# Canadians seen as Americans in Afghanistan



## Matt_Fisher (9 Jan 2006)

Canadians seen as Americans in Afghanistan
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1136328631719
Toronto Star
Jan. 4, 2006. 05:20 AM
CHRIS SANDS
SPECIAL TO THE STAR


KANDAHAR—Abdul Mobin's voice sounded peaceful as he talked about the need for a holy war in Afghanistan.

"In each district of Kandahar, we have 200 religious people. They are very intelligent, they are true Muslims. I know they are true because they also told the Talibs when things were wrong. Now they are also telling us to start the jihad," he said.

Mobin is a polite, soft-spoken Pashtun with a closely cropped beard. Outsiders might describe the 25-year-old as a terrorist sympathizer or an Islamic extremist, but his views are not radical here.

But they are chilling in their implications for the Canadian troops charged with bringing order to the region.

"We can't see any difference between the Americans and the Canadians and the British," Mobin said, noting the Taliban view all members of the NATO military presence as occupiers controlled by the U.S. "If anyone does anything here, we think it's the Americans who did it."

The Taliban movement was born in Kandahar in 1994, when widespread lawlessness gripped Afghanistan in the wake of the withdrawal of Soviet forces. Its fighters quickly seized control of the city and within two years captured Kabul.

Mobin joined the group soon after its formation and he can still remember the euphoria he felt back then.

"At that time we were very happy. It was like we were very poor and had suddenly found a lot of money," he said.

Kandahar lies at the heart of the insurgency now sweeping across Afghanistan. Security in the province is dire and gets worse with each passing day. According to residents, troops rarely venture into the city because the situation is simply too volatile here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Under the Talibs, if we had any problems, the government would sort things out very quickly'

Abdul Mobin, Kandahar resident

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some 685 Canadian soldiers are already in the Kandahar area and about 1,400 more are expected to arrive next month. 

Often dressed entirely in black, Talibs can be seen throughout Kandahar. They are not all involved with the insurgency but support for their beliefs is strong among the local population. This is because corruption has increased since the 2001 invasion and security in the province has declined.

"Under the Talibs, if we had any problems, the government would sort things out very quickly. Now we have to pay a lot of bribes to the government," said Mobin, who worked as an administrative officer when the Taliban controlled Kabul. 

The Pashtun also still admires the men from Al Qaeda who were allowed to live and train in Afghanistan during that period.

"They came here just for jihad. Some Arabs lost their lives and now if you go to their graves, however sick you are, God will recover you. Thousands of people visit their graves to be cured because the Qur'an says God gives thousands of types of medicine to martyrs to cure different types of disease," he said.

Mobin accused some Taliban members of lacking knowledge and working against Afghanistan's interests. But he praised Mullah Mohammed Omar, the group's one-eyed leader, who remains a fugitive.

"Mullah Omar is a good man," he said. "Whenever he wanted to do something he would ask the religious people what he should do.

"Mullah Omar has no faults and the Talibs who are fighting have to fight. If they come back to Kandahar to live normally they will be caught by the Americans and sent to Guantanamo. If they go to Pakistan they will be caught. It's not their fault — they have no choice but to fight.

"I can't tell you if (the insurgency) will get stronger or not. But I can tell you one thing: No one can defeat them, no one can finish them. All the world can come together and it will not finish them, because it is written in the Qur'an."

Chris Sands is a freelance journalist


----------



## Dog (9 Jan 2006)

Faaaantastic.


----------



## Spartan (9 Jan 2006)

Sounds like they're organizing pretty well, and are deeply rooted in the administration, something that will affect Canada and its forces in the very present and future if this is the general consensus of these groups. This will only mean that we're going into Afghanistan for a long time, something that will affect alot of different areas including foreign policy, CF capabilities and equipment procurements. And I have a feeling these groups are spreading across the regions, which will greatly affect any future ops, and will also greatly affect countries in general - forcing a greater change in overall political environments.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Jan 2006)

Abdul Mobin's opinions are noted. 'nuff said.


----------



## CBH99 (9 Jan 2006)

Related to this topic...

I recently read a book called 'My Jihad' - the name of the author is escaping me right now.  Very good book, definitely recommend the read, especially to members of this forum.

The book is about a former Mujadeen fighter, who fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya.  He had met Usama Bin Laden, prior to Usama's fame around the world as a global terrorist, and has worked with American intelligence to gather information on terrorist operations.  Very good book, especially if you want an inside look at the mindset of a Mujadeen fighter, and how they consider themselves different than other religious extremists.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jan 2006)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I recently read a book called 'My Jihad' - the name of the author is escaping me right now.



It's by Aukai Collins - - an American who converts to Islam in a US prison, heads off to Bosnia to join the jihad, does the terrorist training gigs in Afghanistan and Pakistan, fights along side Usama's folks in Chechnya, gets fed up with terrorists wasting civies and becomes an FBI informant......you know, typical 'boy meets girl' story.  

