The headline reads, “Canadians Head out to Hunt Down Taliban!” It all begs the question, just how much will Canadians tolerate as far as casualties? How much will you tolerate? And, if you have family in the forces, or are in the forces yourself, how many KIA and WIA are you willing to put up with before the cost of keeping Afghanistan free of the Islamist threat becomes too high?
My personal feeling is that no place in the world today is “too far” away. 911 was hatched in Afghanistan, and any region of the world ruled by fanatics can become the incubator for tragedy right here in Canada. I view the issue in terms of winning and losing. You go in to win; period. I view each injury and death as a sacrifice for the freedom of Afghan children and my children. But then, that’s just me.
Another thought you may want to consider is this. Canada only has 33 million or so people. Every soldier we lose to injury or death, is equivalent to 11 or so in the United States as a percentage of population. When you look at it like that, our cost in Afghanistan has already been high.
For those of you unfamiliar with Canadian Armed Forces readiness, you may want to try this LINK. Cjunk did a series a while back on the equipment readiness of our forces. (warning, it’s a long read) Keep in mind that even the best equiped, best trained, best armed force in the world has lost over one thousand men and women in Iraq.
So, what’s your limit?
UPDATE:
In related news: click
Some are suggesting that by even being “over there” we create more terrorists. For an interesting read on the topic, you may want to try THIS.
MolarMauler: The problem for a Canada is that it hasn’t been in a real shooting war since Korea; in order to better protect your soldiers, and to win, you must often initially take greater losses. You must take the offense, which always means greater losses. A static defense means fewer losses, but it also means losing in the end. That’s the dynamic of war. With a Canada awash with Utopian Liberalism and first generation Canadians who may, or may not, tolerate losses politically, it remains to be seen what a real shooting war will result in at the polls. The Liberal Party of Canada will choose whatever side the polls push it; the NDP of course will take the pacifist route and I wouldn’t trust the Bloc at all.
I’m for winning, and for long term stability in Afghanistan. To think that places like Afghanistan are a backwater is a falacy. 911 was hatched in the caves of that backwater. But, I’m also pragmatic about what Canada has become, and I would NOT bet on this country as a whole. I’d bet on our armed forces; not on all of her people.
It’s a good thing people weren’t polling the troops or civilians when the canadians were on Verrier ridge we might have had to pull out of normandy.
The second this BS starts we’ve lost. We need to go in hard kick but then make it as peaceful as germany was after WWII.
Every day that any taliban post exists we are losing.
Then build schools, bridges. ETC, ETC,
Agreed Debris Trail.
I don’t really trust some people at home to support the troops. That’s why it falls to us, as people in the community with family members and friends, to talk about our role in the world and what these men and women are doing for us to keep us safe and preserve/spread our way of life.
I don’t think we can rely on our government (although we are likely better off with the Cons) and especially not the media to change the opinions of Canadians soft on the war.
I predict it will take the Pats a few months to roll up the Taliban.
The only question for me is how big of a parade should we give them when they come home?
I too would like to see Kate ban the tiresome trolls here who hijack her threads.
bigcitylib, if people want to read your terrible writing they will go to your stupid site.
However if you were to wait for that to happen I expect, just like President For Life Kim in Team America you will be very ronery.
If you read closely, noboz, you would see that my position is that Harper should promise now to hold a debate as to the fate of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan when the term of the current assignment is up (end of 2006). That’s perfectly reasonable.
The kind of fake cowboy talk by chickenhawks not old enough to have hair on their dicks, which seems to permeate this website–that’s the real offensive nonsense. I see a lot of people around here who are willing to fight to the last drop of other people’s blood.
In Canada, son, citizens are required to think, not just wave flags and bake apple pies.
And since you mention my website, check it out everyone at:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/
Come join the Canadian mainstream!
bigcitylib:
If I had the slightest hope that it would survive rejection, I would offer to pay for a spine transplant for you.
Champagne socialists like you and Jack Layton state that missions like Afghanistan are not in keeping with our military history and infer that actually fighting is somehow contrary to Canadian values. Below are some facts about Canada’s real military tradition:
During WW1, Canada fielded 600,000 troops and took 60,000 casualties (Canada’s population: roughly 8.5 million).
In 1945, with approximately a million-member armed forces, Canada boasted the world’s third largest navy and fourth largest army (pop: 14M).
