Latest on ending the mission in '09
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
18-and-ready said:
Well...... theres British, Australian, Dutch.... or pretty much any other country out there...
but by all means 18, dont let me stop you... keep digging........
and im with I-6...
this sort of thing frustrates me to no end and really makes sick at times.... and before you go shooting off again, I-6 and myself have both been over there, and speaking for myself, have lost people i knew, and seen enough death, devastation, and utter shit to last me quite some time.... the worst areas of hamilton are heaps nicer then some of the best neighbourhoods of Kandahar City...
so when I-6 or I say it makes us sick, It because these Idiots are basically taking all the Sacrifice all of us made over there, and throwing it away for partisan politics....
and for the Record, I like the Americans.... those boys know how to throw a war.... and their medivac pilots would Land in Hell to rescue the injured.... Good bunch of boys.
anyways, thats my .02
-Tommy
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Tommy said:
Tommy, your right.
Infidel-6 / ArmyVern / Tommy
Maybe my question was phrased wrong and maybe I was out of line
For that I apologize
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,260
"Man Bites Dog" alert - Globe & Mail issues "clarification":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070904.CLARIFICATION04/TPStory/?query=clarification
CLARIFICATION
September 4, 2007
The headline in yesterday's Globe and Mail, "We're out by February '09, Mackay says," referred to Defence Minister Peter MacKay's statement that Canada has signalled to allies that the current configuration of the Canadian Forces mission in Kandahar will end by that date. Mr. MacKay did not rule out the possibility that Canadians would remain in Afghanistan after 2009.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070904.CLARIFICATION04/TPStory/?query=clarification
CLARIFICATION
September 4, 2007
The headline in yesterday's Globe and Mail, "We're out by February '09, Mackay says," referred to Defence Minister Peter MacKay's statement that Canada has signalled to allies that the current configuration of the Canadian Forces mission in Kandahar will end by that date. Mr. MacKay did not rule out the possibility that Canadians would remain in Afghanistan after 2009.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The Globe wouldn't be trying to reposition our government now would it? 
My iteration on some previous comment FWIW would be
Some Canadians make me sick.-
I have been fortunate enough to know some truly great Canadians.
Some have honored Canada while in uniform some while out of uniform.
I can list 'em if you want.
I think it's fair to say our current social and political climate makes nearly
all of us sick. Sick of the ignorance mostly. Sick of the Globe and mail perhaps.
I defer to Infidel-6 and any other veterans of course - I'm just making a suggestion.
My iteration on some previous comment FWIW would be
Some Canadians make me sick.-
I have been fortunate enough to know some truly great Canadians.
Some have honored Canada while in uniform some while out of uniform.
I can list 'em if you want.
I think it's fair to say our current social and political climate makes nearly
all of us sick. Sick of the ignorance mostly. Sick of the Globe and mail perhaps.
I defer to Infidel-6 and any other veterans of course - I'm just making a suggestion.
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,260
Heck, as crazy as this may seem, let's see the words the Def Min used on CTV this weekend, so we can be the judge....
"...the Prime Minister has been very clear and very honest, firstly, in having a vote last spring which did not occur when the previous government started this mission. It did not happen with consultation with a vote in parliament. But we took that step and we have committed, the Prime Minister has committed to having our soldiers there until February of 2009. But in the interim period there will be another vote taken in parliament if there was to be any extension, so I expect that this discussion will take place in the House of Commons this fall."
"As far as the signal that has been sent already is that our current configuration will end in February 2009. Obviously the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that and the Afghan compact itself goes until to 2011. But the way the mission is currently configured with respect to our presence in Kandahar, there is an expiration date that has been set. But the commitment to reexamine this issue in the House of Commons where parliament can have its say in a very diplomatic and democratic forum. That's what we're committed to."
Here's a transcript of the interview.
"...the Prime Minister has been very clear and very honest, firstly, in having a vote last spring which did not occur when the previous government started this mission. It did not happen with consultation with a vote in parliament. But we took that step and we have committed, the Prime Minister has committed to having our soldiers there until February of 2009. But in the interim period there will be another vote taken in parliament if there was to be any extension, so I expect that this discussion will take place in the House of Commons this fall."