Actually, it is a good book, both for its inside look at the jihadist world, as well as commenting on the serious disconnects within the current counter-terrorist intelligence system.


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2006)

You ask white anglo saxon fellas in toronto to tell you the difference between hinese, Japanese, Korean and Mongol men and "most" will look at you with a blank look and ask you "there's a difference?"... ditto between Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans.

So I'm not surprised that the people of Kandahar group Americans, Brits and Canadians into one big happy grab bag... hey - a lot of our equipment and uniforms are similar looking.

Ask most individuals if they prefer "kaos in democracy" or "security in a dictatorship" and most will settle for the latter. Remember - Mussolini & Adolph made the trains run on time.


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jan 2006)

Oooooooh, a semi-literate tribesman spews religiously flavoured hatred against the US et al, including us. This is hardly "news".

If he really wants to put his money where his mouth is, he is more than welcome to demonstrate the strength of his convictions by attacking coalition troops. I'm sure that they will be more than willing to oblige his desire to become a glorious martyr.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jan 2006)

We just have to remember that education is pretty much no existant especially in those hills, and women are worse off, so many don't even know what a Canada is, and after all if some sorta heard of it, they might roughly know where it is and they might think it is another part of America. I beleive only a small minority really know, and thats just how it is.

We sort of sound the same (After 11yrs of living overseas unless a Yank is from the south, I can't pick it out on many occasions myself).

Either way, we are foreigners occupying their country with white skin, and many will tar us all with the same brush. All westerners.

Being Canadian does make you bullet proof or a superman as many think! This 'hey don't they know who we are' has ended.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Oooooooh, a semi-literate tribesman spews religiously flavoured hatred against the US et al, including us. This is hardly "news".
> 
> If he really wants to put his money where his mouth is, he is more than welcome to demonstrate the strength of his convictions by attacking coalition troops. I'm sure that they will be more than willing to oblige his desire to become a glorious martyr.



Just remember that Afghanistan is home to this 'semi-literate tribesman'.  We're in HIS backyard.  Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jan 2006)

If you talk to people on the street in Kabul you will hear of vast Pashtun and Pakistani comspiracies etc.


 The folks down south dont like us a lot...


----------



## Franko (10 Jan 2006)

Tell me about it.    :

Regards


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jan 2006)

I think the main problem in Afghanistan is that the Americans never committed enough forces once the Taliban was defeated. The military campaign itself ran like clockwork, much to the surprise of Osama Bin Laden, whose best hopes would have been met by a US/Coalition campaign in Afghanistan similar to that of the Soviet experience in the 1980s. However, the US got it right, by using the Northern Alliance in concert with Special Forces and air power. There was a window just after the defeat of the Taliban that the US could have used by expanding the mandate of UN forces in Kabul, and permitting them to operate in the countryside working on development and stability projects. Instead, US forces concentrated on hunting Bin Laden, and left the countryside to the war lords. The US also needed the bulk of its forces for Iraq (an move which made Bin Laden and his pals extremely happy), so could not focus as much on Afghanistan. The increase in violence we are seeing is due to a lack of US follow through in the period immediately following the downfall of the Taliban, and an unwillingness to give the international forces in Kabul a greater mandate.  I only hope Canadian soldiers do not have to pay a high price for this lack of foresight.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2006)

Why should the US be held responsible, perhaps if the Coalition ante'd up more troops and materiel then we would not have had the problem you describe.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

"Remember - Mussolini & Adolph made the trains run on time."

- Nevermind run on time, how about even FINDING a train to Thunder Bay?  117,000 people and no Via Rail.

"We can't see any difference between the Americans and the Canadians and the British," Mobin said, "

- When we got there in Feb 2002 one of the first comments we heard was how much we looked like Russians, and if we stayed more than a year, we would be the new enemy.

"Great" I thought, "just great..."

Tom


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Jan 2006)

> Why should the US be held responsible, perhaps if the Coalition ante'd up more troops and materiel then we would not have had the problem you describe



The issue was not numbers of coalition troops. The United States did not want any interference with the hunt for Bin Laden, and therefore made sure that UN troops stayed in Kabul, when they could have been in the countryside taking power from the war lords, something the US was not willing to do because it would require more man power. If there were in fact insufficient numbers of UN soldiers, this is directly due to the fact that they were stuck in Kabul, where they were ineffective. Why send more soldiers to an already stable area? If the United States had allowed an expanded mandate, I think we definitely would have seen larger numbers of troops. Remember, at this point in time, nations were virtually falling over each other to send troops to Afghanistan as 9/11 was fresh in everyone's minds.


----------



## KevinB (11 Jan 2006)

Dude your an idiot.


One they are NOT UN troops 

They are NATO with a bunch of hangers off.


Secondly none of the namby pamby nations want to leave the safety of Kabul.

We had a German contingent that refused to patrol their sector (just outside of KJabul) since they took sporadic small arms fire.

