Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[Chilly]

a_majoor,

Thanks for posting this letter, not only is it a well written, but a well thought out opinion which many within the military agree with.

And as the writer simply states at the end of the letter, in reference to our elected officials in Ottawa "Our soldiers deserve better from you."

Chilly

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

How we can lose in Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-we-can-lose-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Flanker]

Canada is in Afghanistan today to –

• help Afghanistan rebuild;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

In 1979 when Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, we heard a lot stuff like that.
Then Soviets were heavily critisized for their mission and trying to prevent developping a terrorist movement on the USSR south border.
We fought with terrorists financed and armed by the US government and some of its allies.

Now the NATO troops are there again. We hear the same nice words from the Canadian media.
Nothing changed.

One must understand that the real solution for the Afghan problem is not democracy, presidential elections or NATO military presence.

It is economy. E-C-O-N-O-M-Y.

Soviets heavily invested in the Afghan economy and infrastructure.
Nothing similar is done now by NATO countries.

I am sorry for Canadian soldiers and officiers duying there just because of the Canadian politicians fearing their US big brothers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canada is in Afghanistan today to –

• help Afghanistan rebuild;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

In 1979 when Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, we heard a lot stuff like that.
Then Soviets were heavily critisized for their mission and trying to prevent developping a terrorist movement on the USSR south border.
We fought with terrorists financed and armed by the US government and some of its allies.

Now the NATO troops are there again. We hear the same nice words from the Canadian media.
Nothing changed.

One must understand that the real solution for the Afghan problem is not democracy, presidential elections or NATO military presence.

It is economy. E-C-O-N-O-M-Y.

Soviets heavily invested in the Afghan economy and infrastructure.
Nothing similar is done now by NATO countries.

I am sorry for Canadian soldiers and officiers duying there just because of the Canadian politicians fearing their US big brothers.

Look HERE, Flanker, at the last paragraph.  The Ruxted Group's advice to Lawrence Martin applies equally to you.

You are right that we are in Afghanistan because of big brother USA.  The prime minster of the day (back in 2003) wanted to find a way to get and keep Canadian troops too busy to go to Iraq.  He didn't want to say, "No, Mr. President, Canada does not believe Iraq is a good operation."  He didn't believe it was a bad operation - just one which was unpopular in Quebec.  Instead he wanted to say, "Sorry, Mr. President, but we are too busy fighting your war on terror to join you in Iraq."  Thus he sent his defence minister to Brussels to beg and borrow our way into ISAF.  His successor sent us to Kandahar because, primarily, the public relations experts liked the sound of provincial reconstruction better than Kabul security.  The problem was that the PM wasn't very quick off the mark and all the nice, safe provincial reconstruction teams were 'taken' by the Europeans.  You do recall who those prime minsiters were, don't you Flanker?  Just in case, their names were Chretien and Martin and they led Liberal governments.

But that's an aside.

Only the terminally stupid (which takes in most of the Canadian left and the terrorists apologists and accomplices in the peace movement (maybe better named the kill the Jews movement)) believe that there is any relationship between what we (Canada, NATO and ISAF) are doing and what the bloody Russians tried to do.

 

[observor 69]

Only the terminally stupid (which takes in most of the Canadian left and the terrorists apologists and accomplices in the peace movement (maybe better named the kill the Jews movement)) believe that there is any relationship between what we (Canada, NATO and ISAF) are doing and what the bloody Russians tried to do.

Thanks for my evening smile Mr. Campbell.

 

[Flanker]

Yeah, that is worth a smile.

Mr. Campbell

Let's put the offensive terms aside. They do not help mutual understanding.  

It does not matter how to call, "bloody Russians" or "nice Canadians", the missions are basically the same: to overthrow the existing government, to put a controlled president, and to help him suppress any opposition. Point.

All that stuff like "democracy", "freedom" or "international duty" is no more than buzz words "a la mode". Nothing more. A killed civilian would not be more happy to be killed for democracy than for communism. I think it is trivial.

More civilian casualties during Soviet war is explained by a longer war and larger military operations due to an active US government participation in financing and traning the opposition forces. Moreover, Soviets controlled a much larger territory, not only Kabul suburbs as NATO does actually.

