- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
So basically, we should extend our mandate because its good for the USA? I think this so-called research was a waste of money...
- Reaction score
- 6,324
- Points
- 1,260
What the Globe is saying and what I keep on saying is:
1. The US is central to our foreign policy - and to our economic well being, too;
2. Everything is linked - nothing, not trade, not Afghanistan, not immigration, stands alone; and
3. For the USA, security trumps trade.
If we want something we will, not may, have to give something. If the Americans want something then they, too must give a little; if they want a lot they must give a lot. If we agree to stay in Afghanistan post 2011 then there must be a quid pro quo - likely in the form of a thinner border.
1. The US is central to our foreign policy - and to our economic well being, too;
2. Everything is linked - nothing, not trade, not Afghanistan, not immigration, stands alone; and
3. For the USA, security trumps trade.
If we want something we will, not may, have to give something. If the Americans want something then they, too must give a little; if they want a lot they must give a lot. If we agree to stay in Afghanistan post 2011 then there must be a quid pro quo - likely in the form of a thinner border.
regulator12
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
We have gave a lot for our size. The USA can contribute a lot more then we can. Like I said before we have done our part and we need a break and Its great the the US will be adding more troops to the area we know they can get the job done.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Greymatters said:
Dont get me wrong, I support the mission overseas.
What annoys me is that there are numerour reasons for us to be involved, but nobody seems willing to express them other than terms of 'because the US will like us'.
- Reaction score
- 13,339
- Points
- 1,260
Greymatters said:
Because that is the real important one. All these other "do-gooder" reasons (kids, women in schools, etc) are not practical and are poor ideas for crusader foreign policy.
Canada doesn't have friends, it has interests - and alot of them lie in showing solidarity with our neighbours to the South.
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
Infanteer said:
Some other reasons in our own National Interest relate to Afghanistan's geographic position. Afghanistan borders on nuclear armed China and Pakistan, proto nuclear Iran, and is within "rock throwing distance" of nuclear armed Russia and India.A stable state in the center of these nuclear armed nations has the ability to act as a sort of shock absorber or buffer against the spread on conflict or regional instability.
As well, by protecting and supporting the spread of education in a large section of the population we can protect the generational transformation of Afghan society into a stable state, which is the goal we seek above. The "do gooder" reasons are "second order" reasons to be sure (and should not be trotted out as the sole or only reason we expend blood and treasure in Afghanistan), but are the foundation of the "first order effect" we seek.
- Reaction score
- 6,324
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CTV News web site, is yet another confirmation that Canada is leaving Afghanistan in 2011:
-------------------------
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090121/mackay_mission_090121/20090121?hub=TopStories
Tories won't extend Afghan mission, says MacKay
Updated Wed. Jan. 21 2009 10:05 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday that as Canada prepares to end its Afghan mission in 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama will likely look to other NATO countries to step up with more troops.
But if Obama does try and charm Canada into keeping troops in Afghanistan beyond the set date, MacKay said Ottawa will stick to the legislated withdrawal timeline.
"We have to be practical and pragmatic and also respect our parliamentary decision," said MacKay Wednesday.
So far, the Afghan war effort has claimed the lives of 107 Canadian troops and has cost taxpayers more than $18 billion. Currently, there are 2,700 Canadian troops stationed in the country.
"Canada is carrying its fair share of the load and 2011 is the fixed date," said MacKay.
Despite MacKay's comments, some analysts have predicted that as the U.S. ramps up its war effort against the Taliban, Washington will expect key allies like Canada to ante up.
However, MacKay downplayed those suggestions.
"Look, what I think President Obama is going to do is go on an extensive tour of NATO allies requesting that they step up, that they come to the fight and provide more actual, tangible support to ensure success in Afghanistan," he said.
While the Obama administration hasn't publicly confirmed when the U.S. troop surge will come into effect, reinforcements have already started pouring into the country, CTV's Steve Chao reported Wednesday.
For example, a new unit from Illinois arrived in Kandahar province recently to help train Afghan troops, and construction projects are underway to expand the region's chief airfield, Chao reported.
Some of the upgrades include new tents and buildings for the expected 20,000 extra troops.
Maj. Gen. Mart de Kruif, NATO's commander in southern Afghanistan, said the U.S. troop surge will help tip the balance against the Taliban and will provide greater security for rebuilding the country's tattered economy and infrastructure.
Still, de Kruif warned that progress will take time.
"I am absolutely sure that although we will have a difficult year, we are setting the conditions this year for progress next year."
The U.S. reinforcements come as the Taliban wage an increasingly deadly insurgency against NATO.
While the Tories have described the 2011 withdrawal date as a fixed one, in previous years, their policy has been less clear.
