Can you support the troops and not the mission?

[FascistLibertarian]

This is something I always here people talking about. I feel you can support the troops and not the mission (I support both). The troops go where they are told to go by the civilian political leaders. They go because this is their job. The troops right now support the mission, but I would support them regardless of the mission (which I can not say I would alway support).
What do you all think?

 

[safeboy43]

Although it is very obvious, I will say yes. It is possible to support the troops and the mission. All troops (with the exception of reservists) have no choice but to play an active part in any mission. They deserve 100% respect for what they do to protect us every day, whether we support it or not.

 

[canadianblue]

It's possible to support the troops but not the mission. If anything I would be concerned if there was n't a debate on the mission.

 

[DualCore]

I think we need a third concept here: 1 - the troops, 2 - the mission, 3 - the policy or some such term.

I think "Support the Troops" meaning we won't spit on them and call them baby-killer and afghan-torturers when they get home, is widely accepted in modern Canada, although not universal.

The "Support the Policy" meaning Canadian soldiers would never leave the country, or should never go anywhere when a gun might be fired at or by a Canadian, or ... should go with NATO approval, or UN approval, ... or go to prevent genocide, but not to prevent the re-emergence of a terror-state -- these are are highly debatable with many different opinions, all of which are welcome, and be argued and decided by democracy as practised in Canada (either by an executive decision of Chretien, modified by Martin, then extended by Parliament during the Harper era).

But the "Support the Mission" is the crux of it.  We, that is CANADA via three PMs and a vote in the House, decided to send 2500 Canadians to do a Mission in Kandahar.  Until Canada completes that mission or changes that decision, I think there is duty in the "loyal opposition" sense to support that mission.    The constant declarations or failure, unwinnability, misguided endeavour, immoral/illegal tactics, ignoring the success/failure/progress, ... is the part of the public debate in Canada that I think is unacceptable. 

I don't think Taliban Jack is going to spit on anyone, and he may come from a political movement that says europe/asia be damned and no Canadian should travel outside the 30 mile maritime zone, but while CANADA is running "2500 Canadians try to civilize Kandahar project", I think we have a right to expect Jack, etc. is hoping we succeed in that project, rather than try to undercut the success with all means short of spitting and shouting baby-killer.

 

[Hunteroffortune]

I support the military and their objectives. It's not up to me, non-military, to tell the military what to do. As far as the mission goes, the government decides what the mission will be, that doesn't mean civilians will support it, or the military either.

The problem I have is that once troops are deployed, people who have never been on that mission feel they have the right to tell us the mission is right/wrong. The people we should be listening to are the ones with their boots on the ground, anyone else, especially politicians, should be ignored. So, if the troops see progress, we should stay as long as the troops want us to, not just as long as the politicans want us to be there. A deployment should never be done for political gain, the mission should not be ended for political gain.

I think that's where PM Harper was going with his remarks. He wants all parties to actually show their support of the troops by supporting the government position, but he realizes that in 2009, we will have done more than our duty, and maybe some of the weak NATO links need to step up to the plate. Seeing as this is only 2007, I think we have some time before a decision needs to be made.

 

[canadianblue]

The problem I have is that once troops are deployed, people who have never been on that mission feel they have the right to tell us the mission is right/wrong. The people we should be listening to are the ones with their boots on the ground, anyone else, especially politicians, should be ignored. So, if the troops see progress, we should stay as long as the troops want us to, not just as long as the politicans want us to be there. A deployment should never be done for political gain, the mission should not be ended for political gain.

The problem is that the politicians are the ones elected to make those decisions, not the troops.

I think that's where PM Harper was going with his remarks. He wants all parties to actually show their support of the troops by supporting the government position, but he realizes that in 2009, we will have done more than our duty, and maybe some of the weak NATO links need to step up to the plate. Seeing as this is only 2007, I think we have some time before a decision needs to be made.

I don't see a problem with that, personally I think Canadian's have sacrificed alot for the mission and the other NATO nations should step up to the plate and do more. I also have a feeling that Harper will support ending the combat mission in 2009 and instead support sending the troops to the more "peaceful" areas of Afghanistan.

I don't think Taliban Jack is going to spit on anyone, and he may come from a political movement that says europe/asia be damned and no Canadian should travel outside the 30 mile maritime zone, but while CANADA is running "2500 Canadians try to civilize Kandahar project", I think we have a right to expect Jack, etc. is hoping we succeed in that project, rather than try to undercut the success with all means short of spitting and shouting baby-killer.

