Canada's uncertain role in Afghanistan
 

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
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.

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. :)

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?


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.

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.

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:

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:
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:

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

Sir, may I subscribe to your news letter?

I could not have said it better myself.

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.
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":

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.

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?

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.

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.

By not feeding the trolls.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.).

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

This might be a little off the side, but during the recent Australian election Iraq was a sizeable difference between the two political parties, but Afghanistan was not - both parties publicly said that they would 'stay the course' in Afghanistan. Our troop numbers (from a quick bit of googling) are similar to Canada's. Personally, I think that the reasons to go in, in the first place, are still there. 1000 troops might not sounds like a lot, but every little bit counts.

You took my comment out of context.

I had the same reaction to post #4 as Martian did and described in post #23:

I think Canada has it's national spending priorities in admirable order. Canada budgets and spends for the defense of it's borders, with enough left over to honor it's mutual defense international treaty commitments.

...and here it is slipped in again, in post #33

While I am not advocating increasing the spending to US levels (as a percentage of budget) I think it is safe to say that Canada is *not* and had not been spending enough on its military.

This is especially true as it concerns our borders in the arctic.

Have you seen these discussion boards?

Arctic Security / Sécurité de l’Arctique
http://sdfdiscussionboard.ca/viewforum.php?id=43

Afghanistan
http://sdfdiscussionboard.ca/viewforum.php?id=35

Ummm it would help if there was some real discussion on those boards.

The most recent reply to a post is...July.

Of the 3 or 4 replies total, combined, on both boards.

Neither Canada, nor the US, nor all of NATO combined can succeed in Afghanistan, regardless of the length of stay or the number of troops, as long as our good friend Pakistan harbors and provides safe haven to the "insurgent" Talaban and "terrorist" al Queda in its NW provinces.

I agree with you, we should invade Pakistan.

Not quite.

We (NATO) should be fostering the return of a truly secular democratic government, one that is not controlled by the military, that represents the majority of the people in Pakistan and one that would be an ally and we could assist in controlling the threat to the stability of the region posed by the NW provinces.

Hey, we appreciate that you had our backs. I don't really think that Canada has a dog in this fight, though, and I'd hate to see anything happen to your troops. I mean I hate seeing anything bad happen to any troops, but I really don't think that Canada is a terrorist target. Everyone loves Canada. Not everyone loves the US.

To begin... FUCK! I just wrote a huge post and then had the forum delete it. GREAT.

Anyway... I'm gonna try to get the thread back on track with this:

Linky
Bravo! This Liberal motion was everything I was looking for out of this debate. I'm impressed Harper backed up on his refusal to negotiate; it would appear they would refuse to negotiate with the hard-line stance of the Bloc and the NDP, which I didn't agree with anyway.

Everything hinges on NATO supplying the troops, which I believe they can do. It's time for other NATO countries to help shoulder the load of slogging through the most dangerous area of the country.

I also agree that if Pakistan can't deal with the terrorist activity in its border region with Afghanistan, the international community should be able to help them out with that. And to think, remember how badly Dion got jumped on for even suggesting it? I think it's going to happen, because success in Afghanistan doesn't happen when they can retreat to Pakistan at will.

It kinda makes you wonder if Bush just got Iraq and Pakistan confused when he was deciding which country to invade next. Dictator subverting democracy? Check. Weapons of mass destruction? Check. Harboring terrorists? Check.

But you know, all those middle eastern countries are pretty much the same anyway...

Interesting.

And here I thought countries like Pakistan, Iran, and dare I say Iraq could never have a true, free democratic and representative government, at least thats what I've been told about Iraq.

But we digress, this is about Canada, and to a lessor extent the crumbling NATO alliance.

Ustwo, I think the problem stems from assuming democracy = western democracy, and modernization = westernization. Democracy is a concept that has been around for a LONNNGGG time while existing in different capacities with different structures.

It's about the Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis finding their own road to a functioning democracy that both works for them and ensures the human rights of their citizens as guaranteed by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Easier said than done however.... Now if you'll just hand me that piano. :thumbsup:

Ya know... I was actually in Afghanistan for all of 2006.

I traveled from Kandahar to Gardez to Ghazni to Sharana to Zormot to Bagram to WazaKwa.

We went up and down the entire east side of the country at least once a month.

Kinda odd, but I didn't see a single Canadian outside of Bagram's chow halls.

