• 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

Celticgirl said:
What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?  >:(

/rant

I have seen many similar things.  I don't think they're doing those things to upset, or to disrespect.  As much as I disagree with them, and I do disagree with the sentiments that the Afghanistan mission is valueless, I do console myself with knowing that they really do believe what they are saying.  If I believed as they do, I'd be far less tactless then they're being.

On Another note,  the election has effectivly been on for 5 days and not even a mention of Afghanistan.  (I think it is a good thing)
 
As Brigadier General Dennis Tabbernor stated in his report.
"The terror of 9/11 was born and bred in the lawless vacuum that was Afghanistan, a shattered land of shattered lives left desperate after 30 years of war and corruption. Around this vacuum swirled the regional turbulence afflicting Iran, Pakistan, China, India and Russia. An Afghanistan left unstable and vulnerable to the inrush of these forces would prove an immense incubator for terrors beyond the compass of imagination.

So, as part of a coalition, we went to Afghanistan. If we fail here, if we leave Afghanistan without security forces, without sound governance, without the rule of law, without an infrastructure and an alternative to narcotics, we will invite back the forces that spawned 9/11."

Wish those Canadian's remaining ignorant of very real, very present threats to Canada at large would wake up and realize the days of Liberal serendipitous thinking no longer exist. When will these people wake up? After Russia or another bordering Arctic Country claims major parts of our North? After a Liberal pull out of The Stan and the fight comes here to our backyard? "Then" will be too late.

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/index.aspx?lang=en
* the thoughts and expression in this post are those of a Civy**
 
Celticgirl said:
Something is really starting to bother me: Every time a soldier is KIA in Afghanistan, I see threads of condolence on a few other websites just as on this site. However, unlike this site, the others generally have a group of idiots who respond with comments like "our troops shouldn't be there", "this has to stop", "bring them home NOW", "what a waste of life", "they died for nothing", etc., etc.  Personally, I think that the R.I.P. threads and the debate re: Afghanistan should be separate, as they are here (and this is the only site where I've seen it done successfully). What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?  >:(

/rant

Thank you.  It is a decision that the Mods, Mike and other Senior Members made a while back and try to enforce, just for the reasons you have stated. 
 
George Wallace said:
Thank you.  It is a decision that the Mods, Mike and other Senior Members made a while back and try to enforce, just for the reasons you have stated. 

You are very welcome. It's nice to have at least one place online to pay my respects and not have to read inflammatory comments about the mission.
 
For being a non military member I am all for helping Afghanistan out.  I am deeply sadden at how much loss of life as happened on all sides and I do hope it is worth it, what am I saying, bringing peace is always worth it!  My Islamic buddies are happy we are there to bring peace to a troubled region.  But most of them are angry at how long it took for us and the west to actually do something.  I usually tell them they could have done something too, it doesn't always have to be the west that does everything and they agree, and always say, they wish they have the money to do something.

I do hope other countries come to the aid of Afghanistan, and send what they can to get them to stop fighting.

I read some where the remains of the Taliban are nothing more then foreign extremists from other countries that really are not even welcome in their homelands.  Isn't that enough reason to stop fighting?  I guess when you had some sort of country over a country, or had a taste of power, you go a little crazy.

My wrong plan if I was in charge, was to get the Afghan people rebuilding their infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, they may need to work on generators until the power systems get built or they may need to import energy from other countries until they get their own power plants operational), plus get a security force trained to keep what remains of the Taliban at bay.  Next step would be to start building factories/energy/water facilities and get them running so the country can start to take care of itself and rely less and less on importing aid from other countries.  For areas that are hard to farm, build greenhouses or hydroponic farms, so they can feed themselves basically just get them standing on their own two legs.  Eventually the Taliban will see the Afghan people want peace.  But I am not sure if the Taliban will see reason and simply give up if this was the plan, the old fight to the end may be blinding them from reality.  I at least believe the average Afghan wants peace and want us there to help them.  And hopefully if we ever need help in the future they can return the favour.  (If we need help).
 
U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will fail, leaked cable says
By Elaine Sciolino Published: October 3, 2008
Article Link

A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. Not only that, but the best solution for the country will be the installation of an "acceptable dictator," the British envoy reportedly added.

"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British envoy is quoted by Jean-François Fitou, the deputy French ambassador to Kabul and the author of the cable, as saying.

The two-page cable - which was sent to the Élysée Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday edition - said that the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country.

"The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis."

Within 5 to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to unite is for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator," the cable said, adding that "we should think of preparing our public opinion" about such an outcome.

Cowper-Coles, as quoted, was critical of both U.S. presidential candidates, who have vowed in their campaigns to substantially increase U.S. military support to fight the Taliban for Afghanistan if elected president.

In the short run, "it is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying.

On Wednesday, General David McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other support as soon as possible to counter the insurgency.

British officials said that the comments attributed to Cowper-Coles were distorted and did not reflect official British policy.

