Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)

[zipperhead_cop]

Just a snippet from Pipers posted link from the Foreign policy site:

Roles of the Canadian Forces

Failed states and the challenge of restoring stability

The Canadian Forces will continue to participate across the spectrum of international operations, with a focus on the complex and dangerous task of restoring order to failed and failing states. The ability of our military to carry out three-block war operations will be critical to the success of Canada's efforts to address the problems of these states. Our experience in the past has shown that democracy and economic development cannot take hold in these societies without the security and stability that only military forces can provide.
Seem pretty much like what is going on in A'stan?

When I think of Pike I remember Captain Pike from the original Star Trek series.  Remeber him?  He was a drooling mangled wreck that could only make lights blink "yes" or "no".  Coincidence???  I think not!

I think Pike is just trying to ramp up the webcounter stats for the site so she can get a free pair of hemp sandals.

 

[a_majoor]

Pike seems not to understand the idea of "synergy", perhaps being too young or inexperienced to own mutual funds (which is a wonderful example post RRSP season).

You could attempt individual efforts, buying and selling stocks with your own resources. If you apply ALL your time and effort to this (like day traders do), there is the possibility you might make some money. The more likely outcome is you will be overwhelmed by the larger actors, pension funds and brokerage firms who have far larger resources than you do. Mutual fund investors, like me, are pooling our funds so our efforts are all being synchronized and in effect we are as big as the "big guys" in the stock market.

Joining forces with the big guys works just as well in politics and diplomacy as it does in the market. As a libertarian, I am not 100% behind the policies Prime Minister Harper offered as his election platform, but there was a close enough match on enough points that I feel are important that I synchronized my efforts with the Conservative party and voted for them. As a result, they won and some of my goalswill be met.

An interesting historical parallel exists. In the 1800's the British Empire outlawed slavery, and the Royal Navy hunted down slavers with ruthless efficiency. The United States joined the effort as a junior partner (the US Navy being a rather ramshackle outfit in those days, and the Republic was only a "middle power"), which was welcomed by the RN. The American Navy was treated as an important partner in partolling the Carribean and West African coast, but there was nothing to prevent the American ships from leaving to persue American interests, similarly the British squadrons could be called away to perform some other duty, leaving the American ship on station to do the job alone.

In all these examples (investing, voting and fighting slavery), there was no coercion by the Greater power, simply a convergence of interests and the joining of forces to achieve a common goal.

We could go into Sudan unilaterally, but this would dissapate our efforts in Afghanistan, weaken our partners efforts there (or is that the idea?), and have only a very limited effect in the Sudan itself. Although the genocide is a terrible event, it has no immediate effect on Canada's national interest, so we must conserve our blood and treasure for things which are in our national interest.

 

[Edward Campbell]

….
What if we turn around the argument though? And what if we say it is in our interest and our allies to get rid of dictatorships in Africa, to liberate those people, foster trade etc etc. Its the same argument. Poverty breeds inequality and restrained choice, which is what is happening in Afghanistan and Sudan.

Africa is not now, never has been and, likely (my opinion, free of charge, take it for what it’s worth) never will be a geo-political cockpit.  Africa is a tragedy; it’s going to get worse; probably much worse.  ‘We’ the big, capitalistic, secular, liberal-democratic West will do some heavy duty hand-wringing but precious little else because our vital interests are not at stake.  Dead black people, in Africa, even millions of dead black people, in Africa, are ‘old news,’ pitiful as they may be.

The choice made by the very real, avowed, active enemies of the West was not fed by poverty.  Poverty, such as we see in Africa, provokes migration and, often, civil or regional wars – not, in Africa’s case, threats to our vital interests.  Our enemy, a real enemy, has all manner of grievances, some may be something other than imagined, poverty isn’t one of them.

….
I guess my overall point is this. We can justify being in Afghanistan as much as we want. But it is not our foreign policy. We were swayed into doing it to maintain good relations with the USA. Thats it. So I just have a problem with people defending this like its our own. Its not. We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.

I repeat: for Canada, relative to our vital interests, the USA matters.  It matters most. Nebraska matters more, infinitely more than Niger and Nigeria and all the rest of Africa, combined.  When, as now, the USA makes security and the defeat of terrorist safe havens its number one priority then it is nothing more than Trudeauistic stupidity to ignore them – and Trudeauistic stupidity, à la the 197069 Foreign Policy for Canadians is the worst, most destructive kind.  It is precisely that sort of stupidity (that now infamous document tried to propose a Canadian foreign policy which ignored the USA) which created the problems our national strategic thinkers are trying to solve.  Trudeau was an ass, a dumb-ass, to boot, a petty, puffed up, provincial poltroon and the worst, by far, leader in Canadian history.

