# Should Canada lead the fight in Afghanistan?



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2006)

Reproduced below, in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is the *debate*, in the pages of today’s _Globe and Mail_, between Minister O’Connor and the defence sritics from the BQ, Liberals and NDP re: the question:

_"WHEREAS the Government of Afghanistan has requested international assistance to protect its new administration and to ensure the country's peaceful transition to democracy,

BE IT RESOLVED that Canada should deploy Canadian Forces to Aghanistan in a NATO combat mission in furtherance of this objective."_

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060227.wxafghandebate0227/BNStory/Afghanistan/home 


> Should Canada lead the fight in Afghanistan?
> 
> *They are not debating that question in Parliament. So we're debating it in The Globe and on globeandmail.com*
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (27 Feb 2006)

I think its about time we started discussing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, but it is a day late and a dollar short. Like it or not we are there, we are committed.  A believe the MND has it correct, time for an open debate in parliament is long past; this should have been carried out long ago. Discussing the issue in the press is simply freedom of the press and democracy in action.

I hope and believe that the Government will continue to clarify its intent and continue to support the military carrying on with the assigned mission. To back pedal and waffle at this point in time will be a complete morale killer for those in the military undertaking difficult missions and their families back home.


----------



## Pte_Martin (27 Feb 2006)

I think it's funny how the only one who thinks we should have had or should have a debate about it is the NDP Dawn Black, She mentions about the 4 that dies of friendly fire but says nothing about how good we are doing now, or about the guys over now


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Feb 2006)

Should Canada lead the fight in Afghanistan? How do you mean ? Take command of all forces in theater ?


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Feb 2006)

Maybe have all NATO forces except US under Canadian control? Just an idear.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Just an idear.


You from Jamaica?

Anyway, I thought that that was the plan.  Freeing up the Americans to move to other locals.  Probably like we did in Bosnia and several times since.  Set up a Multi-national Command, and then rotate through countries for Commander positions.


----------



## KevinB (1 Mar 2006)

: My god my fellow Canadian are full of themselves.

The bayonets on the ground free up maybe 1000 US CBT Arms troops.  It has NO tactical significance -- it is a strategic bonus for adding to the coalition and the fact an ally is willing to enter the fray in one of the more active areas o f Afghanistan, but people thinking that Canada is LEADING had better give their head a shake.

Mind You listening to the Brits you'd think they had taken over all Combat operations in Afghan  :


Back to the commentary by the Politicians -- I love that comment by the Bloc bozo about beign against Fragmentation bombs sicne they don't know friend or foe - I think it would be illuminating to explain to them about weapons and warfare -- and none of my weapons descriminate friend or foe -- that is why the Queen owns the bullet until you pull the tirgger then you do (or in my case the US Gov't owns the bullet until I accept responsibility for it by sending it downrange)

I get a kick of Canada's tea party politicing in this respect.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

PUBLICATION:  National Post 
DATE:  2006.03.01 
EDITION:  National 
SECTION:  Letters 
PAGE:  A15 
BYLINE:  Michael Shannon 
SOURCE:  National Post 
WORD COUNT:  219 

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

Wrong way to win the Afghan peace

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

Re: Waging Peace In Afghanistan, Chris Wattie, Feb. 25. 

Why are Afghan soldiers not capable of patrolling Kandahar? For the cost of the Canadian contingent, we could have easily raised and equipped several Afghan brigades, if not divisions. Moreover, the delivery of humanitarian aid by combat troops is the least cost-effective method. 

I have spent time in Afghanistan training the Afghan National Army, and I worry that Canada has not thought out the nuts and bolts of how to get the anti-government Afghans on side. The high cost of the Canadian mission, short tour length, non-existent language skills and focus on force protection make waging a successful counter-insurgency campaign in the Pashtun tribal areas very unlikely. It's not that the Canadian Forces may not be able to kill a few guerrillas. It's that killing them is pointless (as the Soviets found out) and in fact simply stirs the hornet's nest. 

So why are we in Afghanistan? One: so our politicians and diplomats can get the photos ops and invitations to conferences they crave. Two: the military badly needs justification for its massive budget and reassurance that it's taken seriously. Don't look for justifications for our acts in tactics or strategy; look for careerism in the federal government. 

