Canada's uncertain role in Afghanistan - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ace_O_Spades · 02-08-2008, 06:09 PM

So the matter is coming before parliament. Should we extend the mission to 2011? Should we modify our role to one of rebuilding and training rather than combat? Is that even a feasible option given the dwindling support in the international community for staying in Afghanistan, let alone providing Canada the 1000 troops Harper asked for? Kudos to FRANCE of all countries for offering 700.

There is a great article (long but worth it) in the National Post today about Afghanistan:

Linky

Quote:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- "My men don't want to come back after 2009," said the captain, a grizzled army veteran. A bold comment. Sitting across from him at the breakfast table, at a Canadian forward operating base in volatile Panjwaii district, was a full colonel.

The captain continued. "You know why? Because they're scared. It's f---ing dangerous out here." The colonel looked at him and said nothing.

But the remarks were notable.

They came as politicians in Canada prepare to debate the possible extension of the military's combat role in Kandahar beyond February, 2009. A motion to lengthen the mission was tabled inside the House of Commons in Ottawa on Friday.

In Kandahar, there is no clear consensus. Some, like the captain's troops in Panjwaii, are not keen on returning. Others are already steeling themselves mentally for another tour.

To a person, they know that Kandahar province remains insecure, undeveloped and vulnerable to insurgent attack. When asked, soldiers here say that more work is required if local Afghans are finally to live in peace and enjoy some measure of prosperity. No one believes this can be accomplished over another year, or even three.

Quitting the province next February without finding replacement troops from other coalition armies, or attempting to reduce the Canadian army's role in Kandahar to a non-combat operation, would be irresponsible at best, they agree. Potentially disastrous.

Canadian soldiers of all ranks are prevented from discussing with reporters "political" decisions made about the military's mission here. But they do share their feelings about the effort so far, and what it has achieved.

Progress has been incremental but noticeable, particularly in the last six or seven months, says Maj. Trevor Gosselin, tank squadron commander with Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians). Panjwaii and Zhari districts are more secure; they are where most battles between Canadians and insurgents have been fought, and where the vast majority of 78 Canadian lives have been lost.

After witnessing and fleeing fights between Canadian soldiers and the Taliban, farmers are returning to their fields and families have moved back to their homes. Normal village life is resuming in parts of the districts.

Meanwhile, the Taliban leadership is splitting into rival factions, according to recent reports. But insurgents still operate in the districts and ambushes still occur, even outside the usual spring and summer fighting seasons. Direct engagements and firefights are far less frequent, notes Gosselin.

The last Canadian killed in a direct attack by insurgents was in September, when Cpl. Nathan Hornburg of the King's Own Calgary Regiment was killed by mortar fire in Panjwaii district.

Since his death, seven more Canadians have died while conducting operations in the two districts; all were killed by IED strikes.

Canada's most active areas of operation -- west of Kandahar city and to the north in Arghandab district -- are riddled with improvised explosive devices.

Despite their strong presence and their sophisticated hardware, Canadians, along with hundreds of Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police officers, have failed to stop insurgents from planting IEDs.

Gosselin hesitates when asked if he would like to return for another tour in Kandahar. Eventually he says yes. But he wants whatever progress has been made to be maintained, and then built upon.

When he arrived here almost six months ago, there were holes to fill; for whatever reason, he says, the Taliban had not been prevented from creeping back into Panjwaii and Zhari last year, after being handed defeats in 2006.

Gosselin said he'd also like to see the ANA and the ANP play a bigger role in the effort.

That has always been the intention but Afghan forces aren't ready to hold Kandahar on their own. The police, in particular, require more guidance and instruction from foreign troops. They are ill-equipped and under-trained; by most accounts, dysfunctional and corrupt.

Afghan civilians tolerate the ANA but loathe the ANP. There is a new saying in Kandahar: If you don't stop for a policeman, he will shoot you. If you do stop, he will rob you.

People here believe the ANP to be complicit in serious crimes, including a rash of alleged child abductions in Kandahar city.

"There have been 12 abductions and demands for ransom money in the city recently," claims Mohammad Naseem, who publishes a weekly newspaper in Kandahar. "The parents [of the children] are afraid to report the kidnappings to the police or to government officials because they think they are part of the problem."

Naseem and other Kandaharis share passionate opinions about Canada's military mission here, and its future. In a meeting this week with Canwest News Service, local businessmen said a lack of progress and redevelopment in Afghanistan's second largest city is causing huge resentment among its 750,000 residents.

Canadians share some of the blame, the businessmen said. Too much money and too many resources are being spent chasing the Taliban through grape and marijuana fields, out in the countryside.

"Who cares what the Taliban are doing in Panjwaii and Zhari," said one of them. "I'm sick and tired of hearing about that. No one here even thinks about the Taliban anymore. We need help and it's not coming. Kandahar is the country's second biggest city [after the capital, Kabul] but we don't even have basic services. And the Canadians talk about spending millions of dollars to pave more roads in Panjwaii. What good will that do us?"

Kandahar has been without electricity for almost two months. It's causing a crisis, says Abdullah Kamran, a building contractor and commercial landlord. "Factories and light industrial plants are closing because they lack steady power," he explained. "People are out of work."

Outside his office, another convoy of Canadian armoured vehicles rumbled through a main artery, the third one to pass in an hour.

People on the street scrambled to get out of the way.

"Why can't Canada send us generators to make electricity, so we can get on with our lives and become productive?" asks Kamran.

He left a business in the United States and returned to his native Kandahar after it was liberated from Taliban rule in 2001.

"We were full of optimism, even three years ago, " he says. "Now I regret coming back. Things are getting worse by the day.

Students at Kandahar's university are fed up and on the verge of rioting, says a teacher there. "They have no drinking water, no electricity, no materials." There is talk that people of the Alokozai tribe, the ethnic group that dominates the Arghadab district, are planning to protest a perceived deterioration in living conditions by launching a work stoppage.

Canadian soldiers and government officials point out that before Kandahar city can thrive, the areas around it must be made secure. But the university teacher scoffs. Afghan warlords, chased away by Taliban leaders a decade ago, were allowed to return by coalition forces and the Afghan government, he says. "Thugs and criminals" now run Kandahar, he says.

"Look around at the great houses they've built," he says. "Where did they get the money?"

Corruption is all anyone talks about these days, he adds.

"Kandaharis have two faces," says the teacher. "For six years, we have been showing our sheep face. Don't force us or pressure us to show our wolf face. Once frustrated enough, the general public will pick up arms. They will wage war on the government and coalition forces responsible for this mess."

