ammo and going to the office, NO it's not just a job it's a way of life, one that i do because i want to, not because i have to.

Yes, i'm a soldier that takes orders, much like you do in your job, unless your self employed. As for being told what to think, there's a leap on your behalf, free thinking soldiers is exactly what our military promotes, much like any job really.

Military life is more restrictive than normal every day jobs, but then again it has to be as others lives depend on it. I'm free to think and express myself as i see fit, just like any other Canadian citizen. I don't know where you got those facts, but they are false.

As for spouting the government line in regards to Afganistan your wrong, every soldier over there now or in the past has volunteered , thats right put there hands up to go, not because we are rebots with no opinon, but because we believe in what we are doing over there, that this mission is an honourable one, worth all the risks and effort we put into that. Most soldiers infact have volunteered more than once, and have completed atleast 2 tours of duty, that has got to speak about how they feel about this mission.

Again it is not my intention to piss any one off , but rather debate the issue, or offer some facts from a soldiers piont of view.

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

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.

Still trying to rewrite history and the facts hey Catchme. I think we've already discused all of this in previous threads, and if i remember correctly you failed to make or prove your case then.

As for your piont that peacekeeping operations out numbered actual NATO operations is true, keeping in mind that just because we send out one or two soldiers on most of these peacekeeping ops does not imply that we put more effort or time into peacekeeping.

[Black Dog]

Gee I wish I were a kid.... BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

Uh, not to be pedantic, but the acronym for "Bush Derangment Syndrome" would be "B.D.S."

Your right, I should have said radical Islamists who would deny women schooling etc.

Again, that's most of the population of Afghanistan. Christ, you think that no one there had oppressed women or followed backwards social practices before the Taliban came along. Fact is, there's not a great deal of difference between the Taliban's zanier practices and (predominatly Pusthun) Afghan society's "traditional values".

A while ago, somebody posted a long quote from Winston Churchill on Islam which prompted much head-nodding and happy mouth-noises among the Islamophobe set here. Here's what the man had to say about Afghanistan:

Except at harvest time, when self-preservation enjoins a temporary truce, the Pathan tribes are always engaged in private or public war. Every man is a warrior, a politician, and a theologian. Every large house is a real feudal fortress made, it is true, only of sunbaked clay, but with battlements, turrets, loopholes, flanking towers, drawbridges, etc., complete. Every village has its defense. Every family cultivates its vendetta; every clan, its feud. The numerous tribes and combination of tribes all have their accounts to settle with one another. Nothing is ever forgotten and very few debts are left unpaid… The life of the Pathan is thus full of interest…

Into this happy world the nineteenth century brought two new facts; the breech-loading rifle and the British Government. The first was an enormous luxury and blessing; the second, an unmitigated nuisance. The convenience of the breech-loading, and still more of the magazine, rifle was nowhere more appreciated than in the Indian highlands. A weapon which could kill with accuracy at fifteen hundred yards opened a whole new vista of delights to every family or clan which could acquire it. One could actually remain in one's own house and fire at one's neighbor nearly a mile away.

There's no reason to think Afghanistan will look any different when we leave than it did after the British or Soviets fled, or that we will meet a different fate.

[Figleaf]

Afghanistan Military Fatalities By Country:

Country Total

Australia 1

Canada 54

Czech 1

Denmark 4

France 9

Germany 18

Italy 9

NATO 1

Netherlands 6

Norway 1

Portugal 1

Romania 4

South Korea 1

Spain 20

Sweden 2

UK 54

US 389

Total 575

389/575 = 68%

It would be interesting to see this broken out by percentages of numbers deployed.

USA has what, about 14000 in Afghanistan? That's would make approximately a 3% KIA rate. Canada's number makes us about 2% by my calculations.

[M.Dancer]

It would be interesting to see this broken out by percentages of numbers deployed.

USA has what, about 14000 in Afghanistan? That's would make approximately a 3% KIA rate. Canada's number makes us about 2% by my calculations.

Except that deployed number isn't static. There may be 14,000 deployed but the number of US troops that have been cycled through Afghanistan may be in the 100,000 plus level, just as the number of Canadian troops must be over 5,000.....

[Figleaf]

It would be interesting to see this broken out by percentages of numbers deployed.

USA has what, about 14000 in Afghanistan? That's would make approximately a 3% KIA rate. Canada's number makes us about 2% by my calculations.

Except that deployed number isn't static. There may be 14,000 deployed but the number of US troops that have been cycled through Afghanistan may be in the 100,000 plus level, just as the number of Canadian troops must be over 5,000.....

Yes. The appropriate measure would be to find a weighted average of numbers deployed at any given time.