But what does that mean, the Republicans used the same rhetoric against those who were against the Iraq war, and even with Republican majorities in both houses from 2003 to 2006 the war in Iraq has been disasterous. I don't think any politician wants to see Canadian soldiers get killed, however they should be allowed to debate the merits of the mission without being given the label of traitor. I myself find Jack Layton's position more respectable than that of the Liberals who have simply changed their position for political gain which in my mind is much worse.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is something I always here people talking about. I feel you can support the troops and not the mission (I support both). The troops go where they are told to go by the civilian political leaders. They go because this is their job. The troops right now support the mission, but I would support them regardless of the mission (which I can not say I would alway support).
What do you all think?

I agree with Ruxted on this, but there is a pretty substantial mob out there, in Canada, braying, "Oh, we do support the troops, but the mission is all wrong," when, in reality, they frequently 'support' our enemies.  This mob is, mainly, 'all the usual suspects' - the anti-capitalist 'left' for whom the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.'  Since their main enemy is capitalism and since we are usually 'aligned' with capitalism's great satans our enemies are usually their friends.

 

[observor 69]

Globe & Mail

http://tinyurl.com/35hnce

The trouble with nation-building

Rory Stewart, who once walked across Afghanistan, doesn't think much of 'enlightened' policy-makers


By MARGARET WENTE 

Saturday, June 23, 2007 – Page A21



The national debate over Afghanistan plummeted to new lows this week. In Toronto, city councillors nearly came to blows over whether fire trucks should or should not display decals that say "Support our Troops." In Quebec, protesters tastelessly distributed antiwar propaganda to the families of soldiers who are about to be deployed. Meantime, three more soldiers were blown up in an area that was supposed to be safe, and the head of NATO dropped in to rally Canadian public support. "You are there for a good cause. You are there to defend basic universal values," he told us.

Personally, I have no love for the knee-jerks on either side. I think you can be patriotic and also oppose the war. But I also think that most of the war's opponents are the same people who are reflexively anti-American and anti-military. They're the kind of people who make me want to plaster little decals on my bumper.

So what's the truth about Afghanistan? Are our soldiers really making it a better place? Is it worth the sacrifice so that little girls can go to school? Or are we simply doing the bidding of the neo-imperialist Americans? Why can't we bring the soldiers home and just build schools?

If you want a simple answer, don't ask me. If you want a truthful one, listen to Rory Stewart.

In the winter of 2001, a few weeks after the Taliban fell, Rory Stewart walked 1000 kilometres, alone, across Afghanistan. He slept on mud floors and survived on nan bread and tea. It was a crazy thing to do. But the book he wrote about his trip, The Places in Between, is the sanest thing you'll ever read about the place we're trying to save.

Mr. Stewart - who speaks Dari, as well as several other Asian languages - describes an immensely complicated land, where people have profoundly different values and assumptions from our own. It is a deeply religious, largely illiterate, almost feudal world, where tribal alliances are constantly shifting and central authority is nothing but a rumour. "These differences between groups were deep, elusive and difficult to overcome," he reflects. "Village democracy, gender issues, and centralization would be hard-to-sell concepts in some areas."

Most of his account is documentary and descriptive. But toward the end, he unloads some stinging judgments about the well-meaning Westerners who imagine they can fashion Afghanistan into a kinder, more enlightened place. His harshest words are not directed at the foreign troops. They're aimed at the UN officials, the policy-makers, the NGOs, and the would-be nation-builders.

"Most of the policy-makers knew next to nothing about the villages where 90 per cent of the Afghan population lived," he writes. "They came from postmodern, secular, globalized states with liberal traditions in law and government. It was natural for them to initiate projects on urban design, women's rights, and fibre-optic cable networks; to talk about transparent, clean, and accountable processes, tolerance, and civil society; and to speak of a people 'who desire peace at any cost and understand the need for a centralized multi-ethnic government.' "

What they don't understand are the thought processes of a village woman who has never travelled five kilometres away from home. And so most of their projects are doomed to failure.

In Mr. Stewart's view, there's not much difference between the illusions of the American neo-cons (who imagined that once Iraq embraced democracy the rest of Middle East would follow suit) and the illusions of the enlightened policy consultants and aid workers from CIDA or the UN. "Colonial administrations may have been racist and exploitative," he writes. "But they did at least work seriously at the business of understanding the people they were governing."

