Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

[GForce]

Baker, look up on the Halifax explosions when our allies exploded enough munitions to take out more then one city. I dont recall us over-reacting and making that big of a deal over it we realized it was an accident, or plain stupidity. USA hasn‘t realized that Iraq has basically cleaned up as of 1995 you guys just havn‘t realized it.

 

[portcullisguy]

Even if Canada cannot commit to further ROTO‘s for the ISAF mission, ISAF itself should expand its role, without question.

The terrorists, I don‘t imagine, see the little flag on our shoulder, and could care less that we come from Canada, Britain or Bahrain. To them, we are "foreign coalition infidels" and the terrorist element cannot bring the country back to the dark ages while we are still there, trying to restore peace, security, and basic human rights.

So long as ISAF stays, the work continues. If Canada cannot be a part of it, I am ok with that. It would be a shame to leave the mission, and I would hope that our contribution will include troops for as long as they‘re needed.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

G Force btw who do you think came to our aid after the Halifax explosion? Wasn‘t the UK but the US.

 

[Infanteer]

G-Force, who are you? Maybe fill out your profile so we can figure out who is flinging mud at our American representative.

Mark C, welcome back sir.

Even if Canada cannot commit to further ROTO‘s for the ISAF mission, ISAF itself should expand its role, without question.

That was the crux of my original arguement. Simply patroling the streets of Kabul (no matter how professionally executed by ISAF) does not go far enough in eliminating the threat that lies within Afghanistan. That is why our American brothers are still in the mountains to the south, rooting these *******s out.

I think the fact that the Canadian leadership is discussing pulling all our contingents out worldwide is ridiculous and shows their inability to conceptulize the nature of the war we are in right now.

What if Canada had pulled its army out of Europe at the end of 1944 due to exaustion? I see no difference to what some are advocating now, and I firmly believe that most Canadian soldiers believe this as well and accept the fact that we are needed abroad. I, for one, am just waiting for the word....

 

[Danjanou]

...look up on the Halifax explosions when our allies exploded enough munitions to take out more then one city...

Ok, Im a bit curious Which allies were those?
From every account I‘ve read it was a tragic accident. Possibly preventable, maybe depending on which version we wish to accept, if any as gospel (cowardly ship captain, incompetant pilot, unreasonable SOPs etc.), but in the end an accident. Your statement makes it sound like some deliberate act and by an ally.

Care to elaborate on that G-Force?

Mark, Franko, excellent points. We have to stay the distance. I often wonder though if most of our elected officials have half the moral fibre of the young men and woman patrolling the streets of Kabul.

 

[muskrat89]

Mark C - one of the finest posts I‘ve read, in a long time.

Infanteer - always a pleasure

Franko - Welcome to another sensible person

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think we need to figure out what our end state is going to be in Afganistan and have an exit strategy. I don‘t think pulling all our resources back in is such a bad idea because at the current rate we are going we are running out of reserves for potential major stuff such as a catastrophic natural or manmade disaster on the home front as well as abroad. We are stretch way too thin and too reliant on other nations for things such as air movement and air support. The time of spending 30 years in Cypres and over ten in Bosnia is over. We need a new strategy such as going in and seperating the opposing parties and then handing off to someone else. These decade long taskings are too taxing to our small military. By pulling back we can take a breath, focus on developing some quality troops and procuring some quality kit. We couldn‘t have commited to Iraq if we wanted to, not in any significant way as I can see. The U.S. knows our shortcomings and I have no doubt that they wouldn‘t blame us for pulling up stakes for awhile and I bet a lot of them wished their gov‘t wished they sent them home.

P.S. please excuse any spelling errors. Also this GForce character is a right out of it and perhaps should go on a time out.

 

[FutureTroopie]

Originally posted by GForce:
[qb]I think USA ruined Mideast relations[/qb]

Since when have relations ever been good with the middle east??

 

[Thompson_JM]

I really dont think i can add anything that hasnt already been said, apart from personal opinion, that we Have to keep troops there. We committed our men and women, and despite the tragic cost so far, we all knew the risks, and we all knew that some of our boys wouldnt be comming home. I can only speak for myself, but if even if i knew i was facing certain death going over there, if i thought i could help those people restore some form of peace, or remove some element of the evil that is already far to prevelent in this world, I would still go willingly. I cant pretend to know the pain and sorrow that the families and freinds of our fallen comrades are going through, but I hope that they can at least take comfort in the fact that their loved ones died performing the most honorable and noble duty of all, Helping others.

anyways, thats just my two cents... well closter to $1.50...

