• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

The utter lack of fortitude and guts, as well as the false concern for the troops, shown by any Canadian political leader taking this unsupportable approach totally disgusts me. I am sorry I ever marked a ballot for the worthless party hacks that spout this nonsense.
 
We've made an investment of blood and personnel there.  We need to finish the job not just because it's the right thing to do but also so that they haven't died in vain
 
All this is going to do is backfire against the Liberals, and deservedly so.

Imagine this: the motion passes. The PM comments that it's a blatant flip flop, but does acknowledge some concerns. He then declares that Canada will withdraw the BG in 2009, leaving the PRT, an IMAT-like unit, a SAT, and some critical enablers. He's cornered those Canadians who think we've done our bit but don't want to cut and run, while keeping the hardcore "stand until we win" types like us. Dion get pushed into crowded left with Taliban Jack and discredited amongst middle-class non-Toronto voters, who pretty much determine who wins elections. The PM wins the day - he keeps Canada from squandering our sacrifices, keeps our influence within NATO, and garners the support of even a Democratic US President.

The Liberals, in chasing polls, are about to learn a lesson - leaders who make unpopular decisions are liked better than those incapable of doing so. They could have taken the middle ground and ended up in a advantageous position/ However, because they've followed the public's knee-jerk reaction to tragic events overseas, they're looking like idiots to the average Johnny Canuck in a Tim Hortons.

I hear you, they make me sick for their opportunism, as well as their stupidity.
 
Med.Tech said:
We've made an investment of blood and personnel there.  We need to finish the job not just because it's the right thing to do but also so that they haven't died in vain

Ok to be totally honest I am sick of that statement...I mean really sick of it.

NO soldiers life is ever shed in vain, leaving a mission or continuing one simply on the basis of "we lost people there" makes no sense. Guess what They were all soldiers they know/knew the risk of what they were doing. If a mission is unattainable then we withdraw if it is deemed of national importance then we continue but using the blood of those as a rally cry for something is a dishonor to them and what they stood for. We are in the end tools of the state and we take our chances as such. But please please do not think that our death (the our is everyone in the CF) as a reason to continue a futile effort for anything. We die because we do because sometimes we are told to not as a reason to have more people killed.

Lets be clear I do not think the Afghan mission to be unattainable or I would not have been there 3 times nor would I have bled there. I am just sick of that sentiment and rallying cry.

Med I just used your statement this is not a personal attack.
 
HitorMiss said:
Ok to be totally honest I am sick of that statement...I mean really sick of it.

NO soldiers life is ever shed in vain, leaving a mission or continuing one simply on the basis of "we lost people there" makes no sense. Guess what They were all soldiers they know/knew the risk of what they were doing. If a mission is unattainable then we withdraw if it is deemed of national importance then we continue but using the blood of those as a rally cry for something is a dishonor to them and what they stood for. We are in the end tools of the state and we take our chances as such. But please please do not think that our death (the our is everyone in the CF) as a reason to continue a futile effort for anything. We die because we do because sometimes we are told to not as a reason to have more people killed.

Lets be clear I do not think the Afghan mission to be unattainable or I would not have been there 3 times nor would I have bled there. I am just sick of that sentiment and rallying cry.

Med I just used your statement this is not a personal attack.

I guess I'm a little idealistic.  I don't want an argument so I'll agree to disagree.
 
I will agree that you havent a clue what your talking about anyway. You haven't the experience or the forthought to get that sentiment. Ideals are worth less then the dirt I bled in.
 
HitorMiss said:
I will agree that you havent a clue what your talking about anyway. You haven't the experience or the forthought to get that sentiment. Ideals are worth less then the dirt I bled in.

PM inbound HitorMiss. 
 
I thought this was a very interesting read as it so eloquently identifies the abandonment of the concept of universal human rights by the Left in Western Nations and just how hypocritical the position is....

Matthew.  :salute:

Betrayed
By Amir Taheri
The New York Post | April 11, 2007

While elements of the Left in the United States and Europe are calling on Western democracies to abandon Afghanistan and Iraq to the Taliban and al Qaeda and surrender to the Khomeinists in Iran, new alliances are emerging against the jihadists in the region.

In much of the Middle East, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left is part of these new alliances.

* In Iraq, two rival Communist parties, along with Social Democrats and other center-left groups, supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and continue to play a significant role in the new pluralist system. They are resolutely opposed to a premature withdrawal of American and allied forces, as demanded by the U.S. Congress.

* In Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party is at the heart of the democratic movement to against the Islamic Republic's attempt to dominate the country through its Hezbollah surrogates. The Lebanese democratic movement includes other parties of the Left, notably the Socialist Salvation Movement (Inqadh) and the Movement of the Democratic Left.