What I want to say by all this?

Well, looking at "Enduring Freedom", I see no much difference comparing to any previous foreign intervention in Afghanistan. The same scenario, same pitfalls.

I predict that when NATO will leave the country the "democratically elected" president will leave also. May be by the same plane.  :

Again, I do not blame soldiers and officiers following orders and doing what they sworn to do.

But, if you look at the country history, you can easily doubt that changing a tribal society into a western-style secular country is so easy as just expropriating arms and killing "terrorists".

 

[muskrat89]

All that stuff like "democracy", "freedom" or "international duty" is no more than buzz words "a la mode"

Oh - and is that how you encourage "mutual understanding"? Tread lightly...  Differing opinions are fine, but arrogance will get you nowhere fast, on this forum.

Army.ca Staff

 

[Flanker]

I have no intention to offend anyone.
Let's put the words in the right context and separate government pro-war propaganda and real life.
For civilians, any war is always blood and dirt.
For a country's natives, foreign troops and a foreign order brought by them are pretty always artificial.
In that sense, a war for democracy and war for communism have no difference.

 

[cavalryman]

Son, you should never come to a gunfight armed with a knife, or to a debate armed with nothing more than polemics, and pretty weak ones at that.  Just one "for example" to demolish your argument.  Considering that fascism and communism are pretty much the same animal, i.e. totalitarian regimes with a tendency towards genocide, let's reach back 60+ years into history and look at Europe (or the Far East, if you want - I can pull examples galore from either theatre). 

For a country's natives, foreign troops and a foreign order brought by them are pretty always artificial.

Go ahead and ask the Belgians, Dutch and others what they thought of foreign troops and foreign order under a) German occupation and b) Allied liberation.  I think you'll find that there is a wee bit of a difference

In that sense, a war for democracy and war for communism have no difference.

Again, history has proven that there is somewhat of a difference - it's so obvious to any well-read person that I suggest some reading of your own to broaden your horizons.  Using my WW2 analogy, I doubt anyone would equate, morally or otherwise, the German (and Soviet - up to 1941) wars of aggression with the Allied effort to eliminate said aggression.

Let's put the words in the right context and separate government pro-war propaganda and real life.

Real life, son?  I suggest you talk to anyone who has served in Afghanistan for some first hand experience with real life.  That being said, we can leave the propaganda to the polemicists.

 

[Flanker]

Cavalryman,

Sorry, but you completely missed my point.
The WWII example is also inappropriate because the european countries were liberated from a foreign fascist regime.
But as a good example, you can look at the difference between the afterwar Western and Eastern Europe and changes that happened after USSR withdrew its troops in the 80-90-s.

Now, what is the real life?
The real life is that actually we are observing an attempt to deliver democracy in Afghanistan at bayonet points.
I do not question the work done by soldiers and officiers but that evolution way has never worked in the past considering that Afghanistan is a tribal muslim society. Mass civilian casualties also do not add trust to foreigners.

There are just things that money and arms cannot buy. It does not matter how strongly you believe in the mission goals.

In many cases, a native will support and undestand better a Taliban fighter than a good-intentionned Western soldier. We saw that every day in the 80-s during the Afghan war. This is not a difference between communism and democracy, this is simply a big cultural and religion difference and "foreigner" effect.

 

[Samsquanch]

Flanker you want a taste of real life...... an estimated 35% of gross domestic product around 2.7 billion is earned through illicit poppy cultivation. Despite massive injections of foreign aid the majority of the Afghan population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing and medical care, with three out of ten children dying before the age of five half of those survive being malnourished. The UN estimates 35,000 Afghan children died in 2006 alone from measles simply because they were not vaccinated. The UN de-mining commission has stated that at the current rate of clearance it will take 500 years to clear the mines from Afghanistan completely.

Get a grip they need us and other countries to help out.... be it bayonet point or not. 

