Charlatan

I have been following this as much as I can from abroad and I am not clear on the positions of those who would see us out of Afghanistan.

I have read a little bit of Jack Layton's desire to have us withdraw immediately and I have to say I am greatly disappointed. Yes, our troops are getting killed there. That's what happens in situations like this. But it is what they've trained to do.

As I understand it we are in Afghanistan for two reasons:

1) assist with the rebuilding of a nation from years of abuse (we can go back at least as far as the Soviet invasion, and probably further, to see this).
2) to assist in the control (destruction) of the Taliban.

I don't see any resistance to point number one on any side of the discussion. Who can argue with humanitarian relief? It's one of the things we, as Canadians, pride ourselves on.

The issue then is point number two. In my mind you cannot acheive number one without achieving point two. The Taliban is an odious boil that needs to be lanced. Anyone who knows the history of the Taliban's time in power will know this to be true. Not only were they harmful to their people but they were an incubation centre for the export of "terrorism" abroad.

What I will say is that, we should be constantly reassesing our methods of acheiving the elimination/control of the Taliban. I do not think it will be solved by force alone (i.e. there are other factors at work here in creating the conditions for the Taliban to rise to power). I do not think it can be achieved without the full support of Pakistan. By this I mean that Pakistan needs to get serious about squashing the Taliban and its support within its own borders. Again, this requires both a military and a social/political solution.

I personally know a few Afghanis, a few of which live in Kabul now. They have seen the changes that the defeat of the Taliban has brought about first hand. They appreciate what is being done.



I would like to hear from the rest of you about what you think Canada's continued roll in Afghanistan should be, why you think we are there in the first place and what you would suggest is the solution?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

fresnelly

Though I generally support Jack Layton, I was a little disappointed by his heavy handed moralizing on this issue. It's so hard to wade through both the government and press reports on what's really going on over there. Hamid Karzai just visited Canada and vocally encouraged our efforts. At the same time others are questioning his true standing as President of Afganistan.

My gut is that some progress is being made and that overall we're having some positive effect, seen not as occupiers but stabilisers. Just this Monday, Sufia Ama Jan, a prominant education activist was murdured by Taliban gunmen while she was on her way to work. We can't abandon this country so soon and leave it in the hands of such dangerous idealogues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...uery=safia+ama

__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

Daval

I feel that we are doing the right thing and I am quite happy with Stephen Harpers posistion on Afghanistan. We are at war and we will take losses, this is inevitable but at the end of the day we are helping this country get back on their feet. I don't have a better solution as to how we can better get rid of the Taliban, but I do agree with your views on needing Pakistans "full" cooperation.

Our soldiers are doing us proud. Keep up the good work.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

streak_56

Personally... if I didn't live in the US and required 3 years for a background check and character evaluation... the 3 years is basically to make sure I'm staying in Canada for a long time. I would be over there... easily. I fully support what we are doing over there in point one of the discussion and I agree with Charlaten on point two of the discussion... there needs to be more than one country in on this... preferably countries that are near Afghanistan and that could lend some help.

highthief

I support our presence in Afghanistan and think Layton needs his head examined.

However, the problem is two-fold: 1) We want to destroy or severely impair the Taliban, and 2) We want to rebuild Afghanistan into something better than it was (which conceptually shouldn't be hard, given what a hole that country is, but which isn't proving to be easy).

The main problem here is that we lack the resources to accomplish both those goals simultaneously. Unless more support for NATO presence manifests, we should target only one of the problems - logically, kill the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before building power stations. Unfortunately, the rebuilding is a key ingredient in preventing more disallusioned young Afghanis from joining the Taliban or other warlord faction.

Basically, I think there needs to be a huge infusion of resources into Afghanistan. If that is not forthcoming - from Canada, the US, Britain, Europe, etc - we then need to consider getting out. But I don't think we are anywhere near that point as yet.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Sticky

While I do not agree with Layton at all it does not suprise me nor do I find it upsetting. I don't expect a different stance on the issue from Layton and the NDP.

What is also not surprising but is upsetting is the comments from Martin to Harpers most recent statement about Afganistan. To me all the oppisition from the Liberals on this issue is just partisan crap.

Unfortunately all that partisan crap which is most often there no matter who the goverment is bogs down the proper workins of the governemtn and keeps it from moving at a quicker pace when we need it to. Unfortunately, as well, because of peoples egos it is hard to get rid of it and still have a proper opposition.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Baraka_Guru

I think what Layton did was a wise political move. He attracted the attention to the big picture as to why Canada is in Afghanistan in the first place. In the tradition of our armed forces, we're supposed to be more than a military presence.

The way things are going in the "war on terrorism," does Canada really want to be an active participant on the front lines?

