Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[Valcartier 2007]

Hi everyone – We’re back! Hope you’ve had a safe and fun weekend.

Sending along as many replies as we can after this message.

Just a few background notes:

There seems to be a big deal being made of the fact that sometimes we’re on this forum as a “guest”. Well, when we read and reply to posts, we login; when we’re done, we logout. Sometimes, we check the forum board during the day (as you, we’re curious about responses). Plus, we use a public computer terminal, so other folks might be checking out the forum as well, with no intention of replying. Or, the forum page gets left on this desktop. So, not sure what the problem is? When we post, we login like any of you; when we’re done, we logoff.

George Wallace wrote that we “withdraw from the discussion for long periods in order to come up with replies.” That’s not how we operate. We’re not on this forum ALL the time because we have other commitments (work, organizing, family, friends, just like you). We reply when we can, and we’ll continue to reply.

Again, we appreciate this opportunity to debate and dialogue. Many folks seem to want to just shut down the debate, so we appreciate being here even more.

At the beginning, we were being openly dismissed (and even the factual basis of our letter was questioned). It seems most of you are quite willing to accept the factual basis of our argument (ie. we’re not simply making up facts), but disagree with our interpretations of those facts, and our conclusions.

We conclude that the Afghan mission is unjust, and many of you believe the opposite. That’s an advance from where this all started (some examples of the dismissive quotes were: “leave, and don't come back”: “full of logical falsies & inaccuracies”; “Your manifesto is so riddled with inaccuracy that only the truly dim, and those as willfully ignorant of the facts as you yourself have proven to be will ever be drawn in by this juvenile twaddle”).

Still, we got a basis for our point of view that many of you now respect, and we can all move to discussing our interpretations and conclusions.

Anyhow, we got a bit of time (“we” are several folks, who consult each other and reply; right now, there’s two of us working on these replies in English), and we’ll reply to as much as we can in the next little while.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

it's very interesting to see that we share some common points of view:

-there is evil in the world;
-good people need to oppose that evil, and that may mean using force including killing people;
-people have to be ready to stand up for what they believe in;
-there can be causes and objects greater than an individual;
-we shouldn't kill people if we don't have to;
-General Leslie is worth quoting; and
-the views and opinions of Canadian soldiers are worth thinking about.

Yup! We agree. But can you can also add: the views and opinions of anti-war protesters, even the anarchist anti-war protesters, are worth thinking about.

Unfortunately, the choice of the Spanish Civil War as a "good war" from the left wing point of view is so classic and stereotypical that I couldn't believe Valcartier would actually resort to it. Deciding that the Republicans were somehow morally superior to the Royalists really takes some mental gymnastics. Both sides were guilty of hideous atrocities (the Republicans targeted priests and nuns in particular), and both sides enthusiastically accepted the support and advice of hideous totalitarian regimes. While Franco and friends were supported by the German Kondor Legion, Mussolini, etc. the Republicans were only too happy to accept weapons and other support from the equally murderous and blood-stained Stalin, whose support for "human rights" and "freedom" and "democracy" are of course well known.

We do not identify with, or support, the Stalinist opposition to Franco. There was a clear anti-Stalinist opposition to Franco and fascism. It was Churchill and Roosevelt who made an alliance of convenience with Stalin, not the anarchists!

A good starting point about the Spanish Civil War, for those of you who are interested, is the Ken Loach film: "Land and Freedom". It's widely available at most video stores. It's not a documentary, but a drama, based on real events. Check it out! Even if you don't agree, you'll enjoy the drama of the film.

We could recommend some good books and websites too, if you're interested. Just let us know. The Spanish Civil War, and the anarchist role, is something that is resulting in a lot of misinformation on this thread.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

We think you now agree that we accurately quoted General Leslie from 2005; however, we disagree on the interpretation of his remarks. We want to clarify this point, because it’s coming up on this discussion again and again.

The key remark is: “"Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Many of you who’ve cited Leslie think he’s being honest, and has outlined a clear mission for Canada’s military role in Afghanistan.

This is our interpretation:

Yes, it’s quite honest for Leslie to have admitted in 2005 that killing people overseas creates animosity that “blows back” against you. You kill some insurgents, and you create many more.

While you see honesty and clarity, we see a contradiction (and a disaster): Leslie is essentially admitting that what we’ll have in Afghanistan is a never-ending war. That’s the so-called “logic” we take issue with. You’ll never be able to end the war, if you’re creating more people who want to kill you when you kill them (and your main job, as soldiers, is to kill, you all admit that, as does Leslie).