 

[observor 69]

Flanker you do realize that we [ISAF] would love to get the hellout of Afghanistan? Our one and only goal is to put the country in a state where it can determine it's on destiny. This is not a popular objective with the Taliban who are using force and terror in an effort to regain control of Afghanistan.
For a further explanation your homework is to follow the advice given by previous comments. Start reading broadly on the goals and methods of ISAF. In fact read the discussions and links on this site and you will get a good education on this topic. Enduring Freedom is primarily an American effort but again they would like nothing better than to see a stable Afghanistan. Let me add that there orders come from a Bush government which has a credibility problem.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yeah, that is worth a smile.
...

It does not matter how to call, "bloody Russians" or "nice Canadians", the missions are basically the same: to overthrow the existing government, to put a controlled president, and to help him suppress any opposition. Point.

All that stuff like "democracy", "freedom" or "international duty" is no more than buzz words "a la mode". Nothing more. A killed civilian would not be more happy to be killed for democracy than for communism. I think it is trivial.

...

Well that certainly falls into the category of tales which are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  You can decide for yourself if you fall into the Bard's definition of the tale-tellers.  All I can say is that your knowledge of history and current affairs is so weak as to be worse than useless.

 

[Flanker]

Flanker you want a taste of real life...... an estimated 35% of gross domestic product around 2.7 billion is earned through illicit poppy cultivation.
...
Get a grip they need us and other countries to help out.... be it bayonet point or not. 

I think you are missing some facts.

1. The poppy production soared since NATO invaded the country. What a coincidence!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday.

A younger brother of Karzai is "a prominent figure in the global drug trade, controlling a significant proportion of Afghan heroin production"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1381860,00.html

2. They may be need us. But before entering a sovereign country, we would be better to ask what exactly they need from us. When you need financial help, you will not appreciate someone entering your house, killing your relatives, destructing your goods and establishing his rules, just because that is how the invader "sees" your future.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

1. 5 years old, got anything recent. [ actually your "Karzai" story disputes your first claim, maybe you should read your links first?]
2. We provide only what they ask, if the Govt. asks us to leave, we do. 

Anything relevent to add?

 

[Flanker]

Our one and only goal is to put the country in a state where it can determine it's on destiny.

In that case, be ready to stay there for the next century or so.

No doubt that you have good intentions.
The problem is that the Afghan people does not undestand these intentions as you undestand them.
They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that. 

Do you think "freedom" and "democracy" are properly undestood and fit any country accros the world?
You would be surprised but it is not the case. There is a question of an evolution path that the country should follow.
Let them decide without an external military presence.

 

[Flanker]

2. We provide only what they ask, if the Govt. asks us to leave, we do. 

I will be greatly surprised if the marionnette government sitting under your military protection ask you to leave.
That would be suicidal for them and they know it. So you can stay as long as you want.
But do not expect Afghans will love you for anything you are doing there.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that. 

You racist little tweeb......

You would be surprised but it is not the case. There is a question of an evolution path that the country should follow.

In the meantime we sit back and let 1000's upon 1000's  be slaughtered, uneducated, and convinced that all Infidels should die?
Get real.....

Let them decide without an external military presence.

Didn't realize Osama was from there.....

 

[aesop081]

They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that. 

No it does not......chose your words carefully as i am alot less patient than others here

 

[George Wallace]

Now, what is the real life?

Having read most of your posts, I am glad you have made that statement.  I don't believe you have a full grasp on what is real and what isn't.  You are writing as if you are affiliated in someway with the CPA, and we all know here that they are strong sympathizers of all that is Anti-American, Anti-Zionist, Anti-Democratic, and Anti-Capitalist.  In the past they favoured the Communist philosophies and with the fall of the Wall, have switched to supporting Islamist Fundamentalists.  

There are just things that money and arms cannot buy. It does not matter how strongly you believe in the mission goals.

In many cases, a native will support and undestand better a Taliban fighter than a good-intentionned Western soldier.

You have contradicted yourself.  It seems that the Taliban are able to do a lot with money and arms.  It seems they have no problem raising 'Believers' to follow their mission goals.  

Perhaps you ought to be addressing them, in your naive outlook on how peace can be brought to that Region.  I am sure a few here will gladly chip in to buy you airfare to that part of the world.  We will even pay the more expensive 'one way' fare for you.   ;D