[Army Guy]

capricorn:

Army Guy, this is how I see it. Ordinary Afghans are worn out by unending wars. All they want most is peace, the ability to raise families and the opportunity to build a better life, which is exactly what we have here.

A majority do want peace, but they also want work, to feed thier families, to raise thier families without the extreme violence they face every day. And all of that is shatter, by a minority or Taliban hardliners, warlords, and foreign fighters that pray on them everyday.

From what I read, the majority of insurgents come from neighbouring countries. A fresh and steady supply of barbaric fighters is always available to block progress. That’s what cannot be contained. Looks to me that Pakistan and Iran in particular don’t want to impede that flow.

The insurgents come from many different sources, altough true alot of them do come from Pakistan, and other foreign muslim countries, alot are Afganis themselfs fighting for money, or following family tradition of being Taliban, or forced into fighting thru fear. And yes there is a steady flow of fighters coming into Afgan ,but nothing like the Taliban would like us to believe...a good example of this was Taliban leaders bragged of a summer offensive of more than 10,000 fighters this year, and over 1000 bombers, they would be lucky to put out a tenth of those numbers...So they are being contained, NATO troops are making huge dents in thier numbers that they can not replace easily..

They know they can not defeat us on the battle field, any battle field...What they do know is time is on thier side, all they have to do is cause a few cas and the west will scream...they also know that they are winning the hearts and minds of the people in the west, and sooner or later it is the people that will demand thier troops go home. Once that happens they will declare total victory, and run thier affairs anyway they want...and as history has already shown us, they will continue this strategy as it works well when used again'st the west. only next time maybe the prize won't be Afgan freedom but perhaps some of our own...

I don't want the lives of Canadian soldiers wasted trying to plug the hole in the dike.

Here is the kicker, Canadian soldiers are volunteering to do this mission over and over again, Why is that ? the average soldier in Afgan today already has serveral missions under his belt, from the Yugo, Haiti, and this one although more dangerous it has the potential of doing the most good, giving a nation the ability to take it's first steps...

So while Canadian citizens may think we are wasting our lives, and some of our tax dollars our soldiers don't think so. Soldiers are a very vocal lot of people and if they did not believe in something they would let you know...not the case here.

I support the mission but I don’t want it extended beyond our present commitment to NATO, that is, February 2009. After that, Canada and its military can hold their head high for sticking it out.

There is no question that Canadians can hold thier heads high for all of our acomplishments that have been done todate. What is hard for soldiers to accept is that we have spilled thier blood with these people, we've been thier since thier conception, and it will be extremily difficult to pack up and leave without seeing it come to a conclusion of some sort. To look them in the eyes and say sorry, but our countrymen have said we have done enough, and it's time to go home...

I know there will be some that will say tough shit, your a soldier and you'll do as your told and go where your told...all true, but don't think that will not come at a price, and those that disagree will find another ocupation, will find another way to help, soldiers don't grow on trees they are trained and forged to be who they are and quiting is not one of the things we do easily....and those that remain will have learned not to give so much of themselfs as the Canadian tax payer changes thier tune on the fly...

Don't get me wrong, i'm proud of what i do, where i come from and thank god everyday for allowing me to live and raise my family in Canada. I just wish that the rest of Canada could give as much to this mission as we do...

[Michael Bluth]

Gee I wish I were a kid.... BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

Uh, not to be pedantic, but the acronym for "Bush Derangment Syndrome" would be "B.D.S."

I thought the F stood for something we aren't allowed to F*cking write on the message board.

[scribblet]

Gee I wish I were a kid.... BFR is Bush Derangement Syndrome and ADR is America Derangement Syndrome, guess what HDR is....LOL

Do you really expect people to understand those acronyms?

I expected it because it (BDS sorry for the previous typos) and the others have been mentioned recently in a few posts.

[Keepitsimple]

Canada is taking over the training of the Afghan National Army. Here's a newswire article that explains the role but it also touches on the "Human Rights" guardianship of our military forces. It gives further insight into why we are there and what we can accomplish.

U.S. transfers responsibility of training Afghan army to Canadians

Tue May 15, 12:38 PM

The ceremony put Canada formally in charge of the mentoring program for Afghan soldiers deployed in Kandahar province, as well as the province of Uruzgan to the north. Lt.-Col. Wayne Eyre, commander of the Operational Mentoring and Liason Team - the OMLT, known colloquially as the "omelette" - hailed the fighting prowess of the Afghans, who are expected to take over eventually and allow NATO troops to pull out.

"It's the next evolution in Canada's involvement in Afghanistan," Eyre said after the ceremony.

Canadian soldiers and commanders also bring a perspective on human rights that Afghans might find foreign. Allegations of detainees being abused by members of Afghanistan's notorious secret service have been dominating headlines in Canada for weeks.