By contrast, the modern armies of capacity-builders and civil-society experts "don't have the time, structures, or resources for a serious study of an alien culture. They justify their lack of knowledge and experience by focusing on poverty and implying that dramatic cultural differences do not exist."

Rory Stewart would have made an exceptional colonial administrator. He joined the British diplomatic corps in his 20s, and quickly built a remarkable career. Before he walked Afghanistan, at age 29, he'd already walked across much of Asia. He favoured the invasion of Iraq because he thought it could be more stable and humane than it had been under Saddam. After the invasion, he was sent to Iraq, where he became the virtual proconsul of two provinces in the south for a year and a half. "I realized in Iraq that I had been wrong," he says today.

The United States' essential error in Iraq was the one the West continues to make, in Afghanistan and in the Palestinian territories, too. We think that everyone, down deep, is just like us, and that once they have the chance they'll make the same choices we do. But much of the Islamic world has proven to be stubbornly stony soil for freedom and democracy. And the resurgence of Islamism means that many Muslims are using their votes to elect Islamist, authoritarian and (in the case of Hamas) terrorist regimes. The truth is that in Afghanistan - and in the Palestinian territories, and the entire Arab world today - there is no prospect for a secular, democratic state.

"Post-conflict experts have got the prestige without the effort or stigma of imperialism," Mr. Stewart writes about Afghanistan. "Their implicit denial of the difference between cultures is the new mass brand of international intervention. Their policy fails but no one notices. There are no credible monitoring bodies and there is no one to take responsibility."

Today Mr. Stewart lives in Kabul, where he runs a non-profit foundation devoted to social and urban redevelopment. His projects are modest and his budget small. Our expectations should be too.

 

[Red 6]

Why do all these guys like Rory Stewart think they know more than all the rest of us? I guess the main question should be, "What is the easiest and least dangerous thing we could do and not stay in garrison stateside/in Canada, etc?" War entails making hard choices, none of which is particularly attractive. I hate war in all its forms. It is an obscene thing, but there are still things that are worse. The business with these morons distributing antiwar agitprop material to Soldiers' families is only a bit less moronic than so-called Christians demonstrating against the military homosexual policy outside of memorials to US servicemembers killed in combat.

Can you support the troops and not support the war? Absolutely, but Afghanistan is, in my opinion, a just war. I'm sick of the 24 hour news cycle telling me how and what I should think. What happened to the days of reporters who told their stories and let the viewers decide. CNN is more of a policy maker than the goverment, or so it seems. It's corrosive and I've gotten to the point where I get my news from other places.

Service members in harms' way live on a combination of rumors, hopes, disappointments and counting down to the big day home. They want to know that their sacricifice is appreciated and to my way of thinking, there is not enough we as nations can do to really thank them. What I hate about the antiwar movement is the same thing I hate about the 24 hours news cycle. It's the condescending way they want to tell me what I'm supposed to think. 18 year old riflemen don't care about any of that. They just had three buddies killed and are wondering why. Reporters for the most part could care less about that and Soldiers' internal grief makes a great 30 second sound byte broadcast over and over and over on the news. Having served myself, I try to make it a point to shake the hand of serving members that I spot and thank them for their service.

I don't like to bang the "9/11 drum" and I can't stand it when the US administration invokes it over and over. I fell that constantly saying "9/11" stuck on the end of everything dilutes the impact of this event. But the fact remains that it happened and Afghanistan was a key location where Al Qaida trained and planned. NATO is taking the war to the enemy in a hostile environment and we are asking our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines to perform in the toughest combat in a long long time. We owe them a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.

Is Canada a loyal coalition partner? Yes absolutely. is the Canadian government a tool of American imperialism? Hell no. Canadians died in 9/11 and you are as much a target as the US. When I read about what your forces are doing in Afghanistan, I know I feel humble and also grateful that such brave men and women are ready to stand on the side of freedom. I just think it's a shame that your forces in Afghanistan are not better publicized in the US media. Your troops perform magnificently no matter what the mission and without a doubt, they are among the best in the world.

