Because they are not small “c”:
How has the Canadian government’s Afghan policy come to this? “All hat, no helmet. And no skillet neither.”
Because they are not small “c”:
How has the Canadian government’s Afghan policy come to this? “All hat, no helmet. And no skillet neither.”
I think the conservatives realize that this mission is incredibly unpopular with the voting public, and want to drop it like a hot potato so its one less thing against them in the next election.
Its also bad politically for the liberals, I think they’re just too dim to understand that.
Dunbar, between the CPC and the LPC, that’s 60% of the voting public.
Do you think that even 10% of each will go to the Dippers or Environuts?
The recent events underline how incoherent western policy is in the area. The tracking and whacking by Nato of three Pakistani “border guards” who probably were really ISI operatives leading Taliban attacks inside Afghanistan results in “revenge attacks” by ? on stalled Nato fuel convoys in Pakistan. The peace talks are being sabotaged by Pakistan unless their proxy Taliban faction is given control.
How can an alliance headed by some of the wealthiest countries with the best equipped forces in the world let themselves be defeated by an ignorant mob with little more than machine guns and home made land mines? Perhaps some day that question will be asked and answered.
No war has ever been successfully fought by a democracy without overt leadership, from the leadership. Harper has given zero leadership. He has sacrificed the mission on the altar of appeasing Quebec and GTA pacifists, instead of standing alongside our soldiers and leading the country through this time. Canadians supported the mission, showing a spike in that support when Harper went to Kandahar and delivered his “we don’t cut and run” speech.
But, when Harper realized that he can’t expand his seats in Quebec while overtly supporting the mission, he dropped the mission like a hot spud; making the sacrifice of our dead a sick joke. Instead of being a leader, he was a hack, and the rest is history.
He has done the same with Global Warming, Expansion of Government and debt, and perhaps worst of all, has very strategically gone out to make the working of government as contentious as possible so that all 4 parties sink to the lowest possible denominator … it has been strategic and directed from the PMO.
I blame it all on his utter lack of personality and inability to communicate. He is a passive aggressive politico who operates from the shadows and who will sacrifice every single conservative value to get a majority, or worse, cling to power.
Harper was my hero; he is now my zero. Barring some massive external event or complete LPC meltdown, a majority is beyond reach now … thanks to Mr. Stephen Harper.
The greatest gift he could give conservatives would be to resign about 6 months before an election.
As for the mission: Anyone who knows the history of democracies in warfare, going all the way back to the Greeks, knows what a stunningly irresponsible leader he has been in his failure to lead from the front. A read of Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Father of us All” will leave you no doubt that Harper was grossly negligent in his responsibility as a wartime leader in a democratic country.
Why no thread about the revelation today that the Karzai government has been found to be in secret negotiations with the Taliban for the 3rd time this year?
The Americans are pulling the plug on Afghanistan.
Our forces are only there because the U.S. was attacked, when the U.S. is out that’s the end of it for all western forces.
What happens if there is global economic collapse and we have significant military personnel and assets over there?
How do we supply them or get them home?
Nobody gave a rat’s ass about Afghanistan or the women of Islam before 9/11.
Pretending that the mission is about some great super socialist nation/culture changing experiment is not only delusional it’s historic revisionism at it’s worst.
Unfortunately Mark, if you are not a “C” Conservative then you are either a Liberal or an NDP supporter. And if that were true I seriously doubt you would have been given authority to post on Kate’s blog.
Bob: “Unfortunately Mark, if you are not a “C” Conservative then you are either a Liberal or an NDP supporter”
Yep; that’s it … march in lock step or you’re not one of us.
We’ve been posting about the fascistic tendencies of the greens and the far left … and you post something like that.
Well, how far can we go with the Americans being
run by the Moonbat Messiah?
I am not intending that as a
rhetorical question.
How many Canadian troops would it take to beat the Taliban?
More than we have now. How many more could we raise? I would think that a
Canadian army of half is 1945 size would do the job.
What are the chances of raising such a force?
Who would we get to fight alongside us?
In two years time the world will be a very different place.
There is sense in rebuilding the Canadian forces now.
I highly respect Kate and anyone who is allowed to submit posts on her blog. So no need to get nasty…’I’m on YOUR TEAM!’ I was implying that anyone who is “c” conservative and posts to this blog most likely votes “C” Conservative.
Bob: I thought you were being nasty 🙂 … no problemo then. I think that Mark is implying that there are no “C” cons left in The House.
