Canada in Afghanistan: Are we doing this right?

[Keepitsimple]

I wish all the critics would seriously read Army Guy's posts. They are thoughtful and compassionate - but most of all, they have substance.

[Fortunata]

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.

Doesn't matter WHY we don't have all the necessary equipment; the bottom line is we don't and IF the USA wants continued support then they can damn well reciprocate. All this happened because of an attack on the USA (and I don't want to hear that it was really an attack on Western culture, etc.) and we are there in support of that attack. So we're over there fighting and dying and all you can think about is that we shouldn't get support because? And airlift?... I'm sure we won't have trouble getting our people and equipment back home if we need to.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't matter WHY we don't have all the necessary equipment; the bottom line is we don't and IF the USA wants continued support then they can damn well reciprocate. All this happened because of an attack on the USA (and I don't want to hear that it was really an attack on Western culture, etc.) and we are there in support of that attack. So we're over there fighting and dying and all you can think about is that we shouldn't get support because? And airlift?... I'm sure we won't have trouble getting our people and equipment back home if we need to.

Canada already has and continues to receive plenty of "support" from the US, starting with the initial invasion. Same thing happened during Allied Force (Kosovo), when US logistics and capabilities were used to make up for NATO partners lacking same (e.g. CF-18's didn't have enough kits to drop a modern bomb).

Canada is not in Afghanistan for the USA...it is in Afghanistan because of NATO obligations and stated foreign policy objectives and interests. (That translates to "Canadian Values" for the feel-good crowd.) Otherwise, Canada shouldn't even be there.

Helicopters are readily available for dry or wet lease from Russia or Ukraine, the same way you make up for a lack of heavy airlift. So stop whining about US production schedules and spend the money now...for your troops....or pick up your marbles and go home.

I ask again, what is it about rotary wing aircraft that vexes Canada so?

[hiti]

Harper has changed Canada's army from reconstruction to war without giving them the tools like rotary wing aircraft. Our military is equipped, just not for a war to please Junior Bush.

What Canada's army does have and everyone else wants is armoured vehicles.

And just for a history lesson...... there was no choice after Mulroney leaving a $40 billion debt. (Mulroney also bought the submarines) It was balance the budget or die and Chretien choose to balance the budget. Besides during that time there was no need for war toys because there was no war mongering president or pm sending troops off to foreign lands.

IF Canada would get back to it's original mission in Afghanistan, reconstruction and quit getting caught up in killing civilians, maybe we could make a difference.

Right now all we are doing is feeding the hatred that allows the Taliban to survive.

"You cannot bring your Western standards to Afghanistan and expect them to work. This is a different society and a different culture." -Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan June 23/07

[bush_cheney2004]

....And just for a history lesson...... there was no choice after Mulroney leaving a $40 billion debt. (Mulroney also bought the submarines) It was balance the budget or die and Chretien choose to balance the budget. Besides during that time there was no need for war toys because there was no war mongering president or pm sending troops off to foreign lands.

IF Canada would get back to it's original mission in Afghanistan, reconstruction and quit getting caught up in killing civilians, maybe we could make a difference.

No need for toys eh? History lesson? Look no further than General Dallaire and the Rwanda debacle. Canada's original mission(s) include JTF2 and ISAF....more than just "reconstruction". Hard to sink a potable water well while being attacked by the Taliban.

[FascistLibertarian]

How do you expect to build a country in Afghanistan without security?

[hiti]

....And just for a history lesson...... there was no choice after Mulroney leaving a $40 billion debt. (Mulroney also bought the submarines) It was balance the budget or die and Chretien choose to balance the budget. Besides during that time there was no need for war toys because there was no war mongering president or pm sending troops off to foreign lands.

IF Canada would get back to it's original mission in Afghanistan, reconstruction and quit getting caught up in killing civilians, maybe we could make a difference.

No need for toys eh? History lesson? Look no further than General Dallaire and the Rwanda debacle. Canada's original mission(s) include JTF2 and ISAF....more than just "reconstruction". Hard to sink a potable water well while being attacked by the Taliban.

The whole world ignored Rwanda. This was not a Canada debacle so don't twist history.

Steve has shifted the Afghanistan mission from reconstruction for our soldiers to war only. Our JTF2 and ISAF went in first, sure and that was during the fighting. And then as soon as victory was declared the REST OF OUR MILITARY" went in as RECONSTRUCTION.

Can't change history.

[bush_cheney2004]

The whole world ignored Rwanda. This was not a Canada debacle so don't twist history.