"It's not for us to comment on something that is presented as extracts from a French diplomatic telegram, but the views it quotes are not in any way an accurate representation of the government's approach," said a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office, who, like other French and British officials, spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

The official confirmed, however, that the two men did have a meeting, but said that the British ambassador's comments were taken out of context. The ambassador's deputy was also present at the meeting, according to the French cable.

But Cowper-Coles, a British career foreign service officer who has served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel, is known for his frank talk, and other British officials who know him say that his words rang true.

Fitou, meanwhile, is considered a responsible and precise diplomat who would be unlikely to misreport a conversation, a senior French official said.

It is unclear whether the two men spoke in English or French.
More on link
 
Obama favours U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
PAUL KORING

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

October 22, 2008 at 7:55 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

“We're confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama, the Democratic contender and now clear front-runner to replace George W. Bush, said Wednesday.

“It's time to heed the call … for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan,” he said in his most hawkish promise to date.

A U.S. army brigade includes about 5,000 soldiers along with tanks, armoured personnel carriers and helicopter gunships.


Seeking to deflect attacks that he is dangerously inexperienced in foreign policy, Mr. Obama huddled with a high-profile panel of experts before a news conference aimed at showcasing his command of global affairs.

“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,” he said, echoing Mr. Bush's oft-repeated refrain.

But he was quick to blame Mr. Bush for miring the United States in a pointless war and wrecking its reputation abroad.

“We must be vigilant in preventing future attacks, he said. “We're fighting two wars abroad [and] we're facing a range of 21st-century threats from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to our dependence on foreign oil, which have grown more daunting because of the failed policies of the last eight years.”

Mr. Obama, speaking in Virginia, a once-solidly Republican state that now could swing Democratic, warned that his rival, John McCain, a decorated former naval officer and combat pilot who endured years of torture as a prisoner of war, would lead America into more danger if he becomes president.

“Senator McCain has supported the key decisions and core approaches of President Bush. As president, he would continue the policies that have put our economy into crisis and, I believe, endangered our national security.”

As the deepening economic crisis has all but eclipsed other issues in the final few weeks of the campaign, Mr. McCain has repeatedly tried to shift the debate and portray Mr. Obama as unready to cope with foreign challenges.

Earlier this week Joe Biden, the Democrat vice-presidential candidate, predicted that unspecified foreign adversaries would attempt to challenge an inexperienced young president, just as the Cuban Missile Crisis tested president John F. Kennedy in 1962, but claimed Mr. Obama would rise to the occasion.

That assurance prompted a new jibe from Mr. McCain: “I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested. I have been tested, Senator Obama has not.”

Mr. Obama, at 47, is nearly a quarter-century younger than Mr. McCain and was a toddler in Hawaii during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

While Republicans paint Mr. Obama as dangerously naive, the first-term senator from Illinois has shot back by saying Mr. McCain is just wrong-headed

“We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday.


 
Here's my take on the whole thing. It's really quite simple in my mind, because I am a bit simple.
Why are we in Afghanistan? Ulitmately, because we are protecting a flock from predators. We send sheepdogs and shepherds out to protect flocks of sheep from predators don't we? Why not the same for human beings?
Even after all that has happened to my family since September 3rd, I now more than ever beleive that these predators need to be eradicated, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
And please, no one start with geopolitical arguments.
 
No geopolitical arguments here OldSolduer. That is the task at hand isn't it? To eradicate these 'predators' before they can harm? My brother was on the same tour as your son, Mike... and actually assisted in Mikes training over there. He will be missed. We have the obligation to the people of Afghanistan to eradicate, if necessary, this menace we are facing over there. I say... again, lets roll up our sleeves and get this job done,and done right the first time, so that we wont have to go back and do it again.With respects MWO. Ubique
 
Stumbled across this webpage the other day and thought people might be interested. Its the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies. Its mandate is to conduct"research in support of United States initiatives in Afghanistan. Our research provides comprehensive assessments of provincial and district tribal and clan networks in Afghanistan, anthropological assessments of Afghan villages, and assessments of the operational culture of Afghan districts and villages."

The site has some very interesting links on the ethnic and tribal breakdown of Afghanistan, tribal history, leadership, the ANA and ANP.

The CCS also produces a THE CULTURE AND CONFLICT REVIEW. In the latest copy I found this interesting article: Update from Kandahar: A City in Crisis and Implications for NATO by Conrad Jennings, 11/1/2008. The article covers the local situation, including perceptions of the locals, Taliban operations, and NATO/Canadian operations and how they are viewed by the locals. I haven't read the who article, but did a quick perusal and noticed a couple of things that stood out.

"There is a firm perception among former mujahedeen fighters and Taliban commanders that Canadians do not pursue attackers once they are attacked." This is compared to the Russians who would pursue the muj right back to their homes and kill them.
- "Negotiations with the Taliban are widely advocated by many and this process has failed to get off the ground. One of the major problems with this .....is that any call for negotiations is seen as a sign of weakness. You are only asking to negotiate because you are loosing, the argument goes, and it does not seem too far away from the truth." D'uh. Of course its seen as a sign of weakness. Unfortunately, to many of Western leaders have jumped on this bandwagon and its probably to late to do anything.