Importantly, the “Taliban” has become a catch-all term to refer to any insurgent, whether that person is actually a member of the Taliban, or someone who objects to a foreign military occupation in their country (or is just angry at the presence of foreigners). These are fluid categories, and, frankly, officers giving orders are not making these distinctions.

Sure, you’re killing “Taliban”, but you’re killing people who are not “Taliban” but are having that label applied to them. Plus, as RAWA (http://www.rawa.org) has pointed out (and, interestingly, their point of view has been pointedly ignored), you are defending “Taliban-like” forces and warlords. They are essentially your allies, who aren’t much better than the Taliban.

If you add to this argument, the increasing civilians deaths (and yes, unfortunately, Canadian soldiers are responsible for their proportionate share of civilian deaths) the Afghan mission is a quagmire: a quagmire for Canadian soldiers, and certainly, a tragedy for Afghans. It’s a disaster, constructed by politicians and generals, and it’s the on-the-ground soldiers who’ll suffer the consequences.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Many of you take issue with our linking of the US army with the Canada’s Afghanistan mission, and the influence of the US over NATO. Again, many of our disagreements come down to interpretations, not facts:

We believe that the Afghan mission is inextricably linked to the US and their foreign policy in the region. You seem to think that it can be separated. We stand by our assertion, and we think your distancing of Canada’s role in Afghanistan from the broader role of the US in the Middle East is simply naive.

US airpower permitted the land occupation. That same airpower, which backs you up, killed more than 3000 Afghan civilians. You would not be in Afghanistan if the US military wasn't there either.

The word “responsibility” has come up many times on this thread. Canada, and the Canadian Forces, should take responsibility for the allies who we have aligned with, and the ramifications of that alliance. This is not simple anti-Americanism, it’s understanding the geo-political reality of Canada’s role, and drawing the relevant conclusions.

The same logic applies to NATO. Sure, NATO is made up of many countries; but again, to downplay the decisive influence of the US over NATO (and therefore, over the entire Afghan mission) is just naive.

Canada has made a clear choice to support an ill-defined “War on Terror”, the “War on Terror” led by George Bush. With all due respect, it’s simply hypocritical to try to delink Canada’s role, and complicity, with the broader foreign and military consequences of that war.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

These people are anarchists.  It really doesn't matter who is in power or what the Government is doing.  They are against it.  If the Government keeps our Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  It the Government doesn't commit to having Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  Their very existance relies on their being 'against' the government.

Although using logical reasoning supported by overwhelming facts may not sway the average passive-agressive anarchist goon from their deeply flawed and contradicting ideas; we can all take comfort in one thing.  That is that when we fight it has the effect of providing security for good people doing good work for their country and the removal of truely dangerous and abhorent individuals.  Whereas when the anarchist fights it has the effect of providing the viewers of the world with footage of misguided individuals in black t-shirts having their backsides handed to them by riot police.

In reply to George Wallace and Wolfe117 above, on anarchism, we strongly encourage folks to get informed about anarchism as a political theory and practice, instead of relying on stereotypes.

A good starting point is the Anarchist FAQ which is linked at:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

If you want more info, just ask. Nous pouvons aussi recommander des liens en français.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[McG]

The same logic applies to NATO. Sure, NATO is made up of many countries; but again, to downplay the decisive influence of the US over NATO (and therefore, over the entire Afghan mission) is just naive.

You are still fighting with logical fallacies.  "NATO (and thereby ISAF) is controlled by the US bogeyman and if you don't believe it you are naive."  Maybe you could provide us some fact to support the notion that the US has monopoly on the thoughts of NATO.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

You are still fighting with logical fallacies.  "NATO (and thereby ISAF) is controlled by the US bogeyman and if you don't believe it you are naive."   Maybe you could provide us some fact to support the notion that the US has monopoly on the thoughts of NATO.

We never wrote that "the US has monopoly on the thoughts of NATO". We wrote that you can't "downplay the decisive influence of the US over NATO." That's very different. We stand by our assertion; it's international relations 101.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

We haven’t forgotten about the question that many of you have posed about our “alternative” to a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan. It’s a large answer, and we’ll give it in bits and pieces as we continue this debate. But, we want to anticipate here parts of that reply:

One aspect of that reply is explaining our worldview, which differs quite starkly from many of you. You see your role in Afghanistan as “helping” Afghans. Frankly, at times, the defenders of Canada’s role in Afghanistan come across as highly condescending and paternalistic, using language that is the modern-day equivalent of the “white man’s burden”, a form of neo-colonialism.