"As far as the signal that has been sent already is that our current configuration will end in February 2009. Obviously the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that and the Afghan compact itself goes until to 2011. But the way the mission is currently configured with respect to our presence in Kandahar, there is an expiration date that has been set. But the commitment to reexamine this issue in the House of Commons where parliament can have its say in a very diplomatic and democratic forum. That's what we're committed to."
Here's a transcript of the interview.
- Reaction score
- 18,800
- Points
- 1,260
Geez what a waffle. I must say I'm regreting wanting O'Connor gone as DM.
I'm utterly revolted with the sudden lack of gumption on the CPC to continue the full mission. Scaling back the combat force will reduce the security situation, and we will be complicit in helping the Afghan gov't fail. This sort of half-assed business would have had us stop somewhere in Normandy in June of 1944.
Needless to say as a CPC member who has been donating a bit of money to their coffers the next time I get a request - Instead of simply saying toss another 300 or so $ on my credit card - I will say sorry I dont appreciate the direction the party is going, and I've dried up as a fund source.
I'm utterly revolted with the sudden lack of gumption on the CPC to continue the full mission. Scaling back the combat force will reduce the security situation, and we will be complicit in helping the Afghan gov't fail. This sort of half-assed business would have had us stop somewhere in Normandy in June of 1944.
Needless to say as a CPC member who has been donating a bit of money to their coffers the next time I get a request - Instead of simply saying toss another 300 or so $ on my credit card - I will say sorry I dont appreciate the direction the party is going, and I've dried up as a fund source.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm sort of on the fence regarding this whole thing. In one way, it pisses me off that our government would pull the military out of action before the job is done. Nobody likes a job half-done, yet we're expected to swallow our pride and accept that as the way it is. At the same time, our military the way it is, simply can't commit itself to a mission like this which may potentially have no end, similar to what's going on in Iraq. An end has to be made by the participating parties at some point, otherwise you're locked in something that has the momentum to go longer than anyone would care to imagine. Lets face it, bullets can't destroy ideals, and as long as the taliban keep recruiting more followers, it's difficult, near impossible to be able to predict when this thing can come to a satisfactory end.
This is the problem with waging an unconventional war using conventional means. We expect the otherside to one day just say 'Okay, we give up.' It's just not a realistic expectation though, and I think people need to understand that. I don't think any war is unwinable, but the question one has to ask is whether the sacrifice is really worth the rewards?
As an aside, I sincerely hope I'll get my chance to go over there before the pull out happens.
This is the problem with waging an unconventional war using conventional means. We expect the otherside to one day just say 'Okay, we give up.' It's just not a realistic expectation though, and I think people need to understand that. I don't think any war is unwinable, but the question one has to ask is whether the sacrifice is really worth the rewards?
As an aside, I sincerely hope I'll get my chance to go over there before the pull out happens.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I only donate about 20 bucks at a time. - I call it prudent ;D
When the NDP drops by, I shout the candidate off my front step! >
The opposition needs to be confronted with - withdraw the troops=causing
a civil war.( hey that's my opinion)
We can't let them say withdrawl=peace.
my few simple thoughts anyway............
- Reaction score
- 18,800
- Points
- 1,260
Dude, as someone on the ground in Iraq and additionally over year in Afganistan, its a bad comparission.
However neither missions are open ended - both countries have had democratically elections, they are fledgling democracies, and both need help to survive. Think about the size and lenght of time we had forces in Cyprus (30 years with at least a BN sized force) the FYR missions from UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, KFOR, and look at the troop concentrations in those areas.
Its a long hard road - but progress is coming by leaps and bound - we have a benchmark, and in both countries the national security forces are progressing along. The trick is NOT to cut and run. Gradually forces can be thinned out - and the majority of the combat, local patrollign and general security missions will be done by the local forces. But until that time leaving before is criminal.