That is the worst possible scenario, one that most Canadian soldiers here are likely too busy to contemplate. They follow orders and continue their dangerous work in the districts, clearing IEDs and looking for insurgents. Even those who don't want to come back still hope for the best.

National Post

It seems we've run into a big problem. Progress has stalled, the warlords are back, and we're expending all our energy fighting an enemy that can retreat into Pakistan where we can't chase them.

I have always thought our role shouldn't be combat, it should be peacekeeping and training. I am disappointed in other NATO countries that are balking at taking their fair share of the combat role and letting their troops peacekeep in the relatively benign (by comparison) northern regions.

I always viewed it as lunacy that the United States withdrew or diverted much of its focus to Iraq unnecessarily when they were the most well-equipped to deal with the heavy fighting in Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers are big on courage, but short on equipment and supplies (our fault, I admit). At this point though, will giving them a bunch of shiny new gadgets to fight with really help? It seems that we need to radically change our mode of thinking.

Rebuild, Educate, Train, Monitor. Immediately. It looks like they want our help in these areas BADLY, but we're not providing it.

NATO can divert more troops to the south where they are desperately needed. Canada was never equipped to take on the brunt of combat operations. Like I said, big in heart, small in support.

Additional thoughts:

The polarizing language of the Conservatives on their new motions is scaring me. The "take it or leave it," "you support the mission in Afghanistan or you don't" approach is strikingly similar to "you're with us or you're against us" that we're all so used to hearing.

This is an utterly false dichotomy. There is always room for negotiation, but the Conservatives want an election so badly they just want a confidence motion to fail so they can go to the polls and hope for a majority. They are using these important issues as political pawns to force an election.

If the Liberals don't support the bill, they aren't supporting the troops. If they do, then they cow to the Conservatives once again in the face of their, "No negotiation, run the minority parliament like they have a majority" strategy.

If this confidence motion passes, they can still get their election with the drug bill or the violent crime bill (c-26;c-2) or with the upcoming budget.

I hope Canada bitchslaps the conservatives into realizing they can't use the lives of our troops as political bargaining chips to help them force an election.

Elphaba · 02-08-2008, 11:37 PM

Ace, you have done an excellent job in describing the difficulty in making the "best" decision as to what end is served by Canada's continued participation in Afghanistan.

I agree with you that Pakistan has become a safe haven for the very people that threaten our troups. The current administration in the US would appear to be more interested in shoring up a weakened dictator than to pursue the "war on terrorism".

I so admire my neighbors to the North. They recognize and bounce a poor leader in a relative heartbeat, compared to our stodgy system.

Bossnass · 02-09-2008, 08:42 AM

Our international military role has evolved peacekeepers and rebuilders, and we have a defacto duty to continue. The American and international attention span has fallen off of Afghanistan and Canada has been forced to step up into roles for which we aren't prepared.

Canadians haven't supported huge military expenditures, but in general Canadians support the Canadian Forces in the above described role, regardless of which political party is in power. The Conservatives support the military more, and was part of the platform that got them elected. They have taken the spending from "Literally sad and pathetic" to "embarrassing".

John Manley, former Liberal Cabinet minister and one-time Liberal leadership candidate, has led up a Non-Partisan committee on what to do with the Afghan mission. The findings were that NATO allies should be called out. Taking the matter before parliament is exactly the way it should be approached. What option? To not put it to a vote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

...The polarizing language of the Conservatives on their new motions is scaring me. The "take it or leave it," "you support the mission in Afghanistan or you don't" approach is strikingly similar to "you're with us or you're against us" that we're all so used to hearing.

This is an utterly false dichotomy. There is always room for negotiation, but the Conservatives want an election so badly they just want a confidence motion to fail so they can go to the polls and hope for a majority. They are using these important issues as political pawns to force an election.

If the Liberals don't support the bill, they aren't supporting the troops. If they do, then they cow to the Conservatives once again in the face of their, "No negotiation, run the minority parliament like they have a majority" strategy.

If this confidence motion passes, they can still get their election with the drug bill or the violent crime bill (c-26;c-2) or with the upcoming budget.

I hope Canada bitchslaps the conservatives into realizing they can't use the lives of our troops as political bargaining chips to help them force an election.

There are issues where the country is split 50-50 or 40-60. The Conservatives have a minority. With a minority, every big issue is a chance to loose power, alternatively to not address big issues for 3-5 years. I'd much rather a Canadian government (Be it "C" or "L") be a bold minority than a complacent minority or a dominant and non-checked majority.

I don't see the logic of the last half of your post. I understand that you don't like the Conservatives. I'm pretty moderate with a slight right lean. Issues are being debated and voted upon. Each 'big' issue could result in the fall of the Conservatives and an election. If you don't support the leading party, wouldn't you want that opportunity to get another party in power? If you're sitting on the position that "I don't like the party in power, but I don't want an election because my party or an alternative party won't win the next election" then I don't think you really have a very solid basis of argument.

Seaver · 02-09-2008, 10:44 AM

I hope Canada stays, but we shouldn't degrade them if they don't.

Canada is on a shoestring budget. When I lived there, 2% of the budget was for the military. They saved up for 15 years just to buy 2 squadrons of F-18 Hornets (my father was an exchange officer during this, flew with their Squad based in Ottowa).

If they leave it's more symbolic than anything else. Their troops are fighting well, but won't cripple us if they leave. I just appreciate them being there with us so long.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-09-2008, 11:57 AM

Bossnass,

I don't like the Conservatives, no. I'll admit that. However, I also believe a minority parliament demands compromise between the various parties in order to come to a solution that represents the interests of all Canadians, not just the ones that put Conservative MP's in office during the last election. By flat out rejecting any amendments to their confidence motions, the Conservatives are just asking for an election, passing up any real opportunity for constructive input on the issue in favour of a troop "surge".

I can't make any real conclusions about what the Afghan people want, because I'm not over there, and Ipsos-Reid doesn't exactly go there and poll their opinions. What I can appreciate is the opinion of the Afghan in the latter part of that article I posted that says our current strategy is alienating us further from the Afghanis, and doesn't address the changing nature of the war in Afghanistan, which has shifted from the Taliban to the corruption and strife that has stepped into the power vacuum.