I saw where Bob was coming from.
Mark isn’t a big “C” Conservative because the Harper regime isn’t small “c”?
Where is the logic in that, Mark?
And since when is Canadian Afghan policy not subsumed to American policy?
The Americans are getting out, they have set their withdrawal timetable, and Canada is only there because America is there because they were attacked on 9/11.
This reminds me of that guy behind the wikileaks revelation.
All the Right Blogosphere cared about was that he endangered some Afghan collaborators who were selling out their own culture and people to the western invaders.
Nobody seemed to care that he had revealed the secret that Pakistan was the nation state behind the 9/11 attack and the fact that there are 22+ terrorist training camps operating in Pakistan and that Osama bin Laden and the other Taliban/al Qaeda leaders are there.
Somehow the mission is now about some grand socialist experiment to bring democracy to a newly formed Islamic Republic whose constitution is based on Sharia Law.
Well that wasn’t the reason Afghanistan was invaded in the first place, and our leaders KNEW THAT.
Why we are really there is still a mystery, but unless the people who think our military can keep fighting there without ever being exhausted also want to invade every other Muslim nation and drag them all into the 21st century there is no good reason to keep fighting in Afghanistan.
John: Canada can in no way do it alone of course, and nobody can do it without massive US support. It’s interesting that even Obama gave the green light to the surge, and is already softening up the public for an extension well beyond 2011. Keep in mind that there is no deadline to the US mission. Most strategic thinkers think it’s a ten year game … which I don’t think the US public is up for (5 more maybe depending on casualty rates)
Furthermore, there are massive strategic geopolitical considerations now, given that Pakistan is so fragile and Iran will go nuke. Afghanistan suddenly becomes critical in the region as a base in the most remote and Islamist region on the planet.
Oz: America is not pulling the plug … see comments above. As far as Karzai negotiating with the Taliban … there is no confirmation, and as we speak there are more denials of this than affirmations. As well, the Taliban are a mixed bagg of tribal regions, and some have already come over … so, now that the surge is ramping up, regional factions have been beat to the point that some will come over. There will never be a Taliban surrender; but there can be a Taliban fragmentation like in Pakistan, or like the Chechen fragmentation in Chechnya where the thugs become incapable of dominating and are more of the festering wound … like in Iraq.
Having said that, anything can happen in that corrupt state. If they were such good boyz over there in the first place, we wouldn’t be over there. In reality, Karzai has little control over much of the country … ISAF is the power, and it will remain so no matter what Kabul corruption brings about. This is a humanitarian effort but first and foremost, it is of critical strategic importance. A failure here will, without doubt, mean many heaps of Canadian, American, or European bodies in the future.
The Americans are drawing down their forces in Afghanistan next summer.
I’d give you a link but I’d just be wasting my time.
Forget the “C” in front of the party name, and think about winning a war that even the United States and Russia were unable to win. What hope in hell does Canada have in Afghanistan? And what hope in hell does the PM of a minority parliament have of convincing disoriented socialists that we need to increase our military strength? And that’s in a country where the polls are showing (today) that the majority wants to register .22 cal rifles just in case Saskatchewan decides to revolt!
So the arguement goes;
1) Because it’s a difficult war(What Canadian wars were easy? WWI? WWII? Korea? Our current efforts and enemies pale in comparison),
and
2) Because we will never convince a bunch of socialist Canadians that the war is just, and humanitarian in nature,
then
It is ok for Harper to simply play politics and make no effort to rally support for the troops, deployed lawfully by Canada’s lawfully elected government. The troops who are, as we speak, fighting and dying in the dust and filth of that war racked corner of the earth.
Great. I’m so proud to be a CPC supporter….
Junker, there is no such thing as a humanitarian war.
Why do you think we are there, eh?
I mean apart from that strawman you’ve constructed what is the mission?
What do you think Afghanistan was invaded for?
p.s. We didn’t win in Korea and we aren’t there any more
“How can an alliance headed by some of the wealthiest countries with the best equipped forces in the world let themselves be defeated by an ignorant mob with little more than machine guns and home made land mines? Perhaps some day that question will be asked and answered.”
How do 3 Taliban in a village of 300 keep the villagers too afraid to work with our reconstruction teams? Simple. Take a few kids, cook them and make the parents eat them. This usually does the trick.
Afghanistan is a very F%cked up place. It is a complex problem and we can only make any headway if we offer real security and a commitment to exterminate the threats to progress.
