# Dion, Ignatieff meet with Karzai in Afghanistan



## kilekaldar (12 Jan 2008)

What does this mean exactly? "Dion and Ignatieff said they agreed with Karzai on the use of air and artillery strikes as weapons in the counter-insurgency fight."
Do they and other critics of air strikes and artillery fully realize the implications to NATO troops if we stop using it? 
I doubt it, since Dion and other liberals are hopelessly ignorant of the realities of ground combat. 
After all, it's not them getting shot at.

********************************


Dion, Ignatieff meet with Karzai in Afghanistan

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080112/dion_karzai_080112/20080112?hub=TopStories

Updated Sat. Jan. 12 2008 12:25 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff have met with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

But a CTV reporter in Kandahar said Saturday the meat of the meeting -- a continued presence by Canadian combat troops -- hasn't come out yet.

"That is the real heart of the matter here," he told Newsnet. "There are too few troops in Afghanistan, not too many."

A Liberal news release issued Saturday said they told Karzai that while the party believes Canada's combat mission should end in 2009, the party supports the continuation of diplomatic and development efforts.

"We are convinced after the day we've had that we will have plenty of things to do that will involve, yes, to take risks, but anywhere we will go whether Darfur or Haiti, there are always risks," Dion told reporters in Kabul.

"We are not afraid of the risks. But we want to sure that we have a balanced mission after 2009 that will be optimally helpful for the people of Afghanistan."

Karzai's reaction to the statement isn't known yet, but Oliver said reports indicate he thanked Canada for its service in his country to date.

Canada has about 2,500 troops operating in Kandahar province, one of the most violent regions in the country. Seventy-six of them have died since 2002, along with a Canadian diplomat.

The current mandate from Parliament has the combat mission ending in February 2009, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper would like to see it extended.

He is awaiting the report of a special blue-ribbon panel, chaired by hawkish former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, to recommend a path forward for the mission.

Other issues

Dion and Ignatieff said they agreed with Karzai on the use of air and artillery strikes as weapons in the counter-insurgency fight.

The use of such firepower is being blamed for civilian deaths.

Dion and Ignatieff said they wanted a NATO-wide solution that protects detainees from being transferred into situations where they could face torture.

"This was a wonderful opportunity to meet face-to-face with President Karzai to hear first-hand the impact that troops and civilians are having here," Dion said.

"The Liberal Party of Canada is very proud of the contributions our men and women in uniform have made to try to bring peace and stability to this region."

"We had a very fruitful discussion about the NATO mission in Afghanistan and Canada's role in it. I hope it was the first of many more to come," Ignatieff said.

While Ignatieff is the party's deputy leader, Bob Rae, the former Ontario NDP premier, is the Liberals' foreign affairs critic.

With files from The Associated Press


----------



## Flip (12 Jan 2008)

Thanks for that kilekalder!
I'll check outside for flying pigs now.... ;D

The report says very little about the two liberals learning anything 
or if Karzai thinks they have any usefull ideas.

Seems to me they get to shake hands and say the same old crap.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Jan 2008)

Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state?


----------



## brihard (12 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state?



Yeah, that's the baffling part of this.

Ignatieff taking this view doesn't surprise me- he's got about as much credibility as a pure academic can in this field; he's certainly neither naive nor ignorant on how war is waged. Dion? I couldn't give less of a damn.


----------



## Bane (12 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state?



This totally normal and a non-issue.  This type of thing happens in many many countries.  For instance, during the CIA's campaign against the Soviets in the 80's, both Democratic and Republican Representatives and Senetors met with afghan warlords, Saudi and Pakistani politicians and top officals from the Saudi GDI and the Pakistani ISI.  Law makers are to be involved in the running of their country.  They can't sign deals and should be Canada's representative at offical functions but it is their duty to go.  If Harper was in opposition again, I'd expect him to be out there learning, discussing and making his views known too. 

As I pointed out this article last time this came up:
The Edmonton Journal - 19th of Jul, 2005 pg. A7
WASHINGTON - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper told an international gathering of conservative political leaders Monday he would take Canada more deeply into the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and would create a national security commissioner to oversee the work of police and security agencies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state?



ONLY because the Head of State in question agreed, I would surmise...  He reads the papers, and he knows how the debate is unfolding here.

MUST he meet with these guys?  No.  SHOULD (politically speaking) he meet with these guys?  Makes sense....

Still, I hope people reading the accounts realize that the (Un)Dynamic Duo do NOT speak for Canada - I'm sure Pres. Karzai does...