The Brits where in OEF from the beginnign and IF YOU CAN RECALL in 2002 3 PPCLI was down in Kandahar -- how is that for the US not wanting help...

Your out of your league in this discussion - it was the other nations that just on the ineffectual ISAF mission to abandon the US in OEF.


-


----------



## hhour48 (11 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Secondly none of the namby pamby nations want to leave the safety of Kabul.
> 
> We had a German contingent that refused to patrol their sector (just outside of KJabul) since they took sporadic small arms fire.



I've read an article a couple of months ago about Germans stationed on Hindukush and taking casualties, don't have the link, though, sorry.


----------



## geo (11 Jan 2006)

sure the germans took casualties - same as most nations participating in ISAF
Talib went after one of their busses in Kabul - a little before our troops joined ISAF

A country that is in an environment like Afghanistan or Iraq AND not drawing some fire by beligerents.... is playing it a little bit too safe.


----------



## Franko (11 Jan 2006)

Bratok said:
			
		

> I've read an article a couple of months ago about Germans stationed on Hindukush and taking casualties, don't have the link, though, sorry.



Your thinking of the Dutch out of Mazeri Sharif.   

They are in K town with us as well.

Regards


----------



## Bobbyoreo (11 Jan 2006)

Didnt think the Dutch were out there anymore. Might be getting my missions turned around.

People have to remember that they are in a place where there is like 8-10 different armies patroling their back yards. Very easy to see how they think everyone is from the same place, that and the biggest player is the US...hard not to get pulled into that group!!!


----------



## hhour48 (11 Jan 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Your thinking of the Dutch out of Mazeri Sharif.



nope:
http://berlinsprouts.blogspot.com/2005/02/more-german-soldiers-to-hindukush.html


----------



## loyalist (11 Jan 2006)

It think all countries should take a page from the Honourable LGen Dallaire (Senate title+General's rank...wow) and ask themselves this question before sending their military off on operations:

Are we prepared to take casualties? Is the mission going to come first?

if the Bangladeshis had asked themselves this question before going to Rwanda, they wouldn't have embarrassed themsleves, Dallaire, their country or UNAMIR in the process. Canada was prepared (for the first time in awhile) to siffer casualties in Afghanistan. It's unfortunate, very unfortunate, and must be avoided, but, it does happen. If neccsary, I realise that I may become a casulaty one day. That what's people in uniform accept when they join up.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The issue was not numbers of coalition troops. The United States did not want any interference with the hunt for Bin Laden, and therefore made sure that UN troops stayed in Kabul, when they could have been in the countryside taking power from the war lords, something the US was not willing to do because it would require more man power. If there were in fact insufficient numbers of UN soldiers, this is directly due to the fact that they were stuck in Kabul, where they were ineffective. Why send more soldiers to an already stable area? If the United States had allowed an expanded mandate, I think we definitely would have seen larger numbers of troops. Remember, at this point in time, nations were virtually falling over each other to send troops to Afghanistan as 9/11 was fresh in everyone's minds.



Why you are absolutely right! It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that most of the contributing nations were not willing to spend any real coin or send more than a Company, and that they concentrated their forces right on top of the international media, in order to be seen as helping, without really doing anything.

As for the "no mandate" I guess my humping up and down Afghan mountains on Divisional operations was just to help us feel better about ourselves as a nation - right? What were we supposed to do? Try to kill every warlord/local leader/armed man in the country? Do you have any idea how big Afghanistan is? 

The Soviets were unable to pacify it aggressively with about one hundred thousand men - so how do you justify your claim that a few thousand lightly armed Europeans could pull it off?


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Jan 2006)

.


> Dude your an idiot



Resorting to personal attacks just reduces the strength of your arguments.



> Throughout 2002-2003, almost all of the UNITED NATIONS troops were confined to Kabul and its immediate neighbourhood, while the US military retained control over the rest of the country in order to hunt down the remnants of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Because the United States was reluctant to commit a large number of ground troops to Afghanistan however, the physical control of the rural areas was entrusted for the most part to the local warlords. The result  was that, while a certain degree of security and normality was restored in the capital , the interim government under Mohammed Karzai that was installed under American auspices in December 2001 never succeeded in establishing its authority over the provinces, where the war lords and their militias regained control...It was only in late 2003 that began to encourage (ie allow) the UN troops to move out into the provinces, but by then, the opportunity had all but closed: the local militias were firmly in control of the plains and the valleys, the Taliban were making a comeback in the hills, the opium industry (largely suppressed by the Taliban )was once again the world's biggest, providing much of the rural income, and the so-called national government was a despised shadow with little authority beyond city limits. Chronic insecurity led to foreign and even local development agencies withdrawing from many rural areas, and national elections originally scheduled for summer 2004 were postponed. How did all go so wrong so fast?



Gwynne Dyer

"Future: Tense, The Coming World Order"  p 164- 165

To Go!!! There are numerous sources that concur with this view, both in print and online. Look them up.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2006)

:

Okay so you beleive a book rather than THOSE OF US WHO WHERE THERE?

