Canadian Military involvment in Iraq, and Canadian political support. - The Canadian Forces going to Iraq?

[Fishbone Jones]

IMHO, the Canadian Gov't doesn't want to get too involved in Iraq with combat troops. Despite what CSIS, the RCMP and out of country security agencies say about Canada being a haven for terrorist fronts, the government is loath to admit it. They have their heads in the sand and believe if we don't antagonize these various groups abroad, they'll leave us alone here at home. If reprisals started happening here, the government would have to admit what most sane citizens have been saying for a long time.

 

[oyaguy]

With the benefit of hindsight, staying out of Iraq was a good idea. The appeal for "peacekeepers" {the ironic quotation marks} by Dr. Rajaa Khuzai, a person who was not elected but appointed to her position, is for Canadian consumption. Canadians are rightfully proud of our soldiers and their contributions to peacekeeping. Also it strikes the cord in Canadians, that yes, we do matter, the world needs us.

Personally I think the one moment Canada mattered in the entire Iraq situation, was our last minute contribution of a resolution to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum{I think it was 2 months?} to convince the UN that Iraq was disarmed, or face invasion. This resolution wasn't just struck down the US, but also the French. The US didn't like the breathing room that it gave Saddam Hussein, and the French didn't like it because it advocated the use of force. Middle powers like Canada, only matter if there is room for negotiation, and if the bigger powers listen. George W. Bush, and to lesser degree Jacques Chirac, weren't interested in resolving the problem.

I'm digressing, no Iraq doesn't need peacekeepers; there is no peace to keep. Sending soldiers would just be symbolic, and a show of support. Hardly reasons to ask Canadian soldiers to risk their lives.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107558613201&call_pageid=gull

Canadian troops to Iraq?
Bush expected to ask PM for help at upcoming NATO talks

40 soldiers could join team training Iraqi forces in Baghdad


JAMES TRAVERS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST

OTTAWAâ ”U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to ask Prime Minister Paul Martin to send troops to help with the post-war reconstruction of Iraq when they meet later this month.

No decision has been made, but highly placed sources say Canada is preparing to discuss the sensitive issue during the NATO summit meeting in Brussels on Feb 22.

While the federal government has steadfastly refused to join the so-called coalition of the willing, which helped the U.S. during the Iraq war, the coming appeal is clearly being considered more favourably than in the past.

The Prime Minister's Office would not comment last night.

If Ottawa agrees, an estimated 40 Canadians would join a NATO force of about 300 now helping train Iraqi troops in Baghdad. Their mandate is to stabilize Iraq and help it prepare for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces from a war that since the invasion in March, 2003, has claimed 1,446 American lives.

According to the sources, Canada's new openness to contributing troops is due to changing circumstance. They cite Sunday's surprisingly successful elections in Iraq and the urgent need to bring peace to the region as important considerations.

But the Martin government's reluctance to pay the domestic political price of joining the U.S. continental missile defence program is also said to be a factor shaping federal government thinking. Canada is eager to signal to the Bush administration that Ottawa's refusal to make a decision on the missile shield reflects the realities of minority government, not unwillingness to co-operate with Washington.

Joining the NATO training mission would certainly be controversial. One of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's most popular decisions was to keep Canada out of the war and Martin has worked hard to dispel lingering doubts that he would have made the same choice.

Martin's position is particularly important in Quebec, where major losses helped reduce the Liberals to a minority government in last June's election, and where anti-war as well as anti-Bush sentiment remains particularly high. This government would need compelling reasons to change Canada's policy now.

According to the sources, the federal government would position any Canadian deployment more as a measured response to Iraq's fledgling government than as support for the U.S. involvement there. At the same time, Ottawa would argue that helping rebuild failed states is central to Martin's still emerging foreign policy.

Apparently coincidentally, Martin stressed that role yesterday during swearing-in ceremonies for Canada's new chief of the defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier. Martin said while the government needs to help countries fight AIDS and improve health care and education, "none of that will be possible in conflict-ridden states unless security is first established."

And then Martin said "the defence of Canada is limited not only to North America but it must be extended around the world."