Steve has shifted the Afghanistan mission from reconstruction for our soldiers to war only. Our JTF2 and ISAF went in first, sure and that was during the fighting. And then as soon as victory was declared the REST OF OUR MILITARY" went in as RECONSTRUCTION.

Can't change history.

Take your own advice about history....Canada didn't have the APCs or airlift to get jack to Kigali even after the UN approved the mission. Tried to beg 50 from the USA....but Canada's favorite rock star...Bill Clinton...said no deal without some cash.

The ISAF is still an active operation (it wasn't "your" ISAF), is now into ISAF Stage 3 in more provinces with contributions from 37 nations.

The "fighting" never ended, not even for the Liberals who sent you there to begin with.

[Argus]

Harper has changed Canada's army from reconstruction to war without giving them the tools like rotary wing aircraft. Our military is equipped, just not for a war to please Junior Bush.

Hiti, as a conservative I like consistency. I would like to congratulate you on your consistency in always ignoring the facts, no matter how large and glaring and well-known to everyone else, and always finding a way to blame Harper for everything under the sun, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look. That's consistency.

In point of fact, our mission was changed by the Liberals. You won't even find any Liberals on this board challenging that. The evidence is too massive and overwhelming. Everyone knows it was the Liberals who changed our mission. And everyone knows it was thirteen years of Liberal neglect which robbed them of the tools needed to do real military work.

But again, you are consistent in blathering on with complete disregard for facts.

And just for a history lesson...... there was no choice after Mulroney leaving a $40 billion debt. (Mulroney also bought the submarines)

Again, there's that consistency. Congratulations. The subs were purchased by the Liberals. Art Eggleton made the announcement in 1998. Military cutbacks as part of slashing the deficit - not debt - were necessary during the recession years. However, the Liberals continued to cut the military and starve it of funds even as they were desperately trying to hide excess cash in every nook and cranny and performing illegal accounting tricks to try and make the giant surpluses seem smaller.

IF Canada would get back to it's original mission in Afghanistan, reconstruction and quit getting caught up in killing civilians, maybe we could make a difference.

It's a little hard to build schools to make the snivelling little liberals happy when people are shooting you. I know you might believe that if we magically hold up our hands and inform the Taliban we're just nice people building schools they'll go somewhere else and shoot at Americans or French or something, but that really doesn't work with people who murder aid workers and execute schoolgirls for daring to attend classes.

But then, not recognizing the obvious has been another consistent factor in all your postings.

[Army Guy]

Alot of finger pionting, about who's war it is...about equipment...Why is it we as canadians need to blame someone for our shortfalls...

I think it's time we stand up and take responsabilty for our decissions that past and present governments have made on our behalf, regardless of which polictical party made them. We've made this a major sport blaming the US for all our problems, i'm actually surprised we have not created a Canadian reality show that slames America at every chance we have...

We are in this War not because the liberals decided it was the right thing to do but because it was living up to our NATO commitments period ....it does not have to be popular, but if we want to live under it's umbrella of protection then we must take part in it's operations....or take responsabilty for our own defence..

As for our equipment, we have the military that Canadians want, no more no less, Canadians blame the liberals and cons for our current status , but since we as canadians are so good at finger pionting i chose to piont at you the Canadian tax payer. The only people that have the power to change DND's current state, is the people of Canada.

But as much as we all whine about our state of our military, it is not going to be a major piont come election time, shit it won't even make the top 5 pionts...Canadians have to many other issues that they deem to have more priorty, me being one of them.

Todays military would take any where from 50 to 100 bil just to outfit us with modern capabilities and support our current mandate of 75,000 troops. And that would be a very conservative est...considering our current status, and soon in the near future Canadians will have to make some hard chioces in regards to our military to pay the big bucks to fix it or to dismantle it completely. but you all knew that right...

[August1991]

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.

I'll use an unoriginal example. In the 1800s, Prussian soldiers wore blue coats and British soldiers wore red coats. At the time, it was thought that this was the correct way to conduct war. Identify oneself. The idea that a soldier would cheat and wear another colour was unseemly, irrelevant or missing the point.

In this thread, I fear that I am arguing with an 18th century Prussian infantryman.

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.

If you say so...

But look, technology too often favours the little guy. Not the little guy who's part of a big organization.

Army Guy, I just don't know. You may be right, I may be wrong. I fully support our presence in Aghanistan. IMV, you are fighting a fundamental battle of historic proportions.

I am merely questioning the way in which you are going about this. Can you guys think of a cruder, more cunning way to fight these people? As I have said, getting blown up by an IED accomplishes absolutely nothing (despite what official statements state officially).