Edit (overly rude) 

 Since I am back in Afghanistan again - I will explain to you that the only military forces in the country conducting operations since the Russian occupations are.

  OEF - Coalition Forces (CFC-A, CJTF-180, CJTF-76 etc.)   This consists of a number of countries primarily US and UK, they are out hunting down and killing Taliban and Al-Q forces.

  ISAF (NATO's International Security Assistance Force) - Huddled around Kabul guarding the fifedom of the "Mayor of Kabul"

Thats it thats all - 

Its not an argument - its a fact.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302,

You are now arguing with 2 members who were THERE! [ we have others]
Please enlighten us of your experience over there so we can decide whether or not you are full of kife....

the clock is ticking on you.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (12 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302,

Here are some other online resources:

While the UN is indeed involved in Afghanistan in relation to the Elections, Landmines, Refugees, and Economic Growth, they were not the "peacekeeping" force.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

ISAF was, and still is a NATO mission.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html

And, like GO!!! and KevinB, I was in Afghanistan too.  And I sure didn't see any blue helmets around.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Jan 2006)

ISAF was mandated by the UN. The United States blocked a motion to give it a larger mandate. 



> Please enlighten us of your experience over there so we can decide whether or not you are full of kife....



I am genuinely impressed that two of you have served in Afghanistan. That does not mean however, that anyone disagreeing with you on a certain aspect of operations in said nation must have also served there for their arguments to hold any validity. You can no doubt illuminate specific aspects of day to day operations, relations between forces of different nationality etc. These are things which admittedly I cannot speak about. And these are things which I have *not* been speaking about. I have merely suggested that the US may have erred by not using its full strength, and its wish to (understandably) control the hunt for Bin Laden and the Taliban. I think anyone is qualified to look at the current situation, read a little, do some research, examine the UN mandates for ISAF, and come to a conclusion.  Military operations are guided by political decisions, and I am arguing that US political decisions may have set back coalition operations in Afghanistan. I don't know why that is such a big deal. I seem to have offended some people on this board, for which I apologize, by rationally debating issues. In return I get rude posts full of meaningless rhetoric. Grow up.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2006)

The US was attempting to get ISAF to either expand outside Kabul (something it strongly resisted until the countryside was more stable) or to get great coalition support.  However ISAF under a number of Commands was a toothless tiger.

  TO this day you will see a irrationally high number of "A" vehicles driving around Kabul - perhaps the worst/best example is the Swedish S Tank that rumbles up our cozy street at 0 Dark Thirty.  These nations have armoured contingents "guarding" a city - hardly the best environment for armour...

  The US tried to keep Canada in OEF rather than lose them to ISAF - and pushed to get the PRT rolling and Canadan back into the OEF fold.

Since I am typing on a DoS computer I wont offer my full thoughts on how the system attempted to fight a war on the cheap - but it is not the crux of the issue.

 OEF went into Afghan to get rid of the Taliban and wipe out Al-Q.

ISAF was the warmer and fuzzier NATO follow on.  (Whippedy Fricken Doo if the UN annoited it with oil or what not)

 A NUMBER of the NATO countries had issues with the US conduct of Iraq and where extremely UNHELPFUL while commanding or participating in ISAF to the conduct of OEF.

In short Kilo - I'm not too fond of your book knowledge, nor your illusions of inner workings of the game of Life (TM).  I can give you a LOT of examples of ISAF incompetance and complicity in illegal drug and arms trade - while OEF was putting lead on tgt...

  I can offer my experiences in watching the US ARG (USAID, USA PSYOPS, USA Corp Of Engineers, DEA etc.) attempt to bring stability -- and it is a lot more effective IMHO than our (Canadian) misplaced and woebegotten CIMIC.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2006)

Secondly the reason you got rude comments from me was based on your blanket statement that where not factually correct.

   I considered your first responce a simply attempt to troll.   You seem in the subsequent postings to be articulate and educated, however keep in mind a lot of the recent academia won;t write a good word about US efforts even if it invovled "selective disclosure" or outright fabrication.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Secondly the reason you got rude comments from me was based on your blanket statement that where not factually correct.
> 
> I considered your first responce a simply attempt to troll.   You seem in the subsequent postings to be articulate and educated, however keep in mind a lot of the recent academia won;t write a good word about US efforts even if it invovled "selective disclosure" or outright fabrication.



what r' you now? a lawyer?  ;D


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2006)

I view myself as an armed customer service professional -- where the customer is always wrong  

  The client is always right -- but our "customers" not so right...


----------



## GO!!! (12 Jan 2006)

Kilo,

Your problem is that you are only looking at the macro, and assuming that while we participated in the micro, we had no understanding of what was going on outside of our little world.

Most of us in the Infantry have an intimate understanding of what it means to have coalitions, NATO forces and task forces, the differing missions and tasks assigned to them and when. Why? Because when I go somewhere, I sure as hell want to know what is going on, hence the study. I am hardly alone, as KevB and PPCLI MCpl indicate.