----------



## Tow Tripod (12 Jan 2008)

Can somebody tell me what a balanced mission means!?!?!?!? I don't get this terminology at all other than it sounds very Jack Laytonish. Thanks

Tow Tripod


----------



## Redeye (12 Jan 2008)

Stephane who?

Seriously, who is this guy?  I love that Ignatieff went too - since his plan I think is to allow Dion to keep embarrassing the party until he can take over.

I often get the feeling that Dion wishes to prove that he can in fact suck and blow at the same time.  And while opposition leaders meeting foreign heads of state isn't totally out of the ordinary, I do enjoy the fact that it seems as though certain Liberals believe they should act as though they're a government in waiting until this little anomaly (in their mind) passes.  Dion showing up in Bali is a prime example of this.  I don't recall Harper or Day going to foreign summits etc as though they represent the Canadian public quite in the way it seemed the Dion did.


----------



## Flip (12 Jan 2008)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Can somebody tell me what a balanced mission means!?!?!?!? I don't get this terminology at all other than it sounds very Jack Laytonish. Thanks
> 
> Tow Tripod



"Balanced mission" means; the mission the CF finds itself in when they run the government. ;D 

Or to put it another way, A balanced mission is a political device that uses the CF
to make Iggy and Dion look really good.


----------



## Armymedic (12 Jan 2008)

Any money that on one of the first days of debate once thn house open, Dion will stand up and state, "Mr Speaker, now I have been to Afghanistan and seen what goes on there....."

Bets on whether or not he goes down south and visits anything? More than the PRT and KAF that is?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2008)

Well if our current "3D" (Defence, Development, Diplomacy) mission is not balanced, perhaps they could descend from the heavens and give us their definition of what a "Balanced Mission" is?


----------



## Flip (12 Jan 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well if our current "3D" (Defence, Development, Diplomacy) mission is not balanced, perhaps they could descend from the heavens and give us their definition of what a "Balanced Mission" is?


Descend from the heavens in what, a SeaKing or a hot air balloon? ;D
Sorry cheap shot, I know...


----------



## FascistLibertarian (12 Jan 2008)

> Dion and Ignatieff said they agreed with Karzai on the use of air and artillery strikes as weapons in the counter-insurgency fight.
> 
> The use of such firepower is being blamed for civilian deaths.



So by pulling more troops away from the front lines NATO will somehow end up using less air and artillery?
Because clearly the answer to less air and artillery isnt more boots on the ground, its less!  :
wow, just wow.


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

What Dion wants is more Development and Diplomacy in the 3-D Policy (implemented by the Liberals by the way) that is what he means by making the mission more balanced.  The vast majority of Canadian funds is going to the defence aspect.


----------



## scotty884 (12 Jan 2008)

"Sir I spotted Mr. Dion in the open....." said a Tech,  "SO?" answers the FOO,  " He wants less air raids and arty calls" replies the tech,  "F#$% that! 3, this is 39 FM BTY!!!" ahhhh one can only wish..... ;D ;D ;D :threat:


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> What Dion wants is more Development and Diplomacy in the 3-D Policy (implemented by the Liberals by the way) that is what he means by making the mission more balanced.  The vast majority of Canadian funds is going to the defence aspect.



After reviewing many of your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you really don't have a firm grasp on any of these subjects.  Surely, in all the reading you must have done to come to some of these discusions, you must have read that there can be "NO SAFE" Development, nor Diplomacy without there having first been a Defence aspect to remove any and all THREATS?  You are making statements like a person studying Canadian and world history and politics in Grade Eight.  In other words, you seem to be very ill-informed.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (12 Jan 2008)

I like this quote by him



> Are soldiers qualified to make strategic assessments-when their training deals exclusively with tactical matters?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jan 2008)

> What Dion wants is more Development and Diplomacy in the 3-D Policy (implemented by the Liberals by the way) that is what he means by making the mission more balanced.  The vast majority of Canadian funds is going to the defence aspect.



Fine.  We will build more Schools, medical clinics, wells and housing...but we won't lift a finger to stop anyone from blowing them up, burning them down or otherwise terrorising the locals.  Sound more "balanced" to you?  In your "balanced" mission, does the CF even get to defend itself while doing all of this development?

As for more diplomacy- who, PRECISELY, do you think we should be negotiating with?  Keep in mind, Afghanistan is a sovereign nation with its own (very) complex internal politics.  The Afghan government might be a tad offended if we "diplomacy" the wrong people.