Appeasing the USA, for whatever reason and in whatever form, IS ‘our’ – made in Canada – foreign policy.  That’s the primary option that dimwit Trudeau left behind; he was a monumentally stupid little man; he scrapped the only sensible Canadian foreign policy (St Laurent’s) and the law of unintended consequences took over from there.  Chrétien, as an independent Canadian leader, had the same choice Canadian leaders have had since 1969: appease and jump through America’s hoops or think and craft a new Canadian foreign policy.  They know what the latter entails but because the people of Canada are lovingly wedded to the Trudeauistic stupidity they, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, maybe Harper, too, are afraid to admit that Louis St Laurent was right and Trudeau was an idiot.

Edit: corrected date of publication of Foreign Policy for Canadians - it was written in '69, published in '70

 

[Journeyman]

Lets go into Sudan, thats where our priorities should lie

What estimate process/factors did you use to determine that Sudanese stability is a priority for Canada?

How do you address the sovereignty issue (ie - the Sudanese government does not want us there)?

What benefits do you see in revoking our agreement to let the African Union take the lead on operations in Sudan? We've provided 105 Grizzly/Husky vehicles, plus 80 troops to support the staging area (training in Ops & Maint). You believe we should now go in, guns' blazing? To what end?

***********
On a separate, but related matter, this thread has shown that we (CF pers and CF supporters) are going to be increasingly called upon to explain deployment issues. The Opposition Parties and media are currently raising emotions on debating deployments, rationales, "can't we just be peacekeepers in Cyprus," etc. Even though all but one contributor to this thread apparently understands that the military enacts government policy, not establishes it, people will still turn to us to help them make sense of it all.

To this end, I think we need to better explain what's going on. While I have occasionally resorted to "Airborne Debating Society" technique (Well, "f - - k" you. Oh ya, well "F - - K" YOU! ), we need to express ourselves better....even to the trolls. It's at times like this, when the military is at war but our nation is apparently not, that we need to shore up support by explaining our side of the equation.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Journeyman-

Excellent post.  Well said.

 

[pbi]

Journeyman: I second your comments and your advice on how to deal with people like Pike. As well, you are quite right about the need for each of us to conduct our own "info op" with fellow Canadians. There are lots of them who question or oppose us being in Afghanistan: this is natural in a democratic country and we should not wish for a mindlessly obedient public. I personally still believe that all Canadian govts need to do a better job of ensuring that when we go to dangerous places, we do it with the support of Canadian people, both in and out of office. Political debate and discourse is a natural part of that process: we should not fear it.

People who argue against our involvement from genuinely and deeply held personal convictions will probably not be swayed by us: so be it. But, where these opinions are based in sheer ignorance, or gut-level anti-Americanism, or defective reasoning processes (all of which seem to characterize the rantings of the "lace-curtain pacifists" or "Starbucks Socialists") then I think we need to get out there and engage, with truth, reasoned argument and logic.

Pike's now well-picked over statement:

I guess my overall point is this. We can justify being in Afghanistan as much as we want. But it is not our foreign policy. We were swayed into doing it to maintain good relations with the USA. Thats it. So I just have a problem with people defending this like its our own. Its not. We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.

...displays all three of the weaknesses I described. Arguments such as Pike's are usually vulnerable to fact and reason, especially when these tools are wielded by people with op experience in Afgh or some useful knowledge of the world.

 

[Edward Campbell]

For the past week the Globe and Mail (which, like it or not, is probably as close as we, in Canada, get to having a national newspaper of record) has been focusing on our mission in Afghanistan.  (I highlight the our because I agree with the Globe’s editorial position, which follows, which is, essentially, that ‘we’ (all Canadians) need to get behind Gen. Hillier and his transformation project so that ‘our’ armed forces can protect and promote ‘our’ national interests around the world, including in Afghanistan.) 

Here is the Globe and Mail editorial which (along with a very flattering article about Gen. Hillier and his plans), I suspect, is intended to cap the week which began with a provocative story/poll which told us that most Canadians neither understand nor support the CF’s Afghanistan mission.  (This editorial is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Ac t.)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060303.EAFGHAN03/TPStory/Opinion/editorials 
There are some (many? most?) members of Army.ca who want to pigeon-hole the Good Grey Globe as a Liberal rag – maybe, but if they are then this is a time when ‘we’ (the army/military community) ought to get behind the views of that Liberal rag.

Here is a letter to the editor in today’s Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060304.LETTERS04-1/TPStory

[size-15pt] The Kandahar question[/size]

W. S. CARNEY

Canmore, Alta. -- While I applaud General Rick Hillier for being honest about the commitment and cost involved in a lengthy Afghanistan mission, I cannot support the overall concept (Hillier's Compelling Case For The Afghan Mission -- editorial, March 3). It will not set Afghanistan right and will unify the militant Arab world in a way the terrorists can only have dreamed of.

