CAN DefMin Doesn't Consider Us At War?

[GAP]

I think the answer is here...
It may merely be "semantics," but I personally find it sickening that the Liberals would play such blatant political games when we have soldiers in harm's way. It forms doubt in the minds of our allies and adversaries alike that Canada has the staying power to be an effective player in this, and other, international arenas....and leaves the troops feeling that they are not supported on the home front.

Truly sad.

I don't think the troops care one way or the other. If you talk to troops who served in other conflicts and from this one, you will find it doesn't  really matter. What matters is bean & bullets, not political rhetoric. Give them the means to pursue the mission and backing it and them politically is far more important.

 

[vangemeren]

I don't think anyone bothers with formal declarations of war anymore. When a formal declaration of war come to my mind, it conjures up the the image of empires in the Great War and a "Gentleman's war"

I know it's semantics, but it's always been the "War on Terror", but now the MND insists that we aren't. I'm wondering why he just doesn't call it a war, I don't see why he has to call it something different. I know it doesn't matter in the end, but my question is why he has to make the difference.

I don't think the troops care one way or the other. If you talk to troops who served in other conflicts and from this one, you will find it doesn't  really matter. What matters is bean & bullets, not political rhetoric. Give them the means to pursue the mission and backing it and them politically is far more important.

+1

 

[rifleman]

The war on terrorism is the same aggressive term as "the war on illiteracy" <--- is this a war?
Being that we are there so they can stabilize and form a civil society. I would perhaps use the term Support to civil authority. Why is it so important to be called a war? I'd say in order to be considered war, the CF would be mobilized, not just spending a tour in Afganistan. There would be war production, not just utilizing what we had in peacetime.

Its like there is a "War on words" here

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think the troops care one way or the other. If you talk to troops who served in other conflicts and from this one, you will find it doesn't  really matter.

That's true enough for the the troops currently on the ground. And I don't deny that having the beans & bullets is a critical concern - - hey, I was so focused on day-to-day ops during my three deployments that I had little concern for activities on the homefront...including my ex-wife wandering off somewhere in there, but that's not my point.

From the larger perspective, I think this politicking is going to come back to bite Canada internationally, and the troops locally, years after their return.

We'll have to see how the history is written; how Canada is seen on the international stage; how our troops feel about how they were treated/discussed regardless of the completely-justified pride they will feel in accomplishing their mission - - a mission they were sent on by a government that is now out of power, and so feels no shame in using these troops as political pawns for their own grandstanding.

I suspect the troops may not be as blissfully unconcerned or forgiving of domestic politics and media, as they are right now. For obvious reasons, however, they currently have other things on their minds.

Of course, perhaps I'm just ranting too.  :-\

 

[Thompson_JM]

they're shooting at us, we are shooting at them, this is no UN mission so what else could you call it besides war? combat operations? that sounds like war to me!

Last I checked it was a UN Mandate that Brought us into Afghanistan in the first place.... If someone could confirm for me.

from ISAF Homepage: http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/about/about_history.htm

_____________________________________________________
History of the
International Security Assistance Force

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is mandated under Chapter VII of the United Nations (UN) Charter (Peace Enforcing) by UN Security Resolutions 1386, 1413, and 1444. ISAF exists to help the Afghan people, not to govern them.

Additionally, under the UN mandate, the role of ISAF is to assist in the maintenance of security to help the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the UN in Kabul and its environs.

ISAF exists in accordance with the Bonn Agreement of Dec. 6, 2001. A detailed Military Technical Agreement between the ISAF Commander and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan provides additional guidance on ISAF operations. Following these provisions, ISAF will be in existence at least until the successful closure of the Bonn process, that is, the general elections.

ISAF's mission is to assist the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in creating a stable and secure environment in Kabul and its vicinity......

_______________________________________________________________

So, it is UN in a sense.... its Nato Run under the UN Mandate. meaning the UN either told them or asked them to go. (correct me if im wrong)

lets look at the definition of war now:

war    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (wôr)
n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.
The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

intr.v. warred, war·ring, wars
To wage or carry on warfare.
To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend.

Idiom:
at war
In an active state of conflict or contention.

________________________________________________

This is the main definition I want to focus on. "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

I would say we are not fighting a traditional war per-say, but I wouldnt be afraid of calling it a war.  though It just seems to me that we are arguing semantics on here. as to whose definition of war/not war fits best....

all i know is that god willing Im going to be deploying to whatever we're calling it in feb 07.... I'll come up with a name for it myself im sure, after a few days/weeks there....

cheers

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I don't think anyone bothers with formal declarations of war anymore. When a formal declaration of war come to my mind, it conjures up the the image of empires in the Great War and a "Gentleman's war"

Who would we declare war on in Afghanistan? We're not fighting the government there, we're helping them. We're fighting individual bands of terrorists. No one to declare war on.  Besides, with the advent of Total War, declaring war means you don't go out and fight the other guy's army (like in the Falklands, say) but you bomb their civilians and destroy their cities as well. So much for Gentleman's War.

As for who it matters to, well, veteran's benefits have been known to apply unevenly in the past depending on the level of conflict that is declared.

 

[Enzo]

I liked how Cpl Thompson summed things up, so agreement there.

The obvious issue here resides in the politics of the situation. The Liberals started this, what exactly are they missing? Oh right; it's the politics, not the people. Sorry, I was confused.

I just wish Dosangh and Graham would find some personal honour and accountability... but I'm naive that way.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Well it all depends on how you want to word it.  The Afghan mission is not a war per-say, but it is a proxy conflict for the over all war on Terrorism, much like Viet Nam was a proxy conflict for the Cold War.

 

[3rd Horseman]

they're shooting at us, we are shooting at them, this is no UN mission so what else could you call it besides war? combat operations? that sounds like war to me!

Read your history, as a vet of the Bosnian war, I would consider the combat team attacks and BN size assaults that occurred to be combat ops, UN does not always mean unarmed observer....many a UN soldier fought to hold or take ground from an EN and paid for it with his life in combat.

 

[pbi]

I just wish Dosangh and Graham would find some personal honour and accountability... but I'm naive that way.

This is the part that I find really disgusting and shameless. They are cynically trading on the common amnesia of the Canadian public where military and foreign affairs issues are concerned. Like Hitler's Nazis, they apparenly believe that if you repeat a big lie often enough, it will gradually become accepted as truth. Thy are busily trying to distance themselves from their previous decisons. If I was a hopeless optimist I would believe that the Canadian public will remember this immoral trickery at the next election.

Cheers