I've read the Manley Report, have you? I will highlight some of the most telling sections for your review:

Quote:

COMBAT - In the face of a serious and potentially strengthening Taliban insurgency, the Panel observed harmful shortcomings in the NATO/ISAF counterinsurgency campaign. The most damaging shortfalls include an insufficiency of forces in the field, especially in high-risk zones in the South; a top-heavy command structure at ISAF headquarters in Kabul; an absence of a comprehensive strategy directing all ISAF forces in collaboration with the Afghan government; limitations placed by some NATO governments on the operations of their units, which effectively keep those forces out of the conflict; and inadequate coordination between military and civilian programs for security, stabilization, reconstruction and development. ... Too many NATO governments have failed to contribute significant numbers of troops in the regions of Afghanistan most vulnerable to insurgent attack and destabilization. Others have placed caveats on their military activities—prohibiting night fighting, for instance, or refusing to authorize helicopter flights that might expose pilots to combat.

Quote:

GOVERNANCE - Parts of the Afghan National Police (ANP) remain notoriously corrupt and ill-disciplined— perceived by many Afghans to be more a threat to public security than a source of protection. The judiciary is reportedly subject to interference from government officials and militia commanders; judges, lawyers and police are poorly paid and generally under-trained. The security and justice sectors overall—police, courts and prisons—display persisting inadequacies. The rights and security of ordinary Afghans are thereby undermined. In some districts, militias in the pay of chieftain-warlords menace local populations with protection rackets and other crime.

Quote:

DEVELOPMENT - The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2007 ranked Afghanistan 174th out of 178 countries on its global Human Development Index (a composite of education, health and economic indicators). Why the low score? UNDP says 6.6 million Afghans do not meet minimum food requirements. Gender discrimination remains pervasive; the illiteracy rate among women has been put at 87 per cent, as against 57 per cent among men. And Afghanistan reports one of the world’s highest rates of tuberculosis infection, another common marker of severe poverty.

The whole spirit of the mission in Afghanistan is collaboration; the mission is authorized by the UN. And NATO allies are equally bound to the task. The problem is that NATO countries are NOT taking their fair share of the combat role that Canada is ill-equipped to handle on our own. We need help! And while I whole heartedly agree that leaving Afghanistan at this point would be disastrous, I maintain that Canada is not properly equipped to continue fighting the insurgency in the manner they have chosen, while being complicit in the establishment of a corrupt government, police, and industrial development sectors.

I am not of the opinion that "I don't like the party in power, but I don't want an election because my party or an alternative party won't win the next election". I am of the opinion that you shouldn't ignore the will of Canadians in a minority parliament just because you crave an election so badly you can taste it. These issues should not be glossed over or used as bait to force the opposition to topple your government. The Conservative strategy is selling short the potential if what we can do in Afghanistan, while possibly locking us into two more years of an Iraq-esque black hole of failed counterinsurgency efforts.

From the Manley Report:

Quote:

Canadian policy approach should include the following elements:

First, the Government should take concerted diplomatic action to establish clearer, more comprehensive strategies and better coordination of the overall effort in Afghanistan by the international community, Afghan authorities and other governments in the region.

I retract my earlier sentiments that Canada should cease combat operations. Training the ANA clearly requires joint combat operations between NATO countries and the ANA, and that includes Canada. What I propose however is that we dramatically increase our efforts to ensure we are investing as much as we possibly can to promoting the sustainable development of Afghanistan's commercial and industrial sectors, while actively promoting the establishment of a competent independent judiciary to handle complaints of corruption and deceit by the Afghan government and police.

Any way you hack it, we need more support. We also need to immediately shift our focus away from chasing insurgents through poppy fields in the remote areas of the country and focusing on developing a competent Afghan army that can do the job themselves.

Finally, I will point to the final recommendation of the Manley report:

Quote:

The Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military.

This is something that is the antithesis of the Harper government: transparency. He has such a stranglehold on his ministers that they might as well not even exist. They are not allowed to comment outside of established Harper doctrine, and are not allowed to speculate on affairs they are qualified to comment on. They are generally just conduits for talking points coming out of the PM's office. This is not a healthy government, it is Harperville. [section edited out because it was a tangent]

This is about far more than what government is in power. The Conservative government seems more concerned about going to the polls than about negotiating a sound and competent strategy for Canada's future in Afghanistan.

... AAAAAND I'm spent.

I apologize for the length of my post, but it is required to adequately address your comments towards my previous post.

Martian · 02-09-2008, 02:24 PM

I don't think Harper wants to provide the public with more information on Afghanistan. In concert with his big push for an election, he'll want to paint the current government in the best possible light. The fact of the matter is that we were right there next to the Americans taking the country apart, but nobody at the time seems to have put any thought into how to put it all back together again once Dubya was done playing cowboy. For a force that's known worldwide for our peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, that's just shameful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

I don't like the Conservatives, no. I'll admit that. However, I also believe a minority parliament demands compromise between the various parties in order to come to a solution that represents the interests of all Canadians, not just the ones that put Conservative MP's in office during the last election. By flat out rejecting any amendments to their confidence motions, the Conservatives are just asking for an election, passing up any real opportunity for constructive input on the issue in favour of a troop "surge".

QFT. A minority government by it's very nature suggests that the PM is not speaking from the position of having the bulk of the country's support. Normally this keeps itself in check (and I don't think any Canadians reading this need a lesson in how parliament works, so I won't go into how) but with Harper basically holding parliament hostage with this whole confidence motion idea of his, the way things normally work go out the window. To be fair to Mr. Harper, though, it's not entirely his fault. After all, who's going to stand up to him? Layton? I don't even know how Dion managed to get into parliament in the first place. The man is completely ineffectual as a party leader. Until the Grits get their act together, Harper does basically have a free pass. Why wouldn't he take advantage of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

This is something that is the antithesis of the Harper government: transparency. He has such a stranglehold on his ministers that they might as well not even exist. They are not allowed to comment outside of established Harper doctrine, and are not allowed to speculate on affairs they are qualified to comment on. They are generally just conduits for talking points coming out of the PM's office. This is not a healthy government, it is Harperville. [section edited out because it was a tangent]

This is about far more than what government is in power. The Conservative government seems more concerned about going to the polls than about negotiating a sound and competent strategy for Canada's future in Afghanistan.

Also agreed. And this, in my mind, is Harper's biggest problem. If the man were getting things done my personal politics would be a non-issue. However, he seems far more concerned about the politics, and about not having to fill out change-of-address forms after the next election that he's raring for. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan people are getting killed. Young Canadian men and women, yes, but not just them. And yet nobody seems interested in coming up with a solution to this. I don't blame our troops for not wanting to be there. Why would anyone want to be in a country where they face death every day and are accomplishing so little that it's hardly even worth recounting?

