Canada's Role in Afghanistan- A call for a review

[w squared]

Now I know you're not reading the same thread as the rest of us.

I don't even know where to start with correcting your misconceptions and utterly staggering level of ignorance about world events. So I'll just ask a couple of questions.

#1 What do you think about the French troops in Kerblakistan?

#2 Do you think that it is right for the Spanish troops in Iraq to be driving their T-72's over taxi cabs?

#3 What should we do about the Taliban and their chemical weapons program in Iran?

[BigB]

C'mon now W2,

Before you start making fun about Kerblakistan, I'll have you know that my uncle spent 18 months there, risking his life. He was sent there, all in an effort to help that gov't undeplete their uranium supply. So please, don't sit on your high-horse and put down the French for trying to finish what my uncle was not allowed to do!

Secondly, the Spanish had every right to drive their Bolivian built tank over that taxi. Wouldn't you if uranium 7.64 mm shells were being shot at YOU?!

Thirdly, Taliban chemical weapons, although well known to exsist, do not compare to their CBS capabilities.

[ScudRunner]

I dont know about you all but I think our mission to DirkadirkaStan is vitally important. @#$! YA


Chantel, im interested in hearing your thoughts about Canadian troops in Dirkadirkastan.
If you listen to Aleck Baldwin he would have are troops pull out imediatly. fucking guys just the head of the Film Actors Guild what does he know, friggen hippy.

[LH]

You debate this subject before you send troops into battle. You NEVER waver and talk about leaving or retreating. These members of the PPCLI represent CANADA and not the Liberals, NDP, Conservatives or any political Party anywhere. They now represent US and our nation and are willing to die for both, so grab an extra helping of "backbone" and stand with them.

[grimey]

Exactly. This was all debated beforehand in the House of Commons, when the Liberals were in power. The risks involved in the new mission were acknowledged by the Liberal government at the time, and viewed as acceptable given the benefits of the mission.

So stop questioning it now, 4 1/2 months later. If there's something totally unforseen, sure, go back and take a second look. But we knew what we were getting into when we took over Kandahar, and it's essentially exactly what we're seeing now.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/cham ... 2010-E.htm

Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Chair, there were two very important points raised by my hon. colleague, and I will make some comments. He might wish to speak to them as well.

The first is the nature of the role of what we are asking our troops to do in the southern part of Afghanistan. It is clear that it is not a peacekeeping mission of the Cyprus type or some of the traditional types with which members of the House would be familiar. However General Dallaire, now Senator Dallaire, and others who comment on these matters would say that everybody has agreed, particularly as a result of Rwanda, that we must have a capacity today in peacekeeping to recognize that there are situations where we must have much more robust rules of engagement than in a traditional situation and where we have to bring stability to the area if ultimately there will be peace and stability so the society can develop.

I would put the Kandahar mission in that latter category. We cannot go there without being properly prepared, as the hon. member from Carleton has pointed out. We have to be prepared to fight in those circumstances and be properly prepared for that, and I will speak to that in my speech.

Several minutes later...
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/cham ... 2035-E.htm

I want to leave my colleagues with the statement that this mission to Afghanistan is consistent with Canada's new international defence policies. In fact, it is the most significant, tangible expression of these policies in action. It is, as other members have pointed out, a complex, challenging and dangerous environment and mission as the part we are going to in Afghanistan is the most unstable and dangerous in the country. Indeed, that is why we have been asked to go there with our other partners, and that is why we are going there.

Members can be assured our troops are exceptionally well-trained, equipped and led for this mission. They are confident in their ability to accomplish this task with all the professional qualities that have marked their previous endeavours

(emphasis mine in the quotes above)

The Liberal government knew exactly what it was getting into, and sent our forces in there for exactly the right reasons.

[Nightshiftzombie]

You debate this subject before you send troops into battle. You NEVER waver and talk about leaving or retreating. These members of the PPCLI represent CANADA and not the Liberals, NDP, Conservatives or any political Party anywhere. They now represent US and our nation and are willing to die for both, so grab an extra helping of "backbone" and stand with them.

Oh god no! You should never consider that you made a mistake. Let me ask you, if you were to accidentally try to push open a locked door, would you just keep beating your face into it, or would you step back and reconsider?

[grimey]

Oh god no! You should never consider that you made a mistake. Let me ask you, if you were to accidentally try to push open a locked door, would you just keep beating your face into it, or would you step back and reconsider?

What was the mistake? The soldiers are doing the mission they were sent in to do, and seeing the expected attacks from the insurgents. We signed on for a 1 year commitment to the mission with NATO, and it will be reviewed after that. What the @#$! do you expect the government to do, review the mission every single day that a soldier is hurt or killed? THEY'RE SOLDIERS. It's part of their job, so let them do it. The government should decide which missions to send our soldiers on, in consultation with our military leaders. Provide them with the support they need, and then leave them alone to run the operation.

[Nightshiftzombie]

The mistake is sending these guys halfway around the world just so some dickhead politician can play the big man at the next NATO summit.

[teacher]

A great editorial I found today, it's kind of a reality check for those who would rather bury their heads in the sand.

Readers debate Afghan role: The reasons to fight are clear

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: The Good Fight, Lorne Gunter, March 6.

Most of the Woodstock generation eventually cleared the smoke from between their ears and came to the realization that flowers, candle vigils and protests really don't accomplish a hell of a lot when it comes to making the world a safer place. I said most -- the remainder troop along behind Jack Layton. A Canadian army padre, acknowledging the presence of an anti-war group at a Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa years ago, said it best: "There is little use promoting the virtues of vegetarianism when the wolves around you are of a different opinion." Jack, have you hugged a Taliban today? Why not?

James MacMaster, North Glengarry, Ont.

[LH]

Nightshiftzombie ------I was in an unpopular war also and I know the feeling of not being supported at home and being treated rudely aand spit-on. My father and 4 uncles went to WW2 and arrived home in Montreal to see demonstrations in the streets against what he was doing. You DON"T EVER DO THAT.......NEVER!

There are members of the PPCLI at home now who will be and have been sent to replace those members killed and injured in Afghanistan. You NEVER send those replacment soldiers to Afghanistan with the message that their country is getting "weak knees" and want them to "cut and run"........YOU NEVER DO THAT.....EVER!

IF Canada is ever stupid enough to do that then they best listen to one Ray Crabbe, ex-Chief of Defense Staff for the Canadian Military. As he stated yesterday, we are members of NATO and if we "cut and run" from this UN-inspired operation, we can expect that it will also have a profound impact on a host of other dealings that we have with NATO and other countries. We contribute way less than our share now as it is to NATO and the amount we spend on our military compared to other NATO countries makes us the 'weak sisters" of the alliance. Don't you and your ilk dare to also confirm to the rest of the world that when the going gets tough, Canada will "break and run" on top of all that

This all comes from somebody that feels very strongly that we shouldn't be defending anyone else until we can defend our ourselves at home. No matter what my personal opinions are on that, ONCE my troops are put in "harm's way" have on a committment, I will support them 100%.

This is MY Canada:.......Our flag is a large scarlet maple leaf on a white background, with scarlet borders...........and the colours don't RUN!..........EVER!!

[BigB]

LH,

Bang on! Well said, agree 100%.

[CID]

and the colours don't RUN!..........EVER!!

It's easy to get emotional about the issue and blur the message. What are we doing in Afghanistan, what is the long term goal, and what is the estimated schedule. I think we owe it to the soldiers and non-soldiers alike to keep asking these questions with reasonable frequencies.

This whole argument of "they are soldiers" solves nothing. Just because they are soldier doesn't mean they need to fulfill their destiny fighting an ill conceived conflict. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the mission was ill conceived from the beginning. We just can't lose sight of what the goal is (was) and whether or not there is progress.

[Brewguy]

It's easy to get emotional about the issue and blur the message. What are we doing in Afghanistan, what is the long term goal, and what is the estimated schedule. I think we owe it to the soldiers and non-soldiers alike to keep asking these questions with reasonable frequencies.

CID, of course its fair and reasonable to ask these questions. The problem is that they are asked, and promptly answered - but very few people actually bother to listen to the answers when they are being given!

So, maybe we should all take this opportunity to familiarize ourselves with the Canadian Forces current operations in Afghanistan before going too much further in this debate.......

Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan

Backgrounder
Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan

BG–06.003 - February 28, 2006
The situation today

As part of Task Force Afghanistan (TFA), approximately 2,300 Canadian Forces personnel are deployed in Afghanistan on the first rotation (ROTO 1) of Canada's renewed commitment to the international campaign against terrorism, Operation ARCHER.

Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser, Commander of 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (Edmonton, Alta.) is now the Commander of the Canadian-led Multi National Brigade for Regional Command South (MNB RC(South)) in Afghanistan.

The majority of personnel at the Multi-National Brigade Headquarters located at Kandahar airfield (KAF) are Canadian, and are deployed for a nine-month period. At the same time, Canada is also fielding at KAF a battle group for two successive six-month rotations, as well as a new rotation for the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) at Camp Nathan Smith, in Kandahar. Canada has committed to maintain the PRT until February 2007.

With the exception of approximately 85 CF personnel serving with various military and civilian organizations in Kabul and Bagram, all CF assets were consolidated with the closure of Camp Julien (previously the Canadian base of operations in Kabul) and relocated to Kandahar, in the southern region of Afghanistan.

For more information on the closure of Camp Julien, visit: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/v ... sp?id=1831

CF personnel deployed with TFA comprise the following units (all figures approximate):

• o Overall 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan:
  • o 125 CF members with the Multi-National Brigade Headquarters (MNBHQ) in Kandahar. In total in the headquarters, there are 250 personnel from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States of America stationed with MNBHQ;
    o 250 CF members from all over Canada, at Kandahar Airfield, who constitute the National Command Element (NCE);
    o 300 CF members, shared primarily between 1 General Support Battalion (1 Gen Sp Bn) and 1 Service Battalion (1 Svc Bn) in Edmonton, with the National Support Element (NSE) in Kandahar;
    o 250 CF members with the Theatre Support Element (TSE) in Southwest Asia;
    o A Battle Group of about 1,000 members in Kandahar, primarily from the 1 st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (1 PPCLI) Edmonton, which also includes;
    • o soldiers from 2 PPCLI;
      o an engineer squadron from 1 Canadian Engineer Regiment (1CER) in Edmonton;
      o an artillery battery from 1 RCHA in Shilo, Man. ;
      o an armoured reconnaissance troop, from 12 RBC in Valcartier, Que. ;
      o a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) from Western Canada;
      o an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) unit from 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron (THS) in Edmonton;
    o 70 personnel at the coalition hospital at KAF, composed of personnel from 1 Field Ambulance (1Fd Amb) in Edmonton, Alta., and from 1 Canadian field Hospital (1 Can Fd H) in Petawawa, Ont.;
    o About 85 CF personnel also serve in Kabul and Bagram. They are from across Canada and they include:
    • o the Special Advisory Team to President Karzai's government;
      o embedded staff officers at NATO's International Security Assistance Force Headquarters (ISAF) HQ, U.S. Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan (CFC-A), and the Office of Security and Cooperation – Afghanistan (OSC-A) in Kabul,
      o Embedded staff officers at Combined Joint Task Force 76 (CJTF-76) in Bagram; and
      o A small cadre of CF instructors involved in the training of the Afghan National Army (ANA) Staff at the Canadian Afghan National Training Centre Detachment (C ANTC Det ) in Kabul.

Task Force Afghanistan's mission is to improve the security situation in southern Afghanistan, and play a key role in the transition from the United States (US)-led multinational coalition (known as Operation ENDURING FREEDOM ) to NATO leadership. In the southern provinces, like the province of Kandahar, this transition is scheduled for the summer of 2006.

Canada's renewed military commitment in Afghanistan builds on the success of our peace-support operations to strengthen the security situation.

The story so far
Operation ARCHER (up to February 2006)

On November 29, 2005, Camp Julien, which was the Canadian base of operations in Kabul, officially closed. CF personnel in Afghanistan, were relocated to Kandahar in the southern region of Afghanistan as part of the United States-led campaign against terrorism known as Operation ENDURING FREEDOM ( OEF ).

Canada's Operation ARCHER and its participation in OEF had two components:

• o A small cadre of CF instructors involved in training the Afghan National Army in Kabul; and
  o The deployment of the PRT (originally in August 2005), which is expected to be active until February 2007.

Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)

Since August 2005, a Canadian PRT has operated in Kandahar, where it is expected to remain until February 2007. The PRT brings together elements from the Canadian Forces (CF), Foreign Affairs Canaca (FAC), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in an integrated Canadian effort, also known as the "all of government" approach.

Under Operation ARCHER, the Canadian contribution to OEF, the PRT reinforces the authority of the Afghan government in Kandahar Province, assisting in the stabilization and development of the region. It monitors security, promotes Afghan government policies and priorities with local authorities, and facilitates security sector reforms.

The PRT is located in Kandahar City with some of its support elements operating from the Kandahar Airfield (KAF). The PRT comprises approximately 200 soldiers, drawn largely from Land Forces Western Area (LFWA) and 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (1 CMBG) based in Edmonton, Alta. The PRT includes:

• o An infantry company from 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (1 PPCLI);
  o An engineer squadron from 1 Combat Engineer Regiment (1 CER);
  o A combat service support company from 1 Service Battalion (1 Svc Bn) and 1 General Support Battalion (1 GS Bn);
  o Health and medical support from 1 Field Ambulance (1 Fd Amb); and
  o Other specialized elements from various CF units across Canada.

Chronology of Canadian participation in the campaign against terrorism

Since October 2001, Canada has deployed over 20 warships and more than 14,000 sailors, soldiers and air force personnel in the international campaign against terrorism.

Operation APOLLO

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington, Canada made a significant military commitment to the campaign against terrorism to demonstrate solidarity with our allies and our resolve to improve international security.

On October 8, 2001, the then Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton announced the departure of the first CF units to join the international campaign against terrorism. A Naval Task Group of four ships deployed to the Persian (Arabian) Gulf under Operation APOLLO was deployed .

In February 2002, the 3 PPCLI Battle Group commanded by then Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran deployed to Kandahar for a six-month tour of duty that included tasks ranging from airfield security to combat. This mission received airlift support from a Tactical Airlift Detachment, later named the Theatre Support Element (TSE), which was located in Southwest Asia.

For more information on Operation APOLLO visit http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations ... ndex_e.htm .

Operation ALTAIR

Operation ALTAIR , which began in October 2003, consisted of warships deployed individually to operate with U.S. carrier strike groups in the Persian (Arabian) Gulf region. The Halifax-class patrol frigate Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) Toronto deployed with the USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group from January to July 2004. In April 2005, HMCS Winnipeg deployed for six months with the 5th Fleet of the United States Navy.

For more information on Operation ALTAIR visit
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations ... ndex_e.asp

Operation ATHENA

The CF returned to the effort to stabilize and reconstruct Afghanistan in August 2003 under Operation ATHENA , the deployment of a large contingent in Kabul to serve with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Of note, from February to August 2004, then Lieutenant-General Rick Hillier commanded ISAF, which comprised at that point some 6,500 troops from 35 countries.

Over five successive six-month rotations since August 2003, Canadian soldiers deployed on Operation ATHENA routinely conducting foot patrols and surveillance missions in the ISAF area of responsibility and co-operated with other ISAF contingents in a variety of missions and projects. Through these activities, the Canadian contingent provided ISAF with key military presence and capability, intelligence, situational awareness, and helped facilitate rebuilding the democratic process for the Afghan National Assembly and Provincial Council elections.

On October 18, 2005, Operation ATHENA ended with the withdrawal of the Canadian reconnaissance squadron from ISAF, and the end of five deployments of CF personnel to the Kabul area since August 2003, when the Canadian government first made a commitment to help the international community maintain a safe and secure environment in and around Kabul.

On November 29, 2005, the last Canadian material assets were moved and shipped out to Kandahar, and Camp Julien was officially handed over to the Afghan Ministry of Defence.

Conclusion

In its participation in ISAF and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Canada's overarching goal in Afghanistan is to prevent it from relapsing into a failed state that gives terrorist and terrorist organizations a safe haven.

Canadian efforts in Afghanistan have contributed significantly to the overall consolidation of peace and the improvement of human security in the region. The next phase of Canadian operations in Afghanistan will continue to help improve the quality of life for the Afghan people, and to ensure that the progress made is sustainable.

While Canada remains committed to the rebuilding of democracy in Afghanistan, there are significant risks involved in these types of operations, but the Canadian Forces remain one of the best trained, and most experienced and professional militaries in the world. The men and women of the CF are extremely brave, well led, well equipped, and fully prepared for the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.

[CID]

What are we doing in Afghanistan

Preventing the formation of conditions condusive to supporting international terrorism.

what is the long term goal

To make the people of Afghanistan act like people from Alberta.

and what is the estimated schedule

Forever.

Summary:

Canadian forces will be in Afghanistan forever trying to introduce western styled democracy to a bunch of people who don't want it while ignoring the fact that it will do diddly to meet their well-spun goals.

Who wrote that? An army recruiter?

[Brewguy]

Apparently there are some people, whose questions should just go unanswered....
> People who are too stupid to be able to comprehend the information; and
> Trolls who don't actually want the answers - they just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Which one of these 2 groups of people do you fall into CID?

[ScudRunner]

Im totally behind the Prime Minister on this one, We debated this mission or should have before we sent them.

And in all our time in Afghanistan since we have only lost 3 soldiers to enemy fire thats not including the diplomat last month. Not disrespecting the other soldiers that we have lost, they were doing important work and perished serving our country and should be honoured as such. But we have been very fortunet.

[CID]

neilblythin, I belong to the group of people who won't lower myself to respond to your comments beyond acknowledging you made them.

Cheers.

[swede]

Our foreign affairs minister does not think it is a good idea to review our role in Afghanistan. He said this after the chief of defence said our forces will be involved for at least a decade & in spite of the two deaths this week.

What’s your thoughts on Peter MacKay’s idea that we should not even review the role of our army in Afghanistan. The liberals and NDP want an open parliament vote.

What is our role in Afghanistan and why did he say we have to finish what WE started

Mackay is on board with the idea of war with no definition. Harper will be another Tony Blair and Bush's lapdog if he can ever manage a majority. Afghanistan is turning into a quagmire, not anywhere the scale of Iraq, but still an unwinnable battle. The soviets tried to bring that country to heel, where did it get them? We have no business in the country at this point, where are the remnants of Al Quaida (if it ever even existed other than as a CIA front)? What purpose are our guys serving there, a parliamentary review is needed in light of latest developments.

[fogghorn]

MacKay is an idiot. That was on display for all to see when Belinda gave him the heave ho , what a loser

[w squared]

Then you guys have something in common! Although for some reason I doubt that it's that you've slept with Belinda Stronach.

[fogghorn]

sorry - MacKay is not my type, neither is Stronach - she's a little to pie faced for my likin, smart tho, got a give her that much.

[WJflyer]

Speaking to our troops, they WANT to be there. They want to head over to Afghanistan to make a difference for the everyday people living there. Already they are making changes. The local population according to the troops smile more than when they first arrived in 2001. There is more of a sense of hope in the population.

[grimey]

The mistake is sending these guys halfway around the world just so some dickhead politician can play the big man at the next NATO summit.

WTF? You think they're in Afghanistan to pump up world opinion of a couple Canadian politicians?

[grimey]

This whole argument of "they are soldiers" solves nothing. Just because they are soldier doesn't mean they need to fulfill their destiny fighting an ill conceived conflict. And don't get me wrong, I don't think the mission was ill conceived from the beginning. We just can't lose sight of what the goal is (was) and whether or not there is progress.

CID, my point wasn't that they should be sent into every hell hole regardless of the reasoning behind the mission, but that they're professionally trained to do a job. Part of that job involves putting themselves in harms way so that others don't have to. Once it's decided what the mission is, and it's agreed that it's just and worthwhile, let them get on with it as they've been trained to do. Should we worry about them, and hope they come home alive? Of course we should. But we shouldn't question the mission at every opportunity, and pull out at the first sign that there are some that don't want us there. The people that are trying to kill our soldiers are a big part of the reason we're in there in the first place.

[Nightshiftzombie]

Not so much "pump up world opinion." I just think our politicians like it when they can claim that we are "pulling our weight" in an international conflict that has sweet @#$! all to do with Canada.


LH - Debating the merits of an ongoing mission does not mean that we don't support the troops. It just means we are not necessarily going to throw their lives away in some unwinnable situation just because we are to thick headed to admit that we made a mistake.

Don't you and your ilk dare to also confirm to the rest of the world that when the going gets tough, Canada will "break and run" on top of all that

Perhaps me and my ilk are more concerned with these guys coming home alive than we are about some other country might make fun of us.