While providing the security necessary to create or rebuild democratic institutions fits that policy well, the Martin government would face strong objections from at least the Bloc Québécois and NDP.

Any federal policy change on Iraq would also be made more difficult by the refusal of other major NATO members to join the training mission. France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece have all forbidden their nationals from taking part in the training effort, even if they are permanently attached to NATO.

Those countries held their positions in December, when, at the urging of then U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell, NATO agreed to increase its Iraq training force to 300 from 60. Unless they reverse course when Bush makes his first foreign trip of his second term, Canada would be seen as breaking ranks.

Buoyed by a less violent Iraq election than expected and with an eye towards eventual withdrawal, Washington is focusing on training Iraqi troops. The U.S. now has about 150,000 soldiers in Iraq but is hoping to reduce that number to about 135,000 in coming weeks.

Additional articles by James Travers

 

[tomahawk6]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107615996404_26/?hub=TopStories

It would be a most welcome event.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I don't think we should have any involvement without UN endorsement. Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out.

 

[DFW2T]

I know some lads in Petawawa that already have their bags packed!

 

[JasonH]

About time!  If the UN doesn't step up (which they rarely do) then who better then a Canadian?  40 troops might be small but hopefully it'll lead to more!

 

[DFW2T]

I don't think we should have any involvement without UN endorsement. Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out.

Hey Ape!  
   "Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out."

  As an Officer cadet I would think that you would be more privy to foreign policy and WORLD MATTERS .  
 
  I think ( and myself only ) the reason we don't have troops in Iraq already,  is because the Liberal government had the foresight to deploy our troops to Afghanistan (the lesser of two evils)......hence to say,  when called to the plate we ( CANADIANS ) could say  " We couldn't possibly send troops to Iraq.....we are in Afghanistan..........and  we ARE doing our part, on the fight against terrorism "

  I was in Kabul on roto 0.  I was a civilian contractor there..... Our boys and girls did an outstanding job............but the "meat"  of the task was  to "win the hearts and minds" Not to combat terrorism"

  I mean no disrespect to any of the brave troops that are there and about to go there . [Jeremy ...God be with you ] (I was a friend of Shorty and Jamie......hero's and mentors in my mind)  The Canadian forces in Afghanistan,  are basically a puppet to the Liberal (ly) endorsed media.

 So my response to you is..............Get with the program......see the big picture.  Whether you like it or not, western civilization is at war.  As an up commping "leader of people"   you should
be instilling "the fight for your brothers " type of attitude......not  the "I don't think that's right"  type attitude.

 Just my opinion,  and mine only



 

 

[Agamemnon]

Harper warns Grits about 'deception' on Iraq
CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is warning the Liberal government will pay a "severe price" if it sends Canadian troops to Iraq.

"I remembered how the prime minister attacked us during the federal election for wanting to spend more on defence,'' Harper told reporters Saturday in Halifax.

"I sat through an election campaign where the prime minister accused me of having secret plans to send troops to Iraq. If it turns out he has secret plans, this has to be one of the biggest election deceptions in history.''

However, Harper didn't rule out supporting such an initiative if he could be convinced it was safe.

He was in Halifax to inspect the fire-damaged HMCS Chicoutimi and to speak to the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative Party's annual meeting.

Harper was responding to a report that Canadian troops may be deployed to Iraq to help with reconstruction if Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees to the anticipated request from U.S. President George Bush.

The two leaders are expected to discuss the issue when they meet later this month in Brussels for a NATO summit meeting, the Toronto Star reported Saturday.

The paper says a small contingent of 40 Canadian troops would be sent abroad, joining another 300 NATO forces -- if Martin agrees.

The news comes days after Bush's state of the union address. In it, he called on his allies for more foreign aid and support for Iraq's new government after a Jan. 30 election that Bush deemed "a great and historic achievement."

The mandate of the Canadian troops would be to help train Iraqi troops and prepare the violence-ravaged country for the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.

The Star reports that sources have told it Canada is considering the notion more favourably after last weekend's successful elections in Iraq.