Bossnass · 02-09-2008, 03:17 PM

I didn't read the Report in its entirety. I downloaded the pdf when it became available, read 3 pages of recommendations and the conclusion. I didn't post it explicitly in my first post, but the bottom line, to me, was to call out NATO allies, get a chopper and some UAVs, set actions on a better course and make sure they stay on track. Peacekeepers and rebuilders, etc.

Beyond the basic 'we need to get help and stick it out in Afghanistan', I simply disagree with your political beliefs. I won't be quoting it for truth, as it is opinion on political theory.

As much as a minority should comprise, they are still the largest single power. I think the problem lies with the smallest parties (in many cases, the NDP) who represent a relativity small proportion of Canadians, having more than proportional influence. A minority government should not be held hostage and impotent.

Non-conservatives have called every potential confidence vote as a ploy for an election for the last two years. I'll reiterate the simple idea that this wouldn't be an issue if it was believed that they would loose the next election.

I agree that there should be more clarity and transparency. In no small part, there isn't enough due to the tenuous nature of a having a minority. That said, anti-harper leftist rants detract from a reasonable discussion. Tangents on the criminal system included.

Like it or not, the Conservatives have made good on campaign promises.

I agree. This is about more than what government is in power. This is about the government in power taking the recommendations of a non-partisan report and not allowing it to be watered down.

host · 02-09-2008, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I hope Canada stays, but we shouldn't degrade them if they don't.

Canada is on a shoestring budget. When I lived there, 2% of the budget was for the military. They saved up for 15 years just to buy 2 squadrons of F-18 Hornets (my father was an exchange officer during this, flew with their Squad based in Ottowa).

If they leave it's more symbolic than anything else. Their troops are fighting well, but won't cripple us if they leave. I just appreciate them being there with us so long.

Translation:
The Canadian misplaced priority on spending for universal health care, instead of on military equipment and forces totally out of proportion to what it would cost to provide an adequate defense, makes it entirely understandable that they can no longer justify the expense of mainitaining troops in Afghanistan.

After all, Canada has experienced a dramatic rise in the purchasing power of it's currency, exports more than 1 million bbl of petroleum per day, enjoys a balance of trade surplus and <a href="http://blogs.usask.ca/the_bolt/archive/2006/12/canadian_debt_gdp.html">no appreciable federal debt increases</a>.

The US won't be "crippled when the Canadians leave", because the US has become accustomed to running annual combined trade and federal debt increases of $1.5 trillion, experiences 45 million of it's population with no health care coverage, and fields troops on their fourth combat tours, extended from a year to 16 months in length, supplemented by troops forced back into active duty via stop loss retention orders.

What haven't I covered here?

Ace_O_Spades · 02-09-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossnass

As much as a minority should comprise, they are still the largest single power. I think the problem lies with the smallest parties (in many cases, the NDP) who represent a relativity small proportion of Canadians, having more than proportional influence. A minority government should not be held hostage and impotent.

The NDP represents far more of Canada than you give them credit for. Based on the popular vote, they actually have a less than proportional influence. In the 2006 election the NDP received 29 seats with 17.5% of the popular vote. The bloc got 51 on 10.5% of the popular vote, while the Conservatives got 124 on 36.3% of the popular vote. This is a byproduct of our electoral system, not of the support Canadians have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossnass

Non-conservatives have called every potential confidence vote as a ploy for an election for the last two years. I'll reiterate the simple idea that this wouldn't be an issue if it was believed that they would lose the next election.

Sorry for the grammar Nazi, but it's a pet peeve. In any case, until recently Canadians wouldn't have tolerated another election. There were no significant issues that should have pushed us to an election, until now. Quite frankly no, I don't think the Liberals will win, but I don't think the Conservatives will get a majority either. The elections will be a huge waste of time and money when nothing will get accomplished and we will be back where we were before, with time wasted on an election that could have been used to work towards an egalitarian solution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossnass

I agree that there should be more clarity and transparency. In no small part, there isn't enough due to the tenuous nature of a having a minority. That said, anti-harper leftist rants detract from a reasonable discussion. Tangents on the criminal system included.

Note I edited out my tangent because I realized it was pointless to the current discussion. The transparency issue is key when we're still licking our wounds from the sponsorship scandal that showed what happens behind closed doors when you don't know what's going on in your government.

On the transparency issue, I'll leave it to Rick Mercer to sum it up better than I ever could:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Mercer

In fact in the two years since they've formed the government, the words "Harper government" and "communicate" have never appeared in the same sentence without the word "won't" in the middle. Now granted, first goin' off, this was a bit of breath of fresh air coming off the Liberals where you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing some cabinet minister on there blathering on about whatever their department was up to.

But with Harper, the pendulum has swung the other way. He doesn't have cabinet ministers so much as he has chalk outlines on the sidewalk. And to be successful in Harper's Cabinet you have to abide by the three D's: don't see, don't hear, don't say. If Helen Keller were alive today, she could have any job she wanted. They promised accountability, they've delivered invisibility.

You could take a hundred bucks, you could stand on a any street corner in Canada, offer people five bucks if they can name three cabinet ministers off the top of their head – double their money if they can name the minister of health. At the end of the day you'd still have enough money for dinner and a movie. Which is exactly the way Stephen Harper likes it. As far as he's concerned, good government is out of sight and out of mind. And fine, that might make his life easier, but he's gotta remember, the conservatives were hired to run this country, not to hide from it. And these things, they come in threes: out of sight, out of mind, could mean out of office.

Cynthetiq · 02-11-2008, 12:55 PM

C'mon guys, let's keep this from circling the drain

Seaver · 02-11-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Translation:
The Canadian misplaced priority on spending for universal health care, instead of on military equipment and forces totally out of proportion to what it would cost to provide an adequate defense, makes it entirely understandable that they can no longer justify the expense of mainitaining troops in Afghanistan.

After all, Canada has experienced a dramatic rise in the purchasing power of it's currency, exports more than 1 million bbl of petroleum per day, enjoys a balance of trade surplus and no appreciable federal debt increases.

The US won't be "crippled when the Canadians leave", because the US has become accustomed to running annual combined trade and federal debt increases of $1.5 trillion, experiences 45 million of it's population with no health care coverage, and fields troops on their fourth combat tours, extended from a year to 16 months in length, supplemented by troops forced back into active duty via stop loss retention orders.

What haven't I covered here?

host · 02-11-2008, 03:04 PM

Seaver, I just want to confirm that you understand that my response to your last post is that you have it exactly backwards. The US is on its "last legs", it's military "broken" by multiple back to back now extended deployments, equipment for ground operations worn out, right down to the reserve equipment that used to reside at national guard armories around the country.

