Canada in Afghanistan: Are we doing this right?

[Army Guy]

Frankly, my experience with Afghans tells me that you'll never accomplish any of that. These people make Chechens or Dagestanis seem civilized.

The average afganis wants peace, they want jobs, they want thier children to have a chance at life. however there is serveral groups who want nothing more than total control,total power over the population, and are willing to do what ever it takes to accomplish that "these are the people you speak off" and these are the people we are there to destroy. I think you'd be surprised on how many foreign fighters actually there are in Afgan.

I suspect that neither Karzai nor the Taliban are representative of Afghans. So, who can represent Afghanistan? Who cares, as long as they don't harbour people like al-Qaeda.

Perhaps the present government is not the best choice, but it must be respected as it was freely elected, but it won't last forever, and hopefully it will be replaced with a new and improved version.

These are the key questions. And I fear that your answers are like the RCMP in 1984 saying that they have air security under control, or saying in 1986 that they have the Air India investigation under control. Well, the RCMP didn't have any of this under control.

Without getting into to many specifics, there are many different depts, and countries involved in everything from gathering intel, spec ops, to regular military operations, all going on without fanfare, making life for these groups very hard and very dangerous, these operations are not reported to the media, but account for alot of the damage to taliban operations in Afgan. These groups are being hunted 24 hours a day with out a break.

Someone in DND better start thinking outside the box fast because, as I have said, getting blown up by an IED accomplishes nothing

DND and most of NATO are spending big dollars on solving the IED problem, and when a small advance is made, they counter it. but it will never be totally solved, and it is one of the perils of combat, one of many that our soldiers face daily.

This matters because if you bungle in Afghanistan, it is my children and grandchildren who will pay the consequences.

Every soldier over there is giving 150% of thier effort, working extremily long hours earning every dollar thier paid twice over...to make this work. Most have children of thier own, and don't want this war to reach our shores, or have our children involved either...And i've said this before this war is not going to be won by soldiers alone, it needs to be supported by the people on the home front...

Thats the front that the taliban are winning on, it drives everything they do, including recruitment, thier money supply, thier wpns supply, everything they need to fight. It boosts thier moral when they see our headlines, they know it is only a matter of time before more western nations drop out of this mission and they take control...

With a majority of support on the home front, not only does it show them "the taliban" we are commited, united, but funding for Aid, construction, military equipment is easier to come by, getting the people of afgan the funding is the key to winning thier hearts and minds getting that aid into the right hands.

But that level of support is not there, and it is making our soldiers jobs that much harder to accomplish, hence why my comment, of this mission not being a Canadian one but one bourne by our troops alone and by those few in the minioty.

Ignore the popularity issue. If you guys are in it for the glory, you're probably in the wrong line of work.

You can't because the two are tied together, Canadians forget they were the ones that sent us over there,

and they are the ones that have left our sides, and walked away.

I don't think there is one soldier here that has been in combat, that would say "I'm here for the glory" there is no glory in war, just blood and tears, and lots of destruction.

No there is no glory in waking most of your family up in the middle of the night, while i relive in color the death of so many of my comrads, No glory in talking to your best friends wife, trying to find the words to say your sorry that you could not keep your promise and bring him back alive. No glory in trying to stuff the insides of one of your comrads back into his belly, trying to asure him he'll be all right, no glory in hearing his last words and making promises that i can't keep.

And yet with all that we still mange to return time after time tour after tour, because we believe in what we are doing so much so that we are willing to die for it. When you look into the eyes of a young afgan girl who has had her hands removed and her father killed so that she could go to school, you make a promise to yourself, if i could prevent that from happening just once it would all be worth it.

Each soldier has his own reasons for going to Afgan repeatily, but i don't think there is anyone looking for glory. It's something that the media can not put to words, it's something you have to see , feel, smell, and live, then maybe we'll get "why" we go.

[August1991]

Army Guy, I have read your post several times and I think you miss my point. Let me state a few (harsh) opinions and then get to my broader idea.

The average afganis wants peace, they want jobs, they want thier children to have a chance at life. however there is serveral groups who want nothing more than total control,total power over the population, and are willing to do what ever it takes to accomplish that "these are the people you speak off" and these are the people we are there to destroy. I think you'd be surprised on how many foreign fighters actually there are in Afgan.

I have always admired the facility of this kind of argument. "The people are nice but a few radicals/foreigners incite them to violence."

Army Guy, I'm willing to admit that Afghans are as human as you or I. They too would like to have a Canadian Tire nearby. But if you scratch an Afghan, you won't find an American underneath.