Here's another angle. The Soviets tried all of this before in 1979. Helicopters, full force, the works. (If I understand properly this thread, helicopters would mean that Canadian soldiers could avoid roadway IEDs. How naive such logic.) Brezhnev sent the helicopters, thousands, but then Gorbachev pulled them back. For all their efforts, the Soviets got only limbless soldiers begging in Moscow's metro. I have chatted with more than one. You can imagine what thay said about Afghans.

----

For what they're worth, here are my thoughts.

If you try a Soviet-style mission, you'll fail. If you try to modernize Afghanistan, you are wasting your time. If you use stronger force or helicopters (the modus operandi of the Soviets), you'll fail. If you try to install another Najibullah, you'll fail.

OTOH, you might succeed if you simply try to ensure that al-Qaeda has no sanctuary in Afghanistan. For us in the West, that would be victory.

How to achieve that? I dunno but I reckon that it requires thinking outside the box, and not wearing Red Coats.

Can you pay people to fight the fight?

[Army Guy]

August1991:

I'll use an unoriginal example. In the 1800s, Prussian soldiers wore blue coats and British soldiers wore red coats. At the time, it was thought that this was the correct way to conduct war. Identify oneself. The idea that a soldier would cheat and wear another colour was unseemly, irrelevant or missing the point.

In this thread, I fear that I am arguing with an 18th century Prussian infantryman.

In many ways you are, not because it is the way the soldiers want to fight, but rather we are fighting this War, the how, and when, and our code of conduct in which the west will tolerate. Insurgent warfare gives most of the advantages to the bad guys, in many ways, NO rules, No conventions, and thier victory conditions are much more easily defined, and achieved. They have no long supply lines to protect, they don't have to postion valueable manpower to protect cities, towns villages, they are extremily mobile in small numbers. and they have a secure hiding place to regroup and rearm, etc.

But even with all these advantages it is possiable to defeat them. i know most people are moaning now, they have heard this over and over, by thousands of people from our government , our military, from NATO etc...and although it is true, our progress is extremily slow, very tough to measure on a yard stick...they only way to truily measure it is to see what our soldiers see, they have come back year after year each time it is different and it is improving. more schools,more busineses, hey even a intra net cafe just outside the wire, "under taliban rule this would have never happened," construction is every where new homes, new buildings, new roads, new shops, the out door market is huge...all signs of progress, all signs of peace...all of this is happening because we are here, and thru our hard work and our tax dollars.

If you say so...

But look, technology too often favours the little guy. Not the little guy who's part of a big organization.

That would be a problem if the little guy was not using old tech, he'd have the advantage if he stuck to a donkey for movement, and tin cans for communication, and small arms to fight with. but they are not ...again it's hard to explain with out giving away op sec, but we've all seen this tech on TV, it's improve version is at war as we speak.

Army Guy, I just don't know. You may be right, I may be wrong. I fully support our presence in Aghanistan. IMV, you are fighting a fundamental battle of historic proportions.

Which is why it is so critical to have the support on the home front, and why we need a victory here. it's impact will not only effect the people Afganistan but how we fight all future insurgent wars, and How it will reflect on foreign policy in the region, It will effect the future of NATO, and all of it's treaties, how we look at europe, and all of our allies. the list is endless.... But soldiers can't do this alone, The taliban know thier key to sucess is waging a war on the home front, thru our TV's, our news papers and other media outlets. They know there victory conditions are smaller than ours and are very close to becoming reality.

I am merely questioning the way in which you are going about this. Can you guys think of a cruder, more cunning way to fight these people? As I have said, getting blown up by an IED accomplishes absolutely nothing (despite what official statements state officially).

Spec ops operations are as crude as we get, but they go unheard of because of the secrecy, but they are happening all the time. as for the cunning part, thats where all this tech equipment comes in, and it is making a big difference. As for offical statements, they are just that, meaniless words that does not bring back anyone or change the fact we have lost another brave Canadian...but lets not forget that every soldier that sacrafices his life is doing so because they want to be there, that we believe we are making a change, even though it is painfully slow.

Here's another angle. The Soviets tried all of this before in 1979. Helicopters, full force, the works. (If I understand properly this thread, helicopters would mean that Canadian soldiers could avoid roadway IEDs. How naive such logic.) Brezhnev sent the helicopters, thousands, but then Gorbachev pulled them back. For all their efforts, the Soviets got only limbless soldiers begging in Moscow's metro. I have chatted with more than one. You can imagine what thay said about Afghans.