* In Iran, virtually the whole of the Left rejects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Americanism and calls for normalization of ties with the United States. The recently created independent trade-union movement is emerging as a vocal challenger to Khomeinism.

Perhaps the most interest ing new anti-jihadist alli ance, however, is taking shape in Afghanistan. After months of discussions the leaders of several parties that had fought each other for two decades have come together to set up a new alliance called Popular Front (Jibheh Melli).

One major figure in the group is Burhaneddin Rabbani - an Islamic scholar who served as Afghanistan's president after the Communist regime's collapse in 1992. As founder and leader of Jami'at Islami (Islamic Society), Rabbani was one of the first Afghan leaders who started the resistance movement against Soviet occupation. Yet Rabbani has agreed to enter the Popular Front along with leaders of Afghanistan's dissolved Communist Party.

Both rival wings of the Communist Party will be present in the new front. One wing, known as Parcham (The Banner) had always been pro-Soviet; the other, known as Shoeleh-Javid (Eternal Flame), had Maoist sentiments.

The new front will also include center-left figures such as Nuralhaq Olumi and Muhammad Gulabzvi, along with anti-Soviet mujahedin commanders such as Gen. Muhammad Qassim Fahim, a former defense minister.

Before the U.S.-led inter ventions in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, much of the Middle Eastern Left shared the views of its U.S. and European counterparts with regard to America.

"We looked to the Left in the West and imitated it," says Awad Nasir, one of Iraq's best-known poets and a life-long Communist. "We heard from the United States and Western Europe that being Left meant being anti-American. So we were anti-American. And then we saw Americans coming from the other side of the world to save us from Saddam Hussein - something that our leftist friends and the Soviet Union would never contemplate."

Mustafa Kazemi, spokesman for the new Afghan front, expresses similar sentiments. "Our nation is still facing the menace of obscurantism and terror from Taliban and al Qaeda," he says. "Thus, we are surprised when elements of the Left in the United States and Europe campaign for withdrawal so that our new democracy is left defenseless against its enemies."

Iraq's parties of the Left were shocked when the new So cialist government in Spain decided to withdraw from the U.S.-led coalition in 2004. "We had hoped that with a party of the Left in power in Madrid we would get more support against the Islamofascists, not a withdrawal," says Aziz al-Haj, the veteran Iraqi communist leader.


Tareq al-Hashemi, vice president of Iraq, has also gambled his impeccable progressive record on the success of the pluralist experiment in his country. "Our enemy is al Qaeda, not the United States," he says.

Jumblatt, the Lebanese leader, says he realized that his life-long anti-Americanism had been misplaced when he saw "long lines of people, waiting to vote in Iraq, in the first free election in an Arab country."

Samir Qassir, a Lebanese center-left leader murdered by the Syrians, often spoke of anti-Americanism as "the last refuge of the scoundrel" in the Middle East. "Politics is always a question of choice," Qassir said in one of his last articles. "Here in the Middle East, we face a choice between democracy and alliance with the United States on one hand and surrender to religious fanatics and terrorists on the other."

Skimming through the Mid dle Eastern press these days can produce unexpected results. It's not rare to see a virulently anti-American article by an American or Western European leftist - and, alongside it on the same page, a pro-American article from an Arab, Iranian or Afghan progressive figure.

In Iran, for example, Hussein Shariatmadari - the ultra-Islamist editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a theoretician of the extreme right - often admiringly cites such American leftist figures as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Jane Fonda.

Having all but abandoned its traditional opposition to capitalism and the bourgeois democratic system, much of the Western Left is forced to cling to anti-Americanism as its backbone.


To be sure, anti-Americanism is not the ailment of the Western Left alone. Extreme-right parties are also vehemently anti-American. Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the French neofascist National Front, is as opposed to the new democratic Iraq as Spain's Socialist Premier Jose Luis Zapatero.

In the Middle East, however, a good part of the Left, while not especially enamored of the United States, sees it as an ally against Islamist and totalitarian pan-Arab movements.

"Anti-Americanism is a luxury we cannot afford in the Middle East," says Adnan Hussein, a leftist Iraq writer recently picked by the Financial Times as one of the 50 most influential columnists in the world. "Blinded by anti-Americanism, the Left in the West ends up on the same side as religious fascists and despots."

Parviz Khosravi, a veteran of Iran's Communist movement, cites history as justification for the Left's rejection of "banal anti-Americanism."

"During the Second World War, all movements of the Left supported an alliance with the Western democracies led by the United States because the common enemy was Fascism," he says. "Today, we are in a similar position. Progressive forces in the Middle East are threatened by an Islamist version of Fascism. An alliance with Western democracies is not only desirable but necessary."

