Quebecker's = P***ies

[Wezil]

Cronos - Yes, the Taliban regime was bad and perhaps more Quebecers would support the mission if they knew how bad. Keep in mind however, we did not go to Afghanistan to cure human rights abuses (although that is a convenient mantra now).

[Wezil]

Originally posted by cronos_qc


The problem is; let the radical muslim have a country, an organized state and now you really have a big huge country doing whatever he can to propagate the Jihad.

Sorry I missed this post.

Yes, I have heard that argument as well. I think our presence does far more to propagate Jihad than our absence ever would.

[Drake Tungsten]

My advice still stands. I'd be glad to continue this discussion whenever you decide to stop talking out of your ass.

Can't handle the truth, I guess...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

My advice still stands. I'd be glad to continue this discussion whenever you decide to stop talking out of your ass.

Can't handle the truth, I guess...

Okay, I'll go with that so long as you go away. Deal?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

LotM - Yes, the troubles are mainly in the south but how does one disregard this part of the country when claiming the mission is in general a success? It is a package - I can't claim to be in good health (or even improving) when my foot has gangrene.

I wouldnt say that Afghanistan is in general "a success". I would say that its far better than it was in August 2001, and theres a real chance of getting it better. But this is going to be a long war.

The casualties of late have been from IED's. Some within meters of our base. That is hardly exercising control over the area. The most recent attacks have been in areas already 'pacified'. Some much for that theory.

Nonetheless, Canadian troops continue to operate well away from base in Kandahar, and other coalition forces do so in other dangerous provinces. And yes, pacified areas dont always stay pacified. That happens in counter-insurgency warfare.

Karzi - I don't know who would take control of the country in our absence. 'Taliban' or 'Northern Alliance'? Don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care.

Considering that one of the two, cooperated with AQs launching an attack on the city where I live, and a seperate attack the same day on the city where I grew up, I DO care.

[q] That is for Afghanis to decide for themselves. You would think the West would learn that imposing our choice of leaders in Muslim countries is causing us more harm than good, yet we keep doing it (the Palestine events of recent weeks for example). We claim to want to work with "moderates" when all the word really means is "approved by the West". Muslims see it, too bad we don't.[/q[

I want to work with someone who wont launch suicide attacks against me, thats all. If you think thats neocolonialism, I doubt theres anything I can say that will convince you the mission in Afghanistan makes sense. I also dont see what option the west had in November 2001 but to support Kharzai. I also dont think the majority of Afghans resent that choice, nor do the majority of muslims around the world.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
Cronos - Yes, the Taliban regime was bad and perhaps more Quebecers would support the mission if they knew how bad. Keep in mind however, we did not go to Afghanistan to cure human rights abuses (although that is a convenient mantra now).

We went in to stop a regime that was a haven for terrorism, however making things better for Afghans was an important part of the strategy. We ended up with 9/11 in part because we'd let Afghanistan go to hell in the 1990's.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


Sorry I missed this post.

Yes, I have heard that argument as well. I think our presence does far more to propagate Jihad than our absence ever would.

Taliban managed plenty of Jihad before we were there. I see no reason it would be different now.

[Wezil]

For the benefit of Drake (and any others who choose to be uninformed...). I'll even highlight the important bits so you don't get too confused.

An old (2006) article which outlines the problem:

Afghanistan to dominate NATO summit
Updated Mon. Nov. 27 2006 7:47 AM ET

Associated Press

RIGA, Latvia -- One issue will dominate this week's NATO summit -- Afghanistan.


The 26 presidents and prime ministers all know that the future of their alliance is playing out in the deserts of Kandahar and mountains of Uruzgan rather than in their conference hall on the Baltic Sea.


The rise in Taliban violence since NATO's 32,800-strong force moved into those southern provinces and the resultant casualties among civilians and Western soldiers has called into question the strategy behind NATO's "stabilization" force in Afghanistan.


Before traveling to Europe for the summit, President Bush spoke on the phone with his Afghan counterpart. "President Bush assured President Hamid Karzai that the United States of America will reiterate its commitment at the NATO summit to the strengthening of security and reconstruction in Afghanistan," said a statement from Karzai's office in Kabul.


The dangers to the NATO force were underscored by attacks in the run-up to the summit that ended a period of relative calm. Two Canadian soldiers serving with the NATO force were reported slain by a suicide car bomber Monday. A day earlier, a suicide bomber killed 15 Afghans in a restaurant.


The summit Tuesday and Wednesday in Latvia's capital, Riga, will be Bush's first meeting with European allies since he was chastened by Democrat success in the midterm elections and bid farewell to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.


Allied leaders will be looking for any change in emphasis from the Bush administration following Rumsfeld's resignation. But on Afghanistan, the message is likely to be a reaffirmation of the alliance's determination to stay the course.


"I don't believe there is an alternative but to fight this and to fight it for as long as it takes," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told troops in southern Afghanistan last week.


Leaders will talk up battlefield successes against the Taliban in recent months and point to statistics showing health care and education improvements in Afghanistan as illustrating the success of their mission.


They will stress the need to follow up military advances quickly with development aid to win over hearts and minds. And they will pledge to do more through the United Nations and the European Union to provide civilian support to the Afghan government, from building roads and schools to training the police and tackling the narcotics trade.


"A military mission alone will not succeed," U.S. Ambassador to NATO Victoria Nuland said.


"We must have security married to good governance and development, and that means the EU, U.N. and NATO working in harmony with Afghans," she wrote on NATO's Web site last week.


Although all 26 nations have troops serving with the mission, those in the southern front lines -- mainly Canada, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands -- are irked that others -- primarily Germany, Italy, France and Spain -- have restrictions limiting their troops to the relatively peaceful north and west.


"Putting caveats on operations means putting caveats on NATO's future," NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in Brussels before the summit. "At Riga, I will convey this message to our heads of state and government, loud and clear."


He may get some success. Poland says the 1,100 troops it is sending to Afghanistan in the new year can be used around the country. Norway and Portugal have quick-response units based in the north that can be sent wherever commanders think best.


In an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, de Hoop Scheffer said he was confident all leaders would agree that their troops are able to rush to the aid of allies in trouble anywhere in Afghanistan.


Several non-NATO nations are supporting the Afghan mission, including Australia and New Zealand. Some in the alliance want to bring those countries, along with Japan and South Korea, into a "global partnership" to boost political and military cooperation.


Washington sees that idea as a priority in Riga. The United States also wants to see more spending by European allies to modernize NATO's military, build up the alliance's role as a political forum and keep the door open for nations in the Balkans who want to join NATO in 2008, and others in the former Soviet Union seeking membership further down the road.


However, the U.S. faces opposition from at least one European ally.


"To seek to involve the alliance in nonmilitary missions, ad hoc partnerships, technological ventures or an insufficiently prepared enlargement could only distort its purpose," French President Jacques Chirac told a meeting with his country's ambassadors based around the world in August.


Although both sides are keen to lay to rest the ghosts of their Iraq war disputes, France and the United States hold fundamentally different views of NATO's role. Paris is wary of what it sees as Washington's attempts to use NATO to expand its influence at the expense of a more independent EU.


Many blame continued tension between France and United States for the relatively limited ambition of the Riga agenda and expect more for the next summit in 2008, when there'll probably be a new president in Paris, or the one after in 2009, when there will certainly be a new president in Washington.

And a recent one:

(CP) - NATO's secretary-general made an ardent pitch Thursday for Canada to continue the fight in Afghanistan beyond the country's self-imposed deadline of February 2009.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer began his talk with Prime Minister Stephen Harper by praising Canada, saying the country plays a "tremendously important role" in the military alliance, a senior Canadian official said on background following the roughly 90 minute meeting in Ottawa.

The two also discussed Canada's increasing role in beefing up both the Afghan Army and the Afghan National Police Force.

Also on the table was "how we can encourage a constructive relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan particularly on their shared border," said the official.

Faced with the threatened withdrawal of French troops and a divisive debate in his homeland on whether Dutch forces will remain, the secretary general earlier in the day publicly implored Canadians not give up in the face of mounting casualties.

"I know how dramatic it is if Canadian soldiers pay the highest price," de Hoop Scheffer said an economic conference in Montreal prior to his meeting with Harper.


"But I still say, you are there for a good cause. . .you are there to defend basic universal values."

His plea came one day after a trio of Canadian soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb attack west of Kandahar. Their deaths bring to 60 the number of troops who've lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2002.

De Hoop Scheffer insisted more time is needed, progress is being made and that the military Alliance has "come a long way" since it took over command of the mission in southern Afghanistan almost a year ago.

In a number of speeches and public comments, both Harper and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor have signalled Canada is willing to consider an extended commitment. But they have said no final decision has been made and Parliament will have an opportunity to debate an extension.

Skepticism about the mission among Canadians is running deep.

A recent Decima Research survey - provided to The Canadian Press - found two-thirds of those polled said Canadian troops should come home when the current mandate from Parliament expires. Only 26 per cent said the military mission should be extended beyond 2009 "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."

