CAN DefMin Doesn't Consider Us At War?

[The Bread Guy]

Just read this, and am wondering what might be missing re:  context (whyever would I be suspicious of media?  )- still, thought it was worth sharing.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=aee0bf75-e7c9-4d64-b233-06379104c3d7&k=27048

Despite combat deaths, Canada not at war in Kandahar: defence minister
 
Jim Bronskill, Canadian Press, May 30, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

Fighting violent insurgents is just one task among many for Canadian soldiers trying to bring stability to the troubled country, O'Connor told a Commons committee Tuesday.

"The military has to conduct a range of activities," he said under questioning from MPs.

"I don't consider this war."

Since 2002, 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

Liberal committee member Ujjal Dosanjh suggested the Conservative government is avoiding use of the term war because it too closely mirrors American terminology, as in the war on terrorism.

"I think they're trying to downplay it," Dosanjh said after the committee meeting.

(...)

O'Connor insisted it's not accurate to say Canada is at war.

"We're engaged in helping people move products around, we're helping them build houses, we're helping advise the police. And when we're attacked, we attack back."

The Commons narrowly voted recently to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan an additional two years, until February 2009.  O'Connor told MPs it was the "right and responsible thing" to make the renewed commitment.

A day earlier, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said progress has been made on a variety of social, economic and judicial fronts under the auspices of Canada's 2,300-member military force.

O'Connor said Tuesday the job is not yet done.

"Our military mission in Afghanistan will be successful when the country and its government are stabilized," he said. "When the terrorists and their local support networks are defeated and denied sanctuary. And when the Afghan security forces are well-established and under the firm and legitimate control of the government of Afghanistan."

O'Connor disclosed Tuesday that most of the military's jeep-like G-Wagons will be confined to the Canadian base in Kandahar and, in general, soldiers will venture out in armoured vehicles.

But he denied that will make Canada's military less visible and therefore less able to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Instead, he suggested, it's a question of safety.
"You have to travel between towns. When you get to the town, you get out of your vehicles and you talk to the people."

(...)

 

[m410]

Liberal committee member Ujjal Dosanjh suggested the Conservative government is avoiding use of the term war because it too closely mirrors American terminology, as in the war on terrorism.

"I think they're trying to downplay it," Dosanjh said after the committee meeting.

Wait a sec Ujjal... so are the Conservatives "too American", or "not American enough"?  What term would a Liberal government use, and would it avoid the word "war"?  If so, why?  Because it too closely mirrors American terminology?

I, for one, strongly believe we are at war, but the war is much bigger than Afghanistan, and its not just about terrorism.  And so far "winning" is not the word for how we are faring.

 

[Trinity]

Its odd..

we have no declaration for war, which, seems to be logical to have if we were at war.

But... we're handing out campaign stars? 


: ???

 

[3rd Horseman]

I don't under stand why these guys still insist on playing this War no War game, just call it the way it is....I would like to hear the MND say "we cant call it War because War is Illegal, we have not been at War since the end of the big one in 45, the reality is that we have been fighting wars but calling it something else to keep the world warm and comfy feeling. Next question please"

Ahhh it would be so nice to hear clarity.

The Campaign star is kinda strange, should have been a bar to the SSM or NATO SSM. But then we have trashed the SSM thing now anyway it almost becomes useless. Maybe the star was a good choice that should have been made back in Somolia (Africa Star) and Bosnia, Croatia (European Star) A Stan( Eastern Star).

 

[Trinity]

Isn't there a danger in calling this a war.

If Canada is at war, don't we have legal obligations in the war act
such as massive financing to the military, huge recruiting, un mothball
some stuff???

Anyone...

 

[m410]

Isn't there a danger in calling this a war.

If Canada is at war, don't we have legal obligations in the war act
such as massive financing to the military, huge recruiting, un mothball
some stuff???

Anyone...

You mean like treating this whole thing seriously and not just a sideshow from American Idol?  :

 

[Trinity]

You mean like treating this whole thing seriously and not just a sideshow from American Idol?  :

I love American Idol.  Do you think we can get Paula Abdul in Combats and sing
while we are over seas?  She'd be great in recruiting.... 

 

[pbi]

I find this whole debate about “whether or not we are at war” to be an utter red herring. We have not, AFAIK, declared war on anybody since 1939. But, in the 61 years since WWII ended, our soldiers and aircrew have been in combat engagements ranging from Kapyong through Medak to the air campaigns in the Gulf and Kosovo and now the operation in Afghanistan. Throughout those engagements we have dropped bombs, fired artillery barrages, fought hand to hand and taken hundreds if not thousands of casualties. And, to the best of my knowledge, all without a declaration of war. Did the absence of such a declaration in any way lessen the courage and honourable service of our soldiers? Did it lessen the importance of what we were doing, or trying to do, by engaging in those operations? I don’t think so. Combat is combat. IMHO, we need to realize that in the modern world there is little or no meaningful connection between how much force we use on international operations and the presence or  absence of any “declaration of war”. Despite the well-meant intentions of the US declaration of a “War on Terror”, I have to ask how meaningful a declaration of war would be in, (say), Afghanistan. Who would it be against? And, even if we could find a political entity to make it to, what difference would it really make to anything? Would such a declaration enable the government to devote more resources to Afghanistan, or take extraordinary measures at home? Perhaps, but the government is already capable of spending more on Afghanistan, and the implementing of the Emergency Act (which does not require a declaration of war, AFAIK…) could allow the govt to do almost whatever it wished in terms of “extraordinary measures”. And, anyway, what are we talking about? Conscription? Rounding up people we don’t like? Rationing?