Once I get a chance to read the whole article I will try to post more info.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
"There is a firm perception among former mujahedeen fighters and Taliban commanders that Canadians do not pursue attackers once they are attacked." This is compared to the Russians who would pursue the muj right back to their homes and kill them.

There is a reason for this....the attackers are normally all killed, thus no one to chase.

Regards
 
Celticgirl said:
Something is really starting to bother me: Every time a soldier is KIA in Afghanistan, I see threads of condolence on a few other websites just as on this site. However, unlike this site, the others generally have a group of idiots who respond with comments like "our troops shouldn't be there", "this has to stop", "bring them home NOW", "what a waste of life", "they died for nothing", etc., etc.  Personally, I think that the R.I.P. threads and the debate re: Afghanistan should be separate, as they are here (and this is the only site where I've seen it done successfully). What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?  >:(

/rant

I agree with you. I sent an email to CTV expressing my disgust, in a professional tone on how they allow comments on articles about killed Canadians but not on other aspects of the war (That I have seen).  I got a generic email back stating that it's an emotional subject and will stay as it is. 
 
I've been reading some of the posts from MarkOttawa and I figure I can lend a hand in disseminating information.
From the site http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/ I found that they have a facebook group. So, even if I don't have a big facebook presence, I will be adding this group to my profile and invite all my friends to it:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9740534851
and suggest they do the same.

Hopefully, some of you here have a few friends in facebook or other social networking sites (with appropriate perssec info) and can do the same.

cheers,
Frank
 
" Why we should be there (or not)"

Good morning. I am a civilian and have come here at the direction of another poster in another forum. I take the position that the Nato forces ought to vacate Afghanistan at the first available opportunity and let the Americans continue their so called war on terror if that is what they choose to continue to do.

Afghanistan has been occupied for some seven years now and and there is very little tangible evidence that the life of the ordinary Afghan is better in a material sense. History has shown that conquests by previous imperial powers have failed in subduing the peoples of this region and there is every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.
 
Having been there, I take issue with the Afghan has been occupied by NATO line of thought.  Then again thought would have to go into your statement so, lets just say I take issue with what you said. 
 
pinko said:
" Why we should be there (or not)"

Good morning. I am a civilian and have come here at the direction of another poster in another forum. I take the position that the Nato forces ought to vacate Afghanistan at the first available opportunity and let the Americans continue their so called war on terror if that is what they choose to continue to do.

Afghanistan has been occupied for some seven years now and and there is very little tangible evidence that the life of the ordinary Afghan is better in a material sense. History has shown that conquests by previous imperial powers have failed in subduing the peoples of this region and there is every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.

Goto Afghanistan and start asking thier populous if they wish us to leave or not? Some will more than likely wish us to be out, but the majority are probably happy that they have some semblance of a stable government and police force to deal with the unruly ones who think throwing acid on little girls is an "acceptable" practice to get thier message out to the world.

Yes we need to be there, yes we need to deal with the people who do things of this nature, and until Al Q and the Taliban are delt with in a military fashion and brought to thier knees and finally accept that they ARE NOT and WILL NOT be rulers of the people in Afghanistan ever again will the mission be completed.

Cheers.

P.s This is not a CONQUEST by nato or anyone, this is a LIBERATION from terror.
 
Ummm Pinko

The TB government of Afghanistan & their ally Al Quaida did an unilateral declaration of war on the US when they had their operatives sieze aircraft and had them plow into the World trade centre, the Pentagon AND potentialy the White House - had they not been forced to crash into a field.... that is fact - unarguable fact.

While other nations have criticized the US for their actions in Iraq, no national leader has ever criticized the US for their decision to pursue the TB & AQ in Afghanistan.

NOW, The TB Government was overthrown and legitimate democratic elections were conducted.  A parliament and a president (with all their flaws) control the country as best they can.

The standing government of Afghanistan has asked for international aid (UN) and the UN has asked NATO for it's support in protecting the interests of the Afghan people.

Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban ???

Do you think the average Afghan citzen (men & women) agree with the Taliban & their henchmen throwing acid in the face of girls - just because they are going to school?
 
"Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"

You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.
 
pinko said:
"Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"

You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.

First of all Afghanistan is not "OCCUPIED" as you so put it, we are there by request of thier people and government. We are NOT there to take over thier country nor their way of life. We are there to free the people from Reliqious fanaticism and thier extremist way of life. We are there to allow ALL thier people to flourish in the same manner you or i do, peacefully and without persecution.

If you do not "CARE" about the Talibans policy why should you care about what the CF is doing?

Cheers and bubye.
 
I just love the mentality of those who espouse that we are Occupying Afghanistan........ no really I truly do as it shows their mentality in a very humorous way.  I do take issue with it but only if they are willing to debate it, since Pinko will follow trend and not take any debate other then their own. I have to fall back at being amused.  Naive children are so special, but should not be taken seriously.
 
Back
Top