# Taliban can't be defeated by troops: Layton



## kilekaldar (2 Feb 2008)

The latest political spewings from Taliban Jack. I always enjoy watching a politician pandering to the audience about a topic he knows nothing about. 
It's become more and more obvious that the NDP, Bloc, and Liberal position on Afghanistan has everything to do with politics on Parliament Hill and nothing to do with the day to day realities in Kandahar province.
____________________________________________________________________

Taliban can't be defeated by troops: Layton

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080131/layton_afghanistan_080131/20080131/

Updated Thu. Jan. 31 2008 7:27 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Taliban cannot be defeated by international troops and there's no point continuing to fight an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

Although his party has long called for a withdrawal of Canadian troops, Layton's emphatic statement about the futility of the mission comes amid a new push to present his party as the sole anti-war option.

He intends to meet with Liberal Leader Stephane Dion next Monday and has a bleak message for him.

"It's an endless mission. There's no end in sight. We say it's a dead end,'' Layton told reporters Thursday.

"No one has laid out, anywhere, that it's possible to ultimately win a war in this region.

"No one. And historical experience shows that it's been impossible -- whether it be Alexander the Great, the British in the 19th century, or the Russians in the 20th century.

"We're saying let's recognize these historical realities.''

The NDP distributed a list of quotes from military officers, analysts, and former diplomat-turned-author Rory Stewart to support their case about the slim chance of defeating Afghan insurgents through battle.

And numerous observers including Canada's own Manley panel have noted that insurgent attacks have actually increased -- not diminished -- since foreign troops wrested control from the Taliban seven years ago.

But the historical portrait Layton paints is far fuzzier in reality.

The British did in fact defeat an Afghan insurgency in the Second Afghan War in 1880 -- and the battle ended in Kandahar, where Canadian troops are currently located.

And Alexander's trek through Asia did not stall in Afghanistan.

It ended in India, after his troops had already marched through Afghanistan and founded the cities of Herat and Kandahar. The latter was named after him.

Layton's remarks drew scorn from some military experts.

A British ex-special forces officer who fought alongside the mujahedeen in the 1980s and now runs a security company called the comments erroneous. Alan Bell also called them unhelpful to the Afghan government, and to the morale of Canadian soldiers and their families.

And Canadian military analyst John Thompson added: *"I don't talk about social policy. (Layton) shouldn't talk about military history or strategy. I don't know much about social policy, and it's clear he doesn't know much about military history or strategy.''*

The result of Monday's Layton-Dion discussion could carry major implications for the mission and for Canadian politics.

If Dion agrees with Layton, the three opposition parties could outvote the government in any parliamentary move to extend the Afghan mission beyond February 2009.

Such a move could split the Liberal caucus and pit its hawks and doves against each other -- which would provide an added bonus to Layton and a silver lining to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But if Dion, as expected, seeks a less stringent position than Layton, the NDP would surely cast itself as the sole proponent of peace.

That message would be aimed squarely at the left-leaning voters that the Liberals and NDP are battling for, and Layton was already testing it Thursday.

"I'm very concerned that Mr. Dion may be considering supporting the direction of Mr. Harper,'' Layton said.

Dion appears to be preparing a middle-ground message -- positioned somewhere between the NDP's call for a quick pullout and the government's desire for an extended combat mission.

Dion said that the Canadian Forces must respect their commitment to continue fighting until February 2009, and suggested they could remain beyond then in some limited capacity.

"I hope I will convince (Layton) to change his mind. Canada cannot pull out of Afghanistan all of a sudden, overnight,'' Dion said.

"We have an international commitment until February 2009 for the combat mission.''

Beyond then, he says Canadian troops can maintain a military presence to defend construction projects and provide training to Afghan soldiers.

He has not explained how that non-combat training could work, and a report by a panel headed by Liberal stalwart John Manley has suggested it could not.

The government has already said it supports the Manley report, the Bloc Quebecois and NDP oppose it, and the Liberals have not yet offered a clear position.

The opposition parties rejected a government motion to debate the Manley report at a parliamentary committee.

When Layton was asked why, he said the matter should be discussed in the House of Commons and not in committees where the prime minister and other party leaders do not sit.

The Afghan conflict was raised repeatedly in the Commons on Thursday and Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in the thick of the debate.