In 1950, in addition to the military personnel inside our country, we had 22,000 special forces troops in Korea and 120,000 troops in Europe, for an estimated 240,000 military establishment (pop: 16M).
We currently have an estimated 52,000 persons in our armed forces, versus 80,000 ten years ago (current population: 32M). That’s the legacy of weak-kneed spinless dumb-asses like yourself…
It was our ability and willingness to punch far above our weight that gained Canada entry to the G7 and sit at other world venues. More importantly, we were generally regarded as a country with guts and values that was committed to doing the right thing.
bigcitylib: Actually we’re going over the top with the UN Security Council. See Resolution 1623 (2005), passed unanimously.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8495.doc.htm
I thought Canada was supposed always to do what the UN has authorized. You know, multilateralism and all that–also like the NATO role our forces in Afstan will have starting this summer.
By the way, Salutin writes in his column that “Likely they [Aftghans] know the Americans came before, in the 1980s, leaving them once the Soviets were gone…”
Actually no American troops and even perishingly few CIA types ever set foot in Afstan during the anti-Soviet war. See “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001”, by Steve Coll.
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594200076/qid=1142009784/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2_2/702-9831321-3933608
Seeing as how Salutin’s facts are worse than shaky I would not salute his tendentious arguments.
Mark
Ottawa
See this excellent post at “The Torch”:
“Whether you like it or not, our presence in Afghanistan is fully justified.”
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/whether-you-like-it-or-not-our.html
One correction to the above post–the US did not invade Afstan. See:
“Afstan: how soon the Globe’s Marcus Gee forgets”
That the US did not invade the country…
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005955.html
Mark
Ottawa
IMHO, Salutin is a clown and I have called him on it before.
He did own up that his “facts” were wrong (big time wrong too).
He also assurred me he likes both bread AND the circus.
Has it occured to some commenters that WWII perhaps was a different kettle of fish than “the war on terrorism?” Our response grew with our perception of requirements, and we did have four years of clarification and preparation before Verrier Ridge, for instance.
I repeat, terrorism is the continuation of warfare by other means. The Pats would be delighted to meet and roll up the Taliban, but the Taliban have no intention of giving battle except on their own terms.
Does anyone else worry about the fact that a Cimic officer can get brained in a friendly meeting with village elders, and no local knows anything about it before or after?
Read up on Vietnam, folks.
Uh, the North Vietnamese were an army, armed by China.
And The Viet Nam war did not end when the USA left.
It took a Democratic Congress cutting the funds to the South Vietnamese Army before Siagon fell and the North Vietnamese Army overran Saigon AND started their executions and reeducation camps.
Remember the Vietnamese boat people anybody?
Read up yourselves all you gun registering libs on what happened next in Cambodia .
The Communist Khmer Rouge killed millions of people with plastic bags and baling twine.
Dear everybody,
Whether our troops have been used always/sometimes/never as peacekeepers vs. always/sometimes/never as warriers, is not really the issue. The point is do we as Canadians want to use them in this particular war, and for how long, given that this war may roll on without any satisfactory conclusion for a decade or longer.
Furthermore, yes the Afghan mission was approved by the U.N. and so on, but that resolution continues until sometime late this year. When that deadline comes due, we should be debating our future commitments (and Harper should agree to this debate now).
Remember, America wants out. So it isn’t a question of Canada cutting and running, its a question of do we end up getting stuck with a war America no longer wants (because U.N. authorization or not, the States are calling the shots in Afghanistan)? You don’t think the U.K. and Denmark and so forth are thinking the same thoughts? The cowboy talk is red meat for the local Leroys; the real discussion is more along the lines I have indicated; will America screw us over?
My final comment to bigcitylib is,
Please take your stupid attempt at triangulation (Conservatives at smalldeadanimals know Canada is fighting the Taliban not the Americans) back to your own terrible site.
Buh bye.
The Khymer Rouge–read The Killing Fields–this mass murder of millions of Cambodians was known to be happening–Henry Kissinger was there and saw it–and the great USA did nothing! That is why their spin for war in Iraq and Afghanistan ring so hollow–and yes–we will probably be left holding the bag in Afghanistan–
To bozos like George 56,000 young men dead in a war against Communism in Viet Nam is nothing.
The Khmer Rouge took hold when the USA left.