In 2006, Harper travelled to Afghanistan for a surprise visit and told Canadian troops that "cutting and running is not your way.
"It's not my way and it's not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we won't."
Harper made those comments shortly after taking office as prime minister.
Those sentiments were echoed in May 2007 when Harper said that Canada "can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best."
But his opinion seemed to shift during the fall 2008 election campaign, when Harper said: "You have to put an end date on these things."
With files from The Canadian Press
-------------------------
This has been said before, over and over again before. So who is the government trying to convince? The centre in Ottawa (the PCO and PMO, specifically) knows that the US – including the brand new Obama administration - has received and taken note of the 'message.' The political centre (the PCO) knows that the Canadian press and the public know the end date – even if both would rather we “cut and run” sooner.
It may be that MacKay et al are focused on the “parliamentary decision” they feel honour bound to respect – unlike, say, parliamentary decisions re: fixed election dates. If Canadians, who proportionately are more pro-Obama than are Americans,* hear Obama’s plan for Afghanistan and if Canadians heed his siren call to stay longer and do more then, maybe, they will start telling MPs that the “parliamentary decision” needs to be amended.
----------
* By a ratio of about 8:1, I recall reading, as opposed to about 1.2:1 amongst Americans on election day.
-------------------------
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090121/mackay_mission_090121/20090121?hub=TopStories
Tories won't extend Afghan mission, says MacKay
Updated Wed. Jan. 21 2009 10:05 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Wednesday that as Canada prepares to end its Afghan mission in 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama will likely look to other NATO countries to step up with more troops.
But if Obama does try and charm Canada into keeping troops in Afghanistan beyond the set date, MacKay said Ottawa will stick to the legislated withdrawal timeline.
"We have to be practical and pragmatic and also respect our parliamentary decision," said MacKay Wednesday.
So far, the Afghan war effort has claimed the lives of 107 Canadian troops and has cost taxpayers more than $18 billion. Currently, there are 2,700 Canadian troops stationed in the country.
"Canada is carrying its fair share of the load and 2011 is the fixed date," said MacKay.
Despite MacKay's comments, some analysts have predicted that as the U.S. ramps up its war effort against the Taliban, Washington will expect key allies like Canada to ante up.
However, MacKay downplayed those suggestions.
"Look, what I think President Obama is going to do is go on an extensive tour of NATO allies requesting that they step up, that they come to the fight and provide more actual, tangible support to ensure success in Afghanistan," he said.
While the Obama administration hasn't publicly confirmed when the U.S. troop surge will come into effect, reinforcements have already started pouring into the country, CTV's Steve Chao reported Wednesday.
For example, a new unit from Illinois arrived in Kandahar province recently to help train Afghan troops, and construction projects are underway to expand the region's chief airfield, Chao reported.
Some of the upgrades include new tents and buildings for the expected 20,000 extra troops.
Maj. Gen. Mart de Kruif, NATO's commander in southern Afghanistan, said the U.S. troop surge will help tip the balance against the Taliban and will provide greater security for rebuilding the country's tattered economy and infrastructure.
Still, de Kruif warned that progress will take time.
"I am absolutely sure that although we will have a difficult year, we are setting the conditions this year for progress next year."
The U.S. reinforcements come as the Taliban wage an increasingly deadly insurgency against NATO.
While the Tories have described the 2011 withdrawal date as a fixed one, in previous years, their policy has been less clear.
In 2006, Harper travelled to Afghanistan for a surprise visit and told Canadian troops that "cutting and running is not your way.
"It's not my way and it's not the Canadian way. We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we won't."
Harper made those comments shortly after taking office as prime minister.
Those sentiments were echoed in May 2007 when Harper said that Canada "can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best."
But his opinion seemed to shift during the fall 2008 election campaign, when Harper said: "You have to put an end date on these things."
With files from The Canadian Press
-------------------------
This has been said before, over and over again before. So who is the government trying to convince? The centre in Ottawa (the PCO and PMO, specifically) knows that the US – including the brand new Obama administration - has received and taken note of the 'message.' The political centre (the PCO) knows that the Canadian press and the public know the end date – even if both would rather we “cut and run” sooner.
It may be that MacKay et al are focused on the “parliamentary decision” they feel honour bound to respect – unlike, say, parliamentary decisions re: fixed election dates. If Canadians, who proportionately are more pro-Obama than are Americans,* hear Obama’s plan for Afghanistan and if Canadians heed his siren call to stay longer and do more then, maybe, they will start telling MPs that the “parliamentary decision” needs to be amended.
----------
* By a ratio of about 8:1, I recall reading, as opposed to about 1.2:1 amongst Americans on election day.
Similar threads