Military spending is unsustainable at present levels, and there is no petroleum consumption policy, and that consumption is unsustainable. as well.

Canada is in the opposite circumstances, in every category, much better positioned financially to increase it's force in Afghanistan, than the US is, but you tell, them "go ahead and pull out, it's of little or no consequence to us", when you should be on your knees, begging them to stay.

Seaver · 02-11-2008, 03:19 PM

Host, I doubt you've ever spent more than 4 minutes talking to anyone in the military... how do you know anything about it's last legs?

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Sir, may I subscribe to your news letter?

I could not have said it better myself.

dc_dux · 02-11-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Host, I doubt you've ever spent more than 4 minutes talking to anyone in the military... how do you know anything about it's last legs?

As a result of the multiple deployments to Iraq, the "risk level" to US military readiness was raised to "significant" last year by the Chairman of the JCS.

A new classified Pentagon assessment that will be the subject of Congressional hearings later this month concluded that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis.

Quote:

Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.

Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level — pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080209/..._assessment_14

Perhaps "not on its last legs"...but certainly "broken" as a result of our 5 year occupation of Iraq.

At the same time, the Rand Corp, a DoD funded think tank released a report today that concluded the "US lacks the resources to fight insurgencies and we are fighting them the wrong way":

Quote:

"If Islamic insurgency is the gravest threat to the United States and its interests in the near to middle term, and if countering this insurgency requires a broad and balanced array of capabilities, the grim implication is that the United States is ill equipped to counter the gravest threat it faces," according to the study. "Therefore, it must invest to correct its [counter-insurgency] deficiencies and imbalances." The study, which suggests significantly reducing the reliance on large-scale U.S. military power in the Muslim world, recommends focusing on developing civilian capabilities aimed at undermining the appeal of insurgents, expanding information technology, and relying on "competent, legitimate and appropriate" local security forces.

full article

Bossnass · 02-11-2008, 03:46 PM

Alright, but should Canada extend our mission in Afghanistan? Any issue with public demands for more action from NATO allies? Perhaps a model can be set by the Canadian Forces adjusting their role from combat to rebuilding and training?

Martian · 02-11-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossnass

Alright, but should Canada extend our mission in Afghanistan? Any issue with public demands for more action from NATO allies? Perhaps a model can be set by the Canadian Forces adjusting their role from combat to rebuilding and training?

Aside from Stéphane Dion, I thought pretty much everyone agreed that Canada is going to have to extend our mission. The truth of it is that we had a role in making this mess. Alright, NATO member nation attacked, whatever. I'm not saying it wasn't justified. All the same, we knocked the damn country over, and it's our responsibility to set it right again. Fighting a bunch of insurgents out of Pakistan isn't doing that. Afghanistan has to learn to stand on it's own again and defend it's own borders. The question isn't whether we need to adjust our role but more how much do these roles overlap?

Regardless, the idea of Canadian forces pulling out in 2009 is a pipe dream. It's just not feasible. The real irony of it is that the more Dion sticks with it the less electable he becomes. I mean hell, his own party isn't supporting him anymore.

host · 02-11-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Host, I doubt you've ever spent more than 4 minutes talking to anyone in the military... how do you know anything about it's last legs?

I guess I been readin' the wrong stuff, Seaver. I should have relied on enthusiastic anecdotal opinions from individual military members, who, despite their parochial views and the narrowness of their exposure to the miitary's entire situation, since nearly every one is told only what he or she needs to know to accomplish their mission (it's called compartmentalization), everything I'm posting below, in comparison, is probably invalid and next to useless? Right?

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...6888-3,00.html
America's Broken-Down Army
Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007 By MARK THOMPSON

...Even Colin Powell — a retired Army general, onetime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Bush's first Secretary of State — acknowledges that after spending nearly six years fighting a small war in Afghanistan and four years waging a medium-size war in Iraq, the service whose uniform he wore for 35 years is on the ropes. "The active Army," Powell said in December, "is about broken."

Bush warned that if Democrats in Congress did not pass a bill to fund the war on his terms, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones." But they are already paying a price for decisions he has made, and the larger costs are likely to be borne for at least a generation....

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/27/...rchitect-korb/
July 27, 2007

Escalation Architect Says Calling The Army Broken ‘Is One Of The Most Offensive Statements To Make’
During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee today, the Center for American Progress’ military expert and co-author of Strategic Reset, Lawrence Korb, challenged Congress to address the growing crisis of troop morale and readiness in the U.S. forces as a result of the Bush administration’s failures in Iraq. Korb argued the Army is “broken” and in need of immediate repair:

I say to those people who want to keep up this surge indefinitely, if you have the courage of your convictions, then call for reinstatement of the draft. Because our volunteer Army was not designed, as Gen. Abizaid said, for the long war.

Escalation architect ret. Gen. Jack Keane and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) tag-teamed in an effort to downplay the diminished strength of the military. Keane said calling the Army broken “is one of the most offensive statements we can make.”

Hunter, ignorant of the views of numerous national security experts, said to Korb, “I don’t think that any of those people you’ve quoted — did Gen. McCaffrey ever say, ‘the Army is broken?’” Korb responded, “I will give you the exact quote, <h2>‘The ground combat capability of the U.S. Army forces is shot.’”</h2> Watch it:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan5.html
Jan. 5, 2005

- Lt. Gen. James R. “Ron” Helmly: In a “memo to other military leaders [Helmly expressed] “deepening concern” about the continued readiness of his troops, who have been used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and warning that his branch of 200,000 soldiers “is rapidly degenerating into a ‘broken’ force.”"

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4649066.stm
Thursday, 26 January 2006

- Former Defense Secretary William Perry: The Bush administration has “failed adequately to assess the size of force and equipment needed in post-invasion Iraq, creating “a real risk of ‘breaking the force’.”

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2266367.shtml
Dec. 14, 2006

- Chief Of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker: “Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand … is placing a strain on the Army’s all-volunteer force,” Schoomaker told the commission in a Capitol Hill hearing. “At his pace … we will break the active component” unless reserves can be called up more to help, Schoomaker said.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120401347.html
U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment
Gear Piles Up at Depots, Awaiting Repair

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page A01

ANNISTON, Ala. -- Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

At Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, broken-down tanks and other armored vehicles have created a huge backlog. (Photos By Ann Scott Tyson -- The Washington Post)

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/op...yt&oref=slogin
Editorial
Structural Failures

Published: November 13, 2007

...Although the crash in Missouri on Nov. 2 is still being studied, initial reports suggest that the plane suffered structural failure and disintegrated in the air. That F-15 was built in 1980, but some of the planes in the fleet are more than 30 years old. The problem is that the Air Force’s chosen replacement, the F-22 stealth fighter, is both extremely expensive and already out of date — designed originally for air-to-air combat against Soviet style MIG fighters during the cold war.