ISAF was given a mandate by the UN, but this was hardly a requirement, it was more (IMHO) an attempt by the UN not to appear  completely irrelevant and powerless in policing the actions of the participating NATO nations. ISAF was going to happen anyway, whether or not the UN stumbled accross the right decision. As for the US stopping ISAF's exapanded mission, I would hazard that after such "expanded mandate" disasters such as Somalia, all of the Balkans, Rwanda etc, the US chose simply not to have the onerous and indicisive UN "leaders" control the mission over a series of years and decades _a la_ Cyprus. The US wanted results, to show the world that 1) terrorists could be attacked at home and 2) that they were not invincible, and could be hurt - badly, and 3) that the bad guys could not attack the invariably "soft" UN troops, and using the resulting media attention to claim a victory against the US.

As the UN is not in the business of producing any type of result, their offer of a headquarters staff and a few poorly - trained conscripts from struggling nations was declined. This type of military has already failed in Afghanistan once.

As for the US not attacking Afghanistan with all of it's resources, you are probably right. There are a number of possible reasons for this though. 1) A modern military cannot simply throw it's entire weight into motion on  a moments notice. 2) to do so would be foolish, because the "tail" of a modern military machine is required to sustain those operations. 3) "Total War" is extraordinarily expensive 4) the type of enemy being fought in Afghanistan is not easily combatted by troops and machinery specifically designed for the European theatre, against a formed, hierarchial western - style military. While the sight of a tank division rumbling around Kandahar would undoubtedly warm the hearts of many, the fact of the matter is that long standing and effective national government, assisted by Light and Special Forces, will do alot more for bringing Afghanistan into the fold of developed nations.

The "insurgency" as it presently exists in Afghanistan is best fought with the practice of simply killing all of those who actively oppose us through military means, and sparing the local populace the trauma of a Fallujah style urban warfare event. If we can do this effectively, Timmy Taliban and Mullah Mike will simply dissapear when they go off to wage jihad against us - providing the best deterrent, and stimulating those who are active politically, in the democratic context. Saturating the nation with US troops would not be effective.


----------



## geo (12 Jan 2006)

Let's face it, the soviets tried the brute strength approach
that didn't work too well (last time I checked)


----------



## Jed (12 Jan 2006)

Roger that, GO !!!. Thanks for taking the time to give a logical, rational reply to KILO on how things really are in the big picture.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Jan 2006)

I think the best solution if possible would have been to create a multinational force of mostly Muslim troops, thus avoiding the religious tensions. But I doubt that would be possible, seeing as there arent many Muslim nations that would or could send the required troops, especially as seen through the prism of Iraq.


----------



## Chauhan (13 Jan 2006)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Either way, we are foreigners occupying their country with white skin, and many will tar us all with the same brush. All westerners.




I'm joining the army this feb my cousins in the canadian army so was my 2nd cousin and im canadian but indian my nationality i really hate it with a passion wenever someone says that the armys white or its all white any comment like that leave that shit out of there will ya.


----------



## Rory (13 Jan 2006)

Manu has a point, a strong one infact. You think only whites serve in the American army, or any western army? I think not. Basically to avoid a flame war; I think that anyone who is not a insurgent, or rebel etc. Will be branded as a foreign intruder that will be fought with tenacity until they leave. I mean look at what happend in Russia when Lenin's Reds were fighting the Tsar's whites. When Britian and France sent troops to help the Tsar's regime out the whole country unified to expel these forces which were intended as aid to the Tsar and fight back the communists.

Basically my point being, unless your of their culture and belief; you will always be viewed as the enemy. We try to help but it will take longer than anyone really knows for sure to quell the insurgent 'corruption'. (if I can brand it as that for the sake of the discussion) Remember life never gets good until we get past the worst of it.


----------



## GO!!! (13 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think the best solution if possible would have been to create a multinational force of mostly Muslim troops, thus avoiding the religious tensions. But I doubt that would be possible, seeing as there arent many Muslim nations that would or could send the required troops, especially as seen through the prism of Iraq.



I would say that this is a bad idea for the following reasons.

1) The largest Muslim countries are dictatorships, (all Arab states) at the worst, or are decidedly uninterested in what the US is doing in Afghanistan. You must reconcile yourself with the fact that no - one outside of the wealthy west really concerns themselves with Afghanistan.

2) No muslim nation will send it's own soldiers to lower a US/NATO death toll.

3) You are confusing religion with culture. Those other countries may send muslims, but they will still be invaders, and attacked by the jihadis anyway. Lets not forget that muslims have slaughtered each other before too! (Iran/Iraq War)


----------



## Chauhan (13 Jan 2006)

I'm not muslim or anything.. I'm sikh.. but im 100 % devoted to Canada and Canada's known thru out the world as the most multicultural country... then why this? Don't look at colour.. look at dedication, devotion, and belief you have for and towards the country.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2006)

Manu -- no offence was intended - when we say white armies - it is used to describe western armies.