The enemy in Afghanistan (and coincidentally in Iraq, but that's off the point) is a nihilistic opponent without any clear objective other than death and destruction. They've proven already that they (the Taliban) cannot effectively run anything other than belts through a machine gun. To my way of thinking, they're a broken record, but they have one thing—staying power. What can you say about an enemy that is more than willing to slaughter innocents? Like I wrote up top, war is an obscene thing, but some things are worse.

 

[cameron]

I think it is certainly possible to support the troops and not the mission.  In the case of Afghanistan I have always and still support both.  In the case of Iraq I never have and still don't support the mission.  However, while I think the decision to invade Iraq was flawed and carried out under false pretense I have no sympathy for the insurgents and nothing but respect for the coalition forces in Iraq.  Everytime I watch a video on military.com or militaryphotos.net of coalition forces dropping a bomb or feeding lead to insurgents I can't help but cheer.

 

[RetiredRoyal]

While I support both, I think you can support the troops but not the mission.

The missions are politically driven and politics being the den of debauchery it is, will not always assign moral, ethical and legal missions.

The troops are our own, volunteers with homes lives and families and don't get to chose which missions they go or don't go on.

We all wanted to go to the Falklands, back in the day....politicians didn't support it.

Support our troops...

"Politicians in government should be changed regularly, like diapers, for
the same reason.'
-- Richard Davies

 

[Nemo888]

If any of my buddies get killed it better be for a damn good reason. I want open debate.

I have a problem with the lack of debate about the current mission. The REAL problems with the mission can’t be discussed because of the political BS.(ie Wanting to do the mission but not wanting to pay for it.) Its not all or nothing. Some things can actually be done better, but to rob the Jack Laytons of ammunition it is kept under our hats. I think the biggest most overlooked story of the war is that we are under funded and lack the resources to get the job done. We need more resources. I'm tired of begging the Americans for things we should have.


The other thing is maybe this forum isn’t the best place to bitch and moan.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[1feral1]

If any of my buddies get killed it better be for a damn good reason. I want open debate.

NEMO,

??

What is not a good reason? This sentence quoted above makes no sense to me.

The reason our troops are there is to make a difference one way or another. Whether he/she happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time is just how the reality of war is. I wished there will be no more Allied casualties, but that aint gonna happen.

Now for my input.

I have always said 'right or wrong its your government, but either way support the troops'. Is this war wrong? Well maybe so to some, me personally, I just don't know anymore, but the citizens of Canada USA, or Australia for that matter, can support the troops, but not the governments decison to get involved.

My tour, like others was not a cakewalk, we experienced some intense times, exchanged fire, and stood our ground. The support we received from Boy Scouts, church groups, ordinary concerned people, the RSL, schcool kids from K-8 was outstanding. I am sure not all the adults we recieved support from supported our government's decisions, but the support for us was genuine, and thats what counts. Governments change, but the soldiers the sons and daughter of Canada and Australia will always be deployed to some shytehole of a place, or away. Thats just how it is, and how it always will be.


Cheers,

Wes

 

[Brad Sallows]

The bottom line for representative democracies is that we have short attention spans and spare not a thought to changing that impression among potential foes.  For irregular forces, the standard strategy template to defeat us is to avoid decisive (ie. crippling) engagement and conduct sufficient operations to erode political will until we lose interest and go home.  To that end, the single point of information most useful to the enemy is either 1) our set date for disengagement; or 2) the threshold of dissatisfaction (conditions) at which we will abruptly disengage.  The primary line of operations is to sow domestic political discontent.  Everything that contributes to weakening our political will to attain our aim supports the enemy, whether it is intended that way or not.  It either results in failure or prolongs efforts to win (costing more blood and treasure - and not just our own blood - than otherwise necessary).

To make war requires will, means (the "blood and treasure"), and the ability to coherently co-ordinate the means to serve the will.  The attritionist emphasises attacking the means; the manoeuvrist emphasises attacking cohesion; the irregular emphasises attacking the will.  It is piss-poor strategy to actively work to serve the irregular's main effort.  I would not concede ignorance to be an excuse even if I believed most people were ignorant of the effects of their contributions to erosion of will.

To claim to support the troops without supporting the mission is basically to say: I don't hold the troops responsible for whatever immoral or unjust or unwise thing I believe it is that the politicians sent them to do.  That is a trivial statement of truth, since the troops do not decide which missions to accept or reject.  How gracious for opponents of a mission to admit the obvious.  It is a straightforward acknowledgement of lack of culpability, and should not be dishonestly dressed up as "support" for the troops for the sake of political appearances.