To me, this squabbling about whether or not we are “at war” is utterly meaningless and is in fact nothing more than a political tool to embarrass the Tories by watching them go through contortions trying to come up with a politically palatable answer. And that, unfortunately, is exactly what they seem to be doing. What is really sickening and infuriating (but, I suppose, not very surprising...) is that the same political party who got us into the GWOT, and into Afghanistan as part of OEF (both the first time and the second time) is now shamelessly baiting the government with this nonsense.

Cheers

 

[cobbler]

Its odd..

we have no declaration for war, which, seems to be logical to have if we were at war.

But... we're handing out campaign stars? 


: ???

Well there was no formal declaration of war in Vietnam, the Falklands, the Gulf War (I believe), or the Iraq War either, yet they were certainly wars.

IIRC the last war to be formally declared was Korea, and that has never been officially resolved.

The formal act of declaring war is no longer practised as it brings about too much red tape and would probably cripple most economies.

 

[rick7475]

The country is not at war.  I talked to my granpa today who is in his 80's who remembers what it is like to be at war. 2300 troops in Afghanistan was the number of Canadian casualties for a few weeks in Caen, Ortona, or the Gustav Line. While everyone appreciates the sacrifice and role our soldiers are playing, the average Canadian civilian is almost totally unaffected except for a few headlines here and there and a couple of ignored dire warnings from CSIS. 

 

[George Wallace]

The country is not at war.  I talked to my granpa today who is in his 80's who remembers what it is like to be at war. 2300 troops in Afghanistan was the number of Canadian casualties for a few weeks in Caen, Ortona, or the Gustav Line. While everyone appreciates the sacrifice and role our soldiers are playing, the average Canadian civilian is almost totally unaffected except for a few headlines here and there and a couple of ignored dire warnings from CSIS. 

Perhaps you can ask if we were at war in the 1960's, '70's, and '80's.  We were you know.  It was called the "Cold War".

 

[Peacenik]

I would tend to agree with the MND, although it is a technicality.

Would an average canadian believe that the terminology used would somehow
change what is happening on the ground?

Would "Combat Operations" suffice?

 

[Journeyman]

The Canadian Forces, particularly the Army, is at war. Sadly, Canada is not.

The obviousness of this situation, and the political depths it allows our government to sink could be seen on Monday

Mike Blanchfield (CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen: Tuesday, May 30, 2006)
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay stands in the House Commons during Question Period on Monday.

OTTAWA - Insults, both deliberate and unintended, along with partisan sniping and skepticism marred Senate hearings on Afghanistan on Monday...when Liberal Senator Peter Stollery hurled an insult at Karzai, Afghanistan's interim president, who MacKay said would soon be visiting Canada.
''You know Karzai, he's a stooge. He was put there by Americans. Everybody knows that,'' Stollery said.

For Liberal Senator Peter Stollery insulting an elected foreign leader (and military ally for that part of society that is at war) before his scheduled visit to Canada is just embarrassing

...without even considering the farce of a Liberal political appointee mocking an elected leader for being anyone's "stooge"  :

 

[Haggis]

I would tend to agree with the MND, although it is a technicality.

Would an average canadian believe that the terminology used would somehow
change what is happening on the ground?

Would "Combat Operations" suffice?

Let's play Jeopardy!

Alex Trebek (a Canadian) says "Combat Operations are conducted during this type of activity."

And you, Peacenik, reply........?

 

[MasterStryker]

I understand where this is coming from but if you ask me and any other Canadian soldier, this is war.

 

[Peacenik]

Let's play Jeopardy!

Alex Trebek (a Canadian) says "Combat Operations are conducted during this type of activity."

And you, Peacenik, reply........?

Combat operations are activities themselves... they can take place outside a declared war.
Again I still think its a technicality but the MND doesn't deserve sniping from those who got us
into Afghanistan in the first place.  Especially since its politically motivated.

 

[MasterStryker]

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!

 

[GAP]

Viet Nam, Korea, and many others were never declared wars either. As long as the job gets done, why sweat the semantics?

 

[Peacenik]

From a legal standpoint the formally definiing a given conflict as a war introduces a lot of red tape.
O'Connor has to be careful and the Liberals are trying to make hay out of that.  As far as I'm concerned it is
a matter of semantics as GAP has said, but IMO the implications of calling it a war are greater then satiating
our desire for straight talk from the cabinet. 

 

[Journeyman]

Viet Nam, Korea, and many others were never declared wars either. As long as the job gets done, why sweat the semantics?

I think the answer is here...

... the MND doesn't deserve sniping from those who got us into Afghanistan in the first place.  Especially since its politically motivated.

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.