When Obama announced a departure date without a plan to “win” the role for Canada was finished.
The Army is broken. Some Reservists are on their 3rd tour!!! Our equipment is worn out and we have a massive process to rebuild the military independent of any action overseas.
There is no appetite politically to double the CF’s budget over the long term and arguably even if there was a commitment where would the $ come from?
This is not a failure of the Conservative government it is much Canada. We cannot do the mission alone and without the USA no NATO country can do the mission even if all the NATO nations were willing to help in the heavy lifting.
Canada can be proud of what we attempted in Afghanistan but we are a little army that suffers from the liabilities of history. We are not the same Army we were in the 1940’s, heck we are not the same CF as we were in the early 1980’s.
We will go where you the people tell us to go, but we are tired. Give us equipment, give us a training budget, give us the manpower and we will do whatever it is you ask, but can we stop pretending we can do anything just because we have a maple leaf on our uniforms?
So are you a soldier Lethbridge?
Can you explain what the mission in Afghanistan is?
I agree with you John Lewis. We do not have a responsible leader of the mission next door. NATO countries who backed the mission but did not send troops can send some men and money; our soldiers have already done the difficult work, they should now come home for deserved R&R. They have already been victorious!
The present President has not been supportive or reliable. We have already decided to leave Afghanistan. Why the msm and the Liberanos have turned (flipped) to the pro war prolonging is strange but there is a nasty reason behind their new fervor. PMSH probably knows what is behind the new blood lust of the aforementioned group. PMSH is on our side – think of where we would be under the dictatorship of the Marxist Ducippe and his dipper/Liberano pals?
I still have faith in harper he has done a few thing’s that i don’t like buti will keep the faith and keep believeing that he will get a majority govornment and will move further right witch is what i hope other wise i might just have to start my own political party!!!
“We didn’t win in Korea.”
Tell that to the South Koreans.
Back on topic, I’m in full agreement with Cjunk about what Stephen Harper has done to the Conservative party. From day one, he hasn’t really been interested in governing as a conservative. His overriding goal has been to crush the Liberal party, no matter what it takes. His chosen strategy to do that, is to keep moving the Conservative party to the left, crowding the Liberals up against the NDP and leaving them nowhere to go (since he knows full well the Liberals will never move into the space on the right abandoned by the Conservatives). Pretty well every move or non-move he has made makes sense when you think about it in those terms. He tosses an occasional bone to the right, just enough to keep their/our discontent limited to growling.
I let my CPC membership lapse this year and have no intention of renewing it. I probably won’t vote or will spoil my ballot in the next election. I’m simply fed up with the choices available to me and find them all unpalatable to various degrees.
My problem with the CPC is that they are too much like the LPC. I’m not quite ready to replace them with the “real thing”, though. At least not yet.
Sigh. Here we go again. To paraphrase:
“I am not happy with how the Conservatives are SLOWLY moving Canada to the left. I think I will act in a way that will let the Liberals win and move Canada QUICKLY to the left.”
Yeesh. Some logic there, boys.
Withold your money from the Conservatives, scream bloody blue murder at the Conservatives, burn your membership cards…but vote for them in the next election. Anything else is just a form of political suicide.
Yes, they want your votes, but they want your money more. Don’t give them money and aggressively discourage anyone else from giving them money too. But vote for them.
Lethbridge: Amen to that.
Oz: The particular cultural mentality betrayed by your postings neatly answers Sgt Lejaune’s question:
“How can an alliance headed by some of the wealthiest countries with the best equipped forces in the world let themselves be defeated by an ignorant mob with little more than machine guns and home made land mines?”
On our presence in Afghanistan:
Under the previous Taliban regime, boys were lucky to go to madrassah schools; no girls went to school.
In 2010, there were 2.5 million girls in school. This despite vicious terror attacks by the Taliban against girls’ schools, the teachers and the students themselves.
For me, those 2.5 million girls going to school is sufficient unto itself as a reason for shaking and baking the Taliban everytime and everywhere we encounter them.
The new Harper apologist theme:
“Sure he’s a bastard; but he’s our bastard”.
How far we have fallen.
I’m with Eeyore … cut off funds.
Dear Lord, Kate, hurry back. Your understudies are nauseating.
If it was up to me I would be bringing Canadian Forces home today. Their usefullness in this situation has ran its course.