Frankly, Stegner, your grasp this subject appears weak at best.  Go do some reading.


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

Mr. Wallace,

Thanks for your comments.  Though I am quite curious about them.  I was merely restating Dion's position as on an ealier post someone was asking what did Dion mean with the more balanced approach.  I never submitted anything else.   So kindly defer from your personal attack, as I never said that defence was not an important part.   As you have alluded, defence is required to reduce the threat, as there can be no aid workers without security.  However, there are no aid workers from CIDA or Foreign Affairs in great numbers, because they would not have protection.   From my analysis, what Dion has suggested, is that Canada should take a slight break from overall defence in Khandahar and focus on development though the CF will still need to provide security  to CIDA and the like as he feels with this policy the Aghani society can be rebuilt more quickly.  That is his opinion not mine.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> ..........  That is his opinion not mine.



I must say, in my defence, that your posting style does not indicate that.   You are posting as if it is your opinion, and that it is in line with his.


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> From my analysis, what Dion is suggested, is that Canada should take a slight break from defence and focus on development though the CF will still need to provide security  to CIDA and the like as he feels with this policy the Aghani society can be rebuilt more quickly.  That is his opinion not mine.



Poppycock!*  

First of all are you privy to Liberal Cabinet meetings?  Secondly would you care to show us all exactly where you get that impression ie. please show sources where he states that position.

Dion and his party want us to pull out of the warfighting completely and have said that it is time for our other NATO partners to step up.  This in spite of the fact that for the better part of 30 years Canada has been doing far less than its share in the alliance.  The Liberals, Bloc and NDP are bed-buddies on this issue only the current government sees the security and moral issues at stake.

To dismiss the defence piece of the tripod is to reneg on our responsibility to protect.  WE have to do it if no one else will.  We can not abdicate our responsibility to the vast majority of Afghanis who want and need the security and stability that armed soldiers in the streets of K'har provide.

* - what I realy want to write will just be "*****"ed anyway


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

Reccesoldier,  you are calling the kettle black and should follow your own advice as you are not privy to Liberal caucus meetings, cabinets meeting are only for cabinet ministers and they are usually part of the government.  Okay despite my assertions that I do not agree with Dion people still think I do.   I am a believer in the Powell Doctrine.  Thus, I think in order to win in Afganistan we need more troops-think a surge.  That is all I have to say on that.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jan 2008)

As for Mr Ignatieff:

Mickey I. and the drug of ambition
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010630.html

Stegner: Canada has no more troops with which to surge; however the USMC will be doing its bit:
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=205484&Sn=WORL&IssueID=30297

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FascistLibertarian (12 Jan 2008)

Clearly we need more troops! I think everyone here agree's that the NATO A-Stan mission is under staffed.
What Dion wants is less troops on the front lines, which will lead to more deaths from air and art.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2008)

And what do the Tories have to say about the (Un)Dynamic Duo's visit?

*WELCOME TO AFGHANISTAN, STÉPHANE DION*
Conservative Party of Canada news release, January 12, 2008
News release link - .pdf permalink

More than a year after becoming Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion has finally found Afghanistan on the map.

And once he’s done explaining to the Afghan people why, before actually stepping foot in their country, he dismissed Canadian efforts to help bring stability and democracy to their lives, Dion should set aside partisan self-interest for a moment and open his eyes to the progress that’s being made on the ground.

Never one to let facts get in the way of a political opportunity, Dion offended Canadians and Afghans, alike, last week – insisting that Canada should immediately notify NATO it will abandon its mission in Afghanistan, and arguing it would be a “travesty” if the mission continued beyond February, 2009.

The real travesty is Dion’s chronic rush to judgment in pursuit of partisan goals.

He did it in vowing to defeat the Government’s last Budget long before he read it. He did it in rejecting the Government’s Speech from the Throne long before he heard it.

And he’s done it repeatedly in criticizing Canada’s role in Afghanistan, long before ever bothering to visit our troops and development workers, or considering the positive changes they are making.

Because of the efforts and sacrifices of brave Canadian men and women, the people of Afghanistan have seen the institution of democratic elections, the stirring of human rights and freedoms for women, the construction of schools, healthcare facilities and the basic infrastructure of a functional economy.

While he’s in Afghanistan, the Liberal leader might want to explore the Aschiana School in Kabul, where Canada is partnering to ensure that children who, because of war, tragedy and chaos, were left out of the school system, are now getting an education.