OK – for all the softies on this board – we cut and run. What then? Guess we have to get out of the UN, become more isolationist. Picture this, North America decides to perimeter themselves off from the rest of the world. Trade only with non-muslim allied countries. Stockpile weapons – remove all muslims that sympathise with terrorists and then wait to be attacked. This is exactly what will happen if we don’t finish the job. Maybe it will take years, maybe we won’t succeed, but we have to get an E for effort. As for the United States, when the chips are down they will be here for us. Thank God, because we surely cannot protect ourselves.
Dear jypsy Ontario,
Typical Canadian Conservative. Abase yourself before the American Empire. Run down your own country. Who exactly are the Americans protecting us from? Bolivia? I’m more worried about the Yanks turning North for our oil and fresh water supplies. When that happens, which side will you be fighting for?
Dear BigCityLib,
Typical Canadian Moonbat. Use the word Empire to describe the Americans. Run down our closest ally. Who exactly is BigsChittyLib protecting us from? Responsible world citizens? I’m more worried about Islamofascists terrorizing Canadian cities next. When that happens, which side will you be fighting for?
no bozos allowed
It looks like you are channeling Donald Rumsfeld when i read your quote:
I predict it will take the Pats a few months to roll up the Taliban.
You know what happened to his predictions-quagmire. An endless(until they cut and run)slow bleed of blood, money and hard power playing chips. I wonder whose military will be stuck with cleaning up after they’ve left Iraq??
AW don’t worry about the big city lib. He’s just a young troll still wet behind the ears. He hasn’t lived long enough to think for himself. Just spouts what his teacher’s have told him and read in the newspapers. Just feel sorry for him because he is in for a rude awakening.
How to Tell if the Taliban and Al Qaeda Win – sarc
There will be tons of Iraqi and Afghani restaurants opening in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and the big city Liberals will be celebrating how multicultural Canada is again. ( Remember Viet Nam?).
Hey folks! I’m guest blogging for Kate while she’s gone. I suggest, as Kate has many times before that you “Don’t feed the trolls”. They subsist on taunts, curses, and being taken seriously. 🙂
Actually No Bozos Allowed: The Ladens will be held in Sunny downtown Tarana.
I’ll stand by my prediction steve ( I think we will be in Afghanistan as long or longer than the Baltics but the Taliban will not be that tough unless they are getting help we still do not know about) if you stupid libs will answer the question “How big of a parade should we have when the Princess Pats come home?”
Cypress mission- 29 years.
In other words… as long as it took.
There is nothing wrong about commiting to something for the long haul.
“The Khymer Rouge–read The Killing Fields–this mass murder of millions of Cambodians was known to be happening–Henry Kissinger was there and saw it–and the great USA did nothing! That is why their spin for war in Iraq and Afghanistan ring so hollow–and yes–we will probably be left holding the bag in Afghanistan–”
George, there’s a problem with that statement:
It is a complete misprepresentation of history.
At that point (1974), Nixon was in the midst of Watergate, and Congress was is no mood to co-operate on any foreign military operation (having just gotten ot of vietnam).
Besides, Kissinger DID try to stop the NV communist infiltration of Cambodia earlier, and for that leftists have branded him (falsely) a “war criminal”.
you can’t have it both ways.
Dear Molar Mauler,
you can read about the Canadian mission to Cypres at my Blog
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/
…under “Life in the Army”. Bottom line. It was nothing like Afghanistan.
Maybe you should have these conversations with all the folks commenting at your blog.
It seems like the dominant strategy proposal from the left is to withdraw, beef up our internal security, and rely on our intellegence agencies to protect us.
This strategy will not work.
Here’s why:
1) Canada has no real overseas intellegence capacity. CSIS is not the CIA.
2) It did NOT work for the Americans, who have a vastly stronger security infrastructure.
3) This approach is the wrong way to fight a guerilla war. Yes, terrorism is war by other means. But you win this type of war by:
1) cutting off the terrorist/guerilla supply sources
2) Forcing them to fight on terms not of their choosing by threatening a point they cannot afford to loose
3)having some patience
Sitting back and waiting allows the terrorists to pick where and when to strike, and allows them to resupply at will.
Relying purely on defense is a gurantee of eventual defeat.
…………………………………….