Insurgent conflicts such as these are not winable. While militarily superior western ethics preclude the level of violence required to win. The ‘threat’ to Western countries has left Afganistan years ago and now operates in many other world wide locations.
Geo-politically we have nothing to gain by staying. Let Pakistan run Afganistan. That will allow them to secure their western flank and allow them to counter growing Indian and Chinese power in the region.
THe Canadian military has a role in securing our northern territory which the Russians encroach upon on a regular basis. While the Russians solidify their claim to our northern frontier we tilt a windmills on the other side of the world.
“…. Harper was my hero; he is now my zero”.
That explains a great deal about you Paul – in fact it says more about YOU than your criticisms of PMSH.
Mr. Harper has nver been my hero – and perhaps that is why I stand firm in my judgement that he is the best Canadian PM in my 68 years.
I will take you (and Junker’s) military critiques seriously when you speak to the elephant in the theatre – Pakistan. You fellas prepared to go into Pakistan and set in right ..?
MM
Michael: Pakistan’s instability is exactly why Afghanistan is now so strategically important. You’ve got it backwards.
Mr. Harper the best in 68 years … wow … it’d be nice if you quantified that.
“… Pakistan’s instability is exactly why Afghanistan is now so strategically important. You’ve got it backwards”
So let’s see then, Paul – we stay in Af’stan and “fix” Af’stan and Pakistan will become “stable”, the border will no longer be porous, and the Pakistani people will rise up and purge themselves of the Taliban – Madras schools -etc.
Sure Paul, I’ve got it backwards.
MM
“… 68 years … wow … it’d be nice if you quantified that”
Happy to quantify for you, Paul, but I think it’s actually more about QUALITY than QUANTITY:
I was born in 1942 – so my first PM was ghost-talking, whore-patronizing MacKenzie King. He got credit for much that RB Bennett had actually initiated and rarely showded leadership or his true colours. “Conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription”.
Then there was Uncle Louis – a boardroom Liberal PM who was “chairman” of Liberal-Corp-Canada. Blindsided by the Pipeline scandal. No particular leadership from Louis either – just continuation of Natural Governing Party of Canada Liberal mentality.
Then there was change – John Diefenbaker from Prince Albert. A voice from the West, an ardent Royalist, a legal (Bill of Rights) and geographic (North) visionary. I was in grade 11 and my Liberal friends made fun of Dief and Olive – theyt weren’t “cool” – they were no nuthin hicks. Dief had some difficulties with the Liberal Civil Service – and he was perhaps a touch paranoid. Still, Mr. D was always at the front of the charge, taking flak
Then we had more Liberal PM’s – Lester the “bow tie”. Nice guy by all accounts, liked baseball. He got a lot of credit and a Peace Prize for UN
initiatives … but … his real legacy was bringing Trudeau, Pelltier, Marchand et al to Ottawa. We know how that particular drama has played out – sadly.
PET – oh PET, let me count the ways I loved you:
– the ego
– the way you could suck oxygen from any room YOU were in
– your taste in broads
– your taste in YOUNG broads
– your rose
– your friendship with Fidel and Nickolai C.
– your half-gainer back-flip prowess
– your “bon mots”
– your black belt
– your sense of humour – pirrot anyone?
– AND your War Measures Act
No lack of leadership here – JUST THE WRONG KIND, repeatedly.
What to say about John Turner …? He had a CHOICE and didn’t make the right one.
Change once more. Mulroney. A PC from Quebec – who was a again a “corporation man” (like St. Laurent).
No lack of leadership – did some great and important things such as Free Trade Agreement and genuinely liking the US President. But Brian managed to turn Canadians off – including me. Too many Gucci loafers in the closet and “rolling the dice” OVER Meach — Brian’s bridge too far.
What to say about Kim? First Lady PM. Wrong place, wrong time. Canadians weren’t ready for a middle aged PM who could be flattered into posing nude. Somalia tragedy was the great sadness on her watch.
Jean “the Strangler” Chretien. Strong minded. A Leader. Too tolerant of corruption – his own and his associates (shades of “Pipeline” here). Didn’t care for his leadership style
– pepper for my steak
– strangle your naysayers (in public)
– double talk Canadians about Quebec, almost lose it, and then throw money at it
– like Trudeau – never knew when to “Quit”
Liberal Finace Minister Paul Martin, greatest Finance Minister this country has ever seen. Worst Liberal PM. Mr. Dithers – playing “air Guitar”
Stephen Harper. Modest. Honest. Christian. Canadian. Family Man. Loves hockey. Knows when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em. Patient. An economist instead of a lawyer. Believes in a strong Canada. Believes (like any good parent) that you don’t reward unconstructive behavior.