But the most repugnant part remains - to me - that even when we succeed, the effect of opposition will have been to drag the sh!t out longer than it had to take and thereby to increase the personal cost to the troops.  Nice "support".  And for those whose opposition is merely a tool to pursue other domestic political objectives, how arrogant of them to trade off the welfare of not only our own forces, but the people in the region of conflict.

 

[Greymatters]

Brad Swallows,

An excellent point and well written.  However, it ignores the fact that most of the general public does not want to support the political decision, or accept responsibility for the decisions of people they elect to public office, and are pefectly willing to blame the military when things go pear-shaped.  In they end they just want to support the troops and ignore all that unpleasant other stuff that reflects on their own ethics and decision-making abilities. 

 

[cameron]

While many of the individuals and groups that oppose a war are often hypocrites and opportunists with an axe to grind and who see the military as a tool to use for political capital, the same also applies to many of those in the pro-war camp.  However, to tar all those who oppose a particular war with the same brush is unfair (just as it would be to do so to all who support a particular war), and conveniently sidesteps the fact that there can be logical, legitimate and genuine reasons for opposing a decision to go to war.

 

[Greymatters]

And...?  Which side of the fence are you on? Or are you sitting on top?

 

[cameron]

I've stated that quite clearly already GreyMatter.  I'm against the decision to invade Iraq and for the Afghanistan war.

 

[1feral1]

I'm against the decision to invade Iraq .....

Your profile does not say too much.

A little bit of a rant on....

So if you were a serving member, and you were told you were deploying to Iraq, what would you do? Desert? Smoke that pipe and puff those cigars while hiding in some war resister refuge? Or would you fight?

Although things are moderatly out of control there, and it will take a long time to settle, I believe things will even up in time (decades or longer). Freedom for the first time has generated expression of their beliefs (insurgents now are openly fighting for what they believe , both against each other and the Coalition Forces) and corruption which is well beyond a joke.

Freedom is all new to them, for a long long time they have been oppressed, tortured and murdered by a sick and bent regime. Violence is in their culture, they are primative compaired to us overall. We cannot enforce our lifestyle on them as they just don't think like us, nor will they ever, nor should we expect them to. Compare it to a fish out of water, throw him on the land, he will die, but drain the water slowly over time, and the beast will evolve, and become an air breather.

Also the principles of the invasion have found not to be fully the case, the 'what if' factor plays. Better ole Saddam be taking a dirt nap, then allowed to flourish, and be able to be part of a most sinister and wide spread significant event against the west.

Personally I am glad he is gone, and as for my opinion on Iraq, I was there, yes in the thick of it at times. I was not smoking a pipe, watching a biased TV news or reading some left wing rag while swilling a warm beer in the safety of others like minded.

This GWAT is simply that. Iraq is a part of it (as are other tin pot supporting countries of terrorism), we (the west) are there for the long haul, and if we fail, the reprocussions agianst us, and for our kids will be forever regretted.

The whole region is unstable, now with Saudi Arabia backing one side, and Iran the other. The plot is much thicker than you can comprehend.

Personally I don't see the difference between AFG and Iraq. How you can be pro for one theatre, and against the other (talk about hypocritical) , I will not know. Perhaps if you had the oportunity to go there, feel, taste and hear whats going on, or be shot at, rocketed, or mortared, maybe then you might understand.

Pipe and cigar smoking is overall permitted.

A little bit of a rant off.....


Wes

 

[cameron]

Wesley if you had read my posts on the thread about the peaceniks trash mailing the Vandoos you'd have the answer to your first question.  Desertion is not an option, soldiers don't make wars (at least not in democracies like Australia and Canada), they fight them, they go where they are sent and prosecute their duties as professionally as possible REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL FEELINGS.  Which is why I will always feel free to support of oppose any war I wan't to but will never attack the soldiers involved for merely doing their jobs.  Yes unlike you i've never been to Iraq or any other theatre of operations, and I have the utmost respect for those of you volunteer to place yourselves in harm's way.  I was not aware however that not having a shot fired at me in anger took away my right to have and express an opinion.  You say I am hypocritical because I support the Afghanistan war and not the Iraq war, that is the faultiest logic i've heard in awhile.  So in effect you're saying that because someone supports a particular war a country engages in they should support any other war it starts regardless of the circumstances.  I think i'll blow some cigar smoke up that one.