He might want to speak to Canadians who are assisting with vaccination programs, reaching nearly 200,000 children and women in this country. Or with those who are working with Afghans on more than 27,000 reconstruction projects now underway, including clean water, sanitation and electrical power.

Or he might want to listen to some of Canada’s esteemed men and women in uniform, who are creating the kind of stability and peace that make all of this possible.

And he may want to ask Afghans and aid workers if such progress would have been possible without the security operation?

Prime Minister Harper has appointed former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley to lead a panel of eminent Canadians who will, in the coming weeks, make informed recommendations to the Government on Canada’s path forward in Afghanistan.

By subverting that critical process in pursuit of political gain, Stéphane Dion not only diminishes the hope of Afghans but the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s finest.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (12 Jan 2008)

I think the CPC is being a little hard on Dion
do they think its easy to make priorities?


----------



## kilekaldar (12 Jan 2008)

Nice to see that this has generated some discussion.

I would like to comment that only the hopelessly ignorant or a liberal/ndp/Block party hack would suggest that LESS troops, and LESS firepower for them would improve the rebuilding. How in the world can anyone expect us to rebuild anything while the taliban try to kill us while we have even LESS means to protect ourselves in mind-boggling.

For that matter has anyone among these geniuses asked the Afghans living in and around Kandahar what they want? Everything I have heard or seen on that topic indicates that they want SECURITY. When you have NOTHING, safety becomes your primary concern. Everything else becomes a 'nice to have'. 

Now providing security has fallen to us until the ANA and the ANP can do so effectively. If we can do that, then we can have the stable ground to build.

My opinion only of course.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Mr. Wallace,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.  Though I am quite curious about them.  I was merely restating Dion's position as on an ealier post someone was asking what did Dion mean with the more balanced approach.  I never submitted anything else.   So kindly defer from your personal attack, as I never said that defence was not an important part.   As you have alluded, defence is required to reduce the threat, as there can be no aid workers without security.  *However, there are no aid workers from CIDA or Foreign Affairs in great numbers, because they would not have protection.*   From my analysis, what Dion has suggested, is that *Canada should take a slight break from overall defence in Khandahar and focus on development though the CF will still need to provide security  to CIDA* and the like as he feels with this policy the Aghani society can be rebuilt more quickly.  That is his opinion not mine.




Stegner, that is exactly what the CF is doing - Battle Group, Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), Multinational Headquarters, mentoring Afghan government, police and military -- all activities to help the Afghans improve their own way of life on the way to complete independence. [Ref: Canadian Operations directly supporting Afghan reconstruction]  That is also exactly what Glyn Berry (DFAIT Political Director to the aforementioned PRT) told me had to be done to help development happen when I spoke with him in Kabul a week before he was killed in Kandahar.  It is exactly what helped progress the development not only in Afghanistan's capital, but at the Provincial, District and Village level.

Letting each person put on their own thinking cap, the battle group involved in combat operations against the Taliban represents roughly only one quarter of the overall Canadian task force.  Independent thinkers might not mind pondering what the other three quarters of the CF personnel are doing....hint: it's not combat operations.  Further hint: it's actually helping rebuilding and development at all levels inside Afghan society.


Stegner, you might benefit by widening your personnel scope of education, because it is not serving you particularly well at the moment.  I certainly found my experiences working along side Afghans in the Nation's capital and outlaying regions to be very educational and indeed rewarding.  May I suggest you read the Afghan government's own website about the Afghan National Development Strategy (important link), a UN-endorsed strategy to facilitate reconstruction and further development of Afghan society.  Beware!  This is the Afghans' own government website about what they are doing to rebuild their own nation, and it may not fit in with what some people or organizations would have you believe is happening (or not happening) regarding rebuilding/development within Afghanistan. 


G2G

p.s.  Both the noun and adjective form is "Afghan", not "Afghani" -- an Afghani is the monetary unit of Afghanistan, approximately equal to 2¢.  An Afghan is a person.  The Afghan National Development Strategy is a strategy developed by Afghans, for Afghans, to further develop Afghan society.


----------



## stegner (12 Jan 2008)

Please note: 





> That is his opinion not mine.


 Just because I did not refer to Dion as an idiot does not mean I think he is the best thing since sliced bread.  So feel free G2G to email your post to the Official Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, not *me*.  Sadly,  I have heard FAC's mission in Afghanistan suffered immensely with Glyn Berry's death and only now are they starting to recover.   You would probably know if this rumour was true or not.   I don't need to expand the personnel scope of my education, but my personal education could always use improvement.  An Afghan is also a rug as well as a person


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2008)

Once again:



			
				stegner said:
			
		

> ..........  That is his opinion not mine.