With controversy swirling over Canada's handling of detainees, he suggested Canadian troops could allow their Afghan colleagues to take prisoners on the field.

Such a move could technically allow Canada to avoid violating the Geneva Conventions which forbid transferring prisoners to countries that practice torture.

But human-rights groups oppose such a policy on the grounds that Canada could still be complicit in violations of international law.

Harper did not deny a report that Afghan army trainees are taking captives while battling alongside Canadian troops.

"As we train the Afghan forces to take over more and more of the responsibility for their security operations, of course they will be taking over more and more responsibility for these aspects of the security operation,'' he said.


----------



## Mike Baker (2 Feb 2008)

Jack, stick a cork in it! : Honestly, I cannot see why this man receives votes!


----------



## Staff Weenie (2 Feb 2008)

And now I'm sure the NDP will receive a small sum in donations from certain 'groups' - just like when our dear friends the Lieberals refused to declare the LTTE a terrorist group - and got invited to some dinneres in TO - got some nice donations from that group's dinner too I think......

If one thinks that for even the slightest of nano-seconds that Taliban Jack gives a rat's ass about either our troops, or the folks of Afhganistan they are sorely mistaken - it's all about political coin, and sometimes even real coin.

He should thank his little socialist stars that there's decent folks willing to die for his freedom of speech - in many parts of the world (i.e. Taliban controlled parts), he'd be in a shallow grave for such opinions.


----------



## Armymedic (2 Feb 2008)

quote from article:



> OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Taliban cannot be defeated by international troops and there's no point continuing to fight an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.



In a discussion with an inlaw, he asked me why we want to continue a mission we can't win. I told him we are not in Afghanistan to win. There is no "winning" for us. At the end of the day, when we are done, we get to come home to a safe and secure country half a world away. Where we do succeed is making life a little better for the Afghans. If we leave right now, thier lives get much worse. We stay, and just maybe we can make it so a few more family can educate and raise thier children in an atmosphere of realitive security and peace. 

So what d you guys do over there he asks? Well, each group does the best it can to make it a little better. We take what the previous group learned and use it to do a bit more good. We know it is not going to be better tomorrow, but if we can make a constant improvement over 6 months by building a new road, helping a village build a school or dig a new well, then we have done our job, and can go home happy.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Feb 2008)

> NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Taliban cannot be defeated by international troops and there's no point continuing to fight an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.



or



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that the Conservatives cannot be defeated by NDP candidates and that theres no point continuing to fight an unwinnable ellection capaign in Canada



Take that taliban jack  >


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2008)

:rofl:


----------



## scas (3 Feb 2008)

Maybe someone should point out to this re****, that NATO was in Bosnia for how many years? Did he complain then about the casulties, or the fact that it was unwinnable.. I know, different time and place, but the premise is the same.. kinda...


----------



## medicineman (3 Feb 2008)

Perhaps Jackie Boy should go have tea and flat bread with them and defeat them by boredom - though he should pack an orange jumpsuit just in case they think we'll pay the ransom to get him back (more like they'll pay us to take him back).

MM


----------



## neilinkorea (3 Feb 2008)

I agree.  The Taliban cant be defeated by troops. However, the things that can defeat the Taliban, development, security provided by an Afghan government, saftey, a lifestyle worth living for, cannot be provided to the masses if troops aren't there killing those who would take up arms for the Taliban.  Troops ALONE cannot defeat the Taliban, but without them nothing else can.


----------



## slowmode (3 Feb 2008)

neilinkorea said:
			
		

> I agree.  The Taliban cant be defeated by troops. However, the things that can defeat the Taliban, development, security provided by an Afghan government, saftey, a lifestyle worth living for, cannot be provided to the masses if troops aren't there killing those who would take up arms for the Taliban.  Troops ALONE cannot defeat the Taliban, but without them nothing else can.