I know the Taliban are the enemy, but I've always viewed this as primarily America's war. We should be in Afghanistan for support and security purposes, especially since we're now committed, but the main offensive should be America's responsibility. As a member of NATO, we're fulfilling our duty by maintaining security over key areas in the region.

What Layton did was open the doors for debate over our role in Afghanistan, which I think is necessary since I'm not sure if Harper's unchallenged decisions adequately represent Canadian values. If we're going to be there for a while, we need to be clear about what we're doing there.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Sticky

Don't forget two things here:
1) It was not Harper's conservatives that brought us into Afganistan in the roles that we are playing. It was the Liberals.
2) This is a minority government. The government can be challenged at any time. When there is a majority goverment we can be upset at them for not listening to the people. When there is a minority governemnt your MPs can challenge the government. If the NDP, Bloq, and some of the Liberals really believe in what they say and fell stronger about it than they do about their cushy jobs or the possibility of winning the next election, then challenge Harper. The only one that can really do this without any reprecussions is Layton. he has nothing to loose and everything to gain.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Charlatan

I can agree that there needs to be a continuous (okay maybe not continuous but at least frequent) debate about our reasons for being in Afghanistan (or any adventure such as this... I see that Harper in his speech the francaphonie supports the UNs intervention in Darfur, which suggests Canadian troops on the ground) but do not see Afghanistan as America's war.

Sure it was spurred on by 9/11. But frankly, I don't see 9/11 as tregedy that solely belongs to the US. There were *many* citizens of other nations that perished that day (including Canadians). From my point of view the Taliban *needed* to be removed from power. What they were doing to their people was abhorrent and the idea that their influence could spread to somewhere like Pakistan or beyond, was particularly gauling.

The war in Afghanistan was a true "coalition of the willing". It was long overdue. If 9/11 had not occurred we would likely today still being talking about doing something (much like Darfur) rather than actually doing something.

Layton is right to encourage questions... we should always (ALWAYS) question our reasons for going to war. War should never be waged lightly.

What is sad, is that our coalition's biggest resource (the US military) has been side tracked by folly (i.e. Iraq). Had they stayed in the game to their fullest, we might be a lot closer to completing the job.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

I tend to separate the 9/11 response in Afghanistan from "the war on terrorism," but not everyone does. This is where we need to be cautious and clearly define our role in that country. There are few, if any, ties between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since there were Canadians caught in 9/11, we should be somehow involved in dismantling and preventing the regeneration of the system that empowered it, namely, the Taliban in Afghanistan. But we shouldn't be as willing to participate in an American "war on terrorism"/"coalition of the willing" for two reasons:

1) 9/11 happened on their territory.

2) The Americans are clearly in command of this war.

First, since the attack was targeted at America, we should realize that they need to be the primary response to their perceived enemies. The subway terrorist attack in the U.K. didn't spur us into giving any major support despite the fact an attack was made in the very city of our head of state. I know the situaton is quite different, but my point is that we assume the U.K. is primarily responsible for handling their problems, and we should assume as much of America.

Second, with the way things are playing out for America, both internally and externally, I don't want us to become too aligned with what, in my greatest fears, may become utter madness.

What should we be doing, then? We should act as a member of NATO and under the influence and responsibilities of the U.N. An American-led "coalition of the willing" could evenutally evolve into a "coalition of the depraved," if you don't believe it's already happened.

And, yes, Sticky, it was the Liberals who got things going in Afghanistan (and I admit I was relieved when the Liberals opted out of Iraq), but we will have to see how Harper's minority will respond to recent pressures. It can, however, be painfully difficult to get anything done with a fragile minority government trying to maintain "power."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Charlatan

Baraka... then I'm not sure what the issue is other than to maintain the course we are on.

We are not in Iraq (thankfully). We are in Afghanistan under the aegis of NATO. We are not part of the "coalition of the willing".

We became involved in Iraq as support for a larger cause than just US interests. It was an invasion that had the support of the UN and was later handed over to NATO.

Quite frankly, if the US had have stayed focused on Afghanistan and not entered the completely unrelated Iraq, I would have a lot more sympathy with the US, "war on terror". As it stands, "the war on terror" is little more than a marketing ploy to make palatable what the current US admin's goal of invading Iraq (I tend to believe they would have found an excuse to do it regardless of 9/11).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

highthief

I agree with Charlatan in that we are in Afghanistan as part of NATO. NATO holds that if one nation is attacked, we are all attacked and will fight on behalf of the injured party - in this case, the U.S., but the larger picture is that NATO as a whole was attacked by the coalition of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If we do not honour our commitments to NATO, we should not be part of that organization.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Baraka_Guru

This is what I'm trying to say. (It's been a long week.) And this is the reason why our government needs to keep open dialogue as to why we're in Afghanistan and just when it is we can leave. I guess I'm worried that after Afghanistan, the Americans will expect too much from us somewhere else.