In short – a Prime Minster who shares my vews and values. Hence, Paul, the best in my 68 years.
You’re welcome.
MM
But Mulroney
Michael: “Modest. Honest. Christian. Canadian. Family Man. Loves hockey. Knows when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em. Patient. An economist instead of a lawyer” … completely and utterly irrelavent … each and everyone … and some like “honest” are patently false. There are millions of Canadians with those qualities, and very few would make outstanding leaders. Actions are what count.
As far as Afghanistan:
Pakistan will be unstable for as long as one can imagine.
The point is that by losing Afghanistan, Islamists will now control one of the most vast and inaccessible regions on the planet as they did pre 911. Pakistan is now the source of most of the world’s terror plots, as both Shia and Sunni realize that it is the safest region in which to hatch global jihad. The West’s, including Canada’s, immigration policies give it this singular power. Once Afghanistan is lost, that influence will be magnified by thousands of percent because now Iran will have direct access to the resource, as will the Sunni via Pakistan.
Military action against terrorists, even via drone, will be virtually impossible because there will be no base from which to operate. Obama is to be praised for launching an incredibly aggressive campaign in both Afghanistan and Pakistan … but that will be impossible after a pullout. Extremists will control a corridor from Iran, all the way to the Pak wildlands with direct access to Russia and beyond; and only Iraq will act as any form of barrier between Iran and Syria/Lebanon. The movement of jihadists and material will be even easier than now. It will be an epic win for Jihadists, and will cost us a massive body count down the road in one of our Western nations.
And what’s worse, is that there will be nobody to strike back at except isolated terrorist camps scattered by the hundreds over thousands of square miles of wilderness, or safely hidden in Kandahar and Kabul. Some here have in the past expressed notions of nuking the region … sure … nuke’em and radiate most of Asia and North America in the process.
The Taliban strategy is singular … to use our own cultural arrogance and loathing of others, coupled with ignorance and squeamishness, to cause a collapse of Western will. It’s a simple strategy, and it’s worked perfectly. The sight of caskets and revulsion brought on by repugnance of “backwardness”, coupled with the vacuum created by abrogation of leadership on the part of Harper and other Western leaders, have given the Taliban a win. Imagine that … all they had to do was kill what amounts to a handful of Westerners, emphasis that THEY are barbaric … and they got Canada to pick up its marbles and go home; leaving them the keys to the one of the best places on the planet in which to anchor jihad. Some here even mock the notion that there are humanitarian concerns involved … how far we have fallen.
There will be a price to pay for Western ignorance and decadence as expressed through a failure in Afghansitan; let’s just hope it’s not a mushroom cloud and instead only a few hundred dead on occasion in Mumbai style attacks; maybe at Pearson.
For now though, I don’t count the American military out …it has a true warrior ethos backed by a gutsy population which hates to lose. If anyone can muster the will and smarts to stick it out and win, it’s the US military and people backing it.
Well said, Junker, at your 2:31AM comment!
Oz says at 2:50PM, “…there is no such thing as a humanitarian war.” Nonsense!
Maybe Oz could try seriously imagining post-WW2, IF the Axis had won. The problem, Oz, is that a person has to regularly imagine the consequential realities to varied choices of actions, in order to make moral judgments and/or choices. ‘The dog that didn’t bark in the night’, as Conan Doyle put it in one of his Holmes stories, is an apt metaphor for this.
For the Allies, World War Two definitely was a humanitarian war, considering the awful potential consequences of the Axis winning.
OZ: Almost every single war fought by Canadians has been a humanitarian war.
Cjunk, no war has ever initiated for humanitarian reasons.
The Taliban strategy is singular … to use our own cultural arrogance and loathing of others, coupled with ignorance and squeamishness, to cause a collapse of Western will.
~Cjunk
Wrong.
The Taliban’s strategy is to win a War of Attrition.
And they will too, as long as they have the backing of Pakistan who gives them training, and sanctuary, and arms.
JJM, which Wahabbi Muslim nation should we invade next?
Unlike you, I happen to remember why Afghanistan was invaded.
It was to get the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
It’s clear now that Pakistan was the perpetrator of the 9/11 attack and they only used Afghanistan as a cutout to give them plausible deniability.