  Be it White, Black, Brown, Green, or Blue a Westerner is a Westerner...


----------



## TCBF (13 Jan 2006)

"Let's face it, the soviets tried the brute strength approach
that didn't work too well (last time I checked)"

- They came pretty close.  The initial Soviet assessment was for a requirement of 33 1/2 Divisions, but the road network could only support five or so, so they rolled the dice and went with five.   But, also we have to take into account that a LOT of the Afghans were actually on the Russian side.  Still, if it wasn't for the Stingers...

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (13 Jan 2006)

Manu said:
			
		

> I'm not muslim or anything.. I'm sikh.. but im 100 % devoted to Canada and Canada's known thru out the world as the most multicultural country... then why this? Don't look at colour.. look at dedication, devotion, and belief you have for and towards the country.



While I don't want to open the multicultural debate here (other threads cover it well) Canada is not a multicultural country, only 14% of our population is a vis-min, and the vast majority of them live in cities. An even smaller proportion of the military is visible minorities, so for both the literal and figurative senses, Canada is a western "white" army in every sense of the word. 

It is just a convenient method of categorisation, not a slag against the non-white people who serve in the CF.


----------



## Acorn (15 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> 1) The largest Muslim countries are dictatorships, (all Arab states) at the worst, or are decidedly uninterested in what the US is doing in Afghanistan. You



Just a fact quibble - the largest Muslim countries (by Muslim population) aren't Arab, and the largest, Indonesia, is a democracy (of sorts, still in infancy).


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2006)

Acorn...

Then there's also a wide range of defenitions of what is a Democracy.


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Jan 2006)

Go said "Canada is not a multicultural country, only 14% of our population is a vis-min"

We love to sell ourselves on fairy tales like we are the most multicultured nation in the world but good point about 14% vis min

I'll bet the USA is far higher percentage (look at the liberal's attitude towards the US)

The definition of multi-cultured has probably changed from 40 years ago. At one time Irish, Italian, Germans, etc all living in one city was considered mixed ethnicities.

Just some food for thought...


----------



## Armymedic (15 Jan 2006)

I have read thru 4 pages of the dribble and the question that returns to my mind is:
Why are you surprised by this?

I talked about this last Mar/Apr timeframe. All three armies are (mostly) white, English speaking soldiers who wear tan uniforms. The majority are US army. They have also been there longer. Everything in Kabul was being set up by the US before ISAF showed up. It is by default that the average Afghan figures we are all Americans.


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2006)

medic...
Your right - to the Afghans, the US were the ones who supported the Northern Alliance and invaded/liberated their country.
Given that US troops have composed the largest part of the occupying/liberation forces, to the average illiterate, run of the mill Afghan, we're all Americans or their minions.
If one of em should have a world atlas, they'll find Canada right there.... in North AMERICA and composing +/- 50% of the continent.... ergo - we're all american. And with respect to our uniforms: just a slightly different suit - and the US has many variations too.


----------



## Rory (15 Jan 2006)

It's funny how we are getting kind of strung out on this. We all know were western armies etc etc. Has anyone ever thought through the eyes of an Insurgent? I mean as in when you hear the Americans, British, and Canadian forces speak, they are all speaking english. This is another reason why they don't care to make sure who they are shooting at. We all speak the language there for we must be the same. I am not saying we are however, its like that age old thing where the white guy will say all the Asian people look the same too him.


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2006)

Rory - you're right on what you say.
Then again, Muslims have a "in-sha-allah" attitude to casualties.
Knocking off a couple of innocent bystanders is one of those "if god wills it" issues.


----------



## pbi (16 Jan 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The issue was not numbers of coalition troops. The United States did not want any interference with the hunt for Bin Laden, and therefore made sure that UN troops stayed in Kabul, when they could have been in the countryside taking power from the war lords, something the US was not willing to do because it would require more man power. If there were in fact insufficient numbers of UN soldiers, this is directly due to the fact that they were stuck in Kabul, where they were ineffective. Why send more soldiers to an already stable area? If the United States had allowed an expanded mandate, I think we definitely would have seen larger numbers of troops. Remember, at this point in time, nations were virtually falling over each other to send troops to Afghanistan as 9/11 was fresh in everyone's minds.



Kilo: Forgive me for chiming in very late but your assessment of what happened in Afghanistan is very much off the mark. The US wanted, more than anything, for NATO nations to contribute more troops and shoulder more of the burden, but discovered that there was a terrible case of "cold feet" amongst Europeans for getting out into the countryside until the situation was secure: i.e. somebody took on the bad guys. The NATO nations weren't too keen on helping with this part, either. The idea that they would have willingly rushed off into the provinces to engage in hunter-killer operations is just laughable and would have been very difficult to sell in the home countries, particularly given the anti-Americanism that was so prevalent as a result of Iraq. So, guess who shouldered the combined burdens of fighting the baddies AND rebuilding Afghanistan? Not NATO. Next guess...?