This is true and is why we are committed to Afghanistan. But note that NATO responsibilities are not purely aggressive, it's role is to use force only where necessary. I'm stating the obvious--I'm sure you know this about the treaty--but this is the kind of open dialogue our government should maintain. NATO's strength also lies in security and other modes of support.

* * *

Senator Dallaire recently supported the mission in Afghanistan, but he also expressed a general concern over our role as peacekeepers, saying that it seems like a thing of the past. This is something we need to re-evaluate once things stabilize in Afghanistan and our forces become freed up. Think of the long term. I don't want Canada to join the witch hunt for "evil" simply because we have the capacity.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ace_O_Spades

I don’t agree with a full pull out for several reasons. First, there are still insurgents attacking Canadian aid workers and Afghani civilians alike. The borders of the cities need defending as well as some measure of suppression of Taliban fighters entering the country from North Western Pakistan. However, this cannot be the central focus.

The President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf stated on Tuesday, September 26,

“Today, the focus has shifted from al Qaeda to Taliban in that area. Now, what is the greatest danger? Taliban are the people, they are the locals, they are the Pakhtun ethnic group, whereas al Qaeda were not the locals, they were outsiders, and they easily recognizable. These people are from the people, and now the greatest danger is that this Taliban movement gets converted into a Pakhtun people's movement. So therefore the important thing at this moment, as I see it, the strategy is, wean the people away from the Taliban. Wean the non-Taliban Pakhtun away from the Taliban Pakhtun. Now that is the basis of whatever we are doing.”

I am in complete agreement with this. The American National Intelligence Estimate reports that the style of war they are employing in Iraq, which closely mirrors our current strategy in Afghanistan, shows that it has increased American resentment in the area, increased the global terror threat, and further destabilized the region in the process. Do we, as Canadians want our legacy in Afghanistan to be that of the Soviet Union?

Victory in Afghanistan is not about crushing the Taliban. They will never stop fighting. President Musharraf was absolutely correct, the Taliban are the people. And any attempt to eradicate the Taliban will need to start with the people. Not by putting bullets in them or throwing them in prison (except in circumstances which warrant), but by furthering the development of key social institutions.

The training of local police who are trained in civil management, not militaristic policing is absolutely essential. It has long been recognized in the developed world that the military are neither efficient nor effective in dealing with civil matters.

The de-emphasis of the military’s role and the increase in education funding will be the next piece in a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan. With the police trained in safely and humanely enforcing rights under the Afghan constitution and the laws of the land the atmosphere for education and cultural renewal become available. Civil rights violations must be handled with the utmost swiftness. The people need to feel safe and secure that the government is capable of defending their civil liberties they have so recently obtained, lest we fail them and they fall back into the hands of the Taliban, or the Warlords who ruled the country before them.

The construction of schools that promote equal education of boys and girls will need to operate under the protection of the government. No teacher in Afghanistan should fear suffering the fate of Mike Frastacky, who was shot and killed in his sleep by Taliban on July 26th. He died doing what we need to be doing more of: building schools and furthering education; education for the next generation of Afghanis that equal access to school is something guaranteed to all citizens of their proud nation, and they will be strengthened by it. Education of children not only of the concepts of democracy and civil liberties, but also of the incredibly rich heritage of the region which houses many of the most ancient artifacts on earth. With the Conservative policy as it is now, Mike Frastacky’s death will be in vain.

With no clear exit strategy in place, with no clear focus in our military effort, we are squandering taxpayer money on a war that will have no end. The Conservatives have opened the door for Canadian involvement into the next decade of this century. We are not the only country in Afghanistan, we have many allies, and let us all work together. In rebuilding this country, our exit strategy should be gradual as Afghanistan becomes self-sufficient. This cannot be accomplished by cutting and running before the job is complete. Nor can it be accomplished by having no exit strategy at all, as is the case currently.

__________________
Feh.

hobo

I support the Afganistan mission. I think that NATO should be devoting more resources to it, and that the US should've delayed Iraq to finish the job in Afganistan. I don't want the Taliban and heroine producing Warlords to rule Afganistan. I think the US should've kept the heat on Bin Laden, and that Iraq distracted the US and let him get away.

silent_jay

Being from Petawawa and not seeing a flag fully raised in a few weeks, I'm not too sure of my feelings on the Afghan mission. I know a lot of people over there at the moment, and I'm just not sure they can accomplish the objective.

Have you seen the growth the Taliban has had in the south again? Their area of influence is growing weekly. NATO seems to be falling for the old trap of removing the Taliban from an area and claiming it to be free, then leaving themselves to let the taliban reclaim what they just lost. The exact same thing that happened in Vietnam.

I don't know, maybe if the yanks had finished one war before starting another Afghanistan might not be so bad, but they weren't thinking of that when they left and went to Iraq.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder