Canada is in Afganistan as part of it's membership in NATO and NOT as any lackey of the US. We've been a member for almost 60 years and Canada has enjoyed NATO'S defensive umbrella for decades. When NATO goes to war, Canada goes to war. That is the deal and that is the Treaty. The Alliance's menu is prix fixe, not a la carte.......Canada is either in or out for everything. They are also NOT there alone, but with a host of other member countries also, who we now command.
We paid our soldiers subsistance wages, housed them in sub-standard conditions, had them train-on and operate obsolete equipment for decades, constantly under-funded them and finally sent them off to a war with barely adequate equipment and once there begin wondering if they should be fighting for us. Canada is there because it's our DUTY and OBLIGATION to NATO to be there and the soldiers are there because we ORDERED them there. Now at least have the guts and national pride to support those soldiers with every ounze of our resources and prayers for their well-being............for whatever time they are there. Don't "fail" them now in battle because our support as a nation over the decades leaves nothing to be proud of.
If Mr. Layton et al want to debate something, then let them debate Canada's membership is NATO then because THAT is the reason they are there.
Canada's Role in Afghanistan- A call for a review
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
-
Nightshiftzombie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:23 am
- Location: The Dark
I'd say NATO and US Lacky are pretty much interchangeable. Do you figure being in NATO does anything other than get us dragged into a bunch of War/PR Exercises that don't really have anything to do with us in the first place?
"Thats what the Internet is for stupid. Slandering others anonymously."
To question there own choice is hypocritical. But you think it is a good thing to question it?It's complete hypocrisy for them to be questioning the role they're playing now.
Should there be a vote on the role of the military in Afghanistan? Sure.
But politicizing this, as several parties have been doing, and making it public seems as if their role there is questioned by the government, shouldn't be done.
Politicizing this- It’s a good thing to know what’s going on with our government. Making it public knowledge that the decision to not review this case is good to know. I am very aware of the liberals commitment to this in the first place and take that into account. I also think that reviewing the mission will certainly not make the troops feel abandoned. However I am yet to serve in the CF.
My biggest concern is the time our troops will be their for. It was predicted 10 years, to me that’s reason enough to review the situation and go from there.
nighshiftzombie ------why am I not surprised at your answer? You have absolutely no concept of what it is like to be in a position where your life is on-the-line every waking and sleeping moment. You want and you need that support on the home-front......it's like an extra magazine clip or an extra person covering your ass from attack. You don't need your country arguing about you being there and casting you adrift like some orphan.......and THAT sir, is EXACTLY how it will be taken.
They signed a contract to go where their country sent them and to do what their country asked of them. Their country also signed an agreement and gave their word that they would honour that Treaty and do their duty also. That makes neither them nor Canada "lackeys" of anyone anywhere, but means that they and Canada are "as good as their word". WITHOUT THAT, neither they nor Canada is worth ANY further respect worldwide and they and Canada will realize that "in spades" whenever future Agreements are to be signed. Any doubts abour all this?.........then visit the local Legion and talk to Vets who saw "Action" and then you can think more on this subject.
They signed a contract to go where their country sent them and to do what their country asked of them. Their country also signed an agreement and gave their word that they would honour that Treaty and do their duty also. That makes neither them nor Canada "lackeys" of anyone anywhere, but means that they and Canada are "as good as their word". WITHOUT THAT, neither they nor Canada is worth ANY further respect worldwide and they and Canada will realize that "in spades" whenever future Agreements are to be signed. Any doubts abour all this?.........then visit the local Legion and talk to Vets who saw "Action" and then you can think more on this subject.
Last edited by LH on Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dust Devil
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
- Location: Riderville
By having the politicians run the war you leave it open for the media to run the war. I think they should get the cameras the hell out of there and start waging wars the way they are supposed to be waged. And that is to win. Granted it will be bloodier that way but war is supposed to be a horrible thing. That is what is supposed to discourage us from doing it willy nilly.
//=S=//
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
x-wind...let's take a look at how long some previous peacekeeping and peace support operations have lasted for us.
Cyprus
Golan Heights
Former Yugoslavia
A long commitment doesn't necessarily mean a fruitless one. Complex problems often take a long time to resolve. If they are indeed in the process of getting resolved, then pulling the plug halfway through the process is a huge mistake.
The troops on the ground are the ones that have the best perspective. There has been a rash of casualties lately, and that's why this whole debate has arisen. Ask the soldiers that are over there if this has shaken their resolve, or made them question their belief in what they're doing. I'd wager that the answer will be no on both counts.
If they think that they're making a difference and accomplishing something, then they probably are. Do you have any REAL information that says otherwise?
Cyprus
Golan Heights
Former Yugoslavia
A long commitment doesn't necessarily mean a fruitless one. Complex problems often take a long time to resolve. If they are indeed in the process of getting resolved, then pulling the plug halfway through the process is a huge mistake.
The troops on the ground are the ones that have the best perspective. There has been a rash of casualties lately, and that's why this whole debate has arisen. Ask the soldiers that are over there if this has shaken their resolve, or made them question their belief in what they're doing. I'd wager that the answer will be no on both counts.
If they think that they're making a difference and accomplishing something, then they probably are. Do you have any REAL information that says otherwise?
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
There's a mistaken impression out there that I've noticed and it's time Canadians stop deluding themselves about it. Soldiers in the Canadian Military train for all-out war FIRST and something called "Peacekeeping" comes SECOND. They are "the pointy-end" Canada's foreign policies.The thought that some 21 year old down at the corner of the street that they grew-up with has had to kill a 16 year old that pointed an automatic rifle at them, makes them feel "uncomfortable" and "uneasy". Well WAKE-UP Canada and open your eyes because our troops in Afghanistan are doing EXACTLY what they were trained to do from their first day in Basic Training. You want Policemen in Afghanistan?...........then send over the RCMP or the OPP because that's what THEIR Basic Training was from day-one. The PPCLI are nice on the street at home and pleasant to talk with, BUT realize clearly what they are basically TRAINED to do.........and it ain't move sand bags, plow snow or pass out candy bars to your kids or anyone else's..
No, I think it's a good thing for all military operations to have overall approval from the house, rather than just cabinet or the military. I think it's hypocritical of the Liberals to go on and on about the mission in Afghanistan in parliament while in power, and then immediately question the mission that they approved as soon as another government is in power.x-wind wrote: To question there own choice is hypocritical. But you think it is a good thing to question it?
Did you ever meet Neville Chamberlain? Peace in our time?Nightshiftzombie wrote: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 @#$! all to do with Canada.
-
Nightshiftzombie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:23 am
- Location: The Dark
Let me piss into the pot at this stage:
During my years in the military, I have been involved in a few peace keeping exercises. We worked in Mozambique, Zaire and Lesotho to name a few. These missions turned out to be successful due to one main reason.....the people in the respective countries were cooperative and wanted peace and an end to the strife which made their lives easier. There were agitators in each case that made our lives difficult and we had to neatralise that threat. These missions were UN supported and we as the military viewed it as a service to third world Africa and a duty.
Afghanistan is not much different for Canada. The mission is sanctioned bythe UN. Canada has stated that she will not support any coalition led war but is supportive of peacekeeping duties. We are therefore obliged to help some of these 3rd world shitholes after the war and Afghanistan is no exception. A recent survey noted that the general population in Afghanistan welcomes the type of help and support that Canada offers. Unfortunately, there are elements (Taliban) that make life difficult and these guys exist in small pockets and have to be neutralised. Peacekeeping is therefore made more risky and we have to accept that casualties are inevitable. In this regard, accidents as opposed to combat have claimed more Canadian lives.
In summary, I think Canada is duty bound as a prominent member of the international community to assist in operations such as Aghanistan.
The boys and girls in the military share this sentiment and are eager to play their part.
It is not all about the politicians or being US lackeys, you have to look at the bigger picture.
Canadian forces abroad need and deserve home support instead of bitching and squabbling about the reasons why. They are there, end of story so support them as true patriots or shut the @#$! up. Their job is bad enough without the shit disturbers stirring things up at home.
During my years in the military, I have been involved in a few peace keeping exercises. We worked in Mozambique, Zaire and Lesotho to name a few. These missions turned out to be successful due to one main reason.....the people in the respective countries were cooperative and wanted peace and an end to the strife which made their lives easier. There were agitators in each case that made our lives difficult and we had to neatralise that threat. These missions were UN supported and we as the military viewed it as a service to third world Africa and a duty.
Afghanistan is not much different for Canada. The mission is sanctioned bythe UN. Canada has stated that she will not support any coalition led war but is supportive of peacekeeping duties. We are therefore obliged to help some of these 3rd world shitholes after the war and Afghanistan is no exception. A recent survey noted that the general population in Afghanistan welcomes the type of help and support that Canada offers. Unfortunately, there are elements (Taliban) that make life difficult and these guys exist in small pockets and have to be neutralised. Peacekeeping is therefore made more risky and we have to accept that casualties are inevitable. In this regard, accidents as opposed to combat have claimed more Canadian lives.
In summary, I think Canada is duty bound as a prominent member of the international community to assist in operations such as Aghanistan.
The boys and girls in the military share this sentiment and are eager to play their part.
It is not all about the politicians or being US lackeys, you have to look at the bigger picture.
Canadian forces abroad need and deserve home support instead of bitching and squabbling about the reasons why. They are there, end of story so support them as true patriots or shut the @#$! up. Their job is bad enough without the shit disturbers stirring things up at home.
HAPPY ARE THOSE WHO DREAM DREAMS AND ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE TO MAKE THEM COME TRUE: CARL BOENISH
Not to be confused with Springjob, Handjob, Blowjob or any other job......except a flyingjob!
Not to be confused with Springjob, Handjob, Blowjob or any other job......except a flyingjob!
I don't think Mr. Layton is questioning our membership with NATO. I think he wants NATO's goals and schedule reviewed for the Afghan conflict.If Mr. Layton et al want to debate something, then let them debate Canada's membership is NATO then because THAT is the reason they are there
As a member of NATO I think we have the right to know what we're doing in a NATO conflict. It's irresponsible not to continually ask questions as the conflict evolves.
Good post, Springbok.
I'd like to add one thing to what you said.
What we're doing in Afghanistan is not peacekeeping. Whatwhatwhat you say? Sure, what I'm about to say may be semantics, but they're important semantics.
Peacekeeping (as championed by Lester B Pearson) is when a force (military, police, or observer) is placed in between two opposing sides that currently have a truce, peace accord, or ceasefire in place. The purpose of the force is primarily to provide time for the hottest heads in each faction to cool down, and to keep small incidents from flaring into armed conflict.
A great example of actual peacekeeping was Cyprus. Turkish and Greek Cypriots had reached a truce, and divided the island along the "Green Line". Canadian troops were stationed along a part of the Green Line in order to observe, monitor, and mediate.
What we're doing in Afghanistan takes 2 shapes:
#1. Peace support. Doing things that will enhance stability in the country. Building schools, providing water, maintaining order, and training the new Afghan military and police forces.
#2. Low intensity war. Yes, that's an oxymoron - anytime somebody starts shooting at you, it becomes VERY intense. But that's really what we're doing. It's a war, but at a much slower operational tempo than modern war can be.
In the last 48 hours, a Canadian battlegroup has deployed out of Kandahar into the "no-mans land" that is not firmly controlled either by the Afghan government/NATO forces or by the insurgents. From what I've read, this is not specifically a search and destroy mission, but it will very quickly turn into that if any organized resistance presents itself to the operation. I can assure you that if anyone (by any label they choose to call themselves) decides to attack, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of a VERY pointy stick.
I can't count the number of people that have said to me "What Canada needs is a lightly armed peacekeeping force, not an army." The problem is that when an force that is not trained or equpped for war gets into a situation like #2, you end up with a LOT of honour guards meeting planes in Trenton. And the mission never gets accomplished.
I'd like to add one thing to what you said.
What we're doing in Afghanistan is not peacekeeping. Whatwhatwhat you say? Sure, what I'm about to say may be semantics, but they're important semantics.
Peacekeeping (as championed by Lester B Pearson) is when a force (military, police, or observer) is placed in between two opposing sides that currently have a truce, peace accord, or ceasefire in place. The purpose of the force is primarily to provide time for the hottest heads in each faction to cool down, and to keep small incidents from flaring into armed conflict.
A great example of actual peacekeeping was Cyprus. Turkish and Greek Cypriots had reached a truce, and divided the island along the "Green Line". Canadian troops were stationed along a part of the Green Line in order to observe, monitor, and mediate.
What we're doing in Afghanistan takes 2 shapes:
#1. Peace support. Doing things that will enhance stability in the country. Building schools, providing water, maintaining order, and training the new Afghan military and police forces.
#2. Low intensity war. Yes, that's an oxymoron - anytime somebody starts shooting at you, it becomes VERY intense. But that's really what we're doing. It's a war, but at a much slower operational tempo than modern war can be.