I spent six months in a US operational level HQ in Afghanistan watching closely (and on occasion getting involved) as the US worked on both these huge tasks and continued to try to get NATO to take on a broader mandate. The transition of US Regional Command South to NATO that is taking place as we speak (in which Canada is involved) is a product of this US effort to get more out of NATO.

NATO, as a result, stayed happily in Kabul, and ran a few PRTs in the northern provinces, where things were far more stable and quiet thanks to the cooperativeness of Gen Dostum, (late of the Northern Alliance). The rest of the work in the other 75% of the country was done by the US, with very little attention or understanding by western non-US media, who were quick to report the accidental killing of civilians, but rather less quick to discuss US or Afghan success.

Unless you can come up with some more convincing evidence, that wasn't a very good assessment.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (16 Jan 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Go said "Canada is not a multicultural country, only 14% of our population is a vis-min"
> 
> We love to sell ourselves on fairy tales like we are the most multicultured nation in the world but good point about 14% vis min
> 
> ...



Hold on a second...don't confuse "multi-cultural" with "visible minorities". The vismins are just a part of being multicultural. The groups you named are all parts of it, as are Russians, Poles, white Bosnian Muslims, Italians, Portuguese, etc. It doesn't really consider what colour your skin is: it means what cultural practices you follow.  In fact, you can easily argue that an increasing percentage of young vismin Canadians (much to the alarm of their elders...) are actually drifting away from their cultures. If everyone just lives a blahh grey "McCulture", then we really don't have multiculturalism no matter what colour Canadians are.

On the other hand, the 14% vismin figure is not necessarily a useful one either. IIRC, the black population of the US is about 12%. That seems, on the face of it, prettty small, right? Now, let's not pretend for one second that that 12% of US population has not had a HUGE effect on US life, history and culture. It isn't how many, but how influential, that matters IMHO.

IMHO the most significant groupings of "multi-cultural" Canadians, whether by virtue of being vismins or just by virtue of their heritage, are in our cities. It just so happens that about 80% of Canadians (IIRC) live in cities. So, the places where most of us live are in fact also the most "multicultural", which affects the way we think about ourselves as a nation. It's what most Canadians see every day when they go to work or school.

Finally, I wouldn't be so sure that the US is actually all that much more "multi-cultural" than Canada(although from what I have seen and read the good old "Melting Pot" ideal is fast becoming a myth). I believe that Toronto, by virtue of the fact that more than 50% of its residents were not born in Canada, actually outpaced New York City. Now, whether this is automatically a good thing (or even an important thing...) is another story.

Anyway-face it: the WASP demographic is in decline in this country, as it is in the world in general. Canada is changing as we speak, so we better learn to deal with that in an intelligent way, or we won't be able to point smug little Canadian fingers at other countries and cluck self-importantly about what a tolerant place we are compared to "them". We have to work at it, and acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of new Canadians just want to work hard, worship their God in their way, and have a good life. I know-I'm married to one.

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Jan 2006)

PBI from the PPCLI, once again, hats off to you, well said.


----------



## loyalist (16 Jan 2006)

I think there's a confusin here as to what exactly multiculturalism is and what having a multi-cultural nation means.

Multi-culturalism is more of a philosophy tah anything else. It's the ideal of  integrating different cultures rather than assimilating them. having a large quantity of visible minorties does not neccesariy indicate that a country is multicultural: the ability for that country to allow all the different groups to live and work side by side, without conflict and with respect defines a multicultural state.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Jan 2006)

What I'm saying is that the only reason we are able to smugly embrace the "multicultural" theory is that people who practice any other type of culture than the European ones (who I am deliberately lumping into a large group) are a tiny minority. Face it, after two generations here, alot of people have to think to come up with their ancestry, and they all act in roughly the same ways.

The cultural non-conformists are such a small minority that the effects of their respective cultures, both good and bad, are diluted in the population in which they reside. Where they choose to concentrate themselves into racially homogenous communities is when we notice. (Jamaican men shooting each other in Toronto and asian gangs in Vancouver and Edmonton) 

Thus, our being multicultural is just allowing cultural non-conformists to exist - which we have, because they are so small in numbers. Or were. Now that the problems associated with some of the cultures we previously allowed to ghettoize themselves and become inward - looking are starting to surface (extreme violence, misogyny, polygamy etc.) Statements like "communities in crisis" are being made - when it is not a community that is the problem. It is one ethnic group that was never encouraged to live in the manner that made this country what it was; instead choosing to perpetuate the behaviours that made their home nations less desireable to live in in the first place.

This is what I mean when I say that Canada is not a multicultural nation. It is a unicultural nation, with a few pockets of cultural non-conformists, who were quaint and supported, when vastly outnumbered, but are now becoming microcosms of their nations of origin.


----------



## edadian (17 Jan 2006)

Go I think you are way off on multi-culturalism.

