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

Taliban Target Canadian Troops

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
64
Points
530
The Taliban might be successful in their aim of splitting NATO by targeting the Germans rather than Canadian troops. The recent attack on the Spanish contingent in Lebanon has seen the Spaniards make a side deal with Hizbollah for protection and in exchange will provide intel and will allow Hizbollah freedom of movement in their AO. This calls in question the viability of NATO if most of its members refuse to allow its troops to fight. The heavy lifting in Afghanistan is being done by the english speaking members of NATO so I wonder what it will take for the Germans and others to become active in the war on terror ?
I am positive their current policy is due to the fear of angering the islamists in their midst. What they dont seem to understand is that the west is the target for islamic transformation. Fight them now abroad or at home. The english speaking members of NATO feel its better to engage the enemy abroad.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20070704.aspx

Canadian Sunset

July 4, 2007: The Taliban strategy of killing certain foreign troops, for the purpose of changing political opinion back home, has made enough progress to encourage the terrorists. Since 2002, 60 Canadian troops have been killed in Afghanistan. But the United States, with about ten times as many troops in the country during that period, has only lost 337. That means Canada has a casualty rate about 80 percent higher than the U.S. Most of the Canadian losses have occurred during offensive operations, when the Taliban were being sought out and attacked. But the Taliban have openly talked about aiming their suicide bomber and roadside bomb attacks at Canadians, in order to persuade more Canadian voters to demand that Canadian troops be pulled out of Afghanistan. It's having some effect, as the Canadian prime minister recently  agreed that there would have to be a consensus in Canada over whether to keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2009. An added problem for Canadian politicians is the reluctance of so many other
NATO nations to allow their troops to engage in combat. Nations like Germany will only allow their troops to operate in parts of Afghanistan that are largely free of Taliban violence. This has been difficult to justify to Canadian voters. The Taliban know this, and try to make the most of it.
 
If the Germans aren't allowed to fight, or other nations as well, does that mean that we have to be pussie too?  Great, other countries don't want to fight, more for us.
 
I need to suggest a change here.

"I am positive their current policy is due to the fear of angering the islamists
liberals in their midst."

Europe has become too PC to live.

What they dont seem to understand is that the west is the target for islamic transformation. Fight them now abroad or at home. The english speaking members of NATO feel its better to engage the enemy abroad.

This has not been said nearly often enough.

+10


(I think) the Islamist threat is the greatest threat to liberal democracy ever.
This particular threat has a way of inciting change in the name of security
as well as threats of violence that is particularly insidious.

We can't talk our way out of this........negotiate what?
We can't vote our way out.............Jack Layton won't fix it.

The logical choice sadly, is to fight.

Just a few thoughts.




 
Unfortunately, casualty rates are going to affect our at-home populations opinions on teh mission, and it looks like the PM will let this become a public popularity contest for mission continuance after 2009. 
 
I personally don't see the problem with our elected representatives voting on the mission in 2009. If there is a valid reason for continuing the mission at that point (I think there is but a lot can change in 17 months) and it can be communicated to the Canadian public then we will probably stay in Afghanistan. If the mission sours or can't be communicated to the Canadian public then we will probably stay.

My personal hope is that opposition to the Afghanistan conflict dissolves when Bush is no longer in office. The left wing here in Canada seem to love using him as a boogy man and I'm looking forward to him being gone so that they can't use him anymore. If the same dynamic exists in Europe then we may see some increased help from the Europeans in 2009.
 
Policy by popularity is always a poor way to lead. 

Edit - I dont like how I worded that:
Policy by democratic vote is always acceptable, but policy by popularity is always a poor way to lead beacuse it is based on polls which do not always reflect the truth of public conscience or opinion. 
 
It's a poor way to lead, but make a reelection more sure, which is what matter for
most parties in democracy...
 
I would like to see NATO disolved, it has out lived its purpose.  We should ahve a new alliance, Canada, UK, USA, Australia and NZ..... :cdn:
 
peaches said:
I would like to see NATO disolved, it has out lived its purpose.  We should ahve a new alliance, Canada, UK, USA, Australia and NZ..... :cdn:


???


That already exists.  That and Australia and NZ, along with Canada, UK and the US of A all follow NATO guidelines, or are Standing Members of NATO.
 
I know, however I am stating we should go father and formally pull out after all is said and done!!!  The world has changed, alliances change, that's history...  but this is an argument for a diff thread.....RIP :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn:
 
peaches said:
I would like to see NATO disolved, it has out lived its purpose.  We should ahve a new alliance, Canada, UK, USA, Australia and NZ..... :cdn:

So more of an alliance between like minded English speaking western nations?  Might be a good alternate thread like you said.
 
The problem peaches is that with multinational forces it really depends on the government in power.
Sure AUS and UK are doing hard work now.
But what would a new alliance be worth when anti war PM's are elected?
The problems with multinational forces are huge and not going away anytime soon.
There is no way to resolve the unity of effort problem in a manner which makes everyone happy.
 
If you want to be seen as a big boy, show up at the G8, and have people pay attention to you when you visit, you gotta be a part of the big organizations (UN, OAS, NATO, etc...).  International cooperation (and responsibility) means being partners in all aspects of government, covering geographical, maritime, sovereignty, political, trade, finance, communications, academic, humanitarian, scientific and military cooperation. 

See the list of Canada's global participation courtesy of the World factbook, some of the more important in bold - ACCT, AfDB, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, C, CDB, CE (observer), EAPC, EBRD, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITU, ITUC, MIGA, MINUSTAH, MONUC, NAFTA, NAM (guest), NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OIF, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SECI (observer), UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNMOVIC, UNRWA, UNTSO, UNWTO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC .
 
George Wallace said:
???


That already exists.  That and Australia and NZ, along with Canada, UK and the US of A all follow NATO guidelines, or are Standing Members of NATO.

Uhhh... how would Aus & NZ be part of NATO when they are on the other side of the world
Original charter members of SEATO, that org wend the way of the dodo
 
Have to agree with geo on that one - although Aus and NZ work and cooperate with NATO on several missions, I dont believe they are actual members of NATO.  At least not according to this:

http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm
 
It is just my opinion that perhaps NATO has run it's course.  Yes I understand your point GM about belonging to big worldwide orgs, we do get alot out of it, but perhaps we could start a new alliance of like minded english nations.  Perhaps our ways, values have diverged from Europe.  I spent 3 years stationed in Lahr, 89-92, and loved it.  I have gone back several times since, the latest in Apr this year, and I have noticed that it has really changed.

With all the probs getting the allies into combat in Afghanistan, it makes me wonder...  do these people really have our backs.... :cdn:
 
geo said:
Uhhh... how would Aus & NZ be part of NATO when they are on the other side of the world
Original charter members of SEATO, that org wend the way of the dodo

I did not say that they are members of NATO.  They are not official members of NATO.  They, however, have adopted and applied many NATO Operating Procedures and integrated systems to have interoperability with NATO Nations on Operations.  

You can lump them in with the "Anglosphere" if you want.  However you want to cut it, they are already strong Allies with other Commonwealth Nations and the US.  

Being on the other side of the world doesn't really mean much these days.  It is really a small world out there, when you start to look at it.   ;D  

As I have already stated, those Alliances already exist.
 
Whups - sorry George....

speed reading does me in again ;)
 
GreyMatter said:
Have to agree with geo on that one - although Aus and NZ work and cooperate with NATO on several missions, I dont believe they are actual members of NATO.  At least not according to this:

http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm
That is correct. We are not, but we seem to offer more support to NATO operations than many of NATOs own members do.
 
Back
Top