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

[Flip]

there's a serious lack of objectivity in this thread, with sentence like: this is right!

or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, Canada got attacked by none, correct me if I'm wrong.

Getting attacked in another country is legitimate defence, i guess, yeah the afghan official gov. is behind us after all. As it was behind the Russian in the 80's.

i dint c much difference back then and now, besides the difference in number and equipment.

There is an ethnic and cultural divide between a northern majority and a southern minority.
The taliban evolved from the later.  By any and all accounts they are not a nice bunch.
(objective so far)

Assuming your point is we have no business being there at all and for the sake of argument,
conceding that point.  Would it be OK to let this criminal organization continue to
run Afghanistan into the bronze age and terrorize anyone who disagreed with them?

We in the west generally let those who live differently continue on that path until
their mess spills over into our yard. Then we act.

Consider the logical outcome of your argument. Is leaving Afghanistan in the least bit tenable?  Is the Taliban acceptable as government?  Is it responsible to leave it to Afghans
alone?

The Taliban is a criminal organization with sympathizers and allies all over the world.
How long should we stand idly by?

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

there's a serious lack of objectivity in this thread, with sentence like: this is right!

or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, canada got attacked by none, correct me if i'm wrong.

Getting attacked in another country is legitimate defence, i guess, yeah the afghan official gov. is behind us after all. As it was behind the russian in the 80's.

i dont c much difference back then and now, besides the difference in number and equipment.

First,  let me compliment you on your English, you write it very well.  I think I see what  you meant and I do see how others will understand what you've written.  I have to agree with you that most of the postings on this thread are tendentious.  However I want to dispute your other assertions.

1)  It wasn't a military attack by a legitimate government.  True the Taliban Government was only actively supplying Al-quida and giving them assistance and encouragement in attacking us.  They also used their military forces to protect the terrorists.  In law,  if you know someone is going to commit a crime,  and you do nothing - you're a criminal too.  If you assist them,  you're a criminal too.  If you protect them from justrice afterwards, you're a criminal too.  Governments are responsible for their borders,  and what is inside their country.  The taliban government refused to help us, or to allow us to do what we needed to do to ensure our own safety.  They, al-quida and the Taliban  even alluded to more attacks and made more threats - threats they've proven they are capable and willing to follow through on.  Under Article 51 of the UN charter we had the right (and obligation) to act.

Now for the second part,  yes it was the USA that was attacked,  however Article 5 in NATO charter says that "

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. "

(Because USA was attacked,  we were attacked.)

    Your assertion that there isn't much difference between us being there and the Soviets- We are there because we need to remove a threat.  Afghanistan was being used as a base from which attacks against us and other NATO members were launched.  The Soviets were there for strategic resources and other political aims.  We want to build Afghanistan to be a prosperous Nation with complete freedom of religion.  The Soviets wanted to oppress the country, strip it of its resources and make everyone Atheist.  The Soviets were there against the wishes of the UN,  we are there with the support and help of the UN along with many other UN countries.

:warstory:

 

[LordOsborne]

The fact that Coderre thinks that we have "done our bit" in Afghanistan by 2009 is just sad. These people have seen nothing but strife and war for longer than they can remember. We're just a small blip on their history. I'm not seeing the logic in leaving before the job is done. Either way... I know right now two parties I won't be voting for, come election time...

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

Your statement is well organized, thanks for your time.

911 was a armed attacked. i got no objection on that, but the hi-jackers were almost all Saudis...Afghanistan was used as a training base, but the point i'm unsure is the link between Al-Qaeda, mujahiddins and talebans. Im unsure if it's all the same people were talking about...Talebans really never held the whole country, the power in Afghanistan is by far un-centralized. To take down Al-Qaeda couldn't we just have used sat imagery, and send in commandos to take them down? are we exceeding self-defence? And will it solve the problem? It's unlikely that extremists will pour water in their wine, but if we can manage to give a job to every(or so) afghans rather than pour tons of soldiers, talebans manpower might melt like ice on a sunny spring day.

By my nature i'm totally against religious integrism...why? Because they don't question anything, allah, coran or mullah whoever/whatever said it, we have to do it, why questionning absolute? I'm not going to tag anyone as a sofa warrior, a war monger, or whatever.