You cant really develop when the Taliban keeps blowing up the things we develop
Ie: Roads, schools, houses, hospitals

Security can only be achieved by getting rid of the problem, and the Afghan government can only build up if the root of evil is taken away. Sorry but you have no valid point


----------



## Bigmac (3 Feb 2008)

Perhaps everyone should ask Mr Layton for some clarity on his comments on his Facebook site?? 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jack-Layton/6330284938


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Jack Layton: Simply ignorant or just plain lazy?  
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/jack-layton-simply-ignorant-or-just.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Celticgirl (4 Feb 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> quote from article:
> 
> In a discussion with an inlaw, he asked me why we want to continue a mission we can't win. I told him we are not in Afghanistan to win. There is no "winning" for us. At the end of the day, when we are done, we get to come home to a safe and secure country half a world away. Where we do succeed is making life a little better for the Afghans. If we leave right now, thier lives get much worse. We stay, and just maybe we can make it so a few more family can educate and raise thier children in an atmosphere of realitive security and peace.
> 
> So what d you guys do over there he asks? Well, each group does the best it can to make it a little better. We take what the previous group learned and use it to do a bit more good. We know it is not going to be better tomorrow, but if we can make a constant improvement over 6 months by building a new road, helping a village build a school or dig a new well, then we have done our job, and can go home happy.



I think this is very well-said. As Sting sang in the Police Song Russians: "There's no such thing as a winnable war; it's a lie we don't believe anymore." Some of these politicians are reducing the mission into terms of winning and losing, when those are completely subjective realities. When a human being dies, nobody wins. I think our troops are doing a fantastic job over there, just as they do anywhere they go, and they are making many of us PROUD to be Canadian.


----------



## 1RNBR (4 Feb 2008)

Personally not a fan of Mr. Layton! I think he speaks and a portion of the public thinks it sounds good to pull our boys out of A-stan becaus too many of them are dying.  Well unfortunately that is the thing with a combat mission, unfortunately people do die/are killed, and not always just the bad guys.  Mr Layton and some of the Canadian public need to look at the bigger picture and not just the fact that our boys are being killed.  We are making a difference, and we are helping things get better, that is what we are there to do and we are doing our job.  That is the purpose of any mission no matter what it is, to go and do a job and to get the job done and make a difference.  That is what Mr. Layton needs to look at and understand, not just the fact that our troops are being killed. Anyhow that is my rant for the day, i could go on forever about Mr. Layton but that's just because like many other people I think he's a fool, and just likes to hear the sound of his own voice and people clapping and cheering when he stops.  Sometimes I wonder if they are clapping and cheering because he's actually shut his mouth!


----------



## larry Strong (4 Feb 2008)

Jacks at it again:

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.



_"...New Democrat Leader Jack Layton says Canada's current direction in Afghanistan is leading towards a "dead end" and he hopes to convince Liberal Leader Stephane Dion to join him in pushing for a change...."_

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080204/dion_afghanistan_AM_080204/20080204?hub=TopStories


----------



## COBRA-6 (4 Feb 2008)

Saw him on Canada AM this morning, babbling on about UN peacekeepers... WTF is he talking about? What peace would they keep? Get in between the Taliban and the ANA? The Taliban and the US?? He is either on butt hash or willfully misrepresenting the situation, hoping that uninformed Canadians will vote for him on the "war is bad, UN peacekeeping will save the day" platform...


----------



## Flip (4 Feb 2008)

> willfully misrepresenting the situation, hoping that uninformed Canadians will vote for him on the "war is bad, UN peacekeeping will save the day" platform...



Exactly! 

I read the piece posted by Larry, thanks Larry.  Then I left a blunt comment.


----------



## McG (4 Feb 2008)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Saw him on Canada AM this morning, babbling on about UN peacekeepers...


So, he wants Canadian efforts to be within a UN mandated force in Afghanistan.  Clearly he does not know what ISAF is (nor does he know what peacekeeping is).

It doesn’t matter.  The whole vision just gets more convoluted when considered in light of the article which started this thread:


			
				kilekaldar said:
			
		

> Updated Thu. Jan. 31 2008 7:27 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


I’m confused now & can no longer decipher his recommendation.  We should get out while staying to as peacekeepers?!  Should we be leaving because all or our aims are unachievable or should we be staying (and still dying) because we are fighting for a stable & secure Afghanistan?


----------



## COBRA-6 (4 Feb 2008)

I'm sure he knows what the situation is, he's counting on voters not knowing...

I also think he's using the "peacekeeper" argument because he know's it won't happen but it sounds better that "let the Afghan people fend for themselves"...

You're 100% correct that is makes no sense, I wish the talking heads would take him to task over his dishonesty...


----------



## eechoss (4 Feb 2008)

I cant believe he gets voted for.  He has such a bad attitude towards Afghanistan. By the way he talks I dont think he will ever be able to go through with anything. The day he gets voted in is truly a very sad day...