Sheik Omar, creator and still leader of the Taliban, was just following the Pashtunwahli tradition of being a good host by refusing to give up Osama bin Laden when the Americans gave him the ultimatum of surrendering bin Laden or face invasion to get bin Laden.
Afghanistan wasn’t invaded to “send Afghan girls to school” whether you think that such blatant mission creep is acceptable now or not.
A nation either achieves the war goals that have been set at the beginning of the conflict or they have lost the war if they haven’t achieved them at the end of the conflict.
“… I don’t count the American military out …”
Agreed, Paul. I actually believe the surge is working. And I believe the Taliban are getting more desperate – counter intuitive perhaps with attacks and tactics ramping up. But having said that, Paul, the US cannot save Pakistan. The only people who can effect a change are the Pakistani people themselves. Same for Iran.
I have no problem with Canada’s involvement in Af’stan BUT that cannot be unconditional involvement. If the Afghan people cannot muster the solidarity and fortitude to care for their own country and people — intervention bt foreigners will always be just that – intervention. And Hans Brinker Canuck can only hold his/her finger in the dike for so long.
Personally, I believe America should continue to pursue and prosecute INSIDE Pakistan. If those actions polarize the Islamic world – so be it. The Pakistanis need to be forced to chose sides –
to chose worlds – the 21st Century world or the 8th Century. I don’t wish evil on anyone but if the west is to triumph in this struggle, Parkistan will become a battlefield (in a manner that Af’stan will never be). And these are words that NO CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER – regardless of party – will ever be able to utter. Whereas – some US President will have to. It is after all a world war.
MM
The war in Afghanistan can be “won” but we need a much larger commitment from the West. It is obvious that is not going to happen. Let’s accept reality, take the lessons we have learned and move on.
I am in the CF, I have requested to go on the last tour and I hope I can go. I know there will not be a strategic “victory” but all is not lost.
The Taliban can be bombarded from afar. We can back Warlords that will stop terrorists. We can use our special forces to hunt and kill targets.
This isn’t great news for Afghan women and children and it is terrible news for those that hoped for a better future for Afghanistan. The blame for failure is not on the CF or even Canadians. We have done our share and we have nothing to be ashamed of. For that matter, neither do our politicians.
OZ: “The Taliban’s strategy is to win a War of Attrition.” … actually not, this is in no way a war of attrition by any historic standards. The Taliban do not have the resources nor ability to damage us enough to win such a war. Wars of attrition involve a battle of resources. You are technically wrong … this is not Vietnam.
As I said: “The Taliban strategy is singular … to use our own cultural arrogance and loathing of others, coupled with ignorance and squeamishness, to cause a collapse of Western will” … this is a psychological war on their part.
MM: I completely agree.
John Lewis stated things very well.
I’m sure we’ve all read Wretchard’s post: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/10/06/the-war-where/
“I am not happy with how the Conservatives are SLOWLY moving Canada to the left. I think I will act in a way that will let the Liberals win and move Canada QUICKLY to the left.”
If you have to choose between crashing into the brick wall with Iggy & Jacko at 100mph or Stevie at 60mph, picking who drives becomes rather pointless.
From Webster’s: the act of weakening or exhausting by constant harassment, abuse, or attack (a war of attrition)
That is exactly what the Taliban are doing.
There have been ZERO set piece engagements since the invasion and there won’t be, ever.
We are not attriting their bases of operations in Pakistan.
We are not destroying their will to fight.
They have the manpower, replacement ability, and WILL to go on much longer than we do.
It all begs the question, What happened to our original war goals?
Afghanistan wasn’t invaded to send girls to school.
Nobody cared about how the Taliban ruled Afghanistan before 9/11.
Which Muslim nation shall we invade next based on your reasoning that we are in Afghanistan?
The Taliban can be bombarded from afar. We can back Warlords that will stop terrorists. We can use our special forces to hunt and kill targets.
~Lethbridge
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic.
It would not be unpalatable for the Taliban to cease fire and then regain control of Afghanistan through the ballot box.
The leader of the Taliban is Pashtun, the majority of the Taliban is Pashtun, and the majority ethnic group of Afghanistan is Pashtun.
When we leave Afghanistan, after one election cycle, it will be as though we were never there.
And we won’t have gotten the perpetrators of 9/11 either, which is why Afghanistan was invaded in the first place.
Oz: Websters is not a military manual nor strategic guide, hence irrelevant in this case.