There's about 2500 Canadian troops there, mostly deployed around Kandahar and throughout the south. The current number killed in hostile actions over there is 78, which admittedly is a fraction of the 282 you guys have lost, but then our deployment is much smaller. From what I've been able to dig up, America has sent about 8000 troops to Afghanistan. 78/2500=~3.2%, 282/8000=~3.5%. I haven't found overall casualty counts yet (including both wounded and non-combat actions) but I would imagine the ratio is pretty similar.

No disrespect meant, dude. Just, y'know, our boys are fighting and dying too. You may not have seen them on your tour, but they're there.

I think even Dion has moved away from the idea of pulling our boys out. They need to be there, nobody's denying that. The question is, again, how can we best stabilize the country so that all NATO forces can bring the troops home. This isn't just Canada's responsibility, or America's responsibility. It's the responsibility of all the NATO forces and I'd be interested to hear solutions coming from any quarter. Right now one of the most viable solutions is for our allies to step up and fulfill their commitments.

My understanding is there are a few more american forces (from 2006-present) than 8000. In and around 28000-30000, with roughly half being part of the NATO security force and half being under no jurisdiction. The % killed per capita since 2006 is very much skewed onto Canada.

And that is exactly the problem, as Martian pointed out. US forces are there in 10x the number with 100x the budget, and since 2006 the brunt of the resistance has been met by British and Canadian forces. Where the Americans were and are under no illusions of the intent of the mission, the NATO forces are there under the context of a security force, not an active combat force. I also agree that more forces in the south, in combat roles, are required from other countries.


I like the compromise that has been found between the liberals and conservatives. The firm stance of "must pull out in early '09" was contrary to NATO and Canadian intent.

It should also be noted that the US population is ten times greater than Canada's.

Unlike y ou, I have not been to Afghanistan. I'm just a working stiff in Toronto. But I have pulled over to the side of the 401 high way - AKA the Highway of Heroes on several occasions as the motorcade of hearses bearing our soldiers passes by. Every overpass along this highway is filled with emergency response vehicles with their lights wig-waging, civilians holding up flags, veterans saluting as the procession heads down to the coroner's building downtown.

You may not have seen these guys, but I know they've been there, and have made the ulitmate sacrifice.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0824/20070824/

just nitpicking, but could you throw that article in quotes? makes it easier for people who want to reply

done. Had to figure out how. :thumbsup:

Just as in the US, if your own political leadership sincerely believed the fight was worth the cost, there would be no reason to do this:

yep. they did that to much chagrin. They don't do it anymore. That's an old story

Democracy in action.

One of the rare times the media has straight up called out the Conservatives. They should do it more often considering the contempt for the media the current administration has.

It's kind of interesting to see how the Canadians dealt with this issue compared to the Americans. I suppose this is the power (or lack thereof) that is to be found in a minority government (not to mention a governmental system where the leader has to stand in front of question period week after week).

I've often imagined Bush in question period and it always gives me a nice little chuckle.

Minority governments have given Canada some of its most celebrated legislation.

Gay marriage, and universal healthcare to name a few. Not saying this should turn into a debate about these things... But I'm just saying that Canadians would never give them up, and they arguably never would have happened without minority parliaments. There is power in minority parliaments. You just need to be willing to play ball.

My brother-in-law went to Afghanistan when the shit went down. He's said he'd go back in a heartbeat if given the chance at another tour. But then again, he wasn't out there fighting the Taliban. As an engineer and driver, he was there building schools, bridges, etc. and helping villagers with distribution of goods and local mediation. This is the kind of role Canada should focus on. Our mission must eventually shift into this role (in addition to security) or the current mission will fail.

I do give Harper credit for the shrewd political moves he's done regarding this issue. Either way, the Liberals will come out looking either bad or compliant. Harper isn't sitting in a bad spot even though the government might fall on either this or the upcoming budget at the end of the month. (I'm thinking the Liberals are going to push for the budget to fail; that way, they won't look so bad on the Afghanistan thing....not yet, anyway.) And I suppose there's that crime laws motion too, but I'd put my money on the budget being the cause of a fall; it's already been said that it won't be supported. (i.e. The Bloc and the NDP won't support it, so it's up to the Liberals.)

If the government falls, I don't predict a Liberal win. At best it will be another Conservative minority, at worst... majority.

Dion is not the leader the liberals need to regain power.

Agreed. :sad:

I dunno... strange things can happen. in 2004 I would have said, "Creepy Stephen Harper will never be prime minister" but here we are. I predict another Conservative minority in the next election.