I'm not against the use of military force in Afghanistans, but what are the criterias to say: we're done there. I'm not hearing anything about that in the media...i just hear thrown dates there and date, oh 2009, might be 2010. Might as well admit that you don't know. I'm ignorant.

Sorry about the 3rd grader english, i'm trying.

 

[HItorMiss]

When the going gets tough the Liberals get going!

But did anyone here truly expect anything different from them or the NDP?

Hmmmm I have more to say actually.... The CF and it's personnel have always and will always be a political tool for the Liberals more so then just a tool of foreign policy as the Military always is with most nations. The Liberals view us as something to be used to gather votes wether by deploying us or removing us. Now take into account of course that they will never ever fund us as spending on the military runs counter to the Canadian populaces priority list of things things they wish to see the tax money go to and of course that the Liberals always govern by poll's and you get a  glimpse of how they view the CF and it's role in their governing policy.

When we die to a Liberal it means watch the poll's and see which way the winds blow on the mission and that is it. The current party has never and will never think of us as anything else.

EDIT: Spelling and Clarity

 

[GAP]

When the going get's tough the LIberals get going!

But did anyone here truely expect anything different from them or the NDP?

No, but it sure is fun jumping up and down on them in pure stomping mode.....  ;D

 

[childs56]

The mission was always planned for far beyond 2009. It was untill 2012 if I remember.
The emphasis was to be away from war and into reconstruction.

Problem is the Libs wanted all the glory but none of the guts.
They wanted to waltz into Afganistan, save the world and look good at doing it.
Problem, the enemy wants to prolong the war so that Countrys will loose heart and such as Liberals will use pulling out as a ploy to win an election. Then they real harm will begin.
We will of lost the war, lost the people lost the support of the locals and our own and lost the will to go back and do it over again but this time at a much higher cost. 
Problem is this time we will be up agaisnt a much harder and stronger enemy. We will be forever dealing with them if we do nto eradicate them now.

Liberals making a promise to with draw is like promising your G/F your going to with draw. It doesnt happen at the best of times.

Personally I think every member of Parliment should have to serve 6 months as a shadow follower on the the Afganistan Politicle scene prior to them continuing employment in Canada. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

In the House debate on the Liberal motion to stop combat in 2009, Taliban Jack (the NDP will not support the motion because they want the troops out ASAP!) and his cohorts called for settling everything by negotiating with the Taliban.

National Defence critic Dawn Black even quoted Churchill: "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

Ms Black is obviously unfamiliar with what Mr Churchill said after the Munich Agreement:

"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Mark
Ottawa

 

[smitty66]

Glad to see that these sorry excuses for Canadians can use the deaths of members of the CF to score political points and rev up for an election. If our forefathers had the intestinal fortitude of these clowns we'd either be "Seig Heiling" or speaking Russian! I cringe to think what the world would look like if the NDP or this iteration of the Liberals were in power in 1939.
Hopefully they will have the same attitude when it comes to the next election campaign, "Election campaign is half over... I guess our work here is done!"

Sickening.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

This is the same Denis Coderre leading the charge who wants to back segregated bases for aboriginals. Is any reasonable Canadian really listening to this gang?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Denis the Thug must appeal to some audience.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[smitty66]

Denis the Thug must appeal to some audience.

Pretty sad statement about the Canadian public isn't it? 
Mr Co-Derrier...oops, the Liberals expert on National Defense matters is only overshadowed in his ignorance by the ever misinformed Dawn Black. Have any of these people actually seen any Army guy?

 

[Fraz]