However neither missions are open ended - both countries have had democratically elections, they are fledgling democracies, and both need help to survive. Think about the size and lenght of time we had forces in Cyprus (30 years with at least a BN sized force) the FYR missions from UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, KFOR, and look at the troop concentrations in those areas.
Its a long hard road - but progress is coming by leaps and bound - we have a benchmark, and in both countries the national security forces are progressing along. The trick is NOT to cut and run. Gradually forces can be thinned out - and the majority of the combat, local patrollign and general security missions will be done by the local forces. But until that time leaving before is criminal.
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,260
Infidel-6 said:
Problem is that the timeline needed for a fully-implemented solution is WAY longer than the timeline politicians (esp. those in a minority position, no matter what the party) think about when it comes to wanting to be re-elected. Yes, I prefer living in a democracy, but this is one of the flaws we live with (albeit gritting our teeth in some cases).....
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,591
- Points
- 1,160
Except that when you have the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicating "aid" until 2011 & the military only stays until 2009 (see the quote I had in the post you've quoted), I read it to say that the PM is looking for a new all civilian role that will be staffed by diplomats. Maybe the RCMP will stay too.Bubbles said:
- Reaction score
- 3,039
- Points
- 1,260
MCG said:
This part -- "the way the mission is currently configured with respect to our presence in Kandahar, there is an expiration date that has been set" -- is weasely enough to allow for SOME military presence (training and other non-combat stuff), but it certainly does leave the door open for zero military participation.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ruxpin predicts:
Our mission will indeed "end" in 2009. By that time we'll have transitioned almost exclusively to an ANA mentoring role (of a brigade no less) and can wind up the "combat role". A matter of semantics if you ask me.
By Feb 2009, we'll have a large (perhaps even larger than currently contemplated) OMLT role ("noncombat", heh), a PRT and some enablers. This will allow the government of the day - of whatever stripe - to claim that the focus of the mission has indeed changed, but will keep us fully and heavily engaged in Kandahar. Net savings to the CF? A company, perhaps, and maybe the tanks/recce squadron.
Personally, I believe that this has long been the government's plan and will allow Harper et al to claim they've adjusted the mission in response to public "concerns" while in reality nothing really will have changed...
Politicians...bah!
Our mission will indeed "end" in 2009. By that time we'll have transitioned almost exclusively to an ANA mentoring role (of a brigade no less) and can wind up the "combat role". A matter of semantics if you ask me.
By Feb 2009, we'll have a large (perhaps even larger than currently contemplated) OMLT role ("noncombat", heh), a PRT and some enablers. This will allow the government of the day - of whatever stripe - to claim that the focus of the mission has indeed changed, but will keep us fully and heavily engaged in Kandahar. Net savings to the CF? A company, perhaps, and maybe the tanks/recce squadron.
Personally, I believe that this has long been the government's plan and will allow Harper et al to claim they've adjusted the mission in response to public "concerns" while in reality nothing really will have changed...
Politicians...bah!
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
The stink of our failure
By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 – Page A1
KANADAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- I left Kandahar yesterday for the fourth time in 18 months. For the first time, I left filled with shame.
On the micro level, it was because a story that unfolded before a trusty colleague of mine, Steve Chao of CTV, was fresh in my mind. Mr. Chao was at Patrol Base Wilson, a Canadian base in the Taliban heartland of Zhari district, last weekend, and was interviewing a local Afghan National Police chief when, off in the distance, came the telltale smoke of a roadside bomb.
A U.S. private security truck escorting a tanker had been blown up, and its men and the ANP travelling with them were now under fire. The police chief, Colonel Gulam Rasool Aka, impeccably starched and dressed and to all appearances a good policemen (there are more of these than you would think), was on the phone to his guys taking fire. As Mr. Chao watched, a Canadian came out of a command post to ask what was going on. Col. Aka told him and asked if the Canadians could help; the man said, "Keep me informed," and disappeared back into the CP.
For all the problems that bedevil the ANP, and they are legion, not being able to rely on their Canadian allies traditionally has not been one of them.