As to the argument that we are somehow being subserviant to the Americans:
The Islamic facist movement and associated terror groups are a threat to the security of the middle east. The security and stability of the middle east is in Canada’s national interest. Furthermore, since these groups have demonstrated the ability to strike targets in North America, it is necessary to weaken or destroy them to preserve our security. They act against our interest, have the capacity to attack us, and have shown themselves to be willing to do so.
We cannot act alone; we lack the military capacity. Therefore, we must work with allies. This requires the sharing of decision-making power. Since our major ally (the U.S.) is contributing more than we are, they will naturally have more decision making power. They have more to loose. But if we contributed nothing, we would have no say whatsoever.
In order to act in our interests, we must share authority. It comes with being a middle power.
Agitfact, bigcitylib, etc, I await your reply.
Let’s all be civil.
Dear Molar Mauler,
Thanks for mentioning my new Blog. It’s at
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/
Send me an email if there are any words you don’t understand.
Now why would we go to your blog to read what you have to say “big city lib”. For some days we have been reading your jibberish right here on SDA.
I think you had better get down on your knees and pray that we win the war on terror. Because if we don’t, this will escalate into WW3. Do you know what happens when we get into a world war. Your drafted man! What a rude awakening it will be for you. But don’t think of it as a bad thing, consider it a growing experience. It turns boys into men. Now, run along sonny.
GM–that is not what the man who wrote the book and was there had to say about the situation–and he was conveniently murdered before he could say more–murdered I might add, in the USA
George,
Everything I have said is an indisputable historical fact.
1) There were American anti-communist military operations in Cambodia before the Khmer Rouge. This was a major escalation of the war in Vietnam and was widely derided by the American left at the time. These operations were (largley) the idea of Kissinger. Both Air and ground forces were involved. There is NO dispute about this.
2) these operations were suspended when the Americans widthdrew from Vietnam
3) There was no chance of the Democrat-controlled congress authorizing further operations in SE Asia in 1973 or 74. They were too busy impeaching Nixon.
So Kissinger may very well have seen what the Khmer Rouge did, and may very well have done nothing, but this was only because he was powerless to do anything by that point. What could he have done? Raised an army on his own?
Almost everyone (though primarily the left) wanted the U.S. out of SE Asia permanently by that point.
Besides, how can you blame the Americans for acting in Vietnam, and then blame them for NOT acting in Cambodia right afterwards? pick a side!
I see nothing in Afghanistan worth one Canadian life expended in the cause of “giving” them freedom. If they won’t fight for it theirselves they won’t appreciate the cost of freedom…I’m opposed to Canadian doing the bleeding for freedom that Afghans should be doing themselves.
The generals over there say it will be a 20 year project…..not with my tax dollars it won’t!
As far as being motivated to go to war there for fear of terroist reprisal…well there is a simple solution to that…close the border and immigration to nations where mislim fascism and anti-west regime rule….then round up and deport their domestic sypathizers that slipped our previous insane border security…cheaper than playing the world’s crossing guard in a bad neighborhood…and, oh yeah… don’t be afraid to use a nuke on rogue regimes who export terror here.
There’s two immutable facts of life, either you are getting fucked, or your doing the fucking.
I say keep the troops in Afganistan, and keep on fucking the Taliban and Al Quida.
Sooner or later they will collapse.
Besides, I think the yanks have already pulled the claws, we are just making sure the teeth are pulled too. We made the commitment, and as someone adriotly mentioned, it’s a NATO commitment, so to pull out is bad cess man.
GO CANADA!!! and God bless our girls and boys over there.
GM–first ask the question why was the US in VietNam in the first place–they were meddling in a sovereign nations affairs by installing a corrupt government in SVietNam. Second–Kissenger could have spoken up but that would have made the involvement in Viet Nam known as American intervention a farce. Dr. Tom Dooley documented the horrendous actions by the Americans in Viet Nam and Cambodia–selectilve memory doesn’t work. There is nothing different about Viet Nam than Iraq or Afghanistan–it is history repeating itself. Except this time we are in Afghanistan–our people are being killed and the reasons for being there are no more concrete or honest than Viet Nam or any other place.
George the USA neither started nor ended the war in Viet Nam.
Speaking of concrete, Bozos such as yourself, have a 2% slump.
“Kissenger could have spoken up but that would have made the involvement in Viet Nam known as American intervention a farce.”
well, no, it wouldn’t.