To understand why the soviets failed in Afgan is to understand thier tactics, and practices they used. History has shown us that the killing of millions of civilians does not produce good results. NATO tactics are not even close, Yes the russians used helo's and plenty of them, but the use of helo's are only a small part in elimination of the IED problem and don't forget that when we change tactics so will they, as the russians found out when america started to provide them with portable SAM missles.

I'm sure there is no love lost between the soviets and Afganis, for good reason, and for as brutal as afganis can be or have been, they learned that the hard way, from the soviets themselfs...for every soviet soldier that died in afgan thousand of afganis were slaugtered, through conventional and chemical warfare. Soviets are not held back by conventions and rules as we are. but that does not mean that the afganis people are not worth giving an oportunity for peace to.

Many people have stated it is impossable to achieve victory, and yet the taliban manged to gain control of most of the country, proving that it is possiable, conditions are right for peace , the people are begging for it, we are not fighting the type of battles, nor are we using the same tactics, as past conquors have tried and failed, today we are fighting with the people to give them something they want peace...

I think we are on the right path, it's not the fast track but we will get there.

[Keepitsimple]

I think we are on the right path, it's not the fast track but we will get there.

Once again Army Guy - thanks for your insight. I'm again hoping that everyone will actually READ all your comments. They have substance and serve to educate.

[Army Guy]

Keepitsimple:

thanks, i don't claim to have all the answers, or is my insight the end all to be all, just want to give some perspective from a soldiers piont of view, something that i think is missing in our media feed country.

[madmax]

Keepitsimple:

thanks, i don't claim to have all the answers, or is my insight the end all to be all, just want to give some perspective from a soldiers piont of view, something that i think is missing in our media feed country.

I don't think it is covered well enough at all.

[FascistLibertarian]

Well the MSM certainly checks on Army.ca

[rogue state]

the war in Afganistan is somehow useful.

the white trash agressive idiot rednecks cowboys, find their coffins

that keeps Canada clean.

[bush_cheney2004]

the war in Afganistan is somehow useful.

the white trash agressive idiot rednecks cowboys, find their coffins

that keeps Canada clean.

No comment...just wanted to preserve this gem for morning breakfast.

[Army Guy]

the war in Afganistan is somehow useful.

the white trash agressive idiot rednecks cowboys, find their coffins

that keeps Canada clean.

There you go, using that education, to once again triumph over brawn. How can i compete against that, your way to smart for me....I'm really going to miss our conversations

[uOttawaMan]

the war in Afganistan is somehow useful.

the white trash agressive idiot rednecks cowboys, find their coffins

that keeps Canada clean.

Haha.. you are the worst troll I've ever seen.

Noone is going to bite on that remark, too bad for you eh?

[ScottSA]

I never report posts, but I reported the last two posts by this creep...calling for the death of someone here is a bit much; especially a soldier.

[White Doors]

Same here. This is nuts.

[August1991]

After six deaths by IED, so says the National Post:

How many is too many?

That is a question Canadians are asking themselves in the aftermath of six more soldiers' deaths in Afghanistan on Wednesday. Sixty-six soldiers and one diplomat have now died since the boot of a regular Canadian soldier first touched Afghan soil in early 2002.

So, with all this carnage, is it time to bring the troops home?

This is not the question at all. There is no question that our troops should be in Afghanistan.

The key question rather is how they should be there, and what they should be trying to do. We accomplish nothing when young guys are killed by random explosions.

This isn't a competition to see who can take the hardest hits and still put guys out the next day. We have to be far more cunning if we are going to win this battle, and this war.

----

Let me put this a different way. If six soldiers were killed in a firefight, then maybe I could understand our tactics. But to read about six soldiers killed while driving on a road, I just don't see the point.

Something has to change in the way we are doing this.

[Army Guy]

The key question rather is how they should be there, and what they should be trying to do. We accomplish nothing when young guys are killed by random explosions.

IED's are just another form of warfare no different than land mines, random rocket attacks, or suicide bombers. What ever the enemy can use to inflict cas they will use, NATO has already proven that they can not be beaten on the conventional battle field, the taliban does not have the numbers to fight us one on one.

These random attacks are mainly for the media, not to win on the battle field, but to change the hearts and minds at home...want to stop thier effectivness stop the media from covering them. stop giving them the attention the taliban crave and need.

The Afgan operation won't be lost on the battle field but on the home front. Without the support of home we can accomplish nothing in Afgan.

[jdobbin]

The Afgan operation won't be lost on the battle field but on the home front. Without the support of home we can accomplish nothing in Afgan.

Even with 100% of support of people in Canada from now to eternity, it won't necessarily be the factor that wins the war.