In the last 48 hours, a Canadian battlegroup has deployed out of Kandahar into the "no-mans land" that is not firmly controlled either by the Afghan government/NATO forces or by the insurgents. From what I've read, this is not specifically a search and destroy mission, but it will very quickly turn into that if any organized resistance presents itself to the operation. I can assure you that if anyone (by any label they choose to call themselves) decides to attack, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of a VERY pointy stick.
I can't count the number of people that have said to me "What Canada needs is a lightly armed peacekeeping force, not an army." The problem is that when an force that is not trained or equpped for war gets into a situation like #2, you end up with a LOT of honour guards meeting planes in Trenton. And the mission never gets accomplished.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
W2:
Thanks for the additional clarity on the issue.
The Canadian military is doing a fine job which is greatly respected in the international arena. I agree with the "pointed stick" theory and if it comes to that, I am sure that the boys are well prepared.
Bottom line is that if you try and tickle the balls of a lion, it is guaranteed that he will bite you! The quicker the Taliban realizes that, the quicker everyone can get on with their lives and the military can come on home.
Thanks for the additional clarity on the issue.
The Canadian military is doing a fine job which is greatly respected in the international arena. I agree with the "pointed stick" theory and if it comes to that, I am sure that the boys are well prepared.
Bottom line is that if you try and tickle the balls of a lion, it is guaranteed that he will bite you! The quicker the Taliban realizes that, the quicker everyone can get on with their lives and the military can come on home.
HAPPY ARE THOSE WHO DREAM DREAMS AND ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE TO MAKE THEM COME TRUE: CARL BOENISH
Not to be confused with Springjob, Handjob, Blowjob or any other job......except a flyingjob!
Not to be confused with Springjob, Handjob, Blowjob or any other job......except a flyingjob!
I think instead of the 2 choices in the original post, it should be changed to exclude the first question. Such operations are constantly reviewed, as the situation in the field is never static and review is prudent.
Now that brings us to the second question and I would have to respond with a negative to that. In case people have not noticed we're already there, we've been getting ready to go there for months. It is not new "news". The whole damn debate just illustrates the trouble many people have when it comes to handling multiple events that are happening around them. I guess while the country was watching Survivor or American Idol or debating gay marriage, unworkable gun control and other "important issues" this Afganistan thing just kind'a got by them.
What would be accomplished by a debate in Parliament? The government has stated it intends to carry out the commitment that has been made. Nothing has really changed since we got there--2 weeks ago. And yes we have had some tragic accidents and losses. Sad as it is, I recall Bill Graham as Liberal defence minister warning of such last winter. So brace yourself, there's going to be more. Who would vote against it? The Liberals? --- who was it that made the initial commitment? I suppose the NDP could vote against it, but, I doubt it. I've heard Harper is drafting Layton to help the Afgan government establish a national daycare program.
Now that brings us to the second question and I would have to respond with a negative to that. In case people have not noticed we're already there, we've been getting ready to go there for months. It is not new "news". The whole damn debate just illustrates the trouble many people have when it comes to handling multiple events that are happening around them. I guess while the country was watching Survivor or American Idol or debating gay marriage, unworkable gun control and other "important issues" this Afganistan thing just kind'a got by them.
What would be accomplished by a debate in Parliament? The government has stated it intends to carry out the commitment that has been made. Nothing has really changed since we got there--2 weeks ago. And yes we have had some tragic accidents and losses. Sad as it is, I recall Bill Graham as Liberal defence minister warning of such last winter. So brace yourself, there's going to be more. Who would vote against it? The Liberals? --- who was it that made the initial commitment? I suppose the NDP could vote against it, but, I doubt it. I've heard Harper is drafting Layton to help the Afgan government establish a national daycare program.
LH (as usual) and Springbok have hit this one on the head.
It seems like people either fully support out troops, or they seem to think we should just get rid of our military, scrap every treaty we have and stay home (at least that's the impression I get). Personally, I'm glad we did send troops over, and I fully support them. From the articles and news reports I have seen, the only people in Afghanistan that don't want us there are the Taliban and Bin Laden. The general population like being able to watch television and shave their beards if they so choose. They also don't need to worry about the Taliban kidnapping their daughters for Al Queda.