If he had made a point of highlighting the horrors of the Khmer Rouge, it would have shown the world the evils of communist governments, which is the exact point American conservatives had about Vietnam. It actually may have PROVEN their point, though no one at the time was listening….
………………………………
On another note:
Afghanistan is very much different than Vietnam. The government we “installed” was elected, and the previous government sponsored attacks on the west.
But, even if we take Vietnam to be equivalent to Afghanistan….
Vietnam was entirely justified.
The Americans were not “meddling”. They were acting to protect S. Vietnam against an agressive and totalitarian North, that had violated every peace treaty since it came into existance in 1954.
Why was the U.S. in Vietnam in the first place?
To stop the spread of hostile communist governments this is an entirely justifiable reason to be there. It’s called “national interest”.
Really, if the Americans had intervened in 1954 (to stop the French from collapsing) or more aggressively in 1960 (to prevent the creation of the Ho Chi Minh Trail via Laos) the whole thing coould have been avoided.
Moreover, if at any point before 1970, the Americans had given their military full operational freedom to hit any target in the north, the war would’ve been over, on American terms, within a year. After the Tet offensive in 1968 the Viet Cong were largely broken and most of the fighting was done by the NV regular army, so invading North Vietnam in 1969 could have ended the war.
The REAL lesson of vietnam are that wars must be fought agressively, and one side cannot limit their options when the other does not. Wars cannot be fought by half measures, and Victory requires some offensive operations.
(See “Strategy For Defeat” by Admiral Sharp for more details)
…………………………………
I do not justify the actions of individual american soldiers at places like Mi Lai. These actions were criminal, and the individuals responsible were put on trial. Of course some people got away with it, and that was a tragedy.
But these incidents do not negate the “rightness” of the war anymore than the internment camps negate the rightness of WWII.
Cjunk posted ” I suggest, as Kate has many times before that you “Don’t feed the trolls”. They subsist on taunts, curses, and being taken seriously.”
Actually, pretty good advice. I took a look at bicitylib’s blog, a pretty amateurish and juvenile effort (with the obligatory and gratuitous foul language “liberally” injected to make it appear that he is sophisticated)…judging from the obvious lack of visitors to his blog, , he’s lonely and came here to get some attention…
I met a young soldier transferring out to Afghanistan last week, and he said to me that we can look at the loss of Canadian lives as a price tag in the fight for freedom and security, but he’d rather like to think it’s the cost of our gift to the Afghan people.
For a 20 year kid, he was pretty smart.
That 20 year old made the decision to join the military. How many others will be conscripted when this becomes a full blown war? Don’t forget an american company is doing the Canadian census this May–under the Patriot Act the American government will have the name of every person in Canada of military age.
This is so much more far reaching than any of you have even begun to think about. The fact that Iraq threatened to sell their oil in euros was one of the main reasons the US attacked Iraq. That would have decimated the US economy. How easy it is to lead some by the nose by speaking about freedom and democracy. We have neither but still pretend to be exporting this to other countries at the cost of a generation of our young.
War sucks and is proof of a failure of our civilization. We have learned nothing in our life–here we go again and you wax poetic about freedom.
May I ask, in very specific economic terms, how buying or selling oil in euros would devastate the USA economy?
George:
You are a stark raving lunatic…just because you express a twisted, revisionist view of recent history concerning how and why the US went after Saddam dosen’t make it the slightest bit true. And your ravings about the Patriot Act are laughable.
You want people to learn from history??
Two words:
Neville Chamberlain
GM, I will follow your invitation to reply to yours of 2:35 PM and some of your subsequent portrayals of history. There should be no problem with civility from this end. Name calling is poor argumentation in addition to being juvenile, but some people on this site haven’t learned that yet.
1. Vietnam was not a Communist plot. That war was a domestic revolt against the French colonial power sliding right back in after the defeat of the Japanese occupying power. France lost, as the West thought it did by extension, so we (speaking collectively, but meaning mainly the USA) agreed to a temporary division of the country, and set up a puppet government in the South (Diem.) The vote that was to have reunited the country was never held because “we” would have lost it. The client government would not have survived against Viet Mihn and Viet Cong, the USA could not abide its defeat, and took over the war. Unfortunately, the major Communist players saw no reason to sit out a war of national liberation, and provided material support. There were North Vietnamese units in South Vietnam, as there were American, but not Russian or Chinese.