First of all let me agree with all of the posts above.  The truly sad part is that both Liberals and NDP refuse to understand, that in order for the PRT to operate effectively (reconstruction, aid, all various NGO's, development of economy and ANA/ANP, etc...) you have to secure the areas in which you are doing those reconstruction efforts. The old phrase you can't have one without the other plays so loudly that it's deafening. We've lost too many people, and invested too much time, and the effort expended to gain the tenuous trust/cooperation of the local population to ie: cut and run, or find another NATO country to take over (there at the present time is none willing to do that in our AO due to 'head in the sand' syndrome clearly in line with the NDP and now Liberal stance) Open, and coherent debate is necessary and needs to govern where, why and how we are sent on operations abroad, however... it needs to be intelligent debate which has been all but missing from the current opposition parties motions/comments/ policies.  The absurd naivete of the parties in question only goes to show the old 'Fireproof House' mentality of isolationsonism 1930's politicians.  Obviously we need to make clear the objectives to ordinary Canadians because to those that are uninformed average citizens, all they see on the news is our ramp ceremonies, and news of casualties and various ops and the outcries of the opposition. ie: when was the last time the media covered one of the medical clinics we provided? Not to say that we only tow the line of the supposed 'Imperialist Americans' but we do what's right and stick up for the little guy in this case the people of Afghanistan and get them on their feet, so we don't have to come back in 20 years or so because someone blew up something in Canada as an example.  
We do need to discuss the conditions necessary to reevaluate our mission/objectives, but not in the sense of some arbitrary date which only gives missplaced hope to the enemy.  But, it needs to be constructive debate not just ignorant ramblings of how any military action is abhorrent to the NDP.  Our actions over there need to succeed in order to reverse the situation of a failed/fledgling state and thereby stabilizing the region and helping fellow human beings.  There is no oil or alterior motives (to my knowledge anyways) to our being in Afghanistan (regardless of fmr. PM Chretien's motive for sending us to avoid Iraq if it was the case) but rather to do the right thing.  To do otherwise as these opposition parties suggest only means that the newest names on cenotaphs across the country have been in vain, and for those (good friends of mine included) I refuse to allow that injustice to happen.
When the ANA, ANP and the Afghan government can independently operate and bring order control to Afghanistan can we then withdraw.. to even contemplate otherwise is foolhardy and selfish...
Rant off...

 

[observor 69]

Watched Don Newman this afternoon on CBC interviewing a panel consisting of Laurie Hawn, Denis Coderre and Audrey McLaughlin.

Hawn  don't pull out
Coderre  pull out Feb 2009
McLaughin  pull out now

At one point I had to smile, McLaughin is going on about how we must pull out now and start doing peaceful projects and Hawn is at the other end grimacing and turning his head from side to side.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch (note the last para):

Choose your Churchill
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/choose-your-churchill.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jon-G]

I may not be as informed on Canadian politics as I should be, especially in regards to this subject, but I agree that it would serve no beneficial purpose to withdraw. Whether we withdraw now, or in 2009, the job will not be done (as many have pointed out). We are at war- war brings casualties. This country has been so far removed from this way of thinking for so long that many Canadians (politicians or not) cannot stomach it. I hate seeing ramp ceremonies as much as the next man, but that is the price of progress. It makes me sick the way CF members' lives can be used as pawns in a political scheme, absolutely sick.

 

[LordOsborne]

In the House debate on the Liberal motion to stop combat in 2009, Taliban Jack (the NDP will not support the motion because they want the troops out ASAP!) and his cohorts called for settling everything by negotiating with the Taliban.

National Defence critic Dawn Black even quoted Churchill: "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

Ms Black is obviously unfamiliar with what Mr Churchill said after the Munich Agreement:

"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Mark


Ottawa

Another Churchill quote I love is "Every country has an army.. either their own, or someone else's."

 

[Exarecr]

Any Liberal comment on Defence should centre on tokenism, and how it benefits banana Republics. However, to see Coderre ramble on with such visually contemptuous glee about the Military Mission in Afghanistan which he so very obviously knows nothing about is typical of Liberal arrogance. Can,t wait for the next great Liberal think tank as Dion and Coderre debate the future of the gas operated rifle should they "go green".

 

[MarkOttawa]

Bit crossbows kill people too.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Steenburg]

Wasn't a high ranking Taliban quoited recently as stating something like, "All we need is to kill a few more Canadian soldiers, and their government will pull out of the war"  Why the government is not throwing this in the oppositions face and showing Canadians how the libs and the N.D.P. are playing into the Talibans hands? I know during the next election I'm going to saying at NDP rallies "Yep they are the Talibans choice". And lets face it if the Libs had won the last election we would have probably withdrawn by now. And the free world would be saying old cut and run Canada sure isn't what it used to be. Also the new aircraft would not have been bought let alone a new battle tank.