			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I must say, in my defence, that your posting style does not indicate that.   You are posting as if it is your opinion, and that it is in line with his.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2008)

FAC = Forward Air Controller

DFAIT = Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jan 2008)

The incoherent and ignorant M. Dion
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/incoherent-and-ignorant-m-dion.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Franko (13 Jan 2008)

Problem with the last sentence....who do they see taking over our spot in Kandahar? 

I guess that they haven't figured out if we pull out prior to a turn over to an as effective force or greater the TB will have the upper hand and all the progress will be for naught.

Some people and their short sightedness.....

Regards


----------



## McG (13 Jan 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> 
> Blast in Afghanistan injures 4 Canadian soldiers
> ...


.... so, what do our security mission forces do when caught in an ambush if it is not combat?  Roll over & die?


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Jan 2008)

Here's the absurdity of their position (re: no combat)
They are trying to tie the hands of the CF in dealing with the enemy.  Suppose for a moment that the CF were not "allowed" offensive combat ops. Sure, as in Kabul, we have guns, rifles, and so forth, but all we can do is "shoot back when shot at".  So, we go about our business, the Liberal Party of Canada community is all pleased as punch.  Still, our lads and lasses go on under the gun, feeling the effect of an enemy that no longer has to run and hide.  W|ould this mean more attacks?  Then a cry for us to "do something?"

In my opinion, their stated opinion makes no sense...


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2008)

Actually, I don't think that they realize the fallacies of their plan.  If they are fearful of more deaths of Canadian soldiers, then their plan is more likely to bring that about.  With the caveats placed on them, Canadians would not be able to fight back unless fired upon, allowing the Taliban to gain more control in the Region and plan more effective attacks against Canadian, Afghan, and Coalition Troops.

They would not be saving Canadian lives, but creating the environment for more Canadians to die.


----------



## FSTO (13 Jan 2008)

This argument is classical LPC desire to play the middle game. They see that Canadians are split on the mission and feel that they would get more support if they push for remaining in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons (good) not for combat reasons (bad). Sounds a lot like  conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.
What really gets me is that the of the two opposition parties, it is the NDP that has the more realistic opinion. Much better that we pull completely out of there, then for us to stay with both hands tied behind our back. Don't get me wrong I support the operation, but what Dion/Ignatiaff (sp) is proposing is criminally stupid. On top of this is the complete loss of face and credibility that we would lose from the Afghans and our partners in CANAUSUKUS (NATO has a failed) if we pull this kind of stunt.

God I cannot stand the Liberal Party.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2008)

Watering down ROE's was exactly what contributed to the atrocity of Rwanda.  

Framed in light of how that operation went, I am astonished that anyone would want to go down that path again.  If Dion can't see how poor an option his plan would be, even with all the excellent advice stegner points out that his wife should be giving to him, there is little hope for the Liberal party regaining any semblance of influence until well into the next decade.  Good news for those who take a firm decision on something, whether you agree with it or not.

G2G


----------



## observor 69 (13 Jan 2008)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This argument is classical LPC desire to play the middle game. They see that Canadians are split on the mission and feel that they would get more support if they push for remaining in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons (good) not for combat reasons (bad). Sounds a lot like  conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.
> What really gets me is that the of the two opposition parties, it is the NDP that has the more realistic opinion. Much better that we pull completely out of there, then for us to stay with both hands tied behind our back. Don't get me wrong I support the operation, but what Dion/Ignatiaff (sp) is proposing is criminally stupid. On top of this is the complete loss of face and credibility that we would lose from the Afghans and our partners in CANAUSUKUS (NATO has a failed) if we pull this kind of stunt.
> 
> God I cannot stand the Liberal Party.



Yes those were my thoughts also when I heard Dion speaking on the evening news. What does he envision when the school we build is complete ? 
$#@^%&*(** is he thinking??      Tthe Taliban are going to all of a sudden disappear ?


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jan 2008)

Baden Guy:



> What does he envision when the school we build is complete ?



Well, we could have so many troops in theatre that they can be stationed at every school, bridge, whatever, providing "security" and waiting for the enemy to attack.  We would not want to be "pro-active" in combat, now would we?