It bears repeating that many of us involved in networks around Block the Empire and other anti-war, international solidarity groups, are linked to Third World liberation movements. These are movements of self-determination, movements of dignity, movements that are able to articulate their past, present and future. We should listen to these progressive movements (like RAWA, or L'Observatoire de l'Asie centrale et du Moyen-Orient), instead of politicians self-servingly rationalizing their charity.

Our model is solidarity, which is the opposite of charity.

Closely linked to this point is an understanding of history, especially recent history. The role of the US and Canada in Afghanistan in 2007 can’t be delinked from previous foreign and military endeavors in years past.

From the end of the Second World War to the end or the Cold War, the US (with Canadian complicity) consistently undermined progressive movements in the Middle East. For example: Mossedeq was democratically elected the leader of Iran, and his government insisted on some level of control over Iran’s natural resources (instead of all profits flowing to Western companies). But he was overthrown in a CIA-coup (like Allende, or like so many other governments, leaders, and movements).

In Afghanistan, the US (with its allies) helped fund anti-women, fundamentalist warlords, which undermined secular, progressive movements in Afghanistan, which were quite strong. Now, after the previous policy “blowbacks” in their face, we are now given an ahistorical narrative about poor Afghans who need to be “saved” from other vicious Afghans.

This is just a taste of the background needed to understand our alternatives. We can’t glibly go over our worldview or the history of Western intervention in the Middle East, in a simple post. We take the question too seriously for that.

We do suggest two books in our For More Information (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/info_eng.htm) section of our website. Check them out. Ahmad Rashid’s “Taliban” explains the West’s role in helping create the Taliban in the first place (and the economic self-interest, related to pipelines). Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls' book – Bleeding Afghanistan -- is also a great backgrounder to the current situation in Afghanistan.

We’ll continue to contribute about alternatives, and this post is just a start on that question.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

It's 3am, and we (the two of us who are replying in English tonite) need to work in a few hours, so we'll call it a night.

We'll follow this debate and discussion throughout the week, and reply when we can. We always appreciate your thoughtful replies and questions. Don't worry, we won't disappear from this forum as long as you're interested in debating these issues.

Have a good week!

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[McG]

it's international relations 101.

but did you not tell us that you are not a university student? How is it you know the curriculum of this course ... or are you simply trying to suggest that disagreement implies lesser intelligence and thereby frighten me into compliance?

I appreciate your acknowledgment that NATO in capable of independent thought.  I don't know what you mean by "decisive influence" but you have now clarified that it is not total control.  Therefore, I'd suggest that the influence of France & Germany (to name only two) in ISAF should play a certain role toward moderating the US bogeyman that you fear to be at the helm.

... but I don't want to get lost on this track.  Lets get the details of your answers to the questions that GreyMatter & I have asked?

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717

You see your role in Afghanistan as “helping” Afghans. Frankly, at times, the defenders of Canada’s role in Afghanistan come across as highly condescending and paternalistic, using language that is the modern-day equivalent of the “white man’s burden”, a form of neo-colonialism.

There is certainly nothing Kipling about it.  We are there at the request of the democratically elected Afghan government.  If you take a close look at our policies, there is an emphasis on Afghans determining their future, on Afghans undertaking their reconstruction, and on Afghans leading.  Our help will let the Afghans get where they are going faster & with less violence.

However, I am starting to suspect that you are also in a minority of Canadians that would believe we should never do a peacekeeping mission.  Would I be correct in making such an assumption?  If this is the case then you probably do not care that, despite being a party to the conflict, we are able to minimise the violence as that nation rebuilds.

Our model is solidarity, which is the opposite of charity.

You’re going to have to clarify what you believe these words to mean for me.  Which one implies helping people because that is the right thing to do?

Closely linked to this point is an understanding of history, especially recent history. The role of the US and Canada in Afghanistan in 2007 can’t be delinked from previous foreign and military endeavors in years past.

From the end of the Second World War to the end or the Cold War, the US (with Canadian complicity) consistently ….

Without even going into your historical perspectives, you appear to be using Ad hominem tu quoque as an argument against the US being able to offer its help today.  You are also suggesting Canada is guilty by association & there for also cannot help.

Why should mistakes of the past prevent nations from helping other nations today?

 

[KevinB]

MCG -- I think the International Relations 101 was a quip, to use when one refers to something they believe is common knowledge.  I'm not going to quibble on that issue, but point out to Valcartier2007 that they still have not really adressed the issue of the UN support and mandates.  They still like to use the US as a whipping boy.

  The biggest issue I have with the people I call the OUT Crowd (out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan), is what happens then?
What do they expect to happen and what is their plan.  It is quite easy to say that the Afghan gov't is corrupt and incompetant (I'd argue that most human constructs have some incompetance and corruption in them at some level), however you also need to offer a solution, and frankly lets all drop acid and rave in the streets is not really a solution.

Before I take anyone arguement seriously it needs to have a plan, and at this point all I see is rhetoric, there may be some good points in it -- but it does nothing to solving the issues at hand. 


Later -- I have to go oppress some Iraqi's 

 

[Trooper Hale]

Later -- I have to go oppress some Iraqi's 

Good post I6, i was getting all serious and studious until that last line. Good point.
My view on your "OUT" crowd, who Valcartier belongs too, is that they love vague rhetoric and empty ideas. Valcartier seems to be suggesting that we just 'up and go' and leave the Afghans to their own devices, that they'll sit down, sort it out and create what will quickly be a wondrous utopia. I'd much rather be "highly condescending and paternalistic" then be a part in sitting back and watching people massacre each other which is what will happen if we, the West, do pull out.

If Valcartier is correct in saying that we the Western World have caused this mess, then i think we should be the ones to help clean it up (And thats help, as in a shared help) and create a better place to be by allowing people to achieve their nations goals with as little violence as possible. I'd much rather someone actually helping me out, rather then them just waving and saying "Solidarity man, good luck with that".
While we may be responsible for the occasional death or accident, we're definately stopping hundreds more. But then again, i suppose i'm being highly condescending and paternalistic.

 

[armyvern]

There seems to be a big deal being made of the fact that sometimes we’re on this forum as a “guest”. Well, when we read and reply to posts, we login; when we’re done, we logout. Sometimes, we check the forum board during the day (as you, we’re curious about responses). Plus, we use a public computer terminal, so other folks might be checking out the forum as well, with no intention of replying. Or, the forum page gets left on this desktop. So, not sure what the problem is? When we post, we login like any of you; when we’re done, we logoff.

No big deal, there just exists a simpler way for you to go about viewing on this forum while logged in as yourself. Being logged in as yourself also allows you the opportunity to view other members profiles (such as mine  ), a feature which isn't available when viewing as a guest.

Click on "Profile" (on your Army.ca toolbar)
Click on "Account Related Settings" (on the left side of your screen)
Uncheck "Show others your online status"
Scroll to bottom of page and enter your password
Click on "Change Profile"

There you have it. You can then use your own login, view your posts and responses that you are receiving, and not be visibly seen to be doing so by forum members or others you wish not to see you. You will then also have the capability to review your own posts, edit and modify, even post if necessary, and view profiles of forum members if required. None of which you can do as a guest.

As for the public computers you are accessing, interestingly enough, the members of the general public who enter through the possible pages left on the desktops by yourself, seem to be entirely interested in only viewing this very thread, and the franco version of same and nothing else. Is there a mathematician on this site capable of figuring out the odds of this?

All of this, of course, means very little in the grand scheme of things. I just thought that you should know there is an easier and more up front way of going about viewing site goings-ons and responses that you are receiving, with much more functionality as a forum member.



Edited to make "public computer" plural.

 

[George Wallace]

We haven’t forgotten about the question that many of you have posed about our “alternative” to a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan. It’s a large answer, and we’ll give it in bits and pieces as we continue this debate. But, we want to anticipate here parts of that reply:

This reply only tells me that you as a Collective have not given it the thought that it deserves and you have no solutions.  Surely if you did, you would have been able to reply right away to the question.  Now we have put you on the spot, and you must withdraw and confer and create some solutions to parade for us.

 

[scoutfinch]

One aspect of that reply is explaining our worldview, which differs quite starkly from many of you. You see your role in Afghanistan as “helping” Afghans. Frankly, at times, the defenders of Canada’s role in Afghanistan come across as highly condescending and paternalistic, using language that is the modern-day equivalent of the “white man’s burden”, a form of neo-colonialism.