Maj. Peter Sullivan, the OMLT's deputy commanding officer, said Canadian soldiers have been preaching the virtues of respecting human rights since long before the detainee controversy erupted last month.

Sullivan said OMLT soldiers are constantly on the lookout for anything that has even the potential to violate Canada's own rules of engagement.

"Our rules of engagement are based on Canadian values - and Canadian law, of course - so that's what we try to emphasize, all the time, because we believe those things to be fundamentally correct," said Sullivan, from Meaford, Ont..

"What happens with our guys is that at all times, without fail, they are required to follow our rules of engagement, the laws of armed conflict, and the Geneva Conventions . . . and when they're faced with a situation that for one second might look like it's going to go outside of that, they intervene and stop it."

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070515/...ining&printer=1

[Catchme]

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.

Still trying to rewrite history and the facts hey Catchme. I think we've already discused all of this in previous threads, and if i remember correctly you failed to make or prove your case then.

As for your piont that peacekeeping operations out numbered actual NATO operations is true, keeping in mind that just because we send out one or two soldiers on most of these peacekeeping ops does not imply that we put more effort or time into peacekeeping.

No actually, I am stopping people like you from re-writing history. Good to see you left you self an escape route by saying we actually did do more peace keeping missions than NATO, as I said, but which you still tried to say first I did not prove my case of.

Not so nice false herring with your commentary of; "one or two soldiers" went on these peace keeping ops. and frankly yes it does, mean we put more time and effort into it or a longer period of time than any NATO operation.

As I said, we should have had our military pulled when Osama stopped being looked for. We have absolutely NO buisnees there as a country. Now even the Afghan senate has said, negotiations must take place, just as Jack said a year ago.

BTW, it is Afghans to whom Canadians should be listening to here, not our military personell, and they want us GONE.

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

We've already been through all this, infact serveral posters here tried to explain it to you, you either refused to read the material or pronounced it false. but i'm not getting into that debate with you again.

As I said, we should have had our military pulled when Osama stopped being looked for. We have absolutely NO buisnees there as a country. Now even the Afghan senate has said, negotiations must take place, just as Jack said a year ago.

You mean the same Jack that wanted to redeploy us to Dafur, a country that does not want us in there. A country with similar problems as Afgan...Jack wants us there because it gets him votes, nothing more....and when something newer or sexier comes along he'll be screaming to leave Dafar as well.

Negotiations of some sort or another have been taken place well before "Jack" said so...

BTW, it is Afghans to whom Canadians should be listening to here, not our military personell, and they want us GONE

Your right it is the Afganis that we should be listening to, So let me ask you how many have you or the average Canadian talked to. For every media site that claims the Average Afganis wants us out I'll provide you a source that wants us to stay.

But then again does the average Canadian even care about what the Afganis want ?

[Black Dog]

You mean the same Jack that wanted to redeploy us to Dafur, a country that does not want us in there.

Did Afghanistan want us in there?

A country with similar problems as Afgan...Jack wants us there because it gets him votes, nothing more....and when something newer or sexier comes along he'll be screaming to leave Dafar as well.

Negotiations of some sort or another have been taken place well before "Jack" said so...

The bigger question is: to what extent should Canada commit blood and treasure to aiding peopel of nations when it is not in our natioanl interest to do so? Are we global babysitters or what?

[g_bambino]

The bigger question is: to what extent should Canada commit blood and treasure to aiding peopel of nations when it is not in our natioanl interest to do so? Are we global babysitters or what?

Canada should not commit lives to battles that are not in our national interest. However, are you implying that the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan is not something that should concern us? Are we that isolationist and/or ignorant?

Frankly, the pre invasion situation in Afghanistan should have concerned many more western countries than it did. Because the peoples of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, etc. wouldn't allow Muslim extremists a foothold in their countries, Afghanistan, wasted by years of war and left in limbo after the withdrawal of a failed USSR invasion, became the place Islamic fundamentalists had been looking for to set up their version of utopic society.

Sure, terrorism is supported and funded by other countries - not just in that region, either - but Afghanistan became the place for terrorist groups to establish camps and carry on their indoctrination. Protected and supported by a Taliban government that shared their ideals to the fullest, Muslim extremists were able to gain the strength, stability and organization they'd been long looking for to start exporting their message, ideals and actions to other countries, as well as launch attacks on countries that they saw as dens of liberal filth that were having a poisoning effect on the Muslim societies of the Middle East.

So, the responsibility of Afghanistan should rest on more shoulders than it currently does - ie. more nations should be in there driving out the Taliban and helping Afghans re-establish a country. But, to claim that it isn't in our interest to be one of those nations is really quite ridiculous.

[Black Dog]

Sure, terrorism is supported and funded by other countries - not just in that region, either - but Afghanistan became the place for terrorist groups to establish camps and carry on their indoctrination. Protected and supported by a Taliban government that shared their ideals to the fullest, Muslim extremists were able to gain the strength, stability and organization they'd been long looking for to start exporting their message, ideals and actions to other countries, as well as launch attacks on countries that they saw as dens of liberal filth that were having a poisoning effect on the Muslim societies of the Middle East.

History. At this point, spending our time fretting about Afghanistan is closing the barn door after the horse has got out. Al Qaeda and its ilk don't ned state sponsors, nor do they need sanctuary. They flow across borders like water. If anything, you're making a compelling case for greater focus on other regions, such as Sudan or Somalia, places that resemble post-Soviet Afghanistan in the degree of chaos and power vacumns. That said, I'm not entirely in disagreement with you. But the focus in Afghanistan should be stability above all else, even if that means giving up on some of the fluffier and unrealistic expectations.

[Army Guy]

Did Afghanistan want us in there?

I'd be lying if i said yes, but then again once they declared they had taken Al Quida under thier wing and would protect them by force in nessicary. They did draw the line in the sand.

Todays elected Afgan government does want us there.

The bigger question is: to what extent should Canada commit blood and treasure to aiding peopel of nations when it is not in our natioanl interest to do so? Are we global babysitters or what?

It is a big question....That would depend on what exactly do we as a nation declare to be our National interests? And do we always have to be motivated by our national interests.... Is helping other nations in need not in our best interest now or down the road.

It is obvious that Afgan has nothing to offer our country, now or in the near future. God knows there are plenty of countries out there in more need and of more help, but the fact remains we did agree to help destroy this nations infra structure and remove it's government. And we should assist it in re building it.

Are we global babysitters ? It is something that most Canadians take pride in , is our role as as you say babysitting. As for the cost, our soldiers freely commit thier blood in the case of Afgan anyways, and as for treasure come on, a quick look at what programs and studies our government pays out for, and we can't find a few dollars to assist one nation.

[g_bambino]

Sure, terrorism is supported and funded by other countries - not just in that region, either - but Afghanistan became the place for terrorist groups to establish camps and carry on their indoctrination. Protected and supported by a Taliban government that shared their ideals to the fullest, Muslim extremists were able to gain the strength, stability and organization they'd been long looking for to start exporting their message, ideals and actions to other countries, as well as launch attacks on countries that they saw as dens of liberal filth that were having a poisoning effect on the Muslim societies of the Middle East.

History. At this point, spending our time fretting about Afghanistan is closing the barn door after the horse has got out. Al Qaeda and its ilk don't ned state sponsors, nor do they need sanctuary. They flow across borders like water. If anything, you're making a compelling case for greater focus on other regions, such as Sudan or Somalia, places that resemble post-Soviet Afghanistan in the degree of chaos and power vacumns. That said, I'm not entirely in disagreement with you. But the focus in Afghanistan should be stability above all else, even if that means giving up on some of the fluffier and unrealistic expectations.

History isn't quite over yet. The Taliban hasn't been fully ousted from the country, and the current Afghan government doesn't have the capability to keep them out once they are. You're right that Al Qaeda and others are able to flow across borders, but flowing is different to establishing, and if the mission in Afghanistan isn't completed there's an extremely strong possibility they'll flow right back in and things will return to the way they were before; all our sacrifice will be for naught. So, yes, we have to reach a point where Afghanistan has a government that eschews Muslim extremism and is stable and strong enough to protect itself, without our aid. Such an end is in our national interest.

That said, places like Sudan and Somalia are indeed also attractive locales for Islamic fundamentalists to establish themselves, as they did in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I hope to god we've learned from Afghanistan, and the situation in these east African countries is well on our radar.

[Black Dog]

History isn't quite over yet. The Taliban hasn't been fully ousted from the country, and the current Afghan government doesn't have the capability to keep them out once they are.

Trouble is, even a Tal;iban-free Afghanistan is not going to be a marked improvement. Islamic fundamentalism is a strong force in Afghan society. The likely alternative-tribalism-isn't much better.

You're right that Al Qaeda and others are able to flow across borders, but flowing is different to establishing, and if the mission in Afghanistan isn't completed there's an extremely strong possibility they'll flow right back in and things will return to the way they were before; all our sacrifice will be for naught.

My point is that they don't need a stable homebase.

So, yes, we have to reach a point where Afghanistan has a government that eschews Muslim extremism and is stable and strong enough to protect itself, without our aid. Such an end is in our national interest.

History has shown that Afghanistan is ungovernable as a political entity. Governments that have tried to eschew conservative Islam and enforce any kind of liberal agenda beyond the relatively easy to control urban centres have been shortlived. In short, the goal of establishing a strong central government is simply unrealistic, a bad strategy.