----------



## tank recce (4 Feb 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> You cant really develop when the Taliban keeps blowing up the things we develop
> Ie: Roads, schools, houses, hospitals
> 
> Security can only be achieved by getting rid of the problem, and the Afghan government can only build up if the root of evil is taken away. Sorry but you have no valid point



The man said, "Troops ALONE cannot defeat the Taliban, but without them nothing else can."

Ummm... I think you're actually agreeing with each other - combat troops won't _directly_ end the mess in Afghanistan. That said, without combat troops, the rebuilders can't accomplish anything.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Feb 2008)

OK right, now I can just see a bunch of blue helmets been sent to Afghanistan and the taliban having a great turkey shoot. 

What the hell is the UN going to do, set up another green line and say to the taliban, now you can't cross it. HAA, good luck with that one. Jack your living in an alternate universe, come visit us in ours sometime, it's called reality!

This guy is a total buffoon, I think it's time the NDP find another leader because he's, now just a total embarrassment to Parliament and to all those we've lost in the past 5 years.

Get your head out of your *** Jack and stop sucking on that bong, because the 60's are over pal or maybe you were to busy sucking on that big old "bong" and never got the memo.

There's nothing more irritating than listening to a blow hard like taliban jack and his infinite wisdom sessions. "Jack" ass!


----------



## medicineman (4 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, he wants Canadian efforts to be within a UN mandated force in Afghanistan.  Clearly he does not know what ISAF is (nor does he know what peacekeeping is).



I got into a crapping match with the useless ewe that's my MP and his purple track suit wearing propaganda regurgitator over this about a year or so ago - she tried to tell me what was happening in Afghanistan vis a vis who was in charge of what and what the Canadian public and Parliament had/ had not been told.  Sum total was that she either has NO knowledge of current affairs or actually believes that the whole thing is like a NATO invasion without any UN mandate - she actually told me we were under UN command in Kabul and I had to inform her to the contrary, and then had to tell her I knew that because I had actually been there.  If I had been talking to her face to face I'd have had to literally spell words and things out or use sign language, as she seems only to know what's fed to her by Jacko Lantern.  Perhaps he's a ventriloquist and all his MP's are his lap dummies - if we watch question period hard enough, maybe we'll see the strings.

Anyway, that circus and it's ring leader make my blood pressure rise.

MM


----------



## Bigmac (4 Feb 2008)

I think Mr Layton is chasing after the peace activist, save the snub nosed caterpillar voters. 

Just remember Jack, when you have these potential voters over to your party it's puff, puff and pass!! Oh, and make sure you have lot's of snacks!   op:


----------



## McG (4 Feb 2008)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> I think Mr Layton is chasing after the peace activist, ...


In the process of securing votes from a segment of society, he is also fooling/misleading another segment.  That is not good for Canada or for the CF.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2008)

Personally I am of the opinion that he has two core beliefs:

1  All war is bad......... the corollary to that is that we, the west can never be allowed to win a war in case we develop a taste for going to war.
2  Somethings are important enough to justify lying...............................................see point 1.  

Even if we "win" Jack and his buddies will never admit the win, or any other definition of success.

George Orwell had it right on pacifists.


----------



## Bigmac (4 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> In the process of securing votes from a segment of society, he is also fooling/misleading another segment.  That is not good for Canada or for the CF.



I think Mr Layton actually believes his own rhetoric because he really has no clue what the military is about or why the mission in Afghanistan is so important. He knows a great deal of voters have little knowledge on the mission as well so he can get away with a lot. 

The general public is fooled because they only know what the media shows them. Why is nobody chewing apart Layton's statements with facts in the media just as fast as he spits them out? By not addressing Layton's comments immediately it leads the general public to believe his rantings may have truth. This negative media is definitely not good for Canada or the CF but it is up to the current conservative government to set the record straight.


----------



## McG (4 Feb 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080204/dion_afghanistan_AM_080204/20080204?hub=TopStories


> Layton wants new direction for Afghanistan mission
> Updated Mon. Feb. 4 2008 5:50 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


He's on to something now!  The UN could give the mission a mandate .... oh yeah, the UN (still) has already done that.