President Bush, the bete noire of liberals and leftists in the West, might be surprised to learn that he has a better image among liberals, leftists, secularists and even moderate Islamists in the Middle East.

While Chomsky and Moore see the United States as "an evil power," many leftists in the Middle East see it as a force for good that ended the tyranny of the Taliban in Afghanistan, dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and forced the Syrians out of Lebanon after 30 years of occupation.

"In our region, the United States has become a force for the good," says Jumblatt, who recently met President Bush at the White House for a surprise meeting.


All copyrights to New York Post 2007
 
You write English better than I understand French.  I'll be sure to look at the meanings behind what you're saying - I'm not a fan of nitpicking arguments.

A connection between the Taliban and al-Qaeda is easy to establish.  From the press conferences the taliban had saying they'd protect Osama and al-Qaeda to proof that al-Qaeda  had training camps in there.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9357/
"What was Afghanistan's role in the September 11 attacks?
Thanks to the ruling Taliban—Muslim fundamentalists who imposed radical Islamic rule on the country—Afghanistan had become a base for terrorists, namely Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda training camps. Because Afghanistan was such a chaotic place, and because the Taliban were deeply influenced by bin Laden’s philosophy, the Taliban welcomed him and his network into the country. There they could plan their attacks with less fear of reprisal because other countries were wary of entering Afghanistan."

What essentially it means is that the Taliban gave aid and refuge to those who 1) attacked us and 2) going to attack us in the future. 

If we left right after removing the Taliban government,  their armed fighters would recapsure Afghanistan inside of a Month.  So if we leave before Afghanisan s stabalised,  we'll have to go in there all over again.  There are two alternatives.  We could choose one ethnic group,  arm them to the teeth,  give them more money than they know what to do with and tell them to take over.  Insuing brutal dictatorship,  ethnic cleanings and all that jazz.  OR we could do what we're doing,  stay and allow Afganistan to devlope a stable economy, stable working government and a military infrastructure capable of exerting its national will inside of its borders.

As much as I am a fan of "contracting out" a war.  (yes that was sarcastic)  I feel proud that we're in Afghanistan.  We chose not to take the easy route,  we chose not to ignore suffering we chose not to abandon an opressed people to another horrible regieme simply because it would be to much bother to actually do what needs to be done.  We can't help everyone, everywhere - but I know we can do good there. (And we have)

There is still alot of work left to be done,  Afghanistan is not quite ready to stand on her own two legs yet.  But she is making great progress.  We knew going in there we'd be in there for a decade.  (they've known 40 some years of constant war - it will take a while to bring them into the 20th centuary)
 
I just finished reading the entire debate in Hansard.  It made me feel unclean.  On top of that, I've lost an hour I can never get back.

But one thing struck me.  If the Liberals think the Kandahar mission is doomed to fail, then why did they send the CF down there from Kabul in the first place?  And if they don't think it's doomed, then why don't they focus on fixing what they think the gov't is doing wrong instead of advocating a withdrawal?

If it's the right job, but the wrong execution, then change the execution, not the job.  Viewed in that light, the resolution doesn't make any sense.

Which leads me to believe the Liberals don't see our Afghan mission as a vital foreign affairs issue, but rather as a wedge issue with the electorate.  This motion they introduced isn't about putting Canada's mission on a firmer path, but rather about making a move in a domestic political game.

That they cannot think beyond partisan politics for even the shortest of moments is extremely disheartening.
 
Perhaps after 54 deaths and climbing the Liberals thought Canada had make it's fair share of sacrifice and it was time for another NATO country to step up.
Which raises the next question, how much time, money and sacrifice does NATO/UN give before the Afghanistan people develop a stable country?
Apparently the Taliban have unlimited amounts of time and people to sacrifice, a tactic that worked for them in the past.
 
Perhaps after 54 deaths and climbing the Liberals thought Canada had make it's fair share of sacrifice and it was time for another NATO country to step up.
Which raises the next question, how much time, money and sacrifice does NATO/UN give before the Afghanistan people develop a stable country?

Do we determine our success based upon effort (how many died, how much it cost, etc), or based upon results (the job is done, or it isn't yet)?

It's a good question, but the Liberals didn't ask it.  They assumed it was the former, and tabled a divisive and simpleminded resolution in order to further a partisan domestic electoral agenda.
 
By the way, the "Jaw, jaw" Churchill quote appears to be apocryphal--but I do not blame Ms. Black for that since even I (!) thought it was the real thing:
http://www.damianpenny.com/comments/display/9287#132323

Mark
Ottawa
 
From today's "Globe and Mail" on-line:

The only Afghan escalation is in the rhetoric
MIKE CAPSTICK

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Eight Canadian soldiers have died in a week at the hands of enemy bomb-makers, renewing the calls for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the government's decision to modernize the army's tank fleet has brought criticism that Canada is ramping up the conflict.