You really should watch M. Dion to get the full flavour of his incoherence:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=QPeriod&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/13/ctvvideologger3_200049762_1200195697_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/13/ctvvideologger3_200049761_1200194168_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:02:53.17&clip_end=00:06:09.80&clip_caption=CTV's%20Question%20Period:%20Liberal%20Leader%20Stephane%20Dion&clip_id=ctvnews.20080113.00230000-00230143-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080113&slug=dion_kandahar_080113&archive=CTVNews

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## greydak (14 Jan 2008)

I wonder what the reaction was from the boys on the ground? I haven't seen any clips of him with the fighting soldiers, just the walking around timmies & the ball hockey court, but what about the troops outside of the wire doing the job, surely they could have told Dion his band of handshaking Librals exactly what would happen to the country should Canada stop looking for the enemy? 
   I mean has anyone stopped to ask this guy why we all pushed through Panjwai and lost some of the most nobel brave souls this military had? Things would have been a whole lot easier if we could have all just stopped there, if we had known this was going to be the end result,,, handing it all back over to the dirty F'ing Taliban a few years later?


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jan 2008)

But why would the Taliban want to harm Messrs Dion and Ignatieff :

Tory MP put lives at risk, Liberals charge
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080114.wafghansecurity14/BNStory/Front/



> Conservatives and Liberals love getting into wars of words. But until now, no one was worried the Taliban would get involved.
> 
> Yet that's what happened during this weekend's visit to Afghanistan by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff.
> 
> ...



And what was this headline writer smoking?  Were their weapons concealed?

Liberal Top Guns In Afghan Summit
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=235980

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IntlBr (14 Jan 2008)

Sounds like a rather large "Whoops!" to me, albeit a very serious one.

People like these (politicians) need better handlers, and they need to be briefed better about what is and isn't expected.  They don't always work with these constraints, and they're always looking for a soundbite.

"Whoops"


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2008)

Hello!  Irony anyone?  The Liberals ACKNOWLEDGE that by simply knowledge of their presence could have endangered their lives YET they want to stop us from seeking out and getting those "murderous Taliban".


> The Liberal Party said in a statement Sunday that Guergis had effectively told "the murderous Taliban" about Dion's plans to visit the base, putting his life and the lives of Canadian soldiers and diplomats at risk.


(Source:  http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/13/kandahar-dion.html)
My question to Mr Dion: how _should_ we deal with murderers?  Run away?  Appease?  Historically, I think Mr. Ignatieff knows how to deal with them, but Mr. Dion doesn't seem to care.


----------



## c_canuk (14 Jan 2008)

In my opinion the reason that all the opposition leaders don't make any sense is because for them the war is a means to an ends not the ends. I think that they don't care about the soldiers, the Afghans or the peacenicks back home, it's all about stampeding their way to the top of the moral hill and damn anyone who gets in their way.

Hopefully the majority of Canadians see this and punish them in the next election for it. No thanks to the MSM who also don't care about who their bias will hurt and only care about ratings and career building they can garner by presenting Afghanistan as Canada's Vietnam.

I think if they get into power and make a pigs ear out of the mission, it won't matter to them because they will turn their attention and by extention the media's attention to the enviroment, trade or other domestic affairs and the mission in Afghanistan will drop off the collective consiousness. 

Should that happen hopefully they will stop poking their nose in and let the mission run as it needs to be, but I fear the CF is too large a piece on the political chess board to ignore completetly now and we are in for decades of political micro managment.


----------



## kilekaldar (14 Jan 2008)

And this from a NATO rep. Notice how the reporter writes "NATO says it's time to shift from combat." when later on the NATO spokesman clearly says "We're not at the phase where we can take that step." 
 ??? Did the reporter not listen to guy when he spoke, or just hear what he wanted too?

And look for the reply at the end from some well informed scholar in military affairs named Michalina.

**********************************


Time to shift away from Afghan combat role: NATO

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080114/nato_role_080114/20080114?hub=TopStories

Updated Mon. Jan. 14 2008 10:08 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

NATO agrees its time for the role of foreign troops in Afghanistan to shift away from one of combat to one of support, says a spokesperson for the international organization.

James Appathurai discussed the NATO position as Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff visited the war-torn nation and called for Canada to stay on beyond February 2009 when the mission is scheduled to end, but in a non-combat role.

"I think actually we all agree on the end state -- NATO and I think probably the political parties here too -- and that's transition," Appathurai, a Canadian, told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.

"We want to move to a phase where the Afghans are in the lead and we provide support, training, close air support, emergency support but let them do the frontline fighting. It's a question of when."

Appathurai, who recently returned from a visit to the Panjwaii region of Afghanistan, said that transition -- which many see as no more than a distant and unlikely possibility -- may actually not be that far off.