Now, on this day at least it was, and though there may be good reason why and there's no doubt the Canadians cannot ride to the rescue of the alternately beleaguered and inept ANP every time, it still grated because I remember a time, last year, when Canadians were everyone's go-to boys.
But in a broader way, I left with the stink of failure in my nose.
The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is not failing, though its progress is measured some days in millimetres (my late father had a far better term for such a fine unit) and it is far from perfect.
Like those of the other donor nations whose dollars flood this place, Canada's effort in this country has suffered from a surfeit of good will and a lack of hard-nosed resolve to make funds contingent upon action on the internal corruption that is rife in Afghanistan and the fledgling government of President Hamid Karzai.
Rather, what stuck in my nostrils was a failure of nerve: Canada, I fear, has lost its collective stomach for this exercise. It's too tough, too hard, too damn slow, and the cost - 70 lives down and, as an Ottawa-datelined story I read yesterday jauntily noted, "and counting" - is too great.
The signs are everywhere.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has pledged to quickly bring a motion to the House of Commons formally setting February, 2009, as the day Canada's combat role will end here. The NDP's Jack Layton is still demanding Canadian troops withdraw now, and has added the twist that Canada should take the lead in "peace talks" here.
Since the only group at war with Canada in Afghanistan is the Taliban and the warlords and narco-criminals who are their allies of convenience, I guess Mr. Layton means peace talks with them. Presumably, as the pundits are saying, Mr. Layton considers the Taliban's recent negotiations with South Korea - why, only two of those foolish but innocent hostages were murdered after all - is evidence of their new respectability.
And more tellingly, those in Ottawa skilled at reading the tea leaves of the Stephen Harper government suggest that the Conservatives have lost their appetite for this particular battle.
I hope they are wrong, but in light of what new Defence Minister Peter MacKay was last weekend telling CTV's Question Period, it's hard to remain optimistic. Mr. MacKay said that Canada's NATO allies have been reminded they "cannot count on our troops" after February of 2009, though he was quick to reassure Canadians that "the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that."
Well, that is just a glorious crock.
The critics of this mission like to say there has never been an honest debate about it in Parliament, the suggestion that if only there had been, fighting troops would never have been sent here because the Canadian people always prefer to see their soldiers in peaceable roles. That may or may not be true, but that's certainly what public-opinion polls indicate and it's what Canadian politicians appear to mostly believe.
But if you thought the previous debates were a farce, the coming one may make them look full and forthright.
The truth is that in the south, including Kandahar province, which is the Canadian area of operations, there is barely an aid effort now, and that's with Canadian troops here in force.
That's not because Canadian soldiers haven't tried, or are overarmed mouth-breathers unable to grasp the delicate nuance of reconstruction and development work, the bleating of some NGOs notwithstanding. Soldiers are damned capable, better in my mind than the earnest folks at the aid agencies who claim to know best how to deliver help. And the troops have made a genuine difference in myriad small ways, which is how development really happens on the ground.
But the real aim here is to build the capacity of Afghans - in government, in its institutions such as the army and police and in politicians and district leaders - and that is painfully slow and barely visible work, especially when the good folks keep getting killed off and beheaded by those with whom Mr. Layton would conduct negotiations.
And it can't be done on any real scale until there's what everyone here calls security, by which they really mean someone has to regularly kick the snot out of the Taliban and their allies until they are reduced, as appears to be happening in Kandahar province, to suicide and roadside bombings and fleeting attacks, and eventually fewer of those, too.
That takes soldiers, and soldiers who are willing to fight, and suffer losses, and occasionally emerge with bloody noses. Canadian soldiers, including, most remarkably, the families of those who have died here, remain willing and committed. The Brits and Americans aside, none of Canada's NATO allies have shown much eagerness to step up to the plate, nor has anyone else.
So the truth of it is, if Parliament decides that, as Mr. MacKay put it, "our current configuration," meaning combat troops, will end in early 2009, no one should draw comfort from the promise that "the aid work" will continue merrily on. It won't. Neither is it likely another country will step up to fill the vacuum left by departing Canadian soldiers, and even if one does, they won't be as good at the hard work - of killing and being killed, as well as talking and building - as Canadians are. And Afghanistan will slide deeper into the chaos that as always is on a low boil, burbling within.