But in fact, the only escalation is in the rhetoric of the critics in politics and the media.

First, let me put my cards on the table. I recently retired from 32 years in the Canadian Forces, including command of troops in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan. I spent a year in Kabul as the leader of Canada's first Strategic Advisory Team in Afghanistan. My team worked across the spectrum of Afghan society, from government ministers to construction labourers. We also worked closely with the International Security Assistance Force, multilateral donors, official development agencies and NGOs.

Most importantly, we worked very closely with the brave and impressive Afghans formulating their country's national development strategy and delivering rural reconstruction assistance. In short, we had an opportunity to gain insight that many observers are denied.

During the early part of this decade, I was one of the leading proponents of converting the army to a medium-weight, all-wheeled organization. Before last summer's intense combat operations in Afghanistan, I would have maintained the view that tanks were not necessary there, and probably counterproductive. However, a good army is a learning army, and ours learned some hard lessons in Kandahar:

Armoured protection is essential. Although there is no perfect safeguard against roadside bombs, mines and suicide bombers, a tank can handle all but the biggest explosions.

There are places in rural Afghanistan that wheeled vehicles simply cannot go. Irrigation ditches and low walls made of sun-hardened mud are effective obstacles to wheeled vehicles. Leopard tanks can negotiate these and withstand the small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire that covers these positions.

The tank provides accurate, precise and consistent firepower. A well-trained crew can consistently attain first-round hits on targets as small as a square metre from as far as two kilometres. In doing so, the tank can destroy a precise target without killing civilians or causing the extensive damage that is characteristic of even the most precise air strike. This alone should convince the critics that Canada is doing the right thing by employing tanks.

The facts are clear — in southern Afghanistan, tanks provide Canadian soldiers with mobility, protection, and, most importantly, the ability to destroy targets and kill insurgents without harming innocents. It's hard not to conclude that the critics are either ill informed or motivated by ideology and politics.

Even more alarming, however, are the calls to abandon our mission and the people of Afghanistan.

It is obvious that some have never agreed with the argument that a stable Afghanistan is essential to our security. They have ignored the reality that the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned and financed from the safe haven of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. They have also ignored the fact that an unstable Afghanistan presents a clear danger in an already dangerous region. Are they willing to risk a nuclear confrontation resulting from irreconcilable Iranian, Indian and Pakistani interests in an unstable Afghanistan?

It's also difficult to understand how they can ignore the Canadian-values dimension of the Afghan mission. Although it may not be clear in Ottawa or Toronto, it is obvious in Kabul that Afghanistan has made remarkable progress in the past five years. A president and parliament have been elected and a constitution is in effect. None of these institutions is perfect — far from it. But every day for a year I looked into the eyes of Afghans who want nothing more than a basic level of security and to make their children's lives a little better than their own.

Afghanistan is at or near the bottom of every single United Nations human development indicator. Canada is at or near the top. I'm not sure how those who style themselves as progressives can advocate abandoning Afghans to the criminals, warlords, drug mafias and religious zealots who destroyed the country in the 1990s and would consign them to remaining one of the poorest peoples in the world.

Master Corporal Christopher Paul Raymond Stannix, killed in action west of Kandahar on April 8, understood what most of the critics refuse to see — that the Afghan people need our help. His obituary quotes him as having stating that "I would like to think if I was in the same position there ..... somebody would be willing to step in and help me."

That contention is not articulated in the language of think tanks, columnists or political rhetoric. But it is a clear, concise statement of what the mission is about: helping people who need it. I would like nothing better than to see 90 per cent of Canada's Afghan expenditures devoted to governance and development. The reality is that until the south of the country is stabilized, this will remain a pipe dream. Afghans and those of us with experience on the ground know that "rebalancing" the mission is impossible without security.

Canadians have paid a high human price in Afghanistan — a price that renders the escalation of rhetoric surrounding the government's tank deal petty, even craven. Canadian troops, diplomats and aid workers have all proven the strength of our commitment on the ground. It's time to honour that commitment by scaling back the overheated debate surrounding this mission and concentrating on how to assure the future of Afghanistan and a people whom the international community has abandoned before, at horrific cost.

Colonel Mike Capstick retired from the Canadian Armed Forces in late 2006 and is now an associate of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

Print E-mail Comments (5) Share License
 
Okay,  in my last post - I was replying to postings someone else had up there.  Now that they're gone,  my post seems out of place.  I'm not crazy ... okay, I'm not that crazy.
 
Back
Top