Faux Buffoons trash Canadian soldiers

[notyoueither]

He wasn't referring to Canada alone.

And yes, we are down to about three active regiments of infantry. I doubt any of the three are at full strength.

[Naked Gents Rut]

This is probably the most accurate analysis of this whole kerfuffle...

Canada obviously has no idea who Fox News' resident merry prankster Greg Gutfeld is, because after he said something outrageous about Canada's military (as is his wont), they demanded an apology. You silly Canadians.

http://gawker.com/5180834/canada-mistakes-fox-news-greg-gutfeld-for-person-of-influence

[notyoueither]

Your administration has addressed it.

Who is the bigger fool?

[Naked Gents Rut]

Still you guys.

[KrazyHorse]

who have been doing a great deal of the work holding down the fort in Afghanistan for the better part of a decade while American adventurism a thousand miles to the west sucked up most of their available men and equipment.

Let's not get carried away. Canada has provided a great deal to the ISAF operations in Afghanistan, but the U.S. still provides ~10x as many troops and is responsible for a much greater area on the border with Pakistan. The British are also carrying a much greater share of the load.

The US, with a population ~9 times that of Canada and a military perhaps 40 times as large provides 7-8 times as many troops, patrolling a larger but generally somewhat less volatile region. We have lost something like 120 troops to the Brits' 160 and the US' 650. The strain on our military is proportionately (relative to the size of the armed forces) similar to the strain on the US or British militaries when including both Iraq and Afghanistan. You might also want to note that no other country outside this troika has contributed anything even close to the size of the Canadian contingent (in Iraq or Afghanistan) in as active fighting for as long. I am quite aware that both the Brits and Americans contribute more to Afghanistan than we do. Both the Brits and Americans are also quite a great deal bigger (in population) and have a great deal more overseas commitments than we do, leading them to retain militaries a great deal larger than ours. The offence which began this war was also committed against the Americans, yet we are pulling somewhat more relative to our weight in Afghanistan than either the Brits or the Americans.

As you might have noticed, this cooperation bought us little in the way of influencing US adventurism or foreign policy over the last number of years. That's fine. We've always been willing to help out our friends and neighbours in trouble because it is right, not because it's a bargaining chit. But at a certain point we have to ask ourselves what is in our own interests.

Our military is small precisely because we have neither the desire nor the ability to transform it into a grand world-shaking force without dire need. Yet what needs it does fill seem to forever come at the behest of larger powers. What needs of ours do these larger powers respond to? I have no confidence at all that Americans would prove as willing to sacrifice their sons for us as we have been willing to sacrifice for them.

Matt

[notyoueither]

Still you guys.

Us guys who?

[KrazyHorse]

This is probably the most accurate analysis of this whole kerfuffle...

Canada obviously has no idea who Fox News' resident merry prankster Greg Gutfeld is, because after he said something outrageous about Canada's military (as is his wont), they demanded an apology. You silly Canadians.

http://gawker.com/5180834/canada-mis...n-of-influence

Drake, I note again that your media figures, even those who are buffoons, have what could almost be deemed reverence (probably feigned) for your men in uniform.

The Canadian media shows much less restraint.

Social mores which treat those sacrificing on your behalf similarly to those serving directly in your military would be a good step, both for your own souls as well as for your relationships with your closest friends. Chauvinism of this kind is an ugly thing.

I haven't felt this alienated from the US for a while, by the way.

[notyoueither]

Our military is small precisely because we have neither the desire nor the ability to transform it into a grand world-shaking force without dire need. Yet what needs it does fill seem to forever come at the behest of larger powers. What needs of ours do these larger powers respond to? I have no confidence at all that Americans would prove as willing to sacrifice their sons for us as we have been willing to sacrifice for them.

Matt

Quite to the contrary, they actively undermine our sovereignty in important areas.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You might also want to note that no other country outside this troika has contributed anything even close to the size of the Canadian contingent (in Iraq or Afghanistan) in as active fighting for as long. I am quite aware that both the Brits and Americans contribute more to Afghanistan than we do.

There's no need to argue about this then. I'm aware of and appreciate the Canadian contribution in Afghanistan; I just wanted to be clear that Afghanistan has always been a mostly American operation with help from key allies like the U.K. and Canada, even with Iraq sucking up men and equipment.

But at a certain point we have to ask ourselves what is in our own interests.

If Canada doesn't feel that continued operations in Afghanistan are in its national interest, it should pull out. Hopefully the U.S. will follow your lead.

I have no confidence at all that Americans would prove as willing to sacrifice their sons for us as we have been willing to sacrifice for them.

This seems somewhat unfair given the history of U.S. military contribution to the defense of its allies. We helped defend Western Europe, Korea and other allies throughout the Cold War and would certainly have come to Canada's aid in the (admittedly unlikely) event of an attack.

[a.kitman]

hahah i have never seen red eye before but maybe i should start watching it. looks like a brillant parody of fox news it self.

[Naked Gents Rut]

As you might have noticed, this cooperation bought us little in the way of influencing US adventurism or foreign policy over the last number of years. That's fine.

As a side note, you should never have committed troops to Afghanistan in the first place if your goal was influence over American foreign policy. The U.S. went in because it considered Al Qaeda to be a continuing threat to its security and it would probably have been for the best if only allies who shared that strategic view joined the coalition. I feel like this would've prevented much of the tension that exists in the ISAF right now.

[KrazyHorse]

As you might have noticed, this cooperation bought us little in the way of influencing US adventurism or foreign policy over the last number of years. That's fine.

As a side note, you should never have committed troops to Afghanistan in the first place if your goal was influence over American foreign policy. The U.S. went in because it considered Al Qaeda to be a continuing threat to its security and it would probably have been for the best if only allies who shared that strategic view joined the coalition. I feel like this would've prevented much of the tension that exists in the ISAF right now.

I wish you'd continued my quote.

We've always been willing to help out our friends and neighbours in trouble because it is right, not because it's a bargaining chit.

[Naked Gents Rut]

My point was that if you feel you're only in Afghanistan to do the U.S. a favor, then you're not in the fight for the right reason.

Continuing to fight together in Afghanistan while such a divergence in strategic goals exists is corrosive to the alliance between our countries. On the one hand, Canadians get upset when they feel they aren't getting enough credit for their selfless sacrifice in America's war. On the other hand, Americans get upset when they feel Canadians are complaining too much about a war that all members of the coalition signed on for and that America bears the greatest cost for. This wouldn't happen if the two countries were fighting for the same reason.

[KrazyHorse]

I think that the main benefits to us being in Afghanistan flow to the US (and Afghanistan), Drake. Do you disagree with that?

Having a stable, Al Qaeda free Afghanistan is a public good among the community of nations. And the US is the biggest target in that community. In fact, I'd say it's a significantly bigger target than its mere size would suggest.

So yeah, we were trying to help a friend in trouble. For all the rhetoric that an attack on one is an attack on all (which may have made sense during the Cold War) this is the reason we were willing to put our men into the grinder.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I think that the main benefits to us being in Afghanistan flow to the US (and Afghanistan), Drake. Do you disagree with that?

Somewhat. The benefits flow to any country that was under threat of terrorism linked to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The U.S. and U.K. are the most likely targets for such terrorism, so they would receive the most benefit from destroying Al Qaeda and its infrastructure in Afghanistan. Not coincidentally, these two countries contributed the most men and resources to the war and seem to have the most staying power.

How much of a threat does Canada face from Al Qaeda? I don't rightly know. It's obviously a less enticing target for terrorists than the U.S. or the U.K., but I don't think an attack on Toronto or Montreal is completely out of the question.

It's really up to the Canadian government to determine whether the reduction in the risk of an Al Qaeda attack on Canada is a benefit worthy of the cost Canada is paying in Afghanistan. This should be the basis for the decision to stay or go, however, not some kumbaya bull**** about helping friends in need.