That's why I left Kandahar yesterday feeling ashamed. Where failure itself is often honourable, failing to stay the course is not, and that's what's in the air.
cblatchford@globeandmail.com
http://tinyurl.com/2ql5rt
And that ladies and gentlemen is the harsh reality.
By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 – Page A1
KANADAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- I left Kandahar yesterday for the fourth time in 18 months. For the first time, I left filled with shame.
On the micro level, it was because a story that unfolded before a trusty colleague of mine, Steve Chao of CTV, was fresh in my mind. Mr. Chao was at Patrol Base Wilson, a Canadian base in the Taliban heartland of Zhari district, last weekend, and was interviewing a local Afghan National Police chief when, off in the distance, came the telltale smoke of a roadside bomb.
A U.S. private security truck escorting a tanker had been blown up, and its men and the ANP travelling with them were now under fire. The police chief, Colonel Gulam Rasool Aka, impeccably starched and dressed and to all appearances a good policemen (there are more of these than you would think), was on the phone to his guys taking fire. As Mr. Chao watched, a Canadian came out of a command post to ask what was going on. Col. Aka told him and asked if the Canadians could help; the man said, "Keep me informed," and disappeared back into the CP.
For all the problems that bedevil the ANP, and they are legion, not being able to rely on their Canadian allies traditionally has not been one of them.
Now, on this day at least it was, and though there may be good reason why and there's no doubt the Canadians cannot ride to the rescue of the alternately beleaguered and inept ANP every time, it still grated because I remember a time, last year, when Canadians were everyone's go-to boys.
But in a broader way, I left with the stink of failure in my nose.
The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is not failing, though its progress is measured some days in millimetres (my late father had a far better term for such a fine unit) and it is far from perfect.
Like those of the other donor nations whose dollars flood this place, Canada's effort in this country has suffered from a surfeit of good will and a lack of hard-nosed resolve to make funds contingent upon action on the internal corruption that is rife in Afghanistan and the fledgling government of President Hamid Karzai.
Rather, what stuck in my nostrils was a failure of nerve: Canada, I fear, has lost its collective stomach for this exercise. It's too tough, too hard, too damn slow, and the cost - 70 lives down and, as an Ottawa-datelined story I read yesterday jauntily noted, "and counting" - is too great.
The signs are everywhere.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has pledged to quickly bring a motion to the House of Commons formally setting February, 2009, as the day Canada's combat role will end here. The NDP's Jack Layton is still demanding Canadian troops withdraw now, and has added the twist that Canada should take the lead in "peace talks" here.
Since the only group at war with Canada in Afghanistan is the Taliban and the warlords and narco-criminals who are their allies of convenience, I guess Mr. Layton means peace talks with them. Presumably, as the pundits are saying, Mr. Layton considers the Taliban's recent negotiations with South Korea - why, only two of those foolish but innocent hostages were murdered after all - is evidence of their new respectability.
And more tellingly, those in Ottawa skilled at reading the tea leaves of the Stephen Harper government suggest that the Conservatives have lost their appetite for this particular battle.
I hope they are wrong, but in light of what new Defence Minister Peter MacKay was last weekend telling CTV's Question Period, it's hard to remain optimistic. Mr. MacKay said that Canada's NATO allies have been reminded they "cannot count on our troops" after February of 2009, though he was quick to reassure Canadians that "the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that."
Well, that is just a glorious crock.
The critics of this mission like to say there has never been an honest debate about it in Parliament, the suggestion that if only there had been, fighting troops would never have been sent here because the Canadian people always prefer to see their soldiers in peaceable roles. That may or may not be true, but that's certainly what public-opinion polls indicate and it's what Canadian politicians appear to mostly believe.
But if you thought the previous debates were a farce, the coming one may make them look full and forthright.