"We have two Afghan battalions now, with Canadian troops, and taking an increasingly leading role. But the key is, from my perspective but also from NATO's perspective, we haven't reached a tipping point. We're not at the phase where we can take that step."

Canada has taken a lead role in the volatile south of Afghanistan, facing the Taliban head on and taking casualties, with 76 soldiers and one diplomat now killed since 2002 -- and several more injured over the weekend.

That has many Canadians questioning why the frontline fighting isn't being shared more evenly among the NATO countries serving in Afghanistan.

But Appathurai said other countries are helping shoulder the burden.

"I think the first thing to say is we're not alone. There are eleven countries directly involved in the combat all the time. Two Dutch were just killed yesterday," he pointed out.

"And eight countries in the last three or four months have stepped up their contribution to the combat role. The Poles just announced a couple of days ago, 400 new troops, eight new helicopters. The Americans are considering 3,000 more soldiers for the south."

The problem, he said, is that Canadian journalists travel to Kandahar where Canadians are taking a leading role, and most of the stories that emerge cover the risks Canadian soldiers are taking in that region.

A Liberal news release issued Saturday said Dion and Ignatieff met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and told him that while the party believes Canada's combat mission should end in 2009, the party supports diplomatic and development efforts.

"We are convinced after the day we've had that we will have plenty of things to do that will involve, yes, to take risks, but anywhere we will go whether Darfur or Haiti, there are always risks," Dion told reporters in Kabul.

"We are not afraid of the risks. But we want to sure that we have a balanced mission after 2009 that will be optimally helpful for the people of Afghanistan."

Karzai's reaction to the statement isn't known yet, but reports indicate he thanked Canada for its service in his country to date.

Appathurai said the proposal put forward by Ignatieff and Dion is not unrealistic. In fact, there are already indications that it is on the way, he said.

"It's already happening. In Panjwaii it's happening. We saw a major operation in a town people might have seen in Helmand where the Taliban ... was actually in charge until a couple of months ago. The Afghans led the mission, we came in behind, we kicked them out."

The ultimate goal, he said, is for the Afghan National Army to be handling security in the country and for other nations to support those efforts.

He also said it is critical, both to NATO and the United Nations that the mission in Afghanistan results in a successful outcome. High level UN officials have said that if NATO pulls out, they will also leave because they won't have the necessary security.

"I think to the whole international community, Afghanistan is critical. If we fail in Afghanistan, it means that the UN fails, this is a UN mission, that NATO is doing basically on contract," Appathurai said.

Under that scenario, Afghanistan could easily return to a Taliban-run country, he warned.

"Afghanistan will again be the grand central station of terrorism. There will be terrorists from all over the world, like there were in 2001, training and leaving again to go back to their countries to be more extreme. We will all suffer."

Please Add Comments(7)

Michalina
Finally NATO is starting to wake up...Canada does not have the proper training nor equipment for a combat role. Let's do the right thing - help people with shelter, clothing and food...Why are we there for again?????Hello......


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2008)

My comment that I posted (soon to see if it makes it through)


> The article title is misleading.
> "Time to shift away from Afghan combat role: NATO" says the CTV.  Sounds similar to the lines Mr. Dion and Mr. Ignatieff were spouting this weekend.  Read the article.  Mr. Appathurai says:
> "We have two Afghan battalions now, with Canadian troops, and taking an increasingly leading role. But the key is, from my perspective but also from NATO's perspective, we haven't reached a tipping point. We're not at the phase where we can take that step."
> 
> Let me say that again.  WE'RE NOT AT THE PHASE WHERE WE CAN TAKE THAT STEP.  Sounds to me that this is NOT the time to shift away from a combat role.  Shame on the ctv editor who let this slip.


Thanks for the tip, Kilekalder: I totally missed that!


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jan 2008)

I think I seen this on TV.

It sounded like Dion was in Afghanistan campaigning to be prime minister of Canada.
"If I was prime minister I would do this this and that".

Rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. Didn't seem like an appropiate place to be campaigning.  I don't really think we should send the families of fallen soldiers over to Afghanistan but I'd sure as hell rather spend tax dollars sending soldiers family members over there for a visit then sending Dion over there.


----------



## Flip (14 Jan 2008)

> "NATO says it's time to shift from combat."



The editor didn't let it slip - That's what he wanted to convey.
It helps to stir the pot.

Unfortunately I don't think Dion is trying to rebrand Canada's
mission like "military advisers" in Vietnam.
I think he actually foresees a positive outcome.