Michael Shannon, Baghdad, Iraq.


----------



## Koenigsegg (1 Mar 2006)

Why does it seem like the author of that article does not know too much...
I may be off base with this one, but, Is it just me, or is situation with the Afghan soldiers similar to that of the new Iraqi soldiers; They're incompetent.  Being trained by a pro does not mean you are going to become a pro.  I would not want to put the future of a nation in the hands of a military force that was not very effective before the War started, much less now.
The war we are fighting is far different from that of the Soviet invasion.  Guerrilla warfare is extremely effective when you are at a technological and numerical disadvantage.  The Soviets were not killing as many Mujahideen as they thought.  On top of that, the Stingers the fighters had were causing a lot of grief for the Soviet helicopters, troops, and transport.  The combination of dropping Morale, with worse than expected results will make it seem like one is doing far worse than one really is doing.  The Mujahideen were also excellent at ambushing pretty much any Soviet force after much trial and error.
The forces the coalition is facing now, for what the news, and government wishes to tell the public, are not out in as great of numbers at any one place or time as they were in the Soviet war.  Nor are they as skilled with ambushing and staying around to elimninate as much of the force as they cane before they WANT to pull out of the fight (just like the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War(the staying around part is key, as they can ambush still)).  Like I said before, from what the news, and government wishes to tell the public, they just use bombs, RPGs and their firearms in hit and run tactics.  I am not saying this is how it really happens all the time, But it seems like the "terrorists" know that they won't win in a full on confrontation with Coalition forces, so they are pushing to kill morale, and use media and politics to push the troops out (like Vietnam).  It is authors like the one of the ariticle just posted that are helping - without knowing it - the Taliban, or terrorists, or what ever one would like to call them acheive their aim.

The Soviet war was and Invasion, for maintaining Soviet interests in the area.  The war we are fighting now is supposed to be in the interest of the Afghan people, while ridding the world of a threat one person at a time.  There is a BIG difference there.
What other ways of  winning "the Afghan peace" does  Shannon propose?

Keep in mind I am a civilian going off my research and studies, I have not been there, service men and women will a much better knowledge of what is going on now than I would.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Mar 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/members/10586;sa=summary


----------



## Bartok5 (1 Mar 2006)

Don't make the mistake of assigning credibility to anything written by our very own "Michael Shannon".  First off, the name is simply a pseudonym for a mediocre ex-regular force infantry officer who then drifted to the RCMP (and left under a cloud), then drifted to the Reserve Infantry (and left under a cloud), and is now working as a contractor in Iraq.  Not much in the way of "critical analysis" credentials.  The fact of the matter is that he is an ex-serving malcontent with a huge chip on his shoulder.  Do a search for his posts on this site and form your own judgements.  His perceptions WRT what is right and wrong with the current CF are indelibly coloured by his own rather narrow and outdated experiences.

Better yet, "Mr Shannon" purports to condemn the current Canadian efforts in Afghanistan all the while working as a US-sanctioned security contractor in support of "G.W. Bush's illegal war" in Iraq.  I would hope that the manifest irony and self-defeating contradictions of "Mr Shannon's" current employment are not entirely lost on the CGN constituency.....  

All of the above to say, "disregard".  He is a half-baked and ill-informed malcontent who managed to get himself published at the National Post's misguided expense in seeking "contrary views".  

Not to mention the fact that he won't even post here (or elsewhere) under his real name.  OPSEC?  I don't think so.  Unless you subscribe to his rather peculiar and totally unwarranted sense of "James Bondishness".

Trust me - it is time to move along.  There is nothing to see here.....


----------



## Koenigsegg (1 Mar 2006)

Holy crappola, that was well put.  Quite funny when you brought the irony and hypocracy into it.  Maybe YOU should write for the newspaper, and not just a letter, but a column.
I was not totally sure what that profile link was for, so I searched around and I did indeed notice that he was not exactly the most well informed, or prolific writer on this website.
Thanks for clearing that up, and not shooting me down in any area where I could have been wrong.
I will heed your order, or suggestion and "Move along".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2006)

I only put the link up because, unlike Mark C, I only had second-hand knowledge of "Michael Shannon". 
[ strangly enough it wasn't as nice as Mark's]


----------

