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

Operation"cut and run", effect on Cdn.Military.

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Redeye said:
That couldn't be further from the truth.  Maybe some deluded folks do - but I think they're rare.  Among though who I've talked to, they all consider the Taliban to be a negative influence and an evil force, but one of many in the world, and one that ultimately in their estimate isn't likely to be rooted out.  I've met many people whose views on the matter differ from mine but none come to mind that had much positive sentiment for the Taliban.

The left supported Afghanistan because Chretian decided that between Iraq and Afghanistan the latter was a safer option [fewer Canadian casualties]. Now that Afghanistan is the main stage and casualties continue with no end in sight,the left doesnt want to be there anymore. Their reasons for getting out were the same they made for Vietnam and then Iraq. Its not worth the cost in blood and treasure they say. Yet Iraq is proof that not only can the enemy be defeated but the groundwork can be laid for lasting stability and peace. If you want freedom you have to be willing to fight for it and the Iraqi's have done that. In Afghanistan much of the ANA is made up of ethnic people's that suffered under the taliban. Getting reliable Pashtun's that want to be rid of the taliban is our most difficult challenge.
Canada has been punching above its weight for quite sometime now and if the civilian leadership wants to go in a different direction then I say "THANKs For Your Support and the sacrifice of so many of your best and brightest !!". At some point the Afghans have to do it for themselves just as the Iraqi's did.
 

Redeye

Banned
Banned
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, to a great extent, you're correct - Afghanistan was the more palatable option for most people here, given that I think a broader swath of the Canadian public saw that the casus belli in Iraq was complete nonsense.

I do respectfully disagree with your rosy view about Iraq's future - at least in the short term- based on the experiences of some Iraqi friends of mine and their family's experiences, however.  And that it's a precedent for Afghanistan.  But I do hope to be proven wrong in time.



tomahawk6 said:
The left supported Afghanistan because Chretian decided that between Iraq and Afghanistan the latter was a safer option [fewer Canadian casualties]. Now that Afghanistan is the main stage and casualties continue with no end in sight,the left doesnt want to be there anymore. Their reasons for getting out were the same they made for Vietnam and then Iraq. Its not worth the cost in blood and treasure they say. Yet Iraq is proof that not only can the enemy be defeated but the groundwork can be laid for lasting stability and peace. If you want freedom you have to be willing to fight for it and the Iraqi's have done that. In Afghanistan much of the ANA is made up of ethnic people's that suffered under the taliban. Getting reliable Pashtun's that want to be rid of the taliban is our most difficult challenge.
Canada has been punching above its weight for quite sometime now and if the civilian leadership wants to go in a different direction then I say "THANKs For Your Support and the sacrifice of so many of your best and brightest !!". At some point the Afghans have to do it for themselves just as the Iraqi's did.
 

time expired

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Tomahawk 6,Thanks for the kind words,however I connot agree with your contention that

we(Canada)are "punching above our weight".5 plus divisions for a population of 18 mil.

in WW2 was "punching above our weight" but a battalion battle group from a country with

a population of 32 mil.definitely is not.

Since WW2 Canada has consistently failed to pull our weight,NATO formation we contributed

a Brigade although the RCAF effort was somewhat greater,Korea a brigade again plus a cruiser

and a couple of destroyers.Vietnam,we decided that providing a haven for US draft dodgers and

supplying the US with arty and small arms ammo,at a good profit,was the role we could best fill.

Falkland war we failed to lift a finger to help the country that had guaranteed our independence

for a !00 or so years.The "stepping up to plate" in A-stan was only done because the Libs. thought

the game was over and the pitcher had gone home,and would mend a few fences after our no-

show in both Gulf wars.Now we are turning our backs on a UN sanctioned and NATO run war ,these

two organizations have been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for decades and now we are

leaving them in the lurch not to mention our allies.

As an ex Canadian soldier this effects my morale,I wonder what it will do the the soldiers that are

presently serving or have served in A-stan and have lost friends there and how it will effect the opinions

of our erstwhile allies.