Every soldier over there is giving 150% of thier effort, working extremily long hours earning every dollar thier paid twice over...to make this work. Most have children of thier own, and don't want this war to reach our shores, or have our children involved either...And i've said this before this war is not going to be won by soldiers alone, it needs to be supported by the people on the home front...

Wait a second here. If you fail, it means it's our fault?

----

Without getting into to many specifics, there are many different depts, and countries involved in everything from gathering intel, spec ops, to regular military operations, all going on without fanfare, making life for these groups very hard and very dangerous, these operations are not reported to the media, but account for alot of the damage to taliban operations in Afgan. These groups are being hunted 24 hours a day with out a break.

...

DND and most of NATO are spending big dollars on solving the IED problem, and when a small advance is made, they counter it. but it will never be totally solved, and it is one of the perils of combat, one of many that our soldiers face daily.

If you say so, Army Guy...

Three more of our guys were killed by IEDs.

There is going to be the usual claptrap about "dying for our country" or "dying so others can live free". WTF? How does getting blown up by a roadside bomb accomplish anything? And that's my main point that you don't seem to understand.

In WWII, 25 Lancasters left England at night and about 23 or 24 returned. They accomplished something.

You guys hunker down in a large base and then venture out every so often and sometimes, a few of you get blown up and don't return. When you venture out, do you really accomplish anything? (And don't give me this BS about Afghan girls becoming lawyers... )

My fear is that our Afghan mission is like sending Lancasters to the south of France to bomb vineyards or in the wrong direction over the North Atlantic. Some get lost, crash and then, of course, we have to say that the pilots died for their country.

I don't question your presence in Afghanistan. You must be there. I have serious doubts about how your mission has been organized.

If we are going to win this, it's because we are more cunning.

[Army Guy]

I have always admired the facility of this kind of argument. "The people are nice but a few radicals/foreigners incite them to violence."

Most of those fighting for the taliban are from those refugee camps in pakistan, where conditions are extremily poor, and perfect for recruiting and the taliban presence is there daily to brainwash them into thier believes and ways of life.

The others recruited inside Afganistan itself are done by force, threats, or promising some big pay day. these recruits are getting hard to come by, because NATO controls most of the country side, and is now paying more to the afganis army. money is a big convincer when you don't have any,and need to provide for your family.

Army Guy, I'm willing to admit that Afghans are as human as you or I. They too would like to have a Canadian Tire nearby. But if you scratch an Afghan, you won't find an American underneath.

perhaps a Canadian tire is a lofty goal, but a single clean water source, access to a medical clinic, to be able to provide for thier families, so they can atleast eat once a day, that would be a start.

Wait a second here. If you fail, it means it's our fault?

It would be a major contributing factor would it not, think about it for a minute, if the majority of people supported this mission, would funding not be easier made availiable, would we not have a larger presence there, not just militarily, but diplomactically, more police, more PRT staff etc. anything to do with the mission would be alot easier to pass thru parliment, we would also showing the taliban we are united and dedicated to this mission, taking away from the taliban a powerful tool they use in recruiting, gathering finicial aid, foreiegn aid, the list goes on. It would also take away from the western nations the excuse "nobody else supports this mission" , making that decision to pull out that much easier.

There is going to be the usual claptrap about "dying for our country" or "dying so others can live free". WTF? How does getting blown up by a roadside bomb accomplish anything? And that's my main point that you don't seem to understand.

In WWII, 25 Lancasters left England at night and about 23 or 24 returned. They accomplished something.

You guys hunker down in a large base and then venture out every so often and sometimes, a few of you get blown up and don't return. When you venture out, do you really accomplish anything? (And don't give me this BS about Afghan girls becoming lawyers... )

IED's are just one of many forms in which a soldier can die in combat, it is part of the way the taliban fight, Dying in any form does nothing to further any cause, regardless if it's flying a bomber or building a road, in Afgan. It is part of war, which has one objective, to kill as many of the enemy as possiable, until one side says uncle, or is defeated.

You've stated we need to be there, we need to have a presence on the ground, we need to convince the other side to say uncle or defeat them. in doing that some of us will be killed. soldiers know the risks, and acept this as part of our jobs.

My last tour i spent 190 days in country, and 140 of those were outside the wire, plus 30 of those i was on Leave in Canada, so we are not always hunkered down on some big base, but actually out doing army stuff. Do we accomplish anything , just being out there , showing the taliban we can operate freely at any time, making it harder for them to operate freely, bringing the fight to them, harassing thier supply routes, humanitarian missions, mobile medical clinics, and construction of new hyways, irrigation ditches, schools, firehalls, hospitals, police stations.

I don't question your presence in Afghanistan. You must be there. I have serious doubts about how your mission has been organized.