In 2006 Canadian forces pushed out Taliban from entrenched positions. We did it using classic assault against an entrench defense. It was a significant moment in Canadian military history.
You speak of them having more will than we do … very true … and it just may be the downfall of the West, not just the Afghan conflict. Hanson describes one of the greatest dangers to Western survival being the exact same attitude you exude … the same attitude that most Westerners exude. I’ll certianly give you this much … your view is the majority view.
It’s based in 1) ignorance of military history 2) ignorance of military history in democracies 3) Western apathy 4) Western cultural relativism 5) Ignorance of contempory strategic issues 6) Lack of political leadership 7) focus on the 4 year electoral cycle and the 24 hour news cycle 8) a belief that Western liberal and libertarian values are not and can not be universal goals and 9) a belief that cultural backwaters can be neutralized as threats from afar.
“When we leave Afghanistan, after one election cycle, it will be as though we were never there. … sure, if we leave now. Hence the importance of schools and an educated bureaucracy. Hence, the need for time. Hence, the need for strategic thinking beyond “they are just barbarians”.
I’ll leave you with my favorite quote:
“In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ” ~ T.R. Fehrenbach
Hanson describes one of the greatest dangers to Western survival being the exact same attitude you exude … the same attitude that most Westerners exude.
CJUNK, you don’t even comprehend my attitude.
No only that, I probably know a lot more about the military and military history than you do.
I’ve studied it with fascination since I was a child.
Yeah, if you want to defend land it will always be done by the infantryman on the ground with a rifle in his hands, until infantry are replaced by robots.
AGAIN: Why is it that our infantry are in Afghanistan defending a corrupt unpopular puppet, WE put into power, from Afghanistan’s majority ethnic group?
What was the original mission?
Oz: I think I’ve read enough to comprehend your attitude very well, as you have mine.
We entered Afghanistan under the UN mandate to stablize the country and assist it in security, politically, and economically. That job is not done, but has made tremendous progress. By any measuere, great strides have been made in all but the security situation. Read the terms of ISAF, and the UN mandates for Afghanistan, and you will see that Canada never entered Afghanistan to track down the 911 culprits.
We have a government with no guts.
By any measuere, great strides have been made in all but the security situation.
Wrong.
Canada’s role in Afghanistan is subsumed to the U.S. role which is to track down the 9/11 perpetrators.
We’ve had people killed handing out pens to children and then getting blown up by suicide bombers.
The last elections in Afghanistan were a farce.
Afghanistan has made no economic progress except to be a money pit for western aid.
The rights to mine copper given to the Chinese represent the only positive economic activity I’ve read about in Afghanistan, but you better believe the Afghan people don’t want foreigners harvesting their resources and they changes it will make to their way of life.
Finally the ANA are a complete joke.
Afghan villages only send their “problem” sons to join the ANA and these chuckleheads spend all their time doped out and putting our accompanying troops in danger.
Just the other day a Medal of Honor was posthumously awarded to SSG Robert Miller who, as a Pashto speaker, was leading a team of ANA who bounded away in an ambush kill zone which got Robert Miller killed showing them how to fight when the ANA troops weren’t interested in fighting.
Read the action report at Blackfive.
Yeah, I’ve got a handle on your attitude.
You want it to mean something if your kid gets killed or maimed in Afghanistan, and hope he stays safe, and it colors your entire perception of the conflict and the mission.
The fact that Pakistan was behind 9/11 just as they were behind the Bombay massacre and all they other Muslim atrocities in India since 9/11 isn’t getting any play in your reasoning processes.
Afghanistan isn’t stabilizing.
It can’t and won’t because Afghanistan isn’t even a real country and Pakistan, who was one of only 3 nations that recognized the Taliban government before the invasion plus also instrumental in creating the Taliban, doesn’t want the multicultural wasteland known as Afghanistan to be stabilized on ISAF’s terms.
Pakistan wants the Taliban, which it created, back in power in Afghanistan.
It’s just that simple.
Pakistan’s ISI have been directing the Taliban to destroy ISAF’s oil tanker trucks on the Pak side of the border so that they can have a seat at the secret peace negotiations the U.S. and Afghan government have been holding with the Taliban.
When the fighting stops, the Taliban will get elected to power in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the chief guarantor of the elections.
Oz: “The fact that Pakistan was behind 9/11…”
Huh? That really is a new one, rather wild, what?
Mark
Ottawa