                                                                      Regards
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Retired AF Guy said:
Because the CBC has a liberal/left-wing bias it stands to reason that the people who read their articles and make comment on articles will have similar views. Therefore, comments like the ones you mention have to be taken with a grain of salt and may not represent the views of many (most?) Canadians.

This comment reminds me of the words of a US Army Colonel who once told me that no US Army officer would be caught dead listening to National Public Radio.  I think that's BS: you can't pass judgements on people simply because they don't consume privately-owned media. Read and watch whatever you want, and form your own opinions.

I'm a regular reader of the CBC.ca site (I have it with my Tim's every morning), and this comment about CBC news bloggers doesn't match what I see, at all. I look at the blog comments for the cardio-vascular workout value: it raises my heart rate and blood pressure. First of all, the entire place seems to be a collection of tin-foil hatted, mouth-breathing conspiracy mongers who  believe every piece of garbage they see on the net. That said, while there are a very small number of what I would call truly "left-wing" individuals, at least half  if not more of the posters are foaming at the mouth right-wing populists who either:

-support whatever the Govt does, regardless, because it's the Tories, and therefore not "left-wing"; or

-oppose whatever the Govt does, regardless, because it's the Tories, and therefore not "right-wing" enough

Many of these right-wing types rage endlessly about how the left-wing CBC "censors" their posts. (I know this because I read their long, incoherent and rambling anti-CBC posts that somehow don't get censored. Perhaps the CBC only lets stupid right-wing people post, as part of a giant Left-Wing Conspiracy to make the Right Wing look bad) Amazingly, they consistently return to the CBC.ca site and read the articles (or at least, read enough to form the basis for a rant).

The Lefties, on the other hand, squawk about the media mindlessly supporting the US-driven war-mongering, glorifying the military and "supressing dissent" (aren't their posts a form of dissent, visible instantly around the world?). Oh, yes, and "forgetting our UN peace-keeping tradition".

I always find it interesting to hear the Left constantly shriek that the media is controlled by the fascist corporate military-industrial complex, while the Right howls that the same media is controlled by left-wing Marxist tree-hugging liberals.

Cheers
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
time expired said:
...a battalion battle group from a country with

a population of 32 mil.definitely is not...

You're not being fair here. In fact you're verging on slagging off the efforts of thousands of Canadian soldiers, aircrew,sailors, police and civilians. This country has put one hell of a lot more into Afghanistan than an infantry battle group, and you know that. The BG has been just one part (albeit an important part) of what  we've done. We have also run what was arguably one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan for several years. (and, briefly, we ran all of Sector South) We were trusted enough to be given control of US forces (not a common occurrence, at all) as well as an increasing number of Afghan forces. Our intelligence capability (given our size) is second to none, as is our SOF capability. Our Air Wing has earned a very good reputation in Afghanistan: the Griffon pilots in particular are respected in their field.

Before any of that, we ran the Kabul Brigade, and ISAF.

All of this was done (by two different governments) despite unpredictable (and diminishing) public support, and in the face of other major financial problems both national and military. And all of it was done without a huge military structure, without national mobilization or conscription: it was done by professional volunteers.

Could we have done more? Maybe, but only in a different political environment than what we have to live with in Canada.

We've got nothing to be ashamed of.

Cheers
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Ahamed?  No, I'm not necessarily ashamed.  We have paid for our efforts in blood and treasure and I am proud of what has been accomplished. 

But, we are indeed a shadow of our former selves.  That cannot be disputed at all.  We once had the third largest Allied Navy and the fourth largest Alliled Air Force for example.  Yes we are good at what we do and have done.  However when I think of what we once were and now become I can get a little embarassed by it.  My first post visit ot Norfolk left me feeling somewhat inadequate.  Americans are curious and interested about us, I have felt like a poor relation when trying to explain what we have become.  Anyhow that's my  :2c:
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,277
Points
1,090
pbi said:
Could we have done more? Maybe, but only in a different political environment than what we have to live with in Canada.