If we are going to win this, it's because we are more cunning.

I've been on lots of missions, across the globe, this one is one of the best organized, but like any large organization it needs to be adjusted alittle every roto.

I've seen more advance tech over on this tour, than i have in my entire carear, stuff i thought was created for the movies, is actually being used here be it to fight with , gather intell with, or do security with... these things the media are not told about, for security reasons.... It's very hard to convince anyone that these things are happening , when you can't explain them in detail because of the security issues.

[Argus]

First of all, we are not in Afghhanistan to build a new country. If Afghan girls go to school, that will be an affair of Afghans. One of Canada's ambassadors to Kabul said that it would take five generations to bring Afghanistan into the modern world. I think he was optimistic. Afghans are a pragmatic but superstitious and stubborn lot. CIDA is wasting its time (and our money).

Canada has long held the belief that we, as a wealthy nation, can help to make a difference in the world, and one of the ways we have traditionally done that is by intervening to provide security from war for local populations while the diplomats and others get together to prevent a recurrence of war. We spent almost 30 years in Cypress keeping the Turks and Greeks from slaughtering each other. What has changed since then? And yes, if you care to examine the record, Canadian soldiers died in Cyprus too. They died in Yugoslavia. They have died elsewhere, not in great numbers, but sadly, they have given their lives. They are all volunteers, these men and women, and unlike almost all of you they have first-hand experience and believe in what they are doing. They do believe they are making a difference for the better.

Maybe it's just our instant gratification society. hey, we gave them a few years to rebuild the country and it's still not working! Time to move on. Click the channel and let's see how things are going in Darfur now.

The US didn't rebuild Japan overnight, you know. It took many, many years to turn it from a hidebound backward society into the modern economic colossus you see today. It was slow going. Getting the Afghanis - admittedly culturally primitive by our standards - to form a cohesive nation under one government is not going to happen overnight either.

Is it worth it? Failed states are breeding grounds for trouble. They produce all kinds of nasty things, and the world is a lot smaller nowadays, so those nasty things have a nasty habit of showing up on our doorstep. We really don't want Afghanistan to collapse into anarchy and tribal war again. I think that would have a negative affect on Pakistan, too. Pakistan is already having a lot of trouble with fanatics and religious wackos. Do we want them to be emboldened by their great "victory" in Afghanistan, and to then start attacking Pakistan more vigorously? I think the kind of brutal religious fanaticism evident in the middle east now has to be fought and it has to be fought there. They say that religious zealots from all over the Arab world travel to Afghanistan and Iraq to die. Good. The more the merrier.

That being said, i think the American led efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were and are badly led and organized, and led by idiots. I don't think either state is governable by democratic means at the moment. I think the US ought to put strong men in place, let them solve the problems, and provide them with arms and support. Then they can work behind the scenes, once order is re-established, to moderate those regimes.

As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

[jdobbin]

As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

You can think your hero Mulroney for selling off the heavy lift helicopters. The Dutch now fly over Canadians in Afghanistan and say, "Thank God, we're not down there with the Canadians."

As for the rest of the countries you point out that were built up after wars, none of them had a continuing insurgency or several nearby countries that helped fuel it.

[bush_cheney2004]

....As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

Huh? Why the hell does the US owe Canada first dibs on rotary wing aircraft after years of underfunding Canadian Forces? Live with the choices you have made, from (initially) no desert camo to broke-dick submarines. You guys didn't even have enough bombs for Kosovo! The troops pay the price in the end, but the budget is balanced...Yeay!

[hiti]

....As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

Huh? Why the hell does the US owe Canada first dibs on rotary wing aircraft after years of underfunding Canadian Forces? Live with the choices you have made, from (initially) no desert camo to broke-dick submarines. You guys didn't even have enough bombs for Kosovo! The troops pay the price in the end, but the budget is balanced...Yeay!

You started the frekkin war in Afghanistan and then hightailed it to take out Sadaam Hussan just so Junior could have his revenge.

So why are the Canadians fighting your war in Afghanistan while Cheney siphons the oil out of Iraq?

WTF happened to rotations?

[Peter F]

Huh? Why the hell does the US owe Canada first dibs on rotary wing aircraft after years of underfunding Canadian Forces? Live with the choices you have made, from (initially) no desert camo to broke-dick submarines. You guys didn't even have enough bombs for Kosovo! The troops pay the price in the end, but the budget is balanced...Yeay!

here, here.

We don't have the right tanks, we don't have the right helicopters, we don't have the right transport, we don't have the right IFV's, we don't have the right support from the home front, we don't have the right support from the non-governing political parties, we don't have the right budgets, we don't have the right media support. Hell, we don't even have the right form of government.

