Afghanistan "Pull Out of Troops" Preposterous

[Curiosity]

National Post website (registration required)

Rae wants to stay course in afghanistan
Emphasizes role in nato: Says NDP's call to pull out 'preposterous'

Adrian Humphreys
National Post
Friday, September 15, 2006

TORONTO - Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae said yesterday the New Democratic Party's call to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan and engage in negotiations with Taliban leaders is "preposterous," "nonsensical" and born of an "armchair" view of a complex problem.

Mr. Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, said he was no more enamored of the approach taken by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, with its over-emphasis on a military solution in a difficult, ever-shifting mission.

"I think we need to avoid the armchair view from here that says we are going to pull out -- which is the NDP position, that says we're going to pull out tomorrow and then we are going to engage in peace talks, well that is preposterous," Mr. Rae said yesterday.

"It is a NATO mission that is there and the government of Afghanistan is engaged as well and the notion that... if Canada would withdraw we would then have some singular credibility in engaging in some political activity is, I think, nonsensical.

"We retain our political influence by staying the course at NATO," he said during a wide-ranging discussion with members of the National Post's editorial board, much of which dealt with foreign policy and Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

NDP leader Jack Layton has repeatedly said Ottawa should pull the troops from Afghanistan, arguing it is the "wrong mission" for Canada, a position endorsed by 1,500 delegates at an NDP convention in Quebec City last weekend.

While Mr. Rae rejected that view, he said it does not mean Canada should continue indefinitely in a deadly mission abroad without constant assessment and questioning.

"My view is it is much better for us to focus on a real, intense discussion with NATO about what we should all be doing there," he said.

Canada -- and the entire NATO-led mission -- should also rebalance its efforts to ensure diplomacy, rebuilding and reconstruction do not get lost in the deadly scraps for turf, he said.

"Canada's original engagement was one where we emphasized the importance of diplomacy and development assistance as well as defence. My concern was that the role was becoming an almost exclusively military role, or primarily a military role.

"NATO cannot be perceived as an occupying army and Canadians cannot be perceived as an occupying army. And if we allow ourselves to get in the position where we are perceived as an army of occupation that immediately changes the political dynamic in the country and I think, changes the chances of success."

Mr. Rae is seen by many political pundits as one of leading candidates in the 10-person race. He said his campaign is going well with support coming to him from across the country. He pointed to a recent poll indicating he has strong support in Ontario despite his troubled years as NDP premier, when the province was hit by the worst recession in a generation, racking up record deficits.

Arriving at the Post in an older model Volvo station wagon and looking relaxed despite often pointed questions, Mr. Rae said the next federal election will be the first in almost two decades where heated debate over foreign policy would likely be a significant factor.

He said he agrees with the Conservatives that Canadians deserve tax cuts, but he would cut income taxes over the GST.

He also maintained one of the defining points of contrast between himself and Mr. Harper is his priority on investing in education, skills training and human infrastructure to ensure Canada's competitive future.

What is this guy saying...?

 

[BitWhys]

You can never really tell with that guy. Looks to me like he thinks we're better off brokering change within the NATO bureaucracy than with the Taliban.

Here's a clue, Bob. Its not the Taliban that has us by the shorter hairs.

 

[EastSideScotian]

Bob Rae is a jack ass, Iam overly disapointed with the Leadership contenders for the Liberal Party. I miss Chretiean.

I guess Ill have to Vote Conservitive till I see a Liberal Leader Worth My checkmark

 

[Nuggler]

8O Harper is starting to look good.

That is, compared to the vomitus swimming in the Liberal leadership pool, and the complete photo op idiot that Layton has turned out to be, Harper seems to have fewer open sores on his body.

If he would just cut the umbilical with the Chimp and disengage his probiscus from said Chimp's anus, concentrate on health care for the old and ugly, education for the young and stupid, realize that taxes are necessary to a degree, and quit trumpeting the military solution to all our woes, he might be worth a look-see.

Sending our snipers to Afghanistan to back up American troops was originally the Canadian plan a few years back, and they did a marvellous job. Our Liberal government, of course, shat all over them when they got home. Typical of how we treat our troops. But, sending a bunch of
military to fully engage anything in Afghanistan is a bad idea IMHO.

In order to "pacify" that country, or to shine the much vaunted light of true democracy upon it, it would probably be necessary to turn it into smouldering cinders. But, it's already smouldering cinders.........It's a no win situation.

Of course, soon the Taliban will have nowhere to run: like Pakistan :roll:

Go figure.

:idea:

 

[iARTthere4iam]

National Post website (registration required)

Rae wants to stay course in afghanistan
Emphasizes role in nato: Says NDP's call to pull out 'preposterous'

Adrian Humphreys
National Post
Friday, September 15, 2006

TORONTO - Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae said yesterday the New Democratic Party's call to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan and engage in negotiations with Taliban leaders is "preposterous," "nonsensical" and born of an "armchair" view of a complex problem.

Mr. Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, said he was no more enamored of the approach taken by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, with its over-emphasis on a military solution in a difficult, ever-shifting mission.

"I think we need to avoid the armchair view from here that says we are going to pull out -- which is the NDP position, that says we're going to pull out tomorrow and then we are going to engage in peace talks, well that is preposterous," Mr. Rae said yesterday.

"It is a NATO mission that is there and the government of Afghanistan is engaged as well and the notion that... if Canada would withdraw we would then have some singular credibility in engaging in some political activity is, I think, nonsensical.

"We retain our political influence by staying the course at NATO," he said during a wide-ranging discussion with members of the National Post's editorial board, much of which dealt with foreign policy and Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

NDP leader Jack Layton has repeatedly said Ottawa should pull the troops from Afghanistan, arguing it is the "wrong mission" for Canada, a position endorsed by 1,500 delegates at an NDP convention in Quebec City last weekend.

While Mr. Rae rejected that view, he said it does not mean Canada should continue indefinitely in a deadly mission abroad without constant assessment and questioning.

"My view is it is much better for us to focus on a real, intense discussion with NATO about what we should all be doing there," he said.

Canada -- and the entire NATO-led mission -- should also rebalance its efforts to ensure diplomacy, rebuilding and reconstruction do not get lost in the deadly scraps for turf, he said.

"Canada's original engagement was one where we emphasized the importance of diplomacy and development assistance as well as defence. My concern was that the role was becoming an almost exclusively military role, or primarily a military role.

"NATO cannot be perceived as an occupying army and Canadians cannot be perceived as an occupying army. And if we allow ourselves to get in the position where we are perceived as an army of occupation that immediately changes the political dynamic in the country and I think, changes the chances of success."

Mr. Rae is seen by many political pundits as one of leading candidates in the 10-person race. He said his campaign is going well with support coming to him from across the country. He pointed to a recent poll indicating he has strong support in Ontario despite his troubled years as NDP premier, when the province was hit by the worst recession in a generation, racking up record deficits.

Arriving at the Post in an older model Volvo station wagon and looking relaxed despite often pointed questions, Mr. Rae said the next federal election will be the first in almost two decades where heated debate over foreign policy would likely be a significant factor.

He said he agrees with the Conservatives that Canadians deserve tax cuts, but he would cut income taxes over the GST.

He also maintained one of the defining points of contrast between himself and Mr. Harper is his priority on investing in education, skills training and human infrastructure to ensure Canada's competitive future.

What is this guy saying...?

He is saying "Vote for me. I am better than the other guy. I won't screw Canada like I screwed Ontario. Don't listen to the NDP, don't listen to the Conservatives. Listen to the Liberals with Bob at the helm." Pretty straight forward political speak.

 

[gc]

RE: Afghanistan "Pull Out

Wow, when Bob Rae starts criticizing you for being too left-wing, you know you must really be a leftie.

 

[United_Nations]

8O Harper is starting to look good.

That is, compared to the vomitus swimming in the Liberal leadership pool, and the complete photo op idiot that Layton has turned out to be, Harper seems to have fewer open sores on his body.

If he would just cut the umbilical with the Chimp and disengage his probiscus from said Chimp's anus, concentrate on health care for the old and ugly, education for the young and stupid, realize that taxes are necessary to a degree, and quit trumpeting the military solution to all our woes, he might be worth a look-see.

Sending our snipers to Afghanistan to back up American troops was originally the Canadian plan a few years back, and they did a marvellous job. Our Liberal government, of course, shat all over them when they got home. Typical of how we treat our troops. But, sending a bunch of
military to fully engage anything in Afghanistan is a bad idea IMHO.

In order to "pacify" that country, or to shine the much vaunted light of true democracy upon it, it would probably be necessary to turn it into smouldering cinders. But, it's already smouldering cinders.........It's a no win situation.

Of course, soon the Taliban will have nowhere to run: like Pakistan :roll:

Go figure.

:idea:

Yeah NATO supposedly won in Afghanistan in their last campaign. Where are the bodies to prove 500+ dead and i thought they had them cornered so they wouldn't escape, and they did not win since 4 more canadians have been killed.

37 Canadian lives already, for an American war, pointless.

And Bob Rae is an idiot not wanting to take Jack Layton's position or seem like Harper.

 

[EastSideScotian]

8O Harper is starting to look good.

That is, compared to the vomitus swimming in the Liberal leadership pool, and the complete photo op idiot that Layton has turned out to be, Harper seems to have fewer open sores on his body.

If he would just cut the umbilical with the Chimp and disengage his probiscus from said Chimp's anus, concentrate on health care for the old and ugly, education for the young and stupid, realize that taxes are necessary to a degree, and quit trumpeting the military solution to all our woes, he might be worth a look-see.

Sending our snipers to Afghanistan to back up American troops was originally the Canadian plan a few years back, and they did a marvellous job. Our Liberal government, of course, shat all over them when they got home. Typical of how we treat our troops. But, sending a bunch of
military to fully engage anything in Afghanistan is a bad idea IMHO.

In order to "pacify" that country, or to shine the much vaunted light of true democracy upon it, it would probably be necessary to turn it into smouldering cinders. But, it's already smouldering cinders.........It's a no win situation.

Of course, soon the Taliban will have nowhere to run: like Pakistan :roll:

Go figure.

:idea:

Yeah NATO supposedly won in Afghanistan in their last campaign. Where are the bodies to prove 500+ dead and i thought they had them cornered so they wouldn't escape, and they did not win since 4 more canadians have been killed.

37 Canadian lives already, for an American war, pointless.

And Bob Rae is an idiot not wanting to take Jack Layton's position or seem like Harper.

Sad but I guess it going to take a large scale terroist attack to make you change your mind, sad that it will come to that, I can only hope you dont become a victim of your own ignorance.

 

[BitWhys]

A "large scale terrorist attack" by whom?

al Qaeda is long gone and afa the Taliban regaining enough control to harbour another international threat goes last I heard Kabul isn't even up for sale any more.

 

[EastSideScotian]

Re: RE: Afghanistan "Pull Out of Troops" Preposter

A "large scale terrorist attack" by whom?

al Qaeda is long gone and afa the Taliban regaining enough control to harbour another international threat goes last I heard Kabul isn't even up for sale any more.

Long gone eh? where have you been?

Theya re alive and well and threating evryone. Tell where you got the idea that theyare gone surely the war, constantly say is doing nothing to combat terror couldnt be working all of a sudden.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Afghanistan "Pull Out of Troops" Preposter

Theya re alive and well and threating evryone.

from Afghanistan?

 

[EastSideScotian]

Re: RE: Afghanistan "Pull Out of Troops" Preposter

Theya re alive and well and threating evryone.

from Afghanistan?

No In General, When I say Large Scale Terror Attack, From a Terrorist Group, which right now is probly in some sort of safe haven. But like you said Al Qaeda is out of Afganistan now we just need to chase them down in their safe havens and defeat them there. Since you agree we ran them out of Afganistan Obviously our war is having an effect on them.

 

[BitWhys]

correction...

Your war HAD an effect on them. Failing to move on from there is little more than a costly exercise in nostalgic romanticism

 

[damngrumpy]

Should we be there in a combat role? No, can we just up and leave? Well the answer is no to that too. I am more of a lefty than anything else but I also realize reality when it bonks me on the head.
We were destined to be in this fight long before Harper came along, but Harper cemented the back door, and the Americans are going to leave us to carry the bag. The only good to come out of this is the oppostion can use it fo further the hidden agenda routine in the next election.
The Conservatives are going to be pounded for the war the upcoming mess the Olympics will create, and a host of other issues, and I believe they have little chance of getting electe. As for the Liberal leadership candidates, they would do better going into an election without a leader.
When the dust clears the Liberals will form a minority government and the Tories will go back to the wilderness from which they came.

 

[BitWhys]

RE: Afghanistan "Pull Out

Rumours of the NDP wanting to abandon Afghanistan altogether are greatly exaggerated. Layton's position may make for bad politics but it gets top points for pragmatism. Anyone who honestly thinks we can broker a change in direction out of NATO while we have our troops on the ground doesn't understand the mechanics of bureaucracy.

 

[Karlin]

We hear PM Harper parrotting the Bush phrase exactly:
"We will stay until we are victorious"

What a scam - there is no way, in Iraq or Afghanistan, that western troops, or anyone, could ever completely wipe out the insurgents [often referrred to as terrorists] , like the Taliban. The day after victory is declared, another one will strike, there is no end to it.

Well, not unless we have dialogue and leave their lands and foster friendly relations. But thats the last thing Harper or Bush would do. They both WANT the occupations to last as long as possible, as long as there is oil to steal [Iraq] or pipelines to maintain [Afghanistan].

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature6.cfm?REF=531
Canada's Afghan mission:
Experts hold out little hope that the NATO-led campaign will succeed.

[Despite] the sheer determination of the top military leadership in Canada and NATO "to fight this thing to the last soldier" in Afghanistan despite the odds stacked against them ... "I don't think we can win this mission, not the way it is being conducted," he said. "I don't think anyone up there has got a clear idea. I've talked to them at the top end and I have listened to their arguments. It is the same old rhetoric

K - Also, "winning" isn't just stopping the shooting and bombings, there is the bigger picture of what needs to be accomplished in Afghanistan :

"You don't beat an insurgency anywhere just by killing the enemy and as [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai pointed out, very rightly, each of these people who are being killed are Afghans and they have family and you don't win hearts and minds by killing so many people," says ZiaZarifi.

Ironically, it will "end" with a pullout or a small monitoring force, the way it SHOULD have started - with diplomacy and finding ways for the Taliban and farmers and citizens to exist together. And ya, some peacekeepers .