We've got nothing to be ashamed of.

Cheers

I think you are in loud, violent agreement here.

The original poster was in no way critiquing the CF members who have deployed and conducted themselves above and beyond; it is an explicit critique of the national will.

Think about it: A single BG, plus other enablers, totalling not even 3000 deployed from a nation of 33 million is somehow a stretch and taxing the limits of that nation's military capabilities.


 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jollyjacktar said:
We once had the third largest Allied Navy and the fourth largest Alliled Air Force for example.  Yes we are good at what we do and have done.  However when I think of what we once were and now become I can get a little embarassed by it.  My first post visit ot Norfolk left me feeling somewhat inadequate.  Americans are curious and interested about us, I have felt like a poor relation when trying to explain what we have become.  Anyhow that's my  :2c:

We need some perspective here. We had that big Navy and that big Air Force as a direct result of fighting a World War. (within a few decades both were mostly gone, as national priorities changed) That war was perceived by most (although not all...) Canadians as being an existential crisis. We believed that if we lost it, we stood to lose everything. There was a clearly understood reason for what we were doing. "Winning" and "losing" were pretty black and white terms. Almost the entire nation of 12 million was mobilized in some way.

I submit that almost none of those conditions have existed for the war in Afghanistan. And, absent those conditions,  but instead under the political and economic conditions we actually live with, we have done about as much as could realistically be expected.  I don't think that our political climate would have let any Canadian government do much more, unless Canadians were somehow convinced that a direct and imminent threat was posed to them, to which the answer was the use of  Canadian military force.

In contrast, I'm actually very surprised we've stuck around as long as we have, under the conditions we've faced, and done what we've done. If you want more, you will have to fundamentally change the way our fellow citizens think.

Cheers
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,107
Points
1,260
pbi said:
We need some perspective here. We had that big Navy and that big Air Force as a direct result of fighting a World War. (within a few decades both were mostly gone, as national priorities changed) That war was perceived by most (although not all...) Canadians as being an existential crisis. We believed that if we lost it, we stood to lose everything. There was a clearly understood reason for what we were doing. "Winning" and "losing" were pretty black and white terms. Almost the entire nation of 12 million was mobilized in some way.

I submit that almost none of those conditions have existed for the war in Afghanistan.
Bang on.  Although Canadians are broadly supportive of troops in the fray, to repeat the words of many much wiser than me:  the CF is at war, Canada is at the mall.
 

Tank Troll

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jollyjacktar said:
But, we are indeed a shadow of our former selves.  That cannot be disputed at all.  We once had the third largest Allied Navy and the fourth largest Alliled Air Force for example.  Yes we are good at what we do and have done.  However when I think of what we once were and now become I can get a little embarrassed by it.  My first post visit to Norfolk left me feeling somewhat inadequate.  Americans are curious and interested about us, I have felt like a poor relation when trying to explain what we have become.  Anyhow that's my  :2c:

Navy 3rd largest behind America and Briton no Russian Navy to speak of then. Air force 4th largest same,same but Russia had an air force.
Reason why we were 3rd and 4th.......every one Else's was sunk, blown up, destroyed or other wise. I feel a Homer Simpson moment can you say "Default, Default"
I agree whole heartedly with pbi
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Tank Troll said:
Navy 3rd largest behind America and Briton no Russian Navy to speak of then. Air force 4th largest same,same but Russia had an air force.
Reason why we were 3rd and 4th.......every one Else's was sunk, blown up, destroyed or other wise. I feel a Homer Simpson moment can you say "Default, Default"
I agree whole heartedly with pbi

Our guys were being killed and our equipment was being sunk and destroyed as well. We had 2 big oceans that gave us respite and enabled us to build up.
 

Tank Troll

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ex-Dragoon said:
Our guys were being killed and our equipment was being sunk and destroyed as well. We had 2 big oceans that gave us respite and enabled us to build up.

Never said we didn't lose our share just with us being the forth largest Allied contributor to WWII stands to reason we were going to end up with some thing in the top three or four
 
Top