# Is the mission in Afghanistan winnable?  Canada AM August 22 Poll



## stryte (22 Aug 2008)

Is the mission in Afghanistan winnable? 

http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

Yes     (18 %) 47 

No     (82 %) 210


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Aug 2008)

What a stupid poll.  What do they mean by "winnable"?  ???  This isn't a baseball game.  :


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2008)

I do believe that there is a conspiracy afoot to have Canada withdraw from Afghanistan. That's why there are polls like this and the MSM is going along with it.


----------



## RHFC_piper (22 Aug 2008)

That's a pretty open ended question; Is the mission in Afghanistan winnable?   Jeez.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What a stupid poll.  What do they mean by "winnable"?  ???  This isn't a baseball game.  :



Exactly...  Seems a little too black and white.


The former CO of my unit, upon returning from tour, made this point while addressing a Legion assembly;

"Victory in Afghanistan wont be won by NATO, the UN, Canada or any of the coalition countries; it will be won by the people of Afghanistan."
(of course, I'm paraphrasing).

But this is exactly it; how is CTV judging victory?


----------



## Mike Baker (22 Aug 2008)

I can't see how Joe Shmuck can see if we can "win or lose" in Afghanistan. I mean, they probably have zero experience with anything related to the military (Not to say I do, just that I am much more informed then others), and they can actually believe that the mission in Afghanistan will probably be a failure. I have zero experience in blasting for gold or whatever, so how can I tell someone how some things are done? This is like the poll, just different wording. This poll is so stupid, I still can't believe it.





			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> how is CTV judging victory?


It's CTV we're talking about, remember. Only take it as a grain of salt.


End of rant.
-Deadpan


----------



## belka (22 Aug 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> The former CO of my unit, upon returning from tour, made this point while addressing a Legion assembly;
> 
> "Victory in Afghanistan wont be won by NATO, the UN, Canada or any of the coalition countries; it will be won by the people of Afghanistan."
> (of course, I'm paraphrasing).



Exactly. No military power in the world will be able to defeat the Taliban. Eventually, the Afgan people will have to decide for themselves, NATO and the coalition can only do so much.


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Aug 2008)

NINJA said:
			
		

> Exactly. No military power in the world will be able to defeat the Taliban. Eventually, the Afgan people will have to decide for themselves, NATO and the coalition can only do so much.



As much as that is true, the actual point of the statement is; there will be no gain by NATO/UN/Coalition forces/Nations by a victory in Afghanistan.  The gain will be for the people of Afghanistan and their victory will be when they are able to maintain security without international intervention.  This is really the only victory NATO, and by association, Canada, can strive for; an Afghanistan with a stable government (whatever form that may be), a solid security force, a fair justice system and strong economy... The only benefit coalition forces will gain from this is a stable region and the knowledge that an oppressed people have been given a chance at freedom. 
Thus, the people who will be victorious at this end state will be the free people of Afghanistan.  

As for the Taliban; the best way to defeat them in Afghanistan is to show the people how much better off they are without them.  To accomplish this, we have to support the people, allow them to progress without oppression and protect them from those who would prevent this, until such a time as they have accomplished enough to want to protect themselves from those who would have them subdued and oppressed.  This is what is going on now with the mission; Reconstruction, Education and Security.  But it will take time... At least a generation or two.   But, either way, it is the people of Afghanistan who will benefit from the labour of the coalition countries.

Personally, I believe we, as a free society, are morally obligated to help, in any way, any oppressed society at least gain the opportunity to attain freedom.  But, that's just my point of view.


----------



## gun runner (23 Aug 2008)

"  To accomplish this, we have to support the people, allow them to progress without oppression and protect them from those who would prevent this, until such a time as they have accomplished enough to want to protect themselves from those who would have them subdued and oppressed.   "

 Ok, a fair point to make.. but at what cost as a nation are we going to allow ourselves this goal? By this I mean how much more in lives, materiele, and money can we as a nation actually dole out before our resolve collapses? Our soldiers can do the job.. that is not an issue, but the civillain populace can, and will only take so much of our loved-lost before they demand an an end to the hand holding(of the Karzai gov't) that NATO is currently doing in Afghanistan. The Karzai government is an important first step for this nation...but it isnt doing enough. I personally think that Karzai is expecting the NATO coalition to do it all(eliminate the taliban, and rebuild the nations infrstructure) and then hand him,or who ever it will be to succeed him the keys to the nation at little or no cost of his government. As a former soldier of our country and now a private citizen, I have the luxury of seeing both sides of the coin. And trust me.. the water cooler banter I hear every day is the constant " When will it all end,and how? Are we ever to see the soldiers come home?". I know what it is to be proud of the work our troops are doing and the horrible cost it has to accomplish those tasks, but will it all be worth it in the long run? Will the Afghans be able to stand on their own in the world stage and say to the rest of us "ok we can do it now." I truly do wonder. Ubique