American taxpayers have a right to insist that the Pentagon make sounder choices in the future.

The most immediate problem is digging out from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has borne much of the burden, and it will need a lot of help to replace war-worn equipment and replenish a strained and war-weary force.

As it has struggled to meet recruiting targets, the Army has had to compromise personnel standards. Last year, 15 percent of recruits needed waivers because they didn’t meet requirements on education, medical and lack of a criminal record. That number has risen to 18 percent so far this year. Meanwhile, a large percentage of West Point graduates — the elite corps from which Army officers are drawn — are leaving active duty as soon as their required time is up......

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2163107/
war stories: Military analysis.
Broken Arrow
How the U.S. Army broke in Iraq.
By Phillip Carter
Posted Friday, March 30, 2007, at 6:59 PM ET
The U.S. Army broke in the 1970s in the wake of the Vietnam War and the end of the draft. But if you ask officers who served during that period, few will recall the sounds of creaking planks, snapping beams, or rupturing buildings as the institution disintegrated. Instead, the crumbling occurred over time, becoming apparent only decades later.

Today's Army is stretched past its breaking point by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sounds of its collapse may be faint enough for policymakers in Washington to ignore, but they are there. An exodus of junior and midlevel personnel illustrates the crisis. Their exit has forced the Army to apply tourniquets like "stop loss" to halt the hemorrhaging, and it has also dropped its standards for recruiting and retention.

Four years into the war, the Army still has too few troops to persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan and too few deployed in each place to win. To surge its forces in Iraq, the Army has dipped deep into its well, returning units back to combat after less than a year at home, leaving many with little time to train incoming soldiers and come together as a team....

Martian · 02-11-2008, 04:12 PM

Guys, take it outside.

Seriously, if you're interested in discussing the readiness of the US army maybe you should ask for a split or something.

host · 02-11-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I hope Canada stays, but we shouldn't degrade them if they don't.

Canada is on a shoestring budget. When I lived there, 2% of the budget was for the military. They saved up for 15 years just to buy 2 squadrons of F-18 Hornets (my father was an exchange officer during this, flew with their Squad based in Ottowa).

If they leave it's more symbolic than anything else. Their troops are fighting well, but won't cripple us if they leave. I just appreciate them being there with us so long.

Martian it's in reaction to this....how do you challenge such a flawed response, unless you challenge it? The point is, by every comparable measure, wealth, energy independence, currency strength, state of military readiness, i.e., as in not worn down and exhausted, Canada is much better positioned to contine it's presence, militarily, in Afghnanistan, than the US is to continue it's present levels there, much less to supplant the Canadians if they decide to withdraw.

Martian · 02-11-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Martian it's in reaction to this....how do you challenge such a flawed response, unless you challenge it?

By not feeding the trolls.

Seaver · 02-11-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

By not feeding the trolls.

I'm the troll in this thread?

Wow.

Martian · 02-11-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I'm the troll in this thread?

Wow.

Your original post was only tangentially related to the discussion, added nothing of value, contained thinly veiled insults to Canada and Canadians and seemed designed to do nothing more than incite arguments. I'm going to go with yes.

If you want to discuss the American military, get a thread split or start a new one. This thread was created to discuss the Canadian forces and their role overseas. If you have anything to contribute to that discussion, go ahead. Otherwise, please take it elsewhere.

Cynthetiq · 02-11-2008, 04:41 PM

C'mon guys.... keep it steady...
Let's not get this thread locked.

Charlatan · 02-11-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

C'mon guys, let's keep this from circling the drain

I will second this comment.

The question here is what should Canada do in Afghanistan? While I agree that the invasion that took place was necessary (the Taliban were/are a blight) I am hard-pressed to say that defeating them or the surrounding warlords is possible through military action alone. More investment in rebuilding, educating, trade, etc. is necessary to bring Afghanistan into the 21st Century. This will take many years (decades!) to achieve.

This will be possible without some form of military support.

Canada has offered up, per capita, similar numbers to the US. We could (and should) probably offer more help. The thing is, the rest of NATO needs to get their collective heads out of their asses and support this NATO action.

If not, perhaps it is time to put NATO to sleep.

Ustwo · 02-11-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I hope Canada stays, but we shouldn't degrade them if they don't.

Canada is on a shoestring budget. When I lived there, 2% of the budget was for the military. They saved up for 15 years just to buy 2 squadrons of F-18 Hornets (my father was an exchange officer during this, flew with their Squad based in Ottowa).

If they leave it's more symbolic than anything else. Their troops are fighting well, but won't cripple us if they leave. I just appreciate them being there with us so long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Your original post was only tangentially related to the discussion, added nothing of value, contained thinly veiled insults to Canada and Canadians and seemed designed to do nothing more than incite arguments. I'm going to go with yes.

If you want to discuss the American military, get a thread split or start a new one. This thread was created to discuss the Canadian forces and their role overseas. If you have anything to contribute to that discussion, go ahead. Otherwise, please take it elsewhere.

Please show me how his post was designed to incite arguments and full of veiled insults.

Honestly I have no idea what post you read because it could not have been Seavers.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-11-2008, 04:47 PM

My thread! What have you done to it!?

I totally agree Martain, it's not a question if we stay, but what capacity we are in while we are there.

Dion really is looking pathetic right now.

Martian · 02-11-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

If not, perhaps it is time to put NATO to sleep.

That's a bold pronouncement. I'm not disagreeing that other member nations need to become more committed in Afghanistan (as you rightly point out, it is a NATO action and not a Canadian or American action) but dissolving the treaty seems like a strong reaction.

I do disagree about Canada committing more troops. It may become necessary, but that doesn't mean it's right. Canada's military has evolved over the past 50 years to put a much stronger emphasis on peacekeeping and relief efforts than combat ability. We don't have large masses of troops able to mobilize at a moment's notice. The onus is on other NATO members to make a stronger commitment. If they refuse to we may have to fill the gap. It's not something that I would agree with or be happy about. I don't think it's right. But if those troops are needed and nobody else is going to commit them, what other choice do we have?