2. Whether or not it corresponds with your views (I do recognize the propaganda of the time,) that is backed by historical evidence, not just the odd memoir, and this background is important because it demonstrates the potential consequences of not knowing what you are doing. The “domino theory” was a propaganda construct, a good idea at the time that took over and dominated strategy. The resulting war for freedom, democracy and security was no such thing, and resulted only in untold collateral damage to all sides. My fear is that we are doing the same thing again.
3. I hold with the Clausewitz I have already cited: “The first, the greatest, the most decisive act of judgment that the statesman and supreme commander has to make is to recognize … the kind of war on which he is embarking for what it is, not to consider it as or try to turn it into something it cannot be.” (On War, I, 27)
We (the USA) did not recognize Vietnam as a national revolt against a colonial power, and turned it into something it was not (defence against external aggression.) And it was unwinnable because our democratic client government in the South did not have the support of the population, despite winning the odd election with over 100% (!) of the registered vote. So we have had the experience of client governments and new democracies in old countries, and have not fared too well. And yes, Cambodia went to pot (Pol Pot, poor pun) after incursions and bombing, but don’t forget that it was Communist Vietnam that deposed the Khmer Rouge in 1979!
4. Now take the “war on terror.” We must at least suspect by now that Iraq II had nothing to do with terrorism and 9/11. There was no connection to al-Qaeda, and there were no WMD. Even if there had been WMD, they would not have justified an invasion under international law and post-WWII practice. Saddam was a bastard who stopped being “our” bastard in the 1980’s. Perhaps someone could tell me why getting rid of him in 2003 was so important when there had been no imperative to get rid of Marcos, Pinochet and a clutch of similar friends of democracy. Frankly, I do not know what the American war aim in Iraq is, but I do know that it is not as advertised, and that it is not working out. Perhaps you can clue me in.
5. Which takes us to Afghanistan. OK, al-Qaeda was identified as the enemy, and it was sheltered and supported by the Taliban. It would have been quite sufficient for the USA to have gone in, occupied the country, and dealt with the threat at leisure. But no, it had to be expanded to another propaganda construct, a diffuse, ubiquitous “international terrorim,” since concrete acts by a defined, delimited group were not enough to justify a major agenda. And we are part of it not because there was a terrorist attack or even threat against Canada, but because we could not avoid joining the Coalition of the Coerced. NATO participation and UN blessings are requisite window dressing.
Let the insults fly.
agitfact: I have a problem with your hypothethizing. It seeks to cast current history in the light of the past, while at the same time ignoring the reality of the cold war of the past. Comparing Saddam of the 2003 era to any dictator of the 80’s era is a great leap in logic that ignores monumental changes in historic reality. (ie: the collapse of the USSR) It’s a loose comparison at best. Tossing around Vietnam comparisons to Iraq 2003 faulty; they have nothing to do with each other, and there are very few paralells.
Marchos and Pinochet were dictators of different eras, who were tolerated for their positioning against an agressive communist cold war enemy. Just this past week it’s been learned that the KGB was involved in the attempted killing of the pope. There was a war going on in every 3rd world country, and dictators were an unfortunate part of the power balance. Using the morality or immorality of that historic period in arguement about Iraq is completely illogical. If you want to argue Iraq, then do so on the merits of Iraq/911 and those facts alone.
Keep in mind as well that the historic realities of Iraq/terrorism/Afghanistan and such are still being written today. For instance, growing evidence suggests that Saddams WMD are in Syria and were transported via Russian transports. I trust you follow the news. And, keep in mind that if you rely on the MSM, UN agencies, special interest groups, or the US government for knowledge… you don’t know shit. So, what does that leave; not much for informed decision making.
Debris Trail, no issue with your comments except:
1. The Cold War is an interesting case in point. I was a young subaltern sitting in a theatre in Germany in 1965 when the retiring Commander Northern Army Group, Gen Sir John Hackett, told the assembled Canadian officers that the reason the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was sitting across the border was to defend against an attack by NATO. And I assumed that we were sitting there in case the GSFG/Warsaw Pact attacked us! (I was in Germany during the 1982 “Window of Opportunity” too, and also when the Berlin Wall was taken down in 1989.) There is much about the Cold War that would bear further exploration, but only if we want to learn from past mistakes instead of hiding them.
2. The KGB trying to kill John Paul II is as understandable and legitimate from their point of view as the CIA trying to kill Castro. How many of the wars going on in Third World countries were agains the dictators ruling them with Western support? Again, you have to differentiate between internal revolt and external aggression, as well as moves and counter-moves in the minuet that was the Cold War. And dictators crying “external aggression” to get financial and military support.
3. Iraq and Vietnam are very much comparable if you consider the strategies and means employed. I would be happy to discuss Iraq “on the merits of Iraq/911 and those facts alone” – if there were facts linking Iraq to 9/11.
4. Readily agree that I “don’t know shit,” because there is “shit” to be known at this stage from open sources, including blogs. We are deluged by propaganda serving the purposes of all sides, and I would be quite happy to suspend judgment until the facts are know. Except that governments act on information of which they release only what they want to make known, and too many people rush to judgment on the propaganda they’ve been fed. I try to insert a bit of hesitation. Perhaps what we should do is to withhold assent when a proposition seems too pat. International relations and military strategy were not invented on 9/11. They have a history, and the similarities are striking.
Okay Agitfact,
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
1.You are correct inasmuch as vietnam was not a plot from China or Russia. However, a revolt of that type (especially when driven by an internationalist idealolgy like communism) has the capacity to destabalize the an entire reigion. This in fact, happened: Cambodia, and Laos fell under communist rule and there was an attempted coup in Indonesia in 1965.
2.Vietnam was not entirely a “domestic” revolt, at least not in the south. The Vietcong were almost entirely of NV origin, and were supplied by the Ho Chi Minh trail. As Kissinger, Abrams and others have pointed out if the trail had been cut in Laos in 1960, the Viet cong would never have been as effective (in Laos, btw, the VC were viewed as invaders). It should also be noted that after the failure of Tet in 1968, the VC ceased to be an effective fighting force, and most of the fighting was done by NV regulars. this does not suggest a strong amount of support for the VC in the south.
The North vietnamese government wasn’t interested in any “unification” that did not involve complete communist domination. Of course, the Americans should have done a better job of “nation building” in the South, but I would call that a question of technique, not of ethics.
4. wonderful use of the Clausewitz quote. I shold point out however, that his primary thesis actually supports my point: that wars must be fought with maximum force being applied at the decisive point. In Vietnam, the Americans tried to create peace via half-measures such as rolling thunder.
5. RE: Iraq
Iraq only makes sense in a long term context. It is not (or ought not) to be a crusade. It is about removing regimes that support terrorist groups. Admittedly, Saddam was not linked to 911, though he was a sponsor of terror. Iraq was percieved to be the “soft target” of the terror-sponsoring states (I am of the view that Syria would’ve been a better target….and don’t get me started on the Saudis.)
6. Re: Afghanistan
I am in agreement that as strategic choice, going after Iraq while afghanistan was not settled was a mistake. But eventually, if Iraq, Syria, Iran, and the Saudis do not cease to harbour and support the groups that represent the threat, they must all be dealt with. But this, again, is a question of technique. I would prefer incrementalism.
re: Canada’s role: we were not coerced. let me put it this way: does terrorism threaten the stability of the region and it’s relationship with the west? (Yes) is it in our interest to act on these issues? (yes) Can we act alone? (no)
so our only real option was to act with a more powerful ally. Politics is about the possible, not the ideal.
I agree that the UN is window dressing. Which is why UN condemnation re: Iraq is also meaningless.
agitfact: Just a question. As you seem to have been in Europe during the cold war, did you by any chance have familiarity with the Radio Free Europe Program. I had a relative very involved in the project. I learned some wonderful and indepth perspective of that part of the cold war, and some of its deadly arts in Europe. Anti-communism was in my blood before I could say “mommy”.
Debris Trail, I knew of Radio Free Europe, but had nothing to do with it and no reason to listen to it since it was tailored to carry our propaganda behind the iron curtain. We had our own Canadian station and all of Europe to listen to.
One interesting station we tuned into now and then was East German and broadcast nothing but groups of numbers – encoded instructions to agents. But darn, I was never accosted by a beautiful Soviet spy, not even an ugly one. I did encounter the CIA and KGB in Cyprus, which was a great reality check and partially accounts for my “plague on both your houses” attitude.