----------



## T-Rex (15 Sep 2008)

Do they ever ask the people actually participating in the mission? Has anyone in the forces been asked? I know that I never have.  I am growing tired of these "polls"


----------



## MCpl. Burwell (15 Sep 2008)

I have to agree, the polls that are always being released proclaiming that Canada should pull out for the lack of public support is really getting old. Stop asking the left wingers and ask the average Canadian who feels he/she has been protected by the mission at hand. If we don't fight the War on Terrorism in another country, we are going to be fighting it here, which is not what the Canadian people want.


----------



## time expired (15 Sep 2008)

Of course the war in A-Stan. is winnable,we in the West have the
military power to crush these, basically primitive tribesman,however
if we lose we will lose it at home,in Canada;just as the Americans
lost the Vietnam and Korea, at home, not on the battlefields. There
are forces at work here in the West,that I personally do not understand,
that seem to revel in the defeat of our efforts overseas.They are willing
to grant our enemies sanctuaries,and huge tactical advantages, giving
humanitarian concerns as their reasons.These concerns do not seem to
extend to our own troops,however,and I see the Western militarises and
their leaderships less and less eager to engage in these "one hand tied
behind your back"wars.
IMHO the winning of the hearts and minds of the A-Stan.population
is very important, but shutting up or counteracting the voices of 
defeatism is equally important if we are to fulfill our aim.
                                      Regards


----------



## Snafu-Bar (15 Sep 2008)

Yes it's a winnable war. But the outcome won't be anytime soon. Generations down the road will tell if we have done the right things at the right times. And the people of Afghanistan have to be willing to accept the fate of thier own direction once we have pulled up stakes and headed home.

 The general public thinks all the CF does is shoot stuff and nothing else. I think the CF needs to have a general public eye openeing session to show what the war truly IS about and that's not just killing Tallywhackers and AQ's . Show the rebuilding efforts, show the kids getting an education, show the women who now are treated as human beings instead of property. Show the stuff that is making the difference and why we need to stand firm with our comrades in arms.

 Cheers.


----------



## MCpl. Burwell (15 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The general public thinks all the CF does is shoot stuff and nothing else. I think the CF needs to have a general public eye openeing session to show what the war truly IS about and that's not just killing Tallywhackers and AQ's .


I agree, I think the CF really has to show what it is about and not just soldiers helping out at the Stampede or what traffic techs do at a CFB. The general Canadian should know what the soldiers are really doing for their freedom before it comes to Canada.


----------



## helpup (15 Sep 2008)

What bugs me is the Pundits who espouse historic examples as to why we can not win in Afghanistan.  I do believe and follow the saying. " those that do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it".  but in conflict I don't believe it is as clear cut.  

Anyhow to keep it on topic, Bosnia was not solved in a Day, Year or two.  It took and is still taking a long time to have them change.  Cyprus was even longer.  Most types of missions that Canada has been involved with are long duration ones.  However they are usually wrapped up in the Blue Beret Beenie.  And even if the Canadian Public tends to forget that we did take casualties there it was if anything a passing thought for the few who are aware of it.  But this is a War and we are dying in "debatable" high proportion.  And the narrow eye of the MSN will focus on what they believe are the Points of Intrest that the JQ Public are interested in.  Bad Sells, controversy is a sweetener so the more the better.  Heaven forbid if Objectivity or pertenant questions for both were asked and answered. And it is a war Canada is fighting in so lets not get out of hand with the Oh what a good job we do over there. ( That would be propaganda and Canada only does the negative propaganda )

Oooops bit of a sarcastic rant.

I think it is winnable, not anytime soon, not in the timeline that is currently laid out with the current force structure.  But it is ( *if they allow us* ) very winnable.


----------



## MCpl. Burwell (15 Sep 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> I think it is winnable, not anytime soon, not in the timeline that is currently laid out with the current force structure.  But it is ( *if they allow us* ) very winnable.


Yea, exactly. Now that Harper has practically told the Taliban they won by announcing a pull out date, we just can't with the time we have been given which is really to bad.

Up The Johns!


----------



## Snafu-Bar (15 Sep 2008)

C/MCpl. Burwell said:
			
		

> Yea, exactly. Now that Harper has practically told the Taliban they won by announcing a pull out date, we just can't with the time we have been given which is really to bad.
> 
> Up The Johns!