CTV's Rosemary Thompson told Newsnet the Prime Minister's Office is saying they haven't had an official request yet.

If it did happen and Martin agrees to the request, "it could be fireworks in the House," she says.

"I spoke to two opposition leaders today. They both said that Parliament should be consulted before this happens. They both want a vote in the House of Commons."

The decision would be controversial following the move by former prime minister Jean Chretien to keep Canada out of the war -- a move political analysts said alienated Chretien and Canada from Bush and the United States.

France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece banned their nationals from participating in training efforts -- even when NATO increased its training troops from 60 to 300, the Star reported.

Earlier this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Canada stands behind its southern neighbour.

"We share a lot of priorities with the President of the United States," Pettigrew told reporters on Parliament Hill.

"He can certainly count on Canada to be a steadfast partner in fighting terrorism around the world."

But in October 2004, Martin expressed his hesitance to commit any Canadian troops to Iraq.

"There's a limit to our resources," Martin said at the time.

"And that's why I'm putting the focus right now on Afghanistan, on Haiti.

"Whatever it is that we do, I really want to see us do it in an area that makes a difference," Martin said.

With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press

 

[Edward Campbell]

Martin dithers, still; Harper flip-flops, again; what a pair!  The others?  ... Well, who cares?

 

[FredDaHead]

Since when do Martin and his Liberal henchmen tell the truth?

I do think that the grits are doomed if they do, doomed if they don't, in this situation. If they send soldiers to Iraq, they have the majority of the House coming down on them about lying about it in the first place, but if they don't, it cools down Canada-US relations, which is kinda bad right now.

Oh well, it's not like the Liberals have any hint of integrity left, right?

 

[Infanteer]

Martin dithers, still; Harper flip-flops, again; what a pair! The others? ... Well, who cares?

Yes; whoever is currently writing the Tragedy of Canadian politics would definitely be placed on a mantle beside Sophocles and Euripides (or perhaps Aristophanes or the Bard - is this a Comedy of Errors?)....

 

[Armymedic]

I think that this move to sent trainers to help train a new Iraqi army would be a good move. After the mistakes the US made with its invasion forces since the fall of Saddam, this may be one of the smarter things they could do, especially after the success so far of a similar program in Afghanistan.

After the fall, the US disolved the Iraqi army, thereby throwing thousands of you soldier out of a job, mistake number two was to fail to disarm them before they all went home.

This effort should make inroads in correcting this.

As for the short sighted comment of Glorified Ape... The war which our gov't did not support is over. The US is still and will be for the forseeable future, our ally. The UN has proven unable to provide any good to anyone in Iraq anymore. The war is over, and the UN has removed itself from Iraq due to the violence that rages there.

Our niche, what we can do, is come in after the defecat has flown and start cleaning up the place. This small contribution will not be the  decisive move, installing peace and security overnight. But if they are able to train 600-800 soldiers into a Bn, then there are that many young men who aren't fighting at night in the streets, and hopefully feeling proud about serving in a new (hopefully) democratic Iraq.

 

[Agamemnon]

Ok why do we always have to pick up after the americans...first afghanistan...and now iraq...they screwed up let them pay for it...

 

[karl28]

                  I think it would be a good idea if the Americans whant our help we should put our difrences aside and work together. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Agamemnon your an idiot.  Maybe you should play the gray man for awhile.

 

[54/102 CEF]

This effort should make inroads in correcting this.

As for the short sighted comment of Glorified Ape... HE IS WHAT HE IS!   :boring:


if they are able to train 600-800 soldiers into a Bn, then there are that many young men who aren't fighting at night in the streets, and hopefully feeling proud about serving in a new (hopefully) democratic Iraq.

An Excellent post!!!  

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Guys, don't we already HAVE troops in Iraq?  We certainly did during the period of "ground combat" before the official cessation of hostilities.  Have all our observers been withdrawn?

Isn't this actually a question of "more" Canadian troops to Iraq?

 

[Infanteer]

Agamemnon your an idiot.

Funny, that is the same in both French and English - understand that Armageddon?