In Afghanistan, the US (with its allies) helped fund anti-women, fundamentalist warlords, which undermined secular, progressive movements in Afghanistan, which were quite strong. Now, after the previous policy “blowbacks” in their face, we are now given an ahistorical narrative about poor Afghans who need to be “saved” from other vicious Afghans.

This is just a taste of the background needed to understand our alternatives. We can’t glibly go over our worldview or the history of Western intervention in the Middle East, in a simple post. We take the question too seriously for that.

We do suggest two books in our For More Information (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/info_eng.htm) section of our website. Check them out. Ahmad Rashid’s “Taliban” explains the West’s role in helping create the Taliban in the first place (and the economic self-interest, related to pipelines). Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls' book – Bleeding Afghanistan -- is also a great backgrounder to the current situation in Afghanistan.

(1)  Rashid's book is an excellant study of the emergence of the Taliban.  

(2)  Don't cherry pick from your sources.  Rashid's book discusses American involvement with the Taliban but it also discusses American efforts to curtail the persecution of women and to advance human rights by the late 1990s.  It also notes that the Taliban first emerged without prodding of the US and that Taliban would have flourished without American involvement AND  that the Taliban regularly flaunted their 'power' in the American faces and totally rejected most American efforts to influence the Taliban government.   Moreover, America ultimately abandoned the Taliban because they could not maintain any influence over the Taliban.  This point is quite clear in Rashid's work.

(3)  The mere suggestion that the elimination of progressive, secular movements in Afghanistan was not a DIRECT result of the Taliban is laughable.  The Americans had so little control over the Taliban on this issue that their responsibility for this would be tangential at best.  

(3)  Either you have selectively read or selectively cited from Rashid's work.  Your reliance on his work for your position is quite academically sketchy.  He is very clear:  the Taliban regularly thumbed their collective noses at the Americans.

I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan:  Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007?  Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan?  Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government?

These are not hollow rhetorical questions.  Answer them yourself and then tell me whether there needs to be international involvement.  I would like to see your written response to these questions.

 

[Mortar guy]

This is a fascinating debate and one I wish I had seen earlier! I think it's very impressive that Valcartier2007 has shown such courage and idealism in coming here to debate this topic and I have to admit that I respect the way he/she/they has been maintaining a civil tone.

That being said, I could not ever be swayed by their arguments. Idealism is a great thing but quite frankly its value in the real world is extremely limited and at the end of the day, the debate has to end and someone has to do something. This is where Valcartier2007's arguments come apart as (and many have pointed this out) they are essentially a long string of problems without solutions. Yes it is horrible that civilians die in war; nobody wants that. Yes, some people publicly lump all opposing groups in with the Taliban (although I've yet to see a "senior officer" do so as Valcartier2007 points out). However, taken from a teleological/utilitarian point of view, one can understand that the consequences of doing nothing are far worse than the effects of doing something. I spent a year in Afghanistan working with the highest levels of their Government and I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the majority of Afghan people welcome our presence and are grateful for our help. After 30 years of war, most want nothing more that to live in peace with their families and most realize that NATO is there to help them achieve that. This is where Valcartier2007's argument meets another roadblock - the fact that the Afghan people, the Afghan government and the UN all want Canada there. Most Afghans are opposed to the oppressive and twisted interpretation of Islam espoused by the Taliban and most are desperate for peace and prosperity. If Canada and NATO were to leave Afghanistan, I guarantee you that the best outcome they could expect would be another decade of civil war with the worst being a return to the oppression of the Taliban. Is this what you would like to see Valcartier 2007? More fighting, millions more refugees, more starvation? How could you possibly believe that leaving 30 million people twisting in the wind could be a just (and justifiable) course of action?

I would like to propose a theory as to why Valcartier2007 thinks this would be a good thing: you have absolutely no idea what is really happening in Afghanistan. Relying on the news media for information and blinded by rhetoric, you are both unable and unwilling to understand that we (i.e. NATO and allies) are doing good things in Afghanistan. You don't hear about the fact that GDP per capita has more than doubled since 2002; that millions of refugees have returned home; that Kabul is a vibrant city once again; that over 50% of the country (the North and West) are peaceful; that Afghanistan has a functioning democracy with greater voter turn-out and greater female representation than most Western countries; that thousands of kilometers of roads and hundreds of schools and clinics have been built. I don't blame you for not knowing these things but I do hold you absolutely responsible for taking the public position you have without knowing what you are talking about. I find such a thing to be abhorrently irresponsible as I would never dream of publicly speaking out about something I had only the vaguest of ideas about. I would be afraid of looking like an absolute fool in public when someone who was actually knowledgeable spoke up.