 

[portcullisguy]

People talk about having an "exit strategy" and then someone here made a comparison to WWII, asking rhetorically what if Canada decided to jack it in 1944 due to exhaustion.

Got me thinking (I know, I see the smoke coming from my ears too)...

...did our boys in Europe have a "exit strategy" when they went over to help out Britain and the US kick the Jerries? I‘ve read a bit of WWII history (admittedly, not that much). I don‘t recall ever hearing of any other overall Allied strategy other than "finish the job".

Even the division of the German state between the Allies was very much up in the air until the latest stages of the war.

Did we ask "what‘s our exit strategy?" or "what happens when we get bogged down?" or did we just send our troops off, knowing that the cause was just, losses were expected, and when the job is done, our boys can come home.

I have my own personal suspicion on the matter, but I wanted to hear everyone‘s opinion first.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Times have changed and we no longer have unlimited resources, plus WW2 was seen as an immediate global threat. The last thing anyone wants is to be over there with no feasable end in sight.

 

[onecat]

"Did we ask "what‘s our exit strategy?" or "what happens when we get bogged down?" or did we just send our troops off, knowing that the cause was just, losses were expected, and when the job is done, our boys can come home."

There wasn‘t one. The Great War and WW2, were total wars for canada. We were there till it was done, no questions asked. No one signed up thinking they were there for a year and it was over, or that they would get tours of duty; things were just different than.

 

[onecat]

"the UK was attacked by terrorists, parliment destroyed, the Queen and most of her immediate family were killed as well. What do you think Canada would say?"

Canada go and help in any way it could. Just like it did after 9/11, it would send in SAR teams, send blood and any support needed. After it was over and the UK was ready to go after the group that did it, Canada would be there too. Just like 9/11 would support this war on Terror too.

S_Baker I think your question is bit different though, in 9/11 only a business towers was hit no from government so they really are two different set ups. Plus if the Queen and Royal family are killed, then its an attack on Canada seeing as the Queen is our head of state. An attack Like that would get Canada involved right away, as would most of the Common Wealth.

 

[winchable]

Originally posted by radiohead:
[qb] no from government [/qb]

Is this none from government?

If it is; isn‘t the Pentagon a government building?

I‘m staying out of the thread for the time being, I just read this and thought it should be pointed out.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"business towers was hit no from government so they really are two different set ups"

I disagree.
terrorist attacks effect the publics support for the government. Terrorists dont attack to take over countries, they attack to ruin them and make people suffer.
Look at how much money the government had to pump into airport security because of a buisness building being hit. Look at how upset people were at the government for letting it happen when it came to light that it could have been halted.

They are undermining the government by attacking those types of buildings.

 

[Franko]

Alright troops...we‘re WAY off topic. Lets try to keep it to the question posed.

S Baker... on my last point I hope I cleared up any miss-understandings.

Regards

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...or a letter in a name that might change the meaning- I believe its with a "K" {check name spelling}

 

[cdnguy215]

"I would hope that the CDN government has the staying power and the understanding that the "war" on terror (for the lack of a better term) is a long term mission."

The Canadian government has a done a very good job fighting the war on the terror. Since 9/11 CF forces have been in Afghanistan first actually fighting and then as a peacekeeping force. The Navy has been in Gulf since 9/11 almost around the clock. So yes the government does know that this war is going to be long. Even during the Iraq war the Navy had at one point 4 ships in Gulf.

The Liberals aren‘t strong on defence and they do need to put money resources into Forces But they been putting resources in the war on terror. Just because they didn‘t support the US led war on Iraq ( which to many was not part of war on terror but a personal war for Bush) doesn‘t mean Canada has not there for the war on terror.

 

[dwild40]

Bravo Baker

 

[tanner_graydon]

I don‘t think Canada gets the recognition it deserves from the US. How many Canadians mourned US dead following 9/11? something like 100 000 at parliament hill alone?

I might be wrong but, is Canada not the 3rd largest contributor of forces in the war on Terror?