Charlatan · 02-11-2008, 05:18 PM

The Canadian military has been grossly underfunded for years. The one thing I agree with the Harper government about is increasing military spending (though I am more interested in this increase relating to defending our borders, specifically in the North).

I am loathe to break up NATO but it seems that some of the partners are taking it for granted. A shake up is warranted.

I would be happy to keep our combat troops in place as long as needed but increase our presence of non-combat troops (i.e. rebuilding, re-education, etc.).

Martian · 02-11-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The Canadian military has been grossly underfunded for years. The one thing I agree with the Harper government about is increasing military spending (though I am more interested in this increase relating to defending our borders, specifically in the North).

Oh, I'm not saying that more spending on the military is wrong. With all the budget surpluses we've been having lately, it seems as sensible as any measure, and more sensible than some. Definitely agreed about defending our Northern borders, as well; I'm sure you're well aware of the controversy involving that subject?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I am loathe to break up NATO but it seems that some of the partners are taking it for granted. A shake up is warranted.

Also agreed, but complete dissolution seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The terrorist attacks of September 11 were exactly why NATO was formed in the first place; an attack on one member nation is an attack on all member nations. The biggest problem I see right now is that some of the included parties don't seem interested in fulfilling their commitment. Reform would definitely be in order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I would be happy to keep our combat troops in place as long as needed but increase our presence of non-combat troops (i.e. rebuilding, re-education, etc.).

I'm not happy to keep our combat troops in place, but I recognize the necessity of it. The question for me is and always has been what course of action will allow us to bring our forces home as soon as possible while still fulfilling our responsibilities? If (and yes, I know it's a big if) other nations were willing to commit more combat forces to Afghanistan, and particularly if other nations were willing to commit to the southern provinces, Canada could redistribute forces to focus on infrastructure, education and training. If the other nations won't commit then we'll have to, but it's definitely not the preferred solution.

Charlatan · 02-11-2008, 05:44 PM

I don't see the cessation of combat in Afghanistan any time soon.

My ideal situation would see a proportionate increase in combat troops from other NATO nations so that a better cycle of combat tours can be maintained so that no nation bears more time in the line of fire than any other (with the possible exception of the US forces which given their larger numbers would likely always have troops in combat just few numbers over all).

Germany, Spain, France, Turkey, the UK and the other members of NATO need to step up and share the load.

Martian · 02-11-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I don't see the cessation of combat in Afghanistan any time soon.

My ideal situation would see a proportionate increase in combat troops from other NATO nations so that a better cycle of combat tours can be maintained so that no nation bears more time in the line of fire than any other (with the possible exception of the US forces which given their larger numbers would likely always have troops in combat just few numbers over all).

It is my opinion that neither Canada nor NATO can completely rebuild Afghanistan. The burden will eventually fall to the Afghani people themselves. That said, if Afghanistan can meet their goal of 70 000 active troops by 2011, we may have a hope of pulling out in the near future. The two key obstacles are going to be making sure the Afghani forces have enough manpower to keep the peace, and making sure that they have the proper training and equipment to do so. Fighting their battles for them is at best a temporary solution.

More forces are definitely needed, that's not in doubt. I am not happy about having to commit more Canadian men and women, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Germany, Spain, France, Turkey, the UK and the other members of NATO need to step up and share the load.

Agreed. France committing another 700 to the region is a good start, but it's not going to be enough.

Seaver · 02-11-2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Your original post was only tangentially related to the discussion, added nothing of value, contained thinly veiled insults to Canada and Canadians and seemed designed to do nothing more than incite arguments. I'm going to go with yes.

Still don't see it. My father flew with their military, I even got to go for 3 weeks on a Canadian sub. I traveled with them above the Arctic circle during the C-130 crash out by Cold Lake (look it up).

I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian military (evident in my previous post), but facts are facts. Bullets, Bombs, and Toilet paper cost money. The Canadian government does not supply much to the military and they run short on things.

If they want to pull out they can, the mission for us won't change and we won't leave anytime sooner because of it.

Charlatan · 02-11-2008, 06:55 PM

I agree that Seaver's post was not a troll. There is an issue with Canada's military spending and with Canadian willingness to support a combat vs. a peacekeeping role.

It was a valid point. The rest was just petty bickering.

Let's keep this thread on the rails, please.

silent_jay · 02-11-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Still don't see it. My father flew with their military, I even got to go for 3 weeks on a Canadian sub. I traveled with them above the Arctic circle during the C-130 crash out by Cold Lake (look it up).

Being from a military town I'm going to have to call bullshit on spending 3 weeks aboard a Canadian sub, no way in hell is a civilian going to be allowed to stay on a sub for 3 weeks(no fire training, no evacuation training, no training at all). Oh yeah and Cold Lake and the Arctic circle are far, far away from each other, and once again, no civilian would be allowed to do this.

Seaver · 02-11-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Being from a military town I'm going to have to call bullshit on spending 3 weeks aboard a Canadian sub, no way in hell is a civilian going to be allowed to stay on a sub for 3 weeks(no fire training, no evacuation training, no training at all). Oh yeah and Cold Lake and the Arctic circle are far, far away from each other, and once again, no civilian would be allowed to do this.

The sub was never away more than 12 hours at a time, it was part of a MWR drive for family members. It didn't last long, I got in mainly because my father's status within the military. Admittedly misleading, I apologize.

And my father was at the crash site investigating the cause, our family went to Cold Lake. I was like 7 at the time it occurred, forgive me if I got my bearings mixed up on the circle... it was still damn cold.

host · 02-11-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Still don't see it. My father flew with their military, I even got to go for 3 weeks on a Canadian sub. I traveled with them above the Arctic circle during the C-130 crash out by Cold Lake (look it up).

I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian military (evident in my previous post), but facts are facts. Bullets, Bombs, and Toilet paper cost money. The Canadian government does not supply much to the military and they run short on things.

If they want to pull out they can, the mission for us won't change and we won't leave anytime sooner because of it.

Again Seaver, the accurate assessment is that the US Treasury is already bankrupted and the coming lack of financial ability to purchase anywhere near the 14 million bbls per day of imported petroleum and petro equivalents presently acquired via borrowed funds and consumed, will render "our way of life" as unrecognizeable compared to what we experience today. www.kitco.com

US military operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq are a luxury that will be dispensed with, due to economic expediency. Canada and it's military face nothing like the US financial crisis, and they have the option, because they have the natural resources and the income flow from exporting them, to increase their presence in Afghanistan and their overall military spending, without borrowing the money to do it.

Charlatan · 02-11-2008, 08:15 PM

Host, while this may or may not be the case, it isn't necessarily relevant to Seaver's point about Canada except as an aside.