But nevertheless its really good that Canada is in afghanistan and we should remain indefinately continuing what we don't have neither the material nor moral resources to do. and we should continue to do so indefinately. And not only that - we're going to do it on a shoestring and we're going to supply it from the other side of the world.

...and that's a good thing. Only good can come of it.

[Ward]

Calling this thing in Afghanistan "a war" is the first thing that needs to be corrected.

[bush_cheney2004]

You started the frekkin war in Afghanistan and then hightailed it to take out Sadaam Hussan just so Junior could have his revenge.

So why are the Canadians fighting your war in Afghanistan while Cheney siphons the oil out of Iraq?

WTF happened to rotations?

Check your NATO membership card. It lists all the benefits and responsibilities of being in the "club". I believe Canada was a founding member. Send those 40+ year-old Sea Kings over. There's your "rotations"!

[Argus]

As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

You can think your hero Mulroney for selling off the heavy lift helicopters. The Dutch now fly over Canadians in Afghanistan and say, "Thank God, we're not down there with the Canadians."

Mulroney's plan was to buy a whole bunch more helicopters. Your hero Jean Chretien spent 13 corrupt years siphoning off cash for his retirement while bleeding the military of everything it needed to do its job.

As for the rest of the countries you point out that were built up after wars, none of them had a continuing insurgency or several nearby countries that helped fuel it.

Actually, Germany did have a continuing insurgency, but that was crushed by overwhelming allied presence. Unfortunately, we do not have adequate numbers in Afghanistan, in large measure because of the cowardice of European governments.

[Argus]

....As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

Huh? Why the hell does the US owe Canada first dibs on rotary wing aircraft after years of underfunding Canadian Forces? Live with the choices you have made, from (initially) no desert camo to broke-dick submarines. You guys didn't even have enough bombs for Kosovo! The troops pay the price in the end, but the budget is balanced...Yeay!

Fine, then we go home and let the US send more troops to Afghanistan. This might be a NATO mission and approved by the UN but the US is the reason behind it. There are military helicopters sitting idle all across the US, Europe and Asia. If our Nato allies don't want to provide them then they can take over our share of the mission.

[Leafless]

....As to our casualties - a huge chunk of them are due to our not having helicopters. I think we should stay in Afghanistan - provided the US or some other country either provides us with sufficient helicopter carrying capacity that we don't have to keep driving over those dangerous roads - or that the US inserts our order for helicopters into the front of the pack and gives us choppers coming off the assembly line NOW - not in five years. Don't tell me the goddam French or Germans couldn't be providing us with sufficient helicopters to resupply our bases. I don't believe it.

Huh? Why the hell does the US owe Canada first dibs on rotary wing aircraft after years of underfunding Canadian Forces? Live with the choices you have made, from (initially) no desert camo to broke-dick submarines. You guys didn't even have enough bombs for Kosovo! The troops pay the price in the end, but the budget is balanced...Yeay!

Fine, then we go home and let the US send more troops to Afghanistan. This might be a NATO mission and approved by the UN but the US is the reason behind it. There are military helicopters sitting idle all across the US, Europe and Asia. If our Nato allies don't want to provide them then they can take over our share of the mission.

Ever hear of 'personal responsibility'.

Stop whining like a cry baby socialist.

[Fortunata]

Fine, then we go home and let the US send more troops to Afghanistan. This might be a NATO mission and approved by the UN but the US is the reason behind it. There are military helicopters sitting idle all across the US, Europe and Asia. If our Nato allies don't want to provide them then they can take over our share of the mission.

Yep, if it's not important enough to support our troops deployed on a mission of the USA's initiation then they should do it themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep, if it's not important enough to support our troops deployed on a mission of the USA's initiation then they should do it themselves.

So the USA should support Canadian Forces (above and beyond the way it already does) just because years of domestic give-a-damn has been lacking? It has nothing to do with "USA initiation"...you don't send troops in harm's way with half-ass kit and expect other nations to pick up the slack.

PM Harper has attempted to stop the decay and neglect, only to be derided at every turn. I guess it's cheaper just to cancel contracts and pay $500 million anyway.

The reason you are waiting for new helos has nothing to do with US production schedules, and a lot to do with Canadian choices. Still, the US Pentagon is considering some kind of Band-Aid for Ottawa's past folly:

http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/arti...?articleID=9657

[Topaz]

The only way to get freedom in the Middle-East is for the people to want it. The west doesn't really know who is the enemy is and who isn't. You have a President of Afghanistan that won't stop the poppy production, he has warlords within his government, he has a wanted person by the US, in his security team. No matter how Canada wants peace for the people, there are certain people who are out for themselves and don't care about what we are trying to do. We can't win this war, unless the whole country is helping and Iraq is one good example of that if they aren't. The Taliban is said to stepping up suicided missions in the capital city and fight the war like Iraq war is being fought. How many more people are going to die, how many children are going to suffer before this war ends , if it ever does. Bush should never gone into the Middle-East, I believe its not been worth it , except for those companies making money off this war, which does affect Cheney and Bush families and the Bin Laden families!!

[Argus]

Yep, if it's not important enough to support our troops deployed on a mission of the USA's initiation then they should do it themselves.

So the USA should support Canadian Forces (above and beyond the way it already does) just because years of domestic give-a-damn has been lacking?

If it's necessary to sustain the mission and prevent the loss of life - you're damned right.

It has nothing to do with "USA initiation"...you don't send troops in harm's way with half-ass kit and expect other nations to pick up the slack.

Perhaps not, but they are in harms way, and we can't produce helicopters overnight. Others have them, so they either loan them to us or we do as you seem to be suggesting and "not send troops in harm's way" by bringing them home.

[Peter F]

...either loan them to us or we do as you seem to be suggesting and "not send troops in harm's way" by bringing them home.

Well finally somebody's eye's are being opened. Too bad past and present governments have not faced reality's in thier eagerness to score political points.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps not, but they are in harms way, and we can't produce helicopters overnight. Others have them, so they either loan them to us or we do as you seem to be suggesting and "not send troops in harm's way" by bringing them home.

Then bring them home....if you can (heavy airlift?). The "other nations" have them because they didn't balance budgets on the backs of their armed forces. What is it about aircraft in particular that vexes Canada so, especially helos? Bell Canada makes parts for American choppers, so industrial base is not the question.

Please, no Avro Arrow flashbacks.

Maybe the budget neglect was purposeful in an effort to hobble Canadian participation in such "peacemaking" conflicts. Somebody forgot to tell the troops, because they still do an outstanding job despite the shortfalls and lack of support.

[jdobbin]

Mulroney's plan was to buy a whole bunch more helicopters. Your hero Jean Chretien spent 13 corrupt years siphoning off cash for his retirement while bleeding the military of everything it needed to do its job.

Actually, Germany did have a continuing insurgency, but that was crushed by overwhelming allied presence. Unfortunately, we do not have adequate numbers in Afghanistan, in large measure because of the cowardice of European governments.

Citation on Mulroney's replacement plans for the heavy lift helicopters that Mulroney sold? You are mixing up your helicopters.

Citation for the continued insurgency in Germany following surrender?

[bush_cheney2004]

Citation for the continued insurgency in Germany following surrender?

There certainly was a (minor) insurgency in Germany "following surrender". See German "Werwolf" and "Hitlerjugend":

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=83718

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

[uOttawaMan]

Calling this thing in Afghanistan "a war" is the first thing that needs to be corrected.

Oh ya? What would you call it then?

I hope it's something vague and comforting, like "conflict" or "military action"

[bush_cheney2004]

Chinooks...Chinooks...whose got some Chinooks? Betting on the come...now Canada has none:

Canada is a rich country. Why are we the only nation that is sending its infantry into this combat zone with no transport helicopters to supply them? No helicopter to evacuate the wounded, or those who become trapped in a lethal situation?

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-hillier1.htm

What happened to the old CH-113 Labradors (CH-46 Sea Knight)???

[Ward]

Calling this thing in Afghanistan "a war" is the first thing that needs to be corrected.

Oh ya? What would you call it then?

I hope it's something vague and comforting, like "conflict" or "military action"

How about an international emergency?

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/E-...chorbo-ga:l_III

[Argus]

...either loan them to us or we do as you seem to be suggesting and "not send troops in harm's way" by bringing them home.

Well finally somebody's eye's are being opened. Too bad past and present governments have not faced reality's in thier eagerness to score political points.

The Tories are scoring no political points by staying in Afghanistan. Quite to the contrary. Afghanistan has cost them dearly. They are doing what is right despite this, and I commend them on it. The NDP are idiot leftists who are reflexively anti-military and anti-American, and I understand why they would be against Afghanistan. The people whose policies and statements are solely based on trying to score political points, regardless of the damage done to the country - are the Liberals. They're the ones who sent us there, and sent us back, and upgraded the mission to a combat mission despite our lack of proper equipment - which is their fault. And now they've seen the opportunity to score cheap political points so rant against the mission at every opportunity. It's disgusting and demonstrates the complete lack of integrity, honesty or interest in the welfare of the country among that party's leadership.