Review the progress of the mission, sure, but it's far too late to debate our being there. Pull out now, and it will just show that world that you just need to hit a Canadian soldier with an axe to scare them off. I would rather stay to show the Taliban why the Germans feared the Canadians when we fought them in two World Wars and to help the Afghani's build a better future.
People mention that it's an unwinnable war, but don't give a reason. Maybe someone could explain why we are so doomed to failure?
It seems like people either fully support out troops, or they seem to think we should just get rid of our military, scrap every treaty we have and stay home (at least that's the impression I get). Personally, I'm glad we did send troops over, and I fully support them. From the articles and news reports I have seen, the only people in Afghanistan that don't want us there are the Taliban and Bin Laden. The general population like being able to watch television and shave their beards if they so choose. They also don't need to worry about the Taliban kidnapping their daughters for Al Queda.
Review the progress of the mission, sure, but it's far too late to debate our being there. Pull out now, and it will just show that world that you just need to hit a Canadian soldier with an axe to scare them off. I would rather stay to show the Taliban why the Germans feared the Canadians when we fought them in two World Wars and to help the Afghani's build a better future.
People mention that it's an unwinnable war, but don't give a reason. Maybe someone could explain why we are so doomed to failure?
At the risk of constructing a strawman (say so if anyone considers it to be one), I think that alot of people believe that simply instituting a stable democratic and just system isn't victory. I think there are alot of people who believe that we have to ensure not only that the Taliban or other militants have little if any chance of regaining power, but that we also have completely destroy the insurgency (if you want to call it that), so that they can never set off another bomb. If we withdraw, and there's a coup immediately, we obviously didn't win. If there's a coup 10 years after the withdrawl of NATO and/or UN forces though, did we lose? Or is it just to be expected in this part of the world?goates wrote:People mention that it's an unwinnable war, but don't give a reason. Maybe someone could explain why we are so doomed to failure?
I think that there's also a large portion of the Canadian public, regardless of political affiliation, that believes that the Afghanistan won't have a stable, democratic government unless there is a foreign power there to provide some sort of neutral but military support to the democratic institution. And rightly or wrongly, there will be allegations of imperialism for as long as there is a foreign power holding the government up.
CID ------ I didn't state that Jack Layton wanted to debate our membership in NATO. I said that he wants to debate our BEING in Afghanistan at present.
We are in Afghanistan because we are fulfilling our duties to NATO AND at the request of the UN. As stated, IF he wants to debate something concerning this presence in Afghanistan, THEN he should call for a debate on our member ship in NATO and what he feels it has got us into. He is attempting to lay the blame for this on the Liberals and/or the Conservatives and have a debate concerning their wisdom in doing so. Once again, it makes no difference WHO is in power in Ottawa because the member NATO countries could care less and expect Canada to fulfill her duites as A COUNTRY.
There's also another item being over-looked by many Canadians and that is this. The Canadian military in Afghansistan is a "set-piece Regular military". They all wear the same uniform and use the same easily identifiable equipment. They are fighting an enemy force that DOESN'T. Therefore, at some time, in some way, they are going to HAVE TO resort to operating AS that enemy force does. The Brits have found that out many times during the last 300 hundred years, the Americans used it themselves at one time and have forgotten those hard-learned lessons and the Canadians are going to have to re-learn that also.
You cannot fight an enemy if you have one arm tied behind your back because of YOUR rules and the enemy doesn't. The "set-piece" engagement doesn't work against those odds and the German Army in the Balkans and throughout Eastern and Western Europe found that out "in spades" during WW2. I also expect that someone as smart as Gen Rick Hillier is supposed to be, know that really well and will be making/is making liberal and frequent use of all of the JTF-2 and SAS assests that he has or may have at his disposal. Otherwise the well-trained, very willing, but combat-inexperienced PPCLI Private, Sgt or Officer is in for some real "rude" surprises. They are fighting against many people who have been fighting in those hills and valleys for over 25 years straight and follow NO RULES in order to win.......or in western slang...."they fight dirty and unfairly".Mnay don't know where Geneva is, anything about some "Rules of War" and couldn't give a shit even if they did know both. So our guys have to be "cut some slack" here because this isn't a "set piece" battle like Waterloo or the Battle of the Somme. Axes will be used, kids will be used, pregnant females will used, "dirty tricks" of ALL kinds will be employed and if they let their guards down ONCE, someone else will get zippered-up in a plastic bag.