The truth is that in the south, including Kandahar province, which is the Canadian area of operations, there is barely an aid effort now, and that's with Canadian troops here in force.
That's not because Canadian soldiers haven't tried, or are overarmed mouth-breathers unable to grasp the delicate nuance of reconstruction and development work, the bleating of some NGOs notwithstanding. Soldiers are damned capable, better in my mind than the earnest folks at the aid agencies who claim to know best how to deliver help. And the troops have made a genuine difference in myriad small ways, which is how development really happens on the ground.
But the real aim here is to build the capacity of Afghans - in government, in its institutions such as the army and police and in politicians and district leaders - and that is painfully slow and barely visible work, especially when the good folks keep getting killed off and beheaded by those with whom Mr. Layton would conduct negotiations.
And it can't be done on any real scale until there's what everyone here calls security, by which they really mean someone has to regularly kick the snot out of the Taliban and their allies until they are reduced, as appears to be happening in Kandahar province, to suicide and roadside bombings and fleeting attacks, and eventually fewer of those, too.
That takes soldiers, and soldiers who are willing to fight, and suffer losses, and occasionally emerge with bloody noses. Canadian soldiers, including, most remarkably, the families of those who have died here, remain willing and committed. The Brits and Americans aside, none of Canada's NATO allies have shown much eagerness to step up to the plate, nor has anyone else.
So the truth of it is, if Parliament decides that, as Mr. MacKay put it, "our current configuration," meaning combat troops, will end in early 2009, no one should draw comfort from the promise that "the aid work" will continue merrily on. It won't. Neither is it likely another country will step up to fill the vacuum left by departing Canadian soldiers, and even if one does, they won't be as good at the hard work - of killing and being killed, as well as talking and building - as Canadians are. And Afghanistan will slide deeper into the chaos that as always is on a low boil, burbling within.
That's why I left Kandahar yesterday feeling ashamed. Where failure itself is often honourable, failing to stay the course is not, and that's what's in the air.
cblatchford@globeandmail.com
http://tinyurl.com/2ql5rt
And that ladies and gentlemen is the harsh reality.
M
MG34
Guest
This country disgusts me sometimes
- Reaction score
- 5,885
- Points
- 1,360
Its too bad she doesn't check in here more often.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Tsk Tsk tsk. So much anger. So much bitterness over stupid uninformed politicians and a apathetic uncaring public which knows little about its Military. No news here. Besides, Harper now has a new cause to steel our mighty forces with. Arctic sovereignty. Yup, seems hiring 30 or 40 new Arctic rangers with their shinny new lee-enfields should hold off the Danes ,Norwegians -Germans(hard to imagine the Norwegians in bed with the Germans) Russians and Americans who sniff not blood, but apathy and a Canada that has absolutely no vision or sense of its past or what the future could hold. What can we expect from Politicians who think a flanking is Flemish for spanking,or a pincer movement a not quite dead lobster. I can picture Taliban Jack looking in frustration at a modern rifle wondering where in the hell the gas goes to fill er up. Maybe when 09 finally arrives the powers to be will have established a Vietnam style peacekeeping dress such as our Forces were put into during the final days of that conflict(those hideous black shorts with knee high socks) that at least left every one laughing for a few weeks. Sometimes I think this Country just isn,t worth the anger or frustration we have to put up with, yet put me in a bar anywhere in the world and I would defend this Countries honour to the last beer! Rant over.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The truth hurts
It was written to "hurt" the ones who would withdraw.
I think she's the first mainsream journalist to suggest there is no
honorable way to just bugger off.
Hard as that was to read - I'm glad someone has said what was needed.
Thankyou Christie.
Maybe the Globe will read and print my letter of outrage???
It was written to "hurt" the ones who would withdraw.
I think she's the first mainsream journalist to suggest there is no
honorable way to just bugger off.
Hard as that was to read - I'm glad someone has said what was needed.
Thankyou Christie.
Maybe the Globe will read and print my letter of outrage???
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Certainly different from the mainstream we usually see! Nice to see a reporter with backbone...