The discussion here, in this particular thread, is about Canada's continued role in Afghanistan. It isn't about the ability of the US to continue its role.

If you'd like to have that particular discussion, I am sure there are plenty of other threads in which you can do so. If not, perhaps you can start one.

Thanks

Leto · 02-11-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Translation:
The Canadian misplaced priority on spending for universal health care, instead of on military equipment ....

ffs. give it up. Come up with a refreshing and original argument. As was stated, let's not circle that drain yet AGAIN.

silent_jay · 02-11-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The sub was never away more than 12 hours at a time, it was part of a MWR drive for family members. It didn't last long, I got in mainly because my father's status within the military. Admittedly misleading, I apologize.

And my father was at the crash site investigating the cause, our family went to Cold Lake. I was like 7 at the time it occurred, forgive me if I got my bearings mixed up on the circle... it was still damn cold.

No worries Seaver, I figured you just got mixed up with the circle. Sure is cold in Cold Lake, had a friend who lived there years ago, never been myself, but having lived in northern Manitoba I see what he was talking about, both have about the same temps in winter.

02-08-2008, 11:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Ace, you have done an excellent job in describing the difficulty in making the "best" decision as to what end is served by Canada's continued participation in Afghanistan. I agree with you that Pakistan has become a safe haven for the very people that threaten our troups. The current administration in the US would appear to be more interested in shoring up a weakened dictator than to pursue the "war on terrorism". I so admire my neighbors to the North. They recognize and bounce a poor leader in a relative heartbeat, compared to our stodgy system. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-09-2008, 10:44 AM	#4 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I hope Canada stays, but we shouldn't degrade them if they don't. Canada is on a shoestring budget. When I lived there, 2% of the budget was for the military. They saved up for 15 years just to buy 2 squadrons of F-18 Hornets (my father was an exchange officer during this, flew with their Squad based in Ottowa). If they leave it's more symbolic than anything else. Their troops are fighting well, but won't cripple us if they leave. I just appreciate them being there with us so long. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-11-2008, 12:55 PM	#10 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	C'mon guys, let's keep this from circling the drain __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

02-11-2008, 03:19 PM	#13 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Host, I doubt you've ever spent more than 4 minutes talking to anyone in the military... how do you know anything about it's last legs? __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-11-2008, 04:12 PM	#19 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Guys, take it outside. Seriously, if you're interested in discussing the readiness of the US army maybe you should ask for a split or something. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

02-09-2008, 03:17 PM	#7 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	I didn't read the Report in its entirety. I downloaded the pdf when it became available, read 3 pages of recommendations and the conclusion. I didn't post it explicitly in my first post, but the bottom line, to me, was to call out NATO allies, get a chopper and some UAVs, set actions on a better course and make sure they stay on track. Peacekeepers and rebuilders, etc. Beyond the basic 'we need to get help and stick it out in Afghanistan', I simply disagree with your political beliefs. I won't be quoting it for truth, as it is opinion on political theory. As much as a minority should comprise, they are still the largest single power. I think the problem lies with the smallest parties (in many cases, the NDP) who represent a relativity small proportion of Canadians, having more than proportional influence. A minority government should not be held hostage and impotent. Non-conservatives have called every potential confidence vote as a ploy for an election for the last two years. I'll reiterate the simple idea that this wouldn't be an issue if it was believed that they would loose the next election. I agree that there should be more clarity and transparency. In no small part, there isn't enough due to the tenuous nature of a having a minority. That said, anti-harper leftist rants detract from a reasonable discussion. Tangents on the criminal system included. Like it or not, the Conservatives have made good on campaign promises. I agree. This is about more than what government is in power. This is about the government in power taking the recommendations of a non-partisan report and not allowing it to be watered down.

02-11-2008, 03:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
host Banned	Seaver, I just want to confirm that you understand that my response to your last post is that you have it exactly backwards. The US is on its "last legs", it's military "broken" by multiple back to back now extended deployments, equipment for ground operations worn out, right down to the reserve equipment that used to reside at national guard armories around the country. Military spending is unsustainable at present levels, and there is no petroleum consumption policy, and that consumption is unsustainable. as well. Canada is in the opposite circumstances, in every category, much better positioned financially to increase it's force in Afghanistan, than the US is, but you tell, them "go ahead and pull out, it's of little or no consequence to us", when you should be on your knees, begging them to stay.

02-11-2008, 03:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
Bossnass Détente Location: AWOL in Edmonton	Alright, but should Canada extend our mission in Afghanistan? Any issue with public demands for more action from NATO allies? Perhaps a model can be set by the Canadian Forces adjusting their role from combat to rebuilding and training?

02-11-2008, 04:41 PM	#24 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	C'mon guys.... keep it steady... Let's not get this thread locked. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

02-11-2008, 04:47 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	My thread! What have you done to it!? I totally agree Martain, it's not a question if we stay, but what capacity we are in while we are there. Dion really is looking pathetic right now. __________________ Feh.

02-11-2008, 05:18 PM	#29 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The Canadian military has been grossly underfunded for years. The one thing I agree with the Harper government about is increasing military spending (though I am more interested in this increase relating to defending our borders, specifically in the North). I am loathe to break up NATO but it seems that some of the partners are taking it for granted. A shake up is warranted. I would be happy to keep our combat troops in place as long as needed but increase our presence of non-combat troops (i.e. rebuilding, re-education, etc.). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-11-2008, 05:44 PM	#31 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't see the cessation of combat in Afghanistan any time soon. My ideal situation would see a proportionate increase in combat troops from other NATO nations so that a better cycle of combat tours can be maintained so that no nation bears more time in the line of fire than any other (with the possible exception of the US forces which given their larger numbers would likely always have troops in combat just few numbers over all). Germany, Spain, France, Turkey, the UK and the other members of NATO need to step up and share the load. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-11-2008, 06:55 PM	#34 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree that Seaver's post was not a troll. There is an issue with Canada's military spending and with Canadian willingness to support a combat vs. a peacekeeping role. It was a valid point. The rest was just petty bickering. Let's keep this thread on the rails, please. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-11-2008, 08:15 PM	#38 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Host, while this may or may not be the case, it isn't necessarily relevant to Seaver's point about Canada except as an aside. The discussion here, in this particular thread, is about Canada's continued role in Afghanistan. It isn't about the ability of the US to continue its role. If you'd like to have that particular discussion, I am sure there are plenty of other threads in which you can do so. If not, perhaps you can start one. Thanks __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke