CanPol - The Sad Story of Stephane Dion

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The point of the mission was to pwn the Taliban and eliminate Afghanistan as a harbour for AQ.

That was the "original" mission. The problem with that is that Taliban=Afghani. So while we can remove them from power by force of arms we can't rid the country of them b/c they live there. This is their home and we are an army of occupation.

As far as the harbour for AQ - Do you really think they need Afghanistan for that? They already have half the middle east to hang out in, not to mention Pakistan...

I think we have actually helped AQ by providing them yet another piece of recruitment propaganda. Western occupation of Muslim countries does not decrease AQ's appeal, it grows it.

And make no mistake this an occupation. The Karzai government would fall in a matter of days were there not over 50,000 western troops supporting him. He comes to Washington and announces the Taliban are "beaten" (his word) to make Americans think the mission is rosy then one week later tells Canada not to withdraw from the mission b/c the country would fall back into anarchy.

I tend to believe what he is telling us (though I would dearly love to take him at his word in Washington and bring our troops home). Karzai is our puppet, only in power so long as we keep him there. The West still hasn't learned it's lesson about supporting unpopular leaders. We keep doing it.

Until we can be sure it'll stay that way when we leave, we should stay.

That's the same faulty thinking as Iraq. Until the place is what we want it to be, we will stay. What if the goal is unattainable? We are now six years in and last year was the worst yet as far as political violence. Shouldn't the trend line be going the other way?

Are we trying to make them into a Western Democracy? It won't work. They don't want it any more than Iraq does. It is faulty thinking on our part to believe all nations of the world want to be like us.

A few other random thoughts on the issue:

NATO has failed in its first true test as an "alliance". I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this but when certain members refuse to allow their troops to be in combat roles and leave the "heavy lifting" to others, you can't really call yourself a military alliance. Germany's conduct has been particularly shameful in this regard although they are by no means alone.

"We broke it, we have to fix it" - Complete and utter crap. Afghanistan was truly broken before we went anywhere near the place.

"Human Rights" - A cover excuse for continuing the war. If we (the west) really gave a damn about people's rights there are far better projects than Afghanistan.

I remember the Soviet invasion and occupation of the country. The similarity that strikes me most often are the news reports of "schools and roads" being built. I swear if you take 80's Soviet media reports on their conflict in Afghanistan and change the names where appropriate they sound exactly the same. It is spooky. Btw, Canada's military spending in Afghanistan runs 5:1 that of infrastructure/recontruction.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


They claim to want more recontruction - less war.

I rarely agree with the NDP. Even in this case. I too want Canada out of Afg- but for different reasons.



Many think the point of the mission has been lost. Did you hear ANYONE in authority using the "bringing freedom and western values" excuse pre-invasion? That is how they are trying to sell it now.

It is a terribly unpopular policy in areas where the Tories hope to gain political ground, and equally popular amongst their base. Tough issue for them.

The NDP are at least consistant. They have yet to see a military mission they like.

The Libs have flipped on the issue, but credibility was never their strong suit anyway.

The Bloc is opposed b/c it is what their base prefers.

Those damed Western values! Which ones?

Like girls going to school?

[Wezil]

Hey, the Conservative base is heard from.

There's a longer post on the issue if you want to debate it.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Those damed Western values! Which ones?

Like girls going to school?

You do realise they are killing girls in Darfur? I guess it's okay so long as they go to school first?

There are girls starving to death in Zimbabwe. I think they do that in a school as well though.

Sorry to be so flippant but your comment was so cliche.

[C0ckney]

NATO has failed in its first true test as an "alliance". I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this but when certain members refuse to allow their troops to be in combat roles and leave the "heavy lifting" to others, you can't really call yourself a military alliance. Germany's conduct has been particularly shameful in this regard although they are by no means alone.

[Wezil]

That is the kicker. If this mission is so essential to the safety and security of "the west" then why are so many members unwilling to step up?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


You do realise they are killing girls in Darfur? I guess it's okay so long as they go to school first?

There are girls starving to death in Zimbabwe. I think they do that in a school as well though.

Sorry to be so flippant but your comment was so cliche.

We're there and can actually do something in this one small country.

The rest of the world being a ****-hole is not a good enough reason for apathy IMO.

[Wezil]

Great. Attack us and we will come and educate your kids.

If you insist on being interventionist how be we go somewhere where the kids are actually dying?

[notyoueither]

Why don't we start where NATO had a causus belli, invaded a country, and not run away like *****es because it's hard?

[Kuciwalker]

nye has a point there, Wezil.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why don't we start where NATO had a causus belli, invaded a country, and not run away like *****es because it's hard?