The editorial board of The Globe and Mail has been swayed by a general who has a vested interest in the rebuilding of the Canadian Forces. He is dictating our foreign policy while Prime Minister Stephen Harper cheerleads from the sidelines.

Gen. Hillier's concerns about rebuilding the military are valid, but not by this method -- it's doomed to failure and history supports that contention: France in Vietnam, the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the United States in Iraq . . .

Ask yourself: Is it worth your son's or daughter's life?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

Margaret Wente is right (see here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40500/post-344542.html#msg344542  and here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40463.0.html on Army.ca) it is a tough sell.

 

[parkie]

Why are we in Kandahar? Simplistically put we are in Kandahar in large measure because the previous government wanted to find a way to improve our relations with the Bush administration, and ponying up forces for a major deployment in Afghanistan was one way to show our bona fides.
http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/March%2006/afghanbecause.htm

Comon boys, question your elected officials

Hmmmmm! you come to a forum that supports the ideals of free speech and ask that question? don't you think, ooops!  I think you answered your own question.

 

[fleeingjam]

Man this thread hurts more than when a pike bites your finger  ;D gone fishing

- TBCF said it the best, lets can it.

 

[Cannonfodder]

      We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing . True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism . Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .

 

[Slim]

      We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing . True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism . Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .

Well thanks very much mr I-have-69posts-and-want-to-hear-myself-talk...You have never  been there, don't really know what you're talking about and are way out of your lane!

How do i know this?! Becuase if you HAD BEEN THERE you wouldn't say what you just did...You have NO IDEA what the people of A'stan really want, which is peace and stability...The medievil regime was only attractive to those very few who benfitted from it...Not the rest of the population.

that's about as nice as you're going to get...I garuntee that more grief is on the way for you as the A'stan vets read your incredibly stupid and ignorant post!

Not only that but its an insult to those who have fought and died or been hurt defending that nation against terrorists.

Thanks Jackass...You can be quiet now!

 

[Franko]

I am SO biting my tongue right now.........

Slim....thanks for being so calm....

Regards

 

[Cannonfodder]

    Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .

 

[Fishbone Jones]

     Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .

Truth is, you don't know what your talking about, no matter what the colour is.

 

[Slim]

     Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .

Not everything is about oil and the Evil World Alliance! Grow up!

 

[Cannonfodder]

  Please tell me what is not true on about what I said . Dismissing someones opinion because it differs from yours is myoptic ,surely you can elaborate more intelligently.

 

[Slim]

      We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing .

Its not just the local govt that wants us there but the people as well.

True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism .

How do you know...Are you a counter-terrorism expert?!

Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .

How is it a mis-representation of the facts? What are your sources? How long have you been there to analyze the situation? What do you know about this that the rest of us don't?!

Or are you shooting off your mouth on a subject that you really have no first hand knowledge of...I think that's against the site rules is it not?

You are headed down quick. Stop while you're ahead.

 

[Franko]

As someone who has been there and seen it for himself .....I'm safe to say that you are talking out your arse.

Your point of view has the smell of the same retoric as other left wingers who have posted here on the same topic....and is restrained from thinking that it may be wrong.

I have talked to locals all over the coutry in Afghanistan and they pretty much say the same thing over and over....they want peace and stability, earn a living and live well.

We have been invited and welcomed into their backyards to get rid of scum that obviously you have no idea of what it's like to live under....so save the tripe fro someone else.

Keep the trolling up and see where it gets you.

Regards

 

[Gayson]

I have to kinda agree with Cannon Fodder on this one.

Afghanistan IS a worthy cause, but our mission there will not prevent terrorism from happening.

Terrorism is a global problem rooted in countries around the world.  Though much of Al-Qaeda was and may still be in Afghanistan, killing them off in Afghanistan will not remove cells, and their recruiting, in other countries.

Obviously if our mission succeeds, Al-Qaeda will lose a major advantage and staging area they once had, but we have to remember, Terrorism thrives in many environments and it would not surprise me if Al-Qaeda simply further expanded its network to make up for the lack of one large space.

After all, the Terrorists who bombed London this past summer probably didn't fly directly in from Afghanistan to do their deed.

Afghanistan is but one small piece of the large terrorism jigsaw puzzle.

I believe Canada needs to do more at home and abroad.

Tougher immigration and border security comes to mind.  Also I believe immigrants must not be allowed to move where they want, but be assigned a geographic location where they may live, this prevents cultural ghettos from forming (and thus terrorism recruitment pools) and allows Canada to send people to areas that need them.

Also, Canada needs to start placing propaganda adds in our nation that support the mission in Kandahar.  This will yield two things, more support for us and Canada and less support for the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism in general.

 

[Cannonfodder]

 True our military is doing a good job stabilising and making Afghanistan a better place but this is not preventing terrorist attacks on Canadian soil . As for you Slim there is an old saying old it goes like never argue with an idiot , they will drag you down to there level and then beat you with expieriance .