You've done nothing but post unsubstantiated, inflammatory remarks since you wafted in here.  This is a check-fire warning - if you keep it up the necessary actions will be taken.

 

[Glorified Ape]

As for the short sighted comment of Glorified Ape... The war which our gov't did not support is over. The US is still and will be for the forseeable future, our ally. The UN has proven unable to provide any good to anyone in Iraq anymore. The war is over, and the UN has removed itself from Iraq due to the violence that rages there.

Our niche, what we can do, is come in after the defecat has flown and start cleaning up the place. This small contribution will not be the   decisive move, installing peace and security overnight. But if they are able to train 600-800 soldiers into a Bn, then there are that many young men who aren't fighting at night in the streets, and hopefully feeling proud about serving in a new (hopefully) democratic Iraq.

The US can do that on its own - we shouldn't be providing de facto support for what was, no matter how you spice it up, an illegal war by aiding an illegal occupier(or at least PERCEIVED as such by a large portion of the world). Our international reputation is really all we've got to lend us clout in multilateral decisions, and no matter how people may like to poo-poo it, the fact remains that it's relatively respectable and we'd do best to keep it that way. Any overt, active assistance to the US with cleaning up their own mess in Iraq is necessarily going to detract from that reputation, save with the "coalition of the willing" which, when last I checked, consisted of a plethora of developing and undeveloped countries, one mourning ex-hegemon, and one increasingly sociopathic superpower.

Hey Ape!    
    "Short of that, the US got itself in, it can get itself out."

   As an Officer cadet I would think that you would be more privy to foreign policy and WORLD MATTERS .    
   
   I think ( and myself only ) the reason we don't have troops in Iraq already,   is because the Liberal government had the foresight to deploy our troops to Afghanistan (the lesser of two evils)......hence to say,   when called to the plate we ( CANADIANS ) could say   " We couldn't possibly send troops to Iraq.....we are in Afghanistan..........and   we ARE doing our part, on the fight against terrorism "

   I was in Kabul on roto 0.   I was a civilian contractor there..... Our boys and girls did an outstanding job............but the "meat"   of the task was   to "win the hearts and minds" Not to combat terrorism"

   I mean no disrespect to any of the brave troops that are there and about to go there . [Jeremy ...God be with you ] (I was a friend of Shorty and Jamie......hero's and mentors in my mind)   The Canadian forces in Afghanistan,   are basically a puppet to the Liberal (ly) endorsed media.

  So my response to you is..............Get with the program......see the big picture.   Whether you like it or not, western civilization is at war.   As an up commping "leader of people"    you should
be instilling "the fight for your brothers " type of attitude......not   the "I don't think that's right"   type attitude.

  Just my opinion,   and mine only

Yes, because it certainly is admirable to have unquestioning, unthinking leadership which says "they're white, so we must be on their side". Western civilization is not at war - only a few of its constituents. The US doesn't not constitute "western civilization". I think I am looking at the 'big picture', I just don't see it as a black and white, us and them situation characterized by "with us or against us" type thinking. We're not living in Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" paranoid's fantasy world - things are a little more intricate and nuanced than that. As I stated above, I think more harm would be done to our reputation by assisting the US in cleaning up their mess than it's worth. Openly associating ourselves with the offending party in what has been one of the dirtiest, most divisive conflicts of late is going to do us no good. The only way we could do it and still retain our reputation is if the UN gave the go-ahead since, as of now, there's no other world body capable of lending the credibility the UN can. And yes, I know people will say "the UN sucks, it's useless, it's got no credibility" but that's flying in the face of the active participation of almost every state on earth and that's where the credibility comes from - inclusion and representation breed legitimacy.

We had an obligation under NATO for Afghanistan, we didn't for Iraq and thus have no reason, aside from the "help big brother, maybe we'll get an honourary mention" motivation. The US can manage just fine without a handful of Canadian trainers, so why bother? The effort would undoubtedly serve a largely gestural purpose, the subtext of which will most assuredly stick us in the Bush camp in the eyes of the world - somewhere we don't particularly want to be if we want to be perceived as a respectable mediator, peace builder, and supporter of global governance.