• 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

Bruce Monkhouse said:
Alright smart guy.....lets have an expansion of that thought.


Well Bruce let's put down a few markers. I support our troops and I am not a member of the "let's get out now" group. What I do want is a recognition of the sheer difficulty of fighting a war where time and the limited number of ISAF/US troops on the ground are the primary factors mitigating against us and are the same factors working for the Taliban. The good things the prof observed are I am sure all true but they have to be put in the context of the big picture.
  I am puzzled that a UNB prof would make such broad comments based on a short visit to Afghanistan. It is also highly possible that the writer of this article could have produced a better review of the professor's trip and opinions on the topic. He wouldn't be the first Canadian journalist getting over his head commenting on Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

 
Baden  Guy said:
  I am puzzled that a UNB prof would make such broad comments based on a short visit to Afghanistan. .

But you make no such trip and yet still make a broad statement condemning his work..............nice.
 
I know this man.  He spent time in the army with the PPCLI.  He is also not a blind believer in war, I trust his analysis.
 
Baden Guy:

There are many articles with negative slants from those that have no desire to see success.  These are published regularly as being necessary to hold power to account.

"Reputable" reporters pride themselves on neutrality - which in fact merely plays to their distrust of all things pertaining to authority and generally results in at best cynical reports, seldom whole-hearted endorsements.  

"Authority" is told to speak for itself but when it does its efforts are dismissed as propoganda and shouted down by the chorus.

When, exactly, is it permissible for a whole-hearted endorsement of the mission to be published?  And who should be allowed to utter it?

It makes a pleasant change to hear somebody, especially from academia, speaking out firmly and unequivocally for the mission.   It is an equally pleasant surprise to see that the press published it.

Perhaps it was allowed because the reporter expressed surprise that anyone could support the mission.

 
Actually, NB papers, principally The TG and the Daily Gleaner, publish alot of military-related articles due to the presence of CFB Gagetown.  The NB media has always supported the Afghan mission....but then again, every paper is owned by the Irvings.
 
Lee is a military history prof with the Gregg Center at UNB (http://www.unbf.ca/arts/MSS/.  I'm pretty sure he was in the West Nova Scotia Regiment while at Acadia university and he might have been with 8 CH for awhile.  He has been working on this project for a long time now.  He followed 2RCR through their pre-deployment training, now he is over in Afghanistan for awhile and he will be conducting many interviews when the Battle Group returns.  His intention is to publish a "Band of Brothers" style book entitled something like "A Year In The Life of a Battle Group".  I'm looking forward to reading it, there aren't many Canadian books out like that.



 
Philltaj said:
I know this man.  He spent time in the army with the PPCLI.  He is also not a blind believer in war, I trust his analysis.

I was unable to find mention of his PPCLI time at   http://www.unbf.ca/arts/MSS/faculty.html
 
Where is PM taking us?
Canadians have no way of knowing if $650 million for 120 tanks is money well spent or if our defence minister's predictions that Canada should prepare for 15 years of fighting are a reliable forecast – or just a tactical justification for a suspect purchase

Apr 17, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/203659

Mr Travesty is shocked, shocked to discover this awful spectre:

In practice as well as in philosophy the Armed Forces are edging closer to becoming interoperable – as well as heavily dependent – on the United States...

Quelle horreur! Why is interoperability suddenly an implied menace? NATO members (including the US!) have been working on interoperability for many years.
http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/html_en/interoperability01.html

But I guess Mr Travers, as a typical Canadian columnist, is not quite up to speed on these matters--including the fact that Canadian Navy vessels have been operating (outside the NATO ambit in these examples) as integral parts of US Navy carrier battle groups since 1998, when M. Chrétien was prime minister.
http://www.dnd.ca/site/focus/canada-us/backgrounder_e.asp

I wonder if Mr Travers, when ruminating (I think reflecting is beyond him) on the point of the Afstan mission, will look at this Human Rights Watch report:

Afghanistan: Civilians Bear Cost of Escalating Insurgent Attacks
Rising Civilian Death Toll Points to Taliban, Hezb-e Islami War Crimes

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/16/afghan15688.htm

Mark
Ottawa
 
Grits to introduce motion on Afghanistan pullout
Updated Thu. Apr. 19 2007 7:38 AM ET
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The federal Liberals plan to introduce a motion today asking that Canadian troops be withdrawn from combat in Afghanistan on schedule in February 2009.