*sigh* NATO again. More accurately to be called the "US Fan Club" by the roster of members actually willing to die for what that instution stands for. Are we being noble or are we just suckers?

The mission to hunt AQ in Afghanistan morphed into one of occupation. We moved in, installed our stooge and started killing the locals (Pashtuns) b/c they didn't care for what we were selling.

Okay, so it's "hard". It's hard b/c we haven't a f****** clue how to either win this mess or get out. Where's the "end game" with your plan? Do we stay until all the opposition is dead?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
nye has a point there, Wezil.

Take up the debate. I needed to hear something better than girls going to school. :yawn:

My father (also a staunch member of the Conservative base) argues we should stay b/c the troops have nothing else to do anyway.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


*sigh* NATO again. More accurately to be called the "US Fan Club" by the roster of members actually willing to die for what that instution stands for. Are we being noble or are we just suckers?

I don't know.

Germany modified their constitution for the occassion.

Yes, they could do more. However, them and the French being lame doesn't strike me as a good reason for Canadians to be pussies who cut and run at the sight of blood.

The mission to hunt AQ in Afghanistan morphed into one of occupation. We moved in, installed our stooge and started killing the locals (Pashtuns) b/c they didn't care for what we were selling.

It seems to me that a consequence of invading a country is to occupy it til you get the result you want.

And yes, that will involve killing people who resist in an ongoing armed conflict. Wars are like that. We kill their guys and they kill ours.

Did you think this was going to be a game of dodgeball and the bell would ring to end recess?

Okay, so it's "hard". It's hard b/c we haven't a f****** clue how to either win this mess or get out. Where's the "end game" with your plan? Do we stay until all the opposition is dead?

That's one option, but not the preferred one.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I don't know.

Germany modified their constitution for the occassion.

Yes, they could do more.

Understatement. But fair enough, at least you will acknowledge their reluctance.

However, them and the French being lame doesn't strike me as a good reason for Canadians to be pussies who cut and run at the sight of blood.

There's that rhetoric again. "Cut and run", straight from the GWB handbook. I wonder why this mission is not selling well in Canada.

Since you seem unclear - My opposition isn't b/c of blood. I've been opposed since we decided to be door to door nation builders instead of hunting for OBL (ie several years now). I just think it's a shame we are continuing to die for a mission that is unfocussed and imho not winnable.

It seems to me that a consequence of invading a country is to occupy it til you get the result you want.

Even if the result is pie in the sky? Nope, sorry, that isn't even a plan.

And yes, that will involve killing people who resist in an ongoing armed conflict. Wars are like that. We kill their guys and they kill ours.

Well be better get busy then. Wiki estimates the Pashtuns at about 40 million. We're not killing them fast enough at this rate.

Did you think this was going to be a game of dodgeball and the bell would ring to end recess?

No, I thought it would be baseball and we'd play till noon. WTF?

That's one option, but not the preferred one.

Seems to be the only plan we can put together.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Wezil


*sigh* NATO again. More accurately to be called the "US Fan Club" by the roster of members actually willing to die for what that instution stands for. Are we being noble or are we just suckers?

Why can't it be both?

The mission to hunt AQ in Afghanistan morphed into one of occupation. We moved in, installed our stooge and started killing the locals (Pashtuns) b/c they didn't care for what we were selling.

Nah, we started killing them because the US didn't finish the job before moving off to Iraq. They pushed the Taliban out to their distant tribal areas, then let off pressure.

Okay, so it's "hard". It's hard b/c we haven't a f****** clue how to either win this mess or get out. Where's the "end game" with your plan? Do we stay until all the opposition is dead?

The problem is that the resources to win aren't there. There's an overreach in terms of goals (eradication of poppies shouldn't be attempted until the Taliban is defeated, etc.). The will just isn't there, and I don't mean the troops in the area. There's just not enough of them. It's hard because there's a couple thousand Canadian troops trying to do a job fit for tens of thousands.

I firmly believe that the fight in Afghanistan is winnable, but not with current forces, and not without a few unsavoury compromises (looking the other way while non-Taliban farmers/warlords grow poppies).

It seems to me that a consequence of invading a country is to occupy it til you get the result you want.

Unfortunately neither Canada nor the US, nor really any other Western power these days is prepared to do that. Winning this sort of victory requires a whole different sort of thinking, a more organized reconstruction effort, and really... something like the Colonial Office to oversee the effort. The institutions aren't there to sustain an occupation and coordinate the various aspects: military, reconstruction, etc.

Suggested reading: Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire by Niall Fergusson (at least I think that's teh one of his books that I read).