We are in Afghanistan because we are fulfilling our duties to NATO AND at the request of the UN. As stated, IF he wants to debate something concerning this presence in Afghanistan, THEN he should call for a debate on our member ship in NATO and what he feels it has got us into. He is attempting to lay the blame for this on the Liberals and/or the Conservatives and have a debate concerning their wisdom in doing so. Once again, it makes no difference WHO is in power in Ottawa because the member NATO countries could care less and expect Canada to fulfill her duites as A COUNTRY.
There's also another item being over-looked by many Canadians and that is this. The Canadian military in Afghansistan is a "set-piece Regular military". They all wear the same uniform and use the same easily identifiable equipment. They are fighting an enemy force that DOESN'T. Therefore, at some time, in some way, they are going to HAVE TO resort to operating AS that enemy force does. The Brits have found that out many times during the last 300 hundred years, the Americans used it themselves at one time and have forgotten those hard-learned lessons and the Canadians are going to have to re-learn that also.
You cannot fight an enemy if you have one arm tied behind your back because of YOUR rules and the enemy doesn't. The "set-piece" engagement doesn't work against those odds and the German Army in the Balkans and throughout Eastern and Western Europe found that out "in spades" during WW2. I also expect that someone as smart as Gen Rick Hillier is supposed to be, know that really well and will be making/is making liberal and frequent use of all of the JTF-2 and SAS assests that he has or may have at his disposal. Otherwise the well-trained, very willing, but combat-inexperienced PPCLI Private, Sgt or Officer is in for some real "rude" surprises. They are fighting against many people who have been fighting in those hills and valleys for over 25 years straight and follow NO RULES in order to win.......or in western slang...."they fight dirty and unfairly".Mnay don't know where Geneva is, anything about some "Rules of War" and couldn't give a shit even if they did know both. So our guys have to be "cut some slack" here because this isn't a "set piece" battle like Waterloo or the Battle of the Somme. Axes will be used, kids will be used, pregnant females will used, "dirty tricks" of ALL kinds will be employed and if they let their guards down ONCE, someone else will get zippered-up in a plastic bag.
Well said, LH.
Irregular forces are indeed being used in Afghanistan. There are a fair number of tribal groups (the dominant social unit in Afghanistan once you're outside of the few cities) that are playing a role in operations there. Our operations are also joint with the new Afghan army. Both of these factors are key in #1 winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the Afghan people and #2 fighting a counter-insurgency war.
There are also other irregular (one could even call them "special" forces) being used in Afghanistan. I don't pretend to have 100% up-to-date insight as to who, what, where, but I have heard through some pretty relieable back-channel sources that it's not just the PPCLI that are moving through those mountains. Winged daggers have a habit of popping up in the places that you least expect them.
As you implied in your post though, our relatively touchy-feely government does have the potential to see something that's inflammatory, and then immediately tie the troop's hands behind their backs. I jsut hope that it doesn't happen.
Irregular forces are indeed being used in Afghanistan. There are a fair number of tribal groups (the dominant social unit in Afghanistan once you're outside of the few cities) that are playing a role in operations there. Our operations are also joint with the new Afghan army. Both of these factors are key in #1 winning the "Hearts and Minds" of the Afghan people and #2 fighting a counter-insurgency war.
There are also other irregular (one could even call them "special" forces) being used in Afghanistan. I don't pretend to have 100% up-to-date insight as to who, what, where, but I have heard through some pretty relieable back-channel sources that it's not just the PPCLI that are moving through those mountains. Winged daggers have a habit of popping up in the places that you least expect them.
As you implied in your post though, our relatively touchy-feely government does have the potential to see something that's inflammatory, and then immediately tie the troop's hands behind their backs. I jsut hope that it doesn't happen.
Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
LH,
I'm sensing some extreme tunnel vision in your statements. They are becoming more convoluted as the discussion evolves. Unless some new ideas crop up, or you shake this whole "we must support our soldiers no matter what" mentality I think reason is lost and this debate has run it's course.
I'm sensing some extreme tunnel vision in your statements. They are becoming more convoluted as the discussion evolves. Unless some new ideas crop up, or you shake this whole "we must support our soldiers no matter what" mentality I think reason is lost and this debate has run it's course.
CID ------ tunnel vision? Nahhhhh, I've just seen peacetime AND been in a war and my "vision" is very wide as a result........and a LOT wider than most.....take my word on it. I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about and you probably never will........and in one regard that makes you luckier than me. See I've fought in a war that was "limited" and saw the support at home diminish to the point where I was spit on and called "baby killer". That government also put their soldiers in a place and in a situation that was ill-conceived and not supposed to last all that long. We too, we're trying to ingratiate ourselves to the population and we're doing a darned good job, UNTIL some "all-knowing" politicians back home started to tell us what it was like to do our job and how to do it with all their vast experience at doing the same. You know the ones I'm talking about because you voted for some of them not that long ago and every country has them.......the life-long trained accountants that know all about fighting wars, the Hardware store Managers who are experts on combat and foreign affairs and the university "high foreheads" who know all about wiring batteries up to urinials so that the next one who uses it gets fried.
I AM NOT "talking down" to you here at all......and don't take it like that. What I'm trying to do is relate to you and others that you all don't know what it's like to be in a position and place that your govenment put you in and it may cost you your life NOW! Therefore. when you and/or your politicians and your country put a soldier in that position, you stop your "dysfunctional arguing" about it and do that until that soldier is back at home because he wants, needs and MUST have that kind of support to do his job with any "heart". Otherwise he feels as though he's just fighting for himself and the guy next to him and neither of you wanted to be there in the first place.........so when's the next plane leave this "shit-hole" because I got a wife and two kids at home I want to see again. You may train and want to play hockey for example, but when you have a crowd of on-lookers rooting for you, you play that much harder. If you see them all arguing, you want them to either stop or you'll quit playing or want them to leave and let you play by yourselves. Poor analogy, but that's the best I can do for now.
Don't argue and tell him that you're trying to get his ass home so he won't be killed in the first place then. You waited too long and should've done that before he got there and left his family and kids behind, so leave it alone until he gets back home again.......and THEN tear each other apart over it. Those arguments and doubting are also read and heard by those the soldier is fighting and that gives them the resolve that maybe if they "hang-in-there" long enough, they'll see the soldier's backside retreating and giving-up. Again, your soldier would be doing something that he didn't want to do and nobody asked his opinion about retreating either. He went there because he was ORDERED there by his country and then his country would be ORDERING him once more to "turn-tail" in front of the same enemy and retreat. You'd be smiling back home because you won the argument, but the soldier doesn't see it that way because he doesn't like and wasn't trained to quit, drop his rifle and go home to Momma because he was scared.
It's a odd profession being a soldier because you train hard for something that you pray to God will never happen, but once you get onsite you want everyone to either "lead, follow or get the @#$! outta the way". Quit and turn tail? If you were going to order that of him, then why the Hell did you put him out there in the first fucking place? If you're going to do that, then he can tell his replacement back home to quit THERE and refuse to come rather than in the face of the enemy.
CANADA sent our the soldiers there, so back them up and do so by stopping the yapping about it and letting the enemy personnel and hierarchy know that. Let them know rather, that as long as CANADA is onsite, everyone is going to be treated fairly and will be helped in any way possible to re-build their country. Lastly, also let them know that we aren't like the Brits or Americans........that we're "a horse of a different colour" and our country's record proves that you can "push us", but don't piss us off or you'll thin that maybe you were the ones that lost.....even if you win.
I've now beat this to death and those that understand what I'm saying in some way need no more convincing. Those that don't best remember that what you and your like-minded politicians say, is the same as handing another clip of ammo to those the PPCLI are fighting and rooting for THEM. You aren't the only ones in this world with laptops, TV's and satillite radios. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool and terminally naive.
I AM NOT "talking down" to you here at all......and don't take it like that. What I'm trying to do is relate to you and others that you all don't know what it's like to be in a position and place that your govenment put you in and it may cost you your life NOW! Therefore. when you and/or your politicians and your country put a soldier in that position, you stop your "dysfunctional arguing" about it and do that until that soldier is back at home because he wants, needs and MUST have that kind of support to do his job with any "heart". Otherwise he feels as though he's just fighting for himself and the guy next to him and neither of you wanted to be there in the first place.........so when's the next plane leave this "shit-hole" because I got a wife and two kids at home I want to see again. You may train and want to play hockey for example, but when you have a crowd of on-lookers rooting for you, you play that much harder. If you see them all arguing, you want them to either stop or you'll quit playing or want them to leave and let you play by yourselves. Poor analogy, but that's the best I can do for now.
Don't argue and tell him that you're trying to get his ass home so he won't be killed in the first place then. You waited too long and should've done that before he got there and left his family and kids behind, so leave it alone until he gets back home again.......and THEN tear each other apart over it. Those arguments and doubting are also read and heard by those the soldier is fighting and that gives them the resolve that maybe if they "hang-in-there" long enough, they'll see the soldier's backside retreating and giving-up. Again, your soldier would be doing something that he didn't want to do and nobody asked his opinion about retreating either. He went there because he was ORDERED there by his country and then his country would be ORDERING him once more to "turn-tail" in front of the same enemy and retreat. You'd be smiling back home because you won the argument, but the soldier doesn't see it that way because he doesn't like and wasn't trained to quit, drop his rifle and go home to Momma because he was scared.
It's a odd profession being a soldier because you train hard for something that you pray to God will never happen, but once you get onsite you want everyone to either "lead, follow or get the @#$! outta the way". Quit and turn tail? If you were going to order that of him, then why the Hell did you put him out there in the first fucking place? If you're going to do that, then he can tell his replacement back home to quit THERE and refuse to come rather than in the face of the enemy.
CANADA sent our the soldiers there, so back them up and do so by stopping the yapping about it and letting the enemy personnel and hierarchy know that. Let them know rather, that as long as CANADA is onsite, everyone is going to be treated fairly and will be helped in any way possible to re-build their country. Lastly, also let them know that we aren't like the Brits or Americans........that we're "a horse of a different colour" and our country's record proves that you can "push us", but don't piss us off or you'll thin that maybe you were the ones that lost.....even if you win.
I've now beat this to death and those that understand what I'm saying in some way need no more convincing. Those that don't best remember that what you and your like-minded politicians say, is the same as handing another clip of ammo to those the PPCLI are fighting and rooting for THEM. You aren't the only ones in this world with laptops, TV's and satillite radios. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool and terminally naive.
Hey, i go on holidays for a couple of weeks, and you guys start talking about my place...?
I think that this parlementary review is just a bunch of h**!
This guy is trying to gain political support by using accidental deaths as a lame excuse.
As for those that are not aware, the role of the PRT is much more dangerous than what the soldiers were doing previously at Camp Julien. They have to attend meetings, visit military camps, disarmament functions, etc...
We will of course lose a lot of people during the next year. We know that. PRT in Kandahar is the most dangerous mission in the world right now...
For those who do not know, the US lost more troops as a percentage of deployed personnel, in Afghanistan than in Irak in 2005.
Kandahar is the worst place in Afghanistan.
I work closely with the PRT in the north. They are Germans, and they lost their share of people, some of which I socialized with.
I will take time, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
What we need to do is train the Afghans themselves to do it. When ever there is a problem, they call the UN or the ISAF for help; that is definitely not the time to leave right now...
This country was total chaos when the US came in. It was a political vacuum. The wild west...
I see the military here for at least ten years, then UN peace keepers for another ten...
In the meantime, good paying jobs for the braves...
Cheers,
I think that this parlementary review is just a bunch of h**!
This guy is trying to gain political support by using accidental deaths as a lame excuse.
As for those that are not aware, the role of the PRT is much more dangerous than what the soldiers were doing previously at Camp Julien. They have to attend meetings, visit military camps, disarmament functions, etc...
We will of course lose a lot of people during the next year. We know that. PRT in Kandahar is the most dangerous mission in the world right now...
For those who do not know, the US lost more troops as a percentage of deployed personnel, in Afghanistan than in Irak in 2005.
Kandahar is the worst place in Afghanistan.
I work closely with the PRT in the north. They are Germans, and they lost their share of people, some of which I socialized with.
I will take time, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
What we need to do is train the Afghans themselves to do it. When ever there is a problem, they call the UN or the ISAF for help; that is definitely not the time to leave right now...
This country was total chaos when the US came in. It was a political vacuum. The wild west...
I see the military here for at least ten years, then UN peace keepers for another ten...
In the meantime, good paying jobs for the braves...
Cheers,
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
Eric sorenson reported on the PM's visit to Afghanistan, and we saw the Mayor of Kandahar, smiling and talking to the reporters so that's Good! But this thread will not be dying anytime soon because people believe there should be debate. The PM would be stupid to say there can be no debate or withdrawing of troops. I think the Canadians should try to make a strong voice for Peace while they are there.
''Save Our Troops let them leave Afghanistan''. - Neil Osborne and a few friends