But it'll have a tough time staying alive as it won't be backed by the New Democrats, who have long opposed the war. Dismissing the motion, NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party wants an immediate withdrawal of the troops. He said they are not willing to wait two more years for an end to Canadian involvement in the war-torn country, which began in 2002 and has so far claimed the lives of 53 soldiers and one diplomat.

Last year, the House of Commons narrowly voted to extend the deployment in Kandahar province until February 2009, but the Conservatives have said they reserve the right to ask for an extension of that deadline. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has suggested that the troops could be needed until 2010.

Denis Coderre, the Liberal defence critic, said his motion will call on the Conservative government to immediately serve notice of the withdrawal plans to NATO allies.

He said the Afghan people will likely want the Canadians to stay, but added the burden needs to be spread around.

"We feel for the Afghan people," he said. "We're spending billions for the Afghan people, but we need also to have an agenda that will see all the countries participate."

He said other NATO countries should be taking a more active combat role in the war-torn country.

Some European members of NATO - notably France and Germany - have refused to send their troops in Afghanistan to the volatile southern region to confront Taliban insurgents.

Coderre said by 2009 Canada will have done its bit in Afghanistan.

It's not clear whether the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion.
This is sad.  These same hypocrites would stand in front of the world and proclaim what great peacekeepers we are, but as soon as doing the right thing gets a little hard they want us to run home.
 
This is sad.  These same hypocrites would stand in front of the world and proclaim what great peacekeepers we are, but as soon as doing the right thing gets a little hard they want us to run home.

Bravo, well said. Agree 100%!

 
As long as NDP and Liberal clowns bicker over when to withdrawal, nothing will happen.

 
Well I think they are going to have to announce they plan on extending the mission sooner rather than later so that the announcement doesn't come in the middle of an election.  If it's announced in the middle of an election, all the parties are going to cry out calling it an attempt at political gain to earn votes.
  This is the CF's job. They are deployed when needed, especially when provoked (remember 9/11? because I'm starting to think the Liberals don't, and the NDP never noticed it.)
 
"When something is hard...it's not worth doing!" (Homer simpson, to Bart, on learning to play the guitar)
I think it's a joke that this Coderre, said "we have done our part in Afghanistan."!!!!  The mission isn't finished.  When you start something you finish it no matter how hard it is...what kind of a message is that statement sending!?  Outright cowardly if you ask me.
 
The more I watch the Liberal Party in action, the more I physically loathe them.  They are everything that's wrong with Canada.


Matthew.   >:(
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
The more I watch the Liberal Party in action, the more I physically loathe them.  They are everything that's wrong with Canada.


Matthew.   >:(

I find sometimes that they also make one physically sick! :-X
 
Just think if they make it an election issue, then that would make the 50 + we lost amount to nothing that political cannon fodder.

I would like to thank the various government parties of this country who sent us over there to do a job. And then play politics with it while we are there and threaten to pull us out before it is done.

Some one should remind them that this mission is not like ordering pizza. Delivery is not guaranteed in 30 minutes..

 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
The more I watch the Liberal Party in action, the more I physically loathe them.  They are everything that's wrong with Canada.


Matthew.   >:(

My sentiments exactly. Talk a good line but mean absolutely nothing when push comes to shove.
 
there's a serious lack of objectivity in this thread, with sentence like: this is right!

or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, canada got attacked by none, correct me if i'm wrong.

Getting attacked in another country is legitimate defence, i guess, yeah the afghan official gov. is behind us after all. As it was behind the russian in the 80's.

i dont c much difference back then and now, besides the difference in number and equipment.
 
Sig 22 Qc, WTF?

Please expand on your arguments. be warned if your going where I think you are, stand by for a barrage of fire...
 
SiG_22_Qc said:
or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, canada got attacked by none, correct me if i'm wrong.
On 11 September 2001, NATO was attacked.

SiG_22_Qc said:
. As it [the Afghan government] was behind the russian in the 80's.
The current government was elected by the Afghan people.

SiG_22_Qc said:
i dont c much difference back then and now, besides the difference in number and equipment.
What are the number and equipment differences that you see?  I could comment on this, but since you brought it up I'll give you the first shot.
 
Back
Top