Non-conformist culture is the culture that seperates people or nations from each other. With conformity comes the bland polluted corrupt culture of globalization; McDonalds, Wall-Mart etc. Conformist monoculture is like incest, may seem like a good idea but always results in problems.

As for your automatic jumping to negative problems of some communities is disturbing. Most Jamaicans in Canada have never picked up a gun and take jobs most wouldn't especially in the fruit harvests. Most Asians are law abiding citizens owning business and getting good jobs or creating good jobs. Your statements are the equivelant of saying all WASPS men are racist, anti-catholic wife beaters and clearly those are a minorty.

Culture, in what some call the post modern era, is induvidual and we pick and choose which cultural traits we want. That is what makes Canada a multi-cultural country. Pick up Richard Gwyn's 'Nationalism Without Walls' at the library sometime.


----------



## Rory (17 Jan 2006)

Ebadian can you honestly even say most people have never picked up a gun in their lives? Kind of a blanket statement there. GO simply pointed out the serious offending gangs, hey they happen to be majorily Jamaican.


----------



## edadian (17 Jan 2006)

I meant most Jamaicans in Canada haven't picked up a gun. I didn't intend it to come off as a generalization.

Perhaps if these Jamaicans were more in touch with their own culture they wouldn't be buying to the gun & crime culture.


----------



## Andem (17 Jan 2006)

Unfortunately Canadians will be seen as Americans in Afghanistan. We are there after the Americans struck and there's not really much we can do to curb that image except get out. Not saying that we should, but it's always dangerous to get involved with that countries' foreign affairs.


----------



## Andem (17 Jan 2006)

edadian said:
			
		

> I meant most Jamaicans in Canada haven't picked up a gun. I didn't intend it to come off as a generalization.
> 
> Perhaps if these Jamaicans were more in touch with their own culture they wouldn't be buying to the gun & crime culture.



There is a serious problem about the rapid mass-immigration in the past decade from the Caribbean. It's sad really, because it's not only Jamaica we have to worry about now, it's also African criminals posing as refugees.

I think the issue lies with the way they are integrated into society, if its even possible to integrate them.


----------



## GO!!! (17 Jan 2006)

edadian said:
			
		

> Go I think you are way off on multi-culturalism.
> 
> Non-conformist culture is the culture that seperates people or nations from each other. With conformity comes the bland polluted corrupt culture of globalization; McDonalds, Wall-Mart etc. Conformist monoculture is like incest, *may seem like a good idea * but always results in problems.


WTF? I'm not sure where you get off thinking that incest "may seem like a good idea", or that monoculture is wrong. Most of the Scandinavian nations are what you derisively refer to as "conformist monoculture" and they have far higher qualities of life for their citizens as a result.

I realise that you being submerged in the culture of resistance that characterises our universities makes it difficult for you to think in terms of absolutes, responsibility or accountability, but you being an individual is not the best, or most important issue for us in building a strong society.



> As for your automatic jumping to negative problems of some communities is disturbing. Most Jamaicans in Canada have never picked up a gun and take jobs most wouldn't especially in the fruit harvests. Most Asians are law abiding citizens owning business and getting good jobs or creating good jobs. Your statements are the equivelant of saying all WASPS men are racist, anti-catholic wife beaters and clearly those are a minorty.


I'm sure Jamaicans appreciate the supposedly "enlightened" Canadians like you characterising them as "fruit pickers", and "most asians" appreciate being characterised according to tired racial stereotypes involving small business. So much for whose assumptions are "disturbing" :

My statements are true. Certain behaviours in various cultures around the world encouraged their members to abandon them for Canada. They are now re-creating those problems here. *Without any more righteous indignation, do you agree that certain cultural groups ghettoize themselves, and perpetrate and are victim to  certain types of crime? It is a simple question.*



> Culture, in what some call the post modern era, is induvidual and we pick and choose which cultural traits we want. That is what makes Canada a multi-cultural country. Pick up Richard Gwyn's 'Nationalism Without Walls' at the library sometime.


Apparently, certain groups are picking a culture of destruction and violence - what say you about this?

Pick up Neil Bisoondath's _Selling Illusions, the cult of multiculturalism in Canada_ at the bookstore sometime, perhaps the next time you pick up a copy of Adbusters.



> Perhaps if these Jamaicans were more in touch with their own culture they wouldn't be buying to the gun & crime culture.


Judging by the levels of murder, violent crime and drug use in Jamaica, I would contend that these Jamaican-Canadians are already well in touch with their own culture!


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2006)

Has always baffled me that people leave the "old country" to get away from persecution, inequalities, etc... and they come over here to get that "better way of life"... and then they start recreating the circumstances for which they left the country in the 1st place.

Saw a couple of ladies in "full burkhas" today.
WTF was that?..... They'll tell you that they don't have to wear it, they just feel comfortable doing so (VS being obliged to wear it back home).........

Cheez!


----------