Regionally, a Leger Market survey suggested a majority of Quebecers were opposed to 2,000 troops from CFB Valcartier, near Quebec City, being deployed to the war-torn country this summer.

The head of the Senate's security and defence committee said the meeting was a perfect opportunity for the Conservative government to lay it on the line.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said Thursday De Hoop Scheffer should be told that other NATO countries need to be more involved in combat operations - otherwise Canada will withdraw on schedule in 2009.

"If there isn't going to be more support in Kandahar, then it's time for the government to review our participation," said Kenny.

Germany, Italy and France have often been singled out by grumbling allies for preventing their troops from undertaking combat missions against Taliban militants.

The U.S. has been the most vocal about the restrictions - or caveats - placed on NATO troops.

Newly-elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised while campaigning to pull France's 1,100 troops out of Afghanistan.

De Hoop Scheffer said it's important that all 26 NATO allies in Afghanistan carry on with their missions.

He also pointed out that the mission is still supported by a large majority of the Afghan people.

But NDP leader Jack Layton said the Afghan mission is wrong for Canada.

"And I believe that an increasing number of Quebecers and Canadians are reaching that same conclusion," he said while in Montreal.

De Hoop Scheffer recalled that his daughters attended a primary school that has maintained the graves of young 22-year-old Canadians who came to the Netherlands in 1944 to free his country.

"Those Canadians came to Europe defending the same values as your boys and girls are now defending in Afghanistan," he said.

[Wezil]

LotM - yes, we have been down this road of debate before. There is a fundamental difference in how we 'see' this mission. You see it as a long mission that will succeed. I see it as a never-ending mission that can't succeed (the locals don't want us - they have nowhere else to go). They will outlast us.

As to attacks on US interests - Do you really think they need Afghanistan to do that? AQ can and will plan their plans regardless of the situation in Afghanistan. We started with the right response to 9/11 (***** slap them and look for Osama) then got dragged completely off course.

[Sarxis]

Quebeckers= Potpies?

[Drake Tungsten]

Although all 26 nations have troops serving with the mission, those in the southern front lines -- mainly Canada, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands -- are irked that others -- primarily Germany, Italy, France and Spain -- have restrictions limiting their troops to the relatively peaceful north and west.

Up until April, French troops were in charge of Kabul, which is in the eastern part of Afghanistan, about the same distance from the Pakistani border as Kandahar is. Why don't you get your facts straight?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Although all 26 nations have troops serving with the mission, those in the southern front lines -- mainly Canada, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands -- are irked that others -- primarily Germany, Italy, France and Spain -- have restrictions limiting their troops to the relatively peaceful north and west.

Up until April, French troops were in charge of Kabul, which is in the eastern part of Afghanistan, about the same distance from the Pakistani border as Kandahar is. Why don't you get your facts straight?

Nonetheless Kabul is heavily non-Pashtun, and has been relatively quiet. But youre just trolling, why am I responding to this?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

LotM - yes, we have been down this road of debate before. There is a fundamental difference in how we 'see' this mission. You see it as a long mission that will succeed. I see it as a never-ending mission that can't succeed (the locals don't want us - they have nowhere else to go). They will outlast us.

Again, I think its clear that almost all the non-Pashtuns want us there, and some of the Pashtuns. Whether the specific problems wrt to opium, the economy, and local governance can be fixed to bring most of the remaining Pashtuns on board, is far from clear.

As to attacks on US interests - Do you really think they need Afghanistan to do that? AQ can and will plan their plans regardless of the situation in Afghanistan. We started with the right response to 9/11 (***** slap them and look for Osama) then got dragged completely off course.

They will plan their plans, but clearly training and a base matter (see London and Glasgow this week).

Additionally, the gain in "face" theyd get from regaining Afghanistan would be huge for them, and disastrous for us.

Thats why no one serious on this side of the 49th parallel suggests taking US troops out of Afghanistan, and why one of the more pointed criticisms of the Iraq war is that it did, and does, distract us from Afghanistan.

I could well understand that the pros and cons are different in Canada. If we leave, NATO will certainly leave too. If Canada leaves, the US, at least, will stay, and maybe the Brits and Dutch.

[Drake Tungsten]

nm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Kabul is just as close to Pashtun/Taliban stronghold areas as Kandahar is.

Distribution of Pashtuns...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns

ISAF deployments in Afghanistan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

As you can see, the French were right down in Pashtun country with the Americans.

But Kabul itself is not mainly Pashtun, Kandahar is. And Kandahar province is the traditional homebase of the Taliban.