 The pull out date was 2011 before. Harper just re-iterated the fact for his political agenda solidifying what the flock of sheep wished to hear, that yes we are ending it. It's not to say that it won't get changed due to unforseen hostile actions on behalf of someone, or a tranfer of those troops to another "agenda" after. Either way we have a couple more years of trudging to go and get the job "done" for the people of Afghanistan.

 Cheers


----------



## MCpl. Burwell (15 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The pull out date was 2011 before. Harper just re-iterated the fact for his political agenda solidifying what the flock of sheep wished to hear


Yes, but now it has been pushed off of any agenda for future negotiatian. After the pull out date, if Canada is ever expected to go back and help, it will be as a blue hat (peacekeeper) and there is a good chance we will lose even more soldiers in that type of situation. But you are right. We do have a couple of more years left to Git 'R' Done!

Up The Johns!


----------



## Snafu-Bar (15 Sep 2008)

C/MCpl. Burwell said:
			
		

> Yes, but now it has been pushed off of any agenda for future negotiatian. After the pull out date, if Canada is ever expected to go back and help, it will be as a blue hat (peacekeeper) and there is a good chance we will lose even more soldiers in that type of situation. But you are right. We do have a couple of more years left to Git 'R' Done!
> 
> Up The Johns!



 Harpers betting on another term, and as such a shot to flip back to heat up the cold side....

 Whoever takes over still has the option to extend or manipulate the dates as per confilicts or potential NEW conflicts, or whether anything subsides in the wake of the two elections both here and down south. Either way anything a politician "promises" is going to be broken. Anything set in concrete is guaranteed to be broken, and  anything they try to back out of will be screwwed up to the point of idiom in the process. So i expect status quo for a few more years depending on changes in attitude after the election.

 Cheers.


----------



## MCpl. Burwell (15 Sep 2008)

Yes. I have to say that you're right.

Up The Johns!


----------



## brave little soldier (15 Nov 2008)

How can anyone answer such a question ? Define winning ?

Someone wrote : 

The only benefit coalition forces will gain from this is a stable region and the knowledge that an oppressed people have been given a chance at freedom. 

And I would like to add : 

Canada's intervention in Afghanistan is showing the world that Canadian soldiers  are among the best  in the world ! We are fighting a war with heart, courage and integrity. In this regards, we are WINNERS.


----------



## gun runner (16 Nov 2008)

Well put BRAVE LITTLE SOLDIER, we should be proud of the job that we have done and are still doing over there. The C.F. has shown the world we are a modern force, and can hold our own in the field. The gov't has mandated the 2011 pullout, and whether it is changed or not is anybodies guess, but we are there now and we have a job to do... do us proud and get it done right. First time, every time. Ubique


----------



## 57Chevy (14 May 2010)

No it is not winnable
As long as it is classified as," a war on...." whatever. ie.... on crime....on drugs...on terrorism.
it cannot be won
Are we winning the war on crime?
on drugs?
And so likewise on terrorism.........no!
They fight a Holy War of which there is no end
we fight calling it terrorism. Which has gone far off track.
It is a world war and should be viewed as such.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2010)

Holy necropost batman....


----------



## 57Chevy (15 May 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Holy necropost batman....



The thread asks for opinions. That is my opinion.
Most people, undoubtedly would say.....Oh Yeah!.....yeah yeah yeah
Think about it.....is it getting better or worse?


----------



## SeanNewman (15 May 2010)

57C,

What he is talking about is that you brought back a relatively inactive thread (last post 2008).


----------



## 57Chevy (15 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 57C,
> 
> What he is talking about is that you brought back a relatively inactive thread (last post 2008).



And?
Some posts should be completely deleted.
This one is worthy of continuation
My opinion for what its worth


----------



## MARS (15 May 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> And?
> This one is worthy of continuation



No, it's not.  Not when it is 2 years old and this site has another, more informed and active (128 pages) thread  here


----------



## 57Chevy (15 May 2010)

MARS said:
			
		

> No, it's not.  Not when it is 2 years old and this site has another, more informed and active (128 pages) thread  here



Then why is this one sitting here for????
It should have been tossed, or have a re-direction link


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Then why is this one sitting here for????
> It should have been tossed, or have a re-direction link



Are you trying to be a problem child or does it come naturally for you?


----------



## 57Chevy (15 May 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Are you trying to be a problem child or does it come naturally for you?


 
You don't have the need to try


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 May 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> You don't have the need to try



Its not your place to determine that.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------