MG

 

[pbi]

Valcartier: your reference to Kipling and the "white man's burden" belies how little you actually understand about either the intent or the execution of the development and security aspects of the campaign in Afghanistan. The thrust of the entire thing, very clearly, has been and is to build the Afghan's own ability to run things, improve things and secure their achievements against those who simply want to destroy everything and revert to a bloodthirsty theocracy.

When I served as a liaison officer at the US force HQ in Bagram (2004-2005), I was party on a daily basis to the planning, briefings and conferences on this very subject: the US called it "building the Afghan capacity", and it ran the gamut from agricultural development to training the ANP, and everything in between. The clearly stated purpose was to stand the Afghans on their own feet. Since then, this approach has been adopted by ISAF and applied by Canada. We definitely don't want to decide things for them, nor could we in a realistic sense. it's not our country, and Afghans don't take very well to foreigners pushing them around.

It is most definitely NOT charity (I've been on enough overseas missions to be able to tell the difference, and to see the harmful and debilitating results of too much "aid" without any real capacity building. Most Canadians I know who have been involved in helping and training Afghans have a high degree of respect for them, opposed to the paternalistic colonialist (not to say racist...) view that you apparently impute to us.

But, I sense that for you and your group, none of our arguments really matter. The presence of the US , (despite all the other qualifying and mitigating factors that have been brought forward by posters here) is the mark of Satan: nothing done by international forces in Afghanistan could possibly be any good at all because the wicked US is involved. No doubt you will next trot out the story about the Afghan pipeline as the reason for being there.

Whether you and your group approve of it or not, we are allies with the US. We share in NATO and we share the defense of North America with them.  It is unrealistic to think that it would be any other way. A truly meaningful neutrality (ie such that of Sweden or Switzerland) would cost so much to ensure (compulsory military service, for a start...) that it is a non starter. Partly as a result of this, we have never been a neutral country, nor a pacifist one. While we were involved in peacekeeping for a relatively brief period of our national history (and may still be again), it never consumed the majority of the CF and was never the primary institutional focus. We are a nation with national interests and international obligations, just like any other. These include being an honourable and trustworthy member of alliances we sign up to, as opposed to running away when it gets nasty.

Cheers

 

[Greymatters]

How is it that according to these guys everything that we do is wrong?  Is there nothing that we have done right? 

I still see no strategy on what your actions would be in place of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.  Its easy to point a finger and say 'thats wrong', but it takes a bit more intellect to devise a replacement plan.       

 

[Flip]

The peace movement can arguably count the US withdrawl
from Vietnam a victory for them. I would say a hollow victory.

If Canada and NATO were to leave Afghanistan, I guarantee you that the best outcome they could expect would be another decade of civil war with the worst being a return to the oppression of the Taliban. Is this what you would like to see Valcartier 2007? More fighting, millions more refugees, more starvation? How could you possibly believe that leaving 30 million people twisting in the wind could be a just (and justifiable) course of action?

I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan:  Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007?  Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan?  Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government?

I like these paragraphs in particular.
It reminds me of the consequences of that withdrawl.
It shows me we could repeat history if we do as the peace movement
is calling for.

Does anyone remember what happened after that withdrawl?

Valcartier2007 do you have any idea?

 

[xena]

Seriously, if you want to make Afghanistan better, do something real about it.  Go there.  Build schools, hospitals, sewer systems, whatever.  If you can go there and do it better than the CF, good on you!  Give it a shot!

If you want to sit back in Canada, (enjoying the priveleges and freedoms that people better than you died for you to have), and just whine about a vague world situation, you're wasting your breath.

That's not to say this discussion is bad.  This is great!  Hopefully this can show that a stereotype of a soldier being a mindless automaton is totally wrong.  (Actually the days of the "dumb grunt" are long gone - I have the highest respect for the intelligence and creativity of people on the "pointy end", and that's from a retired CSS Wog!)  ;D

I'm just suggesting that instead of protesting things, try to come up with tangible solutions, and implement them!  Make things better on the ground in Afghanistan.  You don't have to be involved with the military to do that.

Just my two rubles though...