But it is nice to see that someone is getting intelligent sound-bites to counter the NDP foolery.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Feb 2008)

If Mr. Ignatieff had won the Lib leadership thingy there a year and a bit ago, there would not be this debat in the House.  Though a member of the liberal party, he is also, I suspect, a realist.  Though he's backtracked on Iraq (as every "good" politician has done), he supported intervention there in 2003.  He's seen inneffective military responses to corrupt regimes (specifically, the Balkans) and he knows the consequences.  I'm actually a bit surprised that he's not part of the Conservative party, but his social liberal ideals may be a bit off the track for the Conservatives.


----------



## JaguarLeo (5 Feb 2008)

Wow i can't believe this guy has a right to represent our interests......  As one of leading nations of the world does he really think that we don't have a obligation to provide security locally to third world nations and in secondary to that provide security for ourselves and our friends down south.  I just hope that his words fall on deaf ears or hope people are not that stupid to actually think that he has some validity to his statements.  I agree combat is not the only way...no ship anyone over the age of 17 should be able to figure that one out.  But to say that were not being effective in our past and current missions is blading all "us".  Well at least i know who i won't vote for.....


----------



## Southern Boy (5 Feb 2008)

Keep digging at that hole Jack, only a matter of time before you completely bury yourself.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Feb 2008)

From Terry Glavin:

Into the Abyss: Afghanistan, Jack Layton, and the Fall of the New Democratic Party
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/into-abyss-afghanistan-jack-layton-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

Taliban Jack polls evenly with the greens!  ;D
And half of his own supporters don't support NDP line on Afghanistan!  :rofl:

Thanks Mark - I needed that!


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.



George! Two falsehoods in one sentence! Nice!

Can you demonstrate how Canada is a more dangerous place?
Can you demonstrate how being in Afghanistan makes any negative difference?

Canada is in Afghanistan for CANADA.
It's in Canada's national interest.

Can you support your arguments with more than poorly constructed rhetoric?


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Feb 2008)

Rote, rote, rote your vote
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/2008/02/24/4872021-sun.html

Results of Nanos Research-Sun Media poll hardly music to the ears of Prime Minister Harper
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/02/24/4872028-sun.html

By GREG WESTON



> The average Conservative supporter is driven by policies, hordes of Liberals vote by rote and tradition, and leadership is barely a factor in the current popularity of any of the federal parties...
> 
> This is no rogue survey. Pollster Nik Nanos is arguably the most respected in the country, having accurately predicted the outcomes of the last two federal elections within a decimal point.
> 
> ...



Duh.

By the way, on CTV's "Question Period" today,
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=http://esi.ctv.ca/datafeed/urlgen2.aspx?vid=33929&video_link_low=QP0224_second&clip_start=00:00:00.00&clip_end=00:07:49.00&clip_caption=CTV's%20Question%20Period:%20NDP%20Leader%20Jack%20Layton&clip_id=33929&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080224&slug=layton_budget_080224&archive=CTVNews

Layton said NATO, as military alliance, should not be having a lead role in Afstan.  Rather the UN should.  I'm waiting for him to demand that NATO KFOR be withdrawn from Kosovo.  I suspect it will be a long wait, and maybe he just doesn't know anyway.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Feb 2008)

Is the mission in Afghanistan not mandated by the UN and carried out by NATO?


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Is the mission in Afghanistan not mandated by the UN and carried out by NATO?



Yes but Jack likes to ignore that part.........minor detail !!

 :


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Feb 2008)

Yes the truth is out there,,,the NDP conveniently ignores this for their purposes.....


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

What I find interesting about Jack is how convincing he sounds UNTILyou start letting the facts filter into the argument.

He's not stupid or unaware of the nature of what he is saying.
I suspect his stance on Afghanistan is more diversionary than real.
You could say I'm accusing him of some serious dishonesty.
I'd have to agree.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Feb 2008)

The latest UN Security Council resolution, Sept. 19, 2007; Mr Layton might read it (I'm sure he has not):
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9122.doc.htm



> “The Security Council,
> 
> “Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1386 (2001), 1510 (2003), 1707 (2006) and 1746 (2007),
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Yrys (24 Feb 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Mr Layton might read it



It seems to me that the nearest possibility for him to read it would be if a NDP member
give it to him in a record meeting. Anyone here know one that can reach him ?


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

Mark, plase do not bring facts into the debate. We all know where facts lead.......


----------

