# 13 Mar 2006 Address by PM Harper to Canadian Forces in Afghanistan



## geo (16 Mar 2006)

Address by the Prime Minister to Canadian Forces in Afghanistan
March 13, 2006
Kandahar, Afghanistan 
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Introduction
Thank you for your warm welcome. 
I want to begin by telling you how proud I am of the work you’re doing.
You have put yourself on the line to:
§	Defend our national interests; 
§	Protect Canada and the world from terror; 
§	Help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country. 
I thank you.
Canadians thank you.
And I know that the Afghan people thank you. 
Canada’s National Interest
Your work is important because it is in our national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic, and peaceful country.
Before its liberation, under the Taliban regime, Afghanistan often served as an incubator for Al Qaeda and other terror organizations.
This reality hit home with brutal force on 9-11, when two dozen Canadians lost their lives suddenly and senselessly in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. 
Those were ordinary Canadians. People with families, partners, children and dreams for a better future. Just like all of our citizens, people who died suddenly and for no reason at the hands of fanatics.
Since that time, Al Qaeda has singled out Canada as one of the countries targeted for terror. 
And beyond the threat of terror there’s the threat of drugs. 
An unstable Afghanistan represents easy pickings for drug lords who would use the country as a safe haven for the production of heroin, which wreaks its own destruction on the streets of our country.
Our Canada is a great place, but Canada is not an island. 
And what happens in places like Afghanistan threatens and affects all of us back home in our own country.
Canadian Leadership Tradition
Your work is about more than just defending Canada’s interest. It’s also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country. Not carping from the sidelines, but taking a stand on the big issues that matter. 
You can’t lead from the bleachers. I want Canada to be a leader. And I know you want to serve your country. A country that really leads, not a country that just follows. That’s what you are doing. Serving in a UN-mandated, Canadian-led security operation that is in the very best of the Canadian tradition:
§	Providing leadership on global issues; 
§	Stepping up to the plate; 
§	Doing good when good is required. 
Humanitarian Mission
Finally, but no less important, is the great humanitarian work you’re doing. Working with the Afghan government and Afghan people to enhance their security helps them. It helps them rebuild their country to make a better life for themselves and their children. 
Already a great deal has been accomplished. Reconstruction is reducing poverty; millions of people are now able to vote; women are enjoying greater rights and economic opportunities that could have been imagined under the Taliban regime; and of Afghan children who are now in school studying the same things Canadian kids are learning back home.
These are important victories for the people of Afghanistan, and the represent things worth standing up for.
Standing up for Canadian Values
Of course, standing up for these core Canadian values may not always be easy at times. It’s never easy for the men and women on the front lines. And there may be some who want to cut and run. 
But cutting and running is not your way.
It’s not my way.
And it’s not the Canadian way.
We don’t make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble.
We don’t and we won’t.
Conclusion
Friends, we have made real progress here. You’re work is vital to Canada. 
To the free world. 
To the Afghan people.
As you get ready to go back to work, know that I am behind you.
Your government is behind you.
And, most importantly, the Canadian people are behind you.
Thank you. God bless Canada.


----------



## MikeM (16 Mar 2006)

Good speech Mr. Harper.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Mar 2006)

Mr Tom Ring ADM (PA) emailed this to everyone in the Forces, just got mine today.  What struck me...

It was written in sound bites.  It looks ridiculous in black and white - the sentences are like 5 words long.  I realize that is the way of the world, but I still can't believe it has come to this.  It's written for people with an 8 year old's attention span.  Sad. 

Don't get me wrong, savvy of him (or his speech writer) I suppose, but a sad indictment of our society.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Mar 2006)

Who is Mr Tom Ring ADM (PA)?


----------



## Gunner (16 Mar 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Who is Mr Tom Ring ADM (PA)?



Assistant Deputy Minister (Public Affairs).  He's a bureaucrat and the head of DND public affairs.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Mar 2006)

I don't like Harper and I did not for for his party.
Harper has done the classic change of subject when thing's get hot in Dodge.
When thing's get hot you head out of Dodge by which I mean his troubles over his ethic's which are quite differant on what his campain ran on.He has deflected his domestic problem's by his BS over the Canadian people not supporting our Troop's.
The Canadian People have alway's supported us where ever we have gone.
It's all Politcal Spin to deflect the people away from his domestic problems ,which in my own opionion will grow and I don't like being used as a poltical foil for one mans ambition!!


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Thank you. God bless Canada.



While I am quite heartened to read that a PM said this, I can tell you for certain this closing is fast becoming an issue for the left- they are calling it a Georgism.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

It is good that Prime Minister Harper is working to educate the public on our mission. So long as we are committed there, we firm and consistent backing. Mr Layton and Mr Grahm have already answered any need for a debate by their *eloquent silence* on the matter since 2002, when Canadian troops were first sent into action in Afghanistan. Like the bleating over ethics, if it was good enough for Mr Dithers, what has changed now for Mr Layton or Mr Grahm?

I do agree a public debate will be needed should the government decide to extend or change the mission in any substantial way. Going into Herat in Western Afghanistan or adding a second battlegroup to Kandahar would be examples of what might be considered "triggers" demanding a parliamentary debate. Until that time, however.....


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2006)

"Georgism."

 As in John GEORGE Diefenbaker?  Only George we ever had.  No disrespect to George V, George VI, etc.

Tom


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Mar 2006)

Um I don't want to assume your being sarcastic but I believe the George in question is George Bush.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

Now that I think about it, the real speech we need to hear should be from the Afghans themselves. If President Hamid Karzai needs a template, we could always offer Sir Winston Churchill:



> No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran; after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat war -- the first Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand's breadth; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live. How long the war would last or in what fashion it would end, no man could tell, nor did I at this moment care. Once again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutiliated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals. Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder. All the rest was merely the proper application of overwhelming force. The British Empire, the Soviet Union, and now the United States, *bound together with every scrap of their life and strength, were, according to my lights, twice or even thrice the force of their antagonists. No doubt it would take a long time. I expected terrible forfeits in the East; but all this would be merely a passing phase. United we could subdue everybody else in the world. Many disasters, immeasurable cost and tribulation lay ahead, but there was no more doubt about the end.*
> 
> Silly people -- and there were many, not only in enemy countries -- might discount the force of the United States. *Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people*. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before -- that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate." *Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful.*


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Now that I think about it, the real speech we need to hear should be from the Afghans themselves. If President Hamid Karzai needs a template, we could always offer Sir Winston Churchill:



Not a single five word soundbite in there, would never fly.


----------



## clk320 (20 Mar 2006)

Not sure if you guys caught the news on Radio Canada I would presume this evening but morning for us overseas Celine Galipeau just did a speech comparison of Mr. Harper (while he was in Afghanistan) and Mr. Bush (back in march while he addressed the troops in Iraq).  Basically it's the same speech, same message and same gestures except United States was replace by Canada.  Sounds a bit disturbing.  I am trying to find the link but to no avail.  Someone should tell the PM office  to check things out before...my gosh


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Mar 2006)

and what is the problem with sounding proactive.
P.S. comparing Iraq to A Stan or Nam for that matter is silly.


----------



## The Gues-|- (20 Mar 2006)

clk320 said:
			
		

> Not sure if you guys caught the news on Radio Canada I would presume this evening but morning for us overseas Celine Galipeau just did a speech comparison of Mr. Harper (while he was in Afghanistan) and Mr. Bush (back in march while he addressed the troops in Iraq).  Basically it's the same speech, same message and same gestures except United States was replace by Canada.  Sounds a bit disturbing.  I am trying to find the link but to no avail.  Someone should tell the PM office  to check things out before...my gosh



Or... someone should tell you not to be so gullible.

I'm sure the PMO knows the difference between a war(Iraq) and a struggle(Afghanistan).  The public just needs a greater understanding of why it is in our best interest to be over there.  I can see why so many people are questioning our involvement... because they have a lack of knowledge.  Every time they open their mouth about "it's not in our interest because it's not our problem" type shit, they just look stupid.  It's amazing... the one's most likely to accuse the American's of being arrogant and selfish are the lefty's who say we shouldn't be over there because it isn't our war.  I bet if we were invaded they would still be marching the streets in protest with this Celine Galipeau at the front of the pack.  Well.... maybe a close second behind Mr. Layton and the NDP.  We're never going to risk our own national security because some people protest what they don't fully understand in the first place.  There are a lot of them and those are the people who our soldiers are laying their lives down for.  Without them they couldn't protest for peace because there would be laws against it once *we* were invaded and being occupied.  What would they whine about then?.. "Man life was a hell of a lot better when we had people who wanted to stand for what we believed in and volunteered to go half-way around the world to fight someone else's battles.  We should of had an Army! Doh! Too late... now I'm an Islam."  It's finally nice to know where our government stands.  Thanks Harper!


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2006)

I guess you never saw 22 Minutes little take on it.

Now in today's papers there are Letters to the Editor protesting Harper's "God Bless Canada" statements.   Even worse:  Steven Harper took kids to see The Shaggy Dog.  Why do we have so many Wing Nuts in this country?


----------



## mike01 (28 Mar 2006)

What? A PM that accualy cares about the CF? No way! That's a first in my lifetime! Well is anyone realy suprised his first international visit as PM was to Afghanistan? A major Conservative Party election platform was to boost the CF. Good on ya, sir.


----------