What Dion doesn't foresee is that everyone wants to play the nice guy. 
It's not so easy to foist the hard stuff onto someone else.

What's absolutely clear is that Dion's mind is made up no matter how wrong he is.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Jan 2008)

*When Good News Is No News*
"Certainly it is historically odd for war reporting to diminish almost to the point of public invisibility - just as our troops are starting to gain the upper hand. But we are fighting this war with the journalists we have, not the ones we want"
Tony Blankley
Real Clear Politics


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Jan 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080114/nato_role_080114/20080114?hub=World

Comments are now closed for the story, and my comment failed to make it in; however, the "byline" has changed to the following:

Afghans taking on more of a combat role: NATO


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jan 2008)

Another post at The Torch:

CTV spinning the Afghan news/President Karzai responds to "Top Guns"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/ctv-spinning-afghan-news.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (14 Jan 2008)

HE-He-he-he-he!

Thanks Mark.

I read the Torch and the newspaper links attached.
CTV has done some rewriting!?
Karzai doesn't agree with the fair haired boy of all Liberals!?
Lovin' it!
Dion's trip ends in humiliation.........As it should.   ;D


----------



## sgf (15 Jan 2008)

I am just glad that the gaffe of Guergis didnt lead to anything else during this trip


> SHAWN MCCARTHY AND COLIN FREEZE
> 
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Jan 2008)

This may infact belong in the Political section.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2008/01/18/4779469.php

By PETER WORTHINGTON           Fri, January 18, 2008


From his visit last weekend to Afghanistan, it seems clear that if Stephane Dion ever becomes prime minister of Canada, the Armed Forces will be reduced to their previous depleted strength and their role limited as it was in the Trudeau years. 

Jean Chretien, too, robbed the military -- preferring a $500 million penalty rather than honouring a contract to re-equip our soldiers and sailors with EH101 helicopters. 

Unlike Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff, who accompanied him to Kabul and Kandahar for a quick look-see, Dion has little appreciation, empathy or understanding of soldiers or things military. Come to think of it, he probably viscerally and intellectually dislikes soldiers. 

In his press conference on leaving Afghanistan, Dion seemed to think our role should consist of turning soldiers into social workers -- no more seek and destroy stuff our troops have been doing so effectively. 

Instead he wants our troops building schools, enhancing women's rights, digging wells for fresh water, training and assisting local communities. Silly ass. What escapes Dion's limited comprehension is that our troops have been doing all this social work stuff from day one, as well as kicking butt of the Taliban. 



How can there be effective reconstruction if the Taliban retain a strong and malignant presence? 

Ignatieff seems to realize this, and while careful not to contradict his boss, has acknowledged that the Taliban are a malignancy that must be exorcised. 

The weekend in Afghanistan was a first for Dion. 

Ignatief has been there three times -- first when the Taliban was savaging the people, forcing the burka on women, stoning female offenders, lopping of hands of some, shooting others in an empty Soviet-built swimming pool. 

If he had more nerve, Dion would probably echo the NDP's Jack Layton who wants all our troops immediately pulled out of Afghanistan. Layton wants them sent to Darfur, if his past statements mean anything. 

("Exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported," he has said). 

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's view of Barack Obama: "Give us a break!" The logical solution to genocidal horror in Darfur is to change the government in Khartoum. Is that what Layton wants Canadian soldiers doing? 

The trouble with Dion's trip to Afghanistan is that he'll now pose as an expert, and use his brief visit to justify his every prejudice about that country, and our military's role. His future Parliamentary debates will aim at further curbing military competence. 

Layton, for his part, demeans the panel chaired by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley that's due to submit recommendations on Afghanistan. He says it is too "pro-American" and that he won't co-operate with it or NATO. 

With Layton and Dion leading opposition parties, one would think a federal election would be a coronation for Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Not so. Unless the polls are wrong, Liberals and Conservatives are about equal, and an election would return another minority government. 

The pity is that the party leaders all seem unable to connect with voters. None of them instill confidence, none has the personality to lead a parade. 

To the dismay of some, the Canadian public likes and trusts its military. Gen. Rick Hillier, personifying the Armed Forces, is more popular and trusted than any politician. Perhaps this is more a condemnation of politicians than an endorsement of him, but it's a fact, and a reason why the mutterings of either Dion or Layton don't deserve much attention. 

One hopes Harper holds steady on Afghanistan, and listens to realists and humanitarians -- our soldiers.


----------

