War in Afganistan blocking Harper majority

[#juan]

War in Afghanistan keeping Harper from Majority according to recent polls.

http://www.nikonthenumbers.com./topics/show/27

New SES Research Poll - Canada's Mission in Afghanistan - Obstacle to Harper Majority

2 comments Latest by NNL
Although some may consider this a black and white issue, the reality from a public opinion viewpoint is that we are looking at shades of grey. Generally, Canadians are divided on the government’s handling of the mission (44% agree with how the mission is being handled, 48% disagree the rest were unsure). However, 55% of Canadians believe that Canada and NATO together have not deployed the resources necessary to succeed.
Sixty-seven percent of Canadians think our mission makes Canada more of a terrorist target and 55% of Canadians think that if the casualties continue Canada should pull out (39% of Canadians think that casualties are a necessary part of our mission).
Politically, whenever Afghanistan is in the news the Tory numbers in Quebec drop. Although the mission may be good at consolidating core Tory support it basically throws a wrench in any effort for the Tories to build a majority coalition (even 40% of committed Conservative supporters think the government should pull out if the casualties continue).

 

[mabudon]

what a shocker!!

Sad part is, the powers that be have all but suceeded into makin everything black and white, like the whole of reality can be solved with "If-Not-Then-Else" logic and nothing more.....

Oddest thing about this is that while I am strongly against the war, I feel a certain schadenfreude- Harper seems to want the war AND his majority, but it looks like he can't have both- oh what is our leader to do??
Despite all the smears, Dion isn't looking so bad right now, I have actually been pretty impressed by what he has said on a few subjects. Layton, while I admire certain aspects of the man himself, has really proven himself to be some kind of tool these last few weeks and months- I think the recent hockey debacle saw my opinion of him sink to its lowest point yet, and I have no idea whatsoever what the guy is trying to prove and to whom anymore

The only real worrisome part of this news is that it's possible that Harper will do something drastic- I know it seems ridiculous, but the calls of "sympathizing with the enemy" against anyone who would so much as question elements of the Afghanistan mission sort of frighten me. It is possible, however unlikely, that some form of "with us or against us" could be sneaked into Law to deal with the pesky opinions of dissenters- since as we all know, it's the folks questioning the "mission" who are the REAL enemy, and the sole reason why we might fail in our efforts over there
(and before anyone goes hogwild on that last part, members of the Conservative government HAVE said that a LOT- accusing half of the country of treason is not something I take lightly and I am surprd more hasn't been made of this fact)

 

[#juan]

I've always been against Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan. I think most Canadians would be happier if we were spending all of our efforts on reconstruction and well-drilling projects that actually help people rather than jumping in with both feet like the Americans and shooting at anything that moves. On a proportional basis, considering the number of troops we have there, we have likely lost more soldiers than anyone else there. Somehow, this doesn't sound like winning. Following the American lead is not making us popular, or successful.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

I think most Canadians would be happier if we were spending all of our efforts on reconstruction and well-drilling projects that actually help people rather than jumping in with both feet like the Americans and shooting at anything that moves.

You're being incredibly naive if you think this can be accomplished without any combat. Afghanistan is a warzone; do you really think people can just walk in and start building schools/hospitals like they would in the middle of Edmonton?

The Taliban does not want our schools, hosipitals, wells or anything else we could possibly build for the Afgani people. Without an armed force keeping them distracted or driving them out of regions where reconstruction is taking place, everyone involved in the reconstruction effort would be dead long before they ever finished and their projects would be completely destroyed shortly after.

Hundreds of humanitarian groups have left Afghanistan because it's too dangerous, and this is with our soliders there, so what do you think is going to happen when we start pulling our soldiers out?

 

[mabudon]

I think if we left then the failing, phoney thing we are trying to build there would finally die and then things would, however violently, work their way back to stability. (not that you asked me, of course)

 

[snfu73]

To me, the war in afghanistan is just ONE of the many, many things that would prevent me from EVER voting for harper.

 

[#juan]

You're being incredibly naive if you think this can be accomplished without any combat. Afghanistan is a warzone; do you really think people can just walk in and start building schools/hospitals like they would in the middle of Edmonton?

The Taliban does not want our schools, hosipitals, wells or anything else we could possibly build for the Afgani people. Without an armed force keeping them distracted or driving them out of regions where reconstruction is taking place, everyone involved in the reconstruction effort would be dead long before they ever finished and their projects would be completely destroyed shortly after.

Hundreds of humanitarian groups have left Afghanistan because it's too dangerous, and this is with our soliders there, so what do you think is going to happen when we start pulling our soldiers out?

At the moment I don't know exactly what we are trying to build, but France and Germany are not taking as active a role in the war and they are not losing nearly the number of soldiers we are. Canada donned a more aggressive stance with the election of Harper and since then we have had the majority of our losses. Is anything that might be gained going to justify those losses? I don't think so.

 

[talloola]

I've always been against Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan. I think most Canadians would be happier if we were spending all of our efforts on reconstruction and well-drilling projects that actually help people rather than jumping in with both feet like the Americans and shooting at anything that moves. On a proportional basis, considering the number of troops we have there, we have likely lost more soldiers than anyone else there. Somehow, this doesn't sound like winning. Following the American lead is not making us popular, or successful.

They 'are' doing much reconstruction and other projects, they just 'don't' like being shot at, while
doing it, like sitting ducks.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

At the moment I don't know exactly what we are trying to build, but France and Germany are not taking as active a role in the war and they are not losing nearly the number of soldiers we are. Canada donned a more aggressive stance with the election of Harper and since then we have had the majority of our losses. Is anything that might be gained going to justify those losses? I don't think so.

What you think of the losses isn't important. The lives being lost are the lives of the soldiers, and those soldiers are overwhelmingly in favor of the mission. It's nice that you seem to want to protect them, but they don't want your protection and they don't need your concern.

You say nothing will be gained to justify the losses, yet the only people who are risking their lives disagree with you and feel it's well worth it. If a solider feels the benefits he can bring to an entire country is the worth the possibility of him dying, who are you to tell him he's wrong? It's not your life, it's theirs, and they feel the losses will be worth it.

 

[Fingertrouble]

To me, the war in afghanistan is just ONE of the many, many things that would prevent me from EVER voting for harper.

Then you shouldn't vote for the Liberals either....they put them (the troops) there in the first place.

Now you will say the Liberal's didn't send the troops there to fight the Taliban. Well if that is the case then you shouldn't vote for them either, for a party that sends troops but doesn't expect them to fight when shot at or attacked by road side bombs are very naive and don't deserve to govern.......

 

[snfu73]

Then you shouldn't vote for the Liberals either....they put them (the troops) there in the first place.

Now you will say the Liberal's didn't send the troops there to fight the Taliban. Well if that is the case then you shouldn't vote for them either, for a party that sends troops but doesn't expect them to fight when shot at or attacked by road side bombs are very naive and don't deserve to govern.......

Generally speaking, I don't vote liberal either...I'm not a fan. I like some of their stances and policies...and I feel they fit me far better than any conservative I have run across. If I didn't have much choice, I would sooner vote liberal as opposed to conservative...at least at this point in history...on a national level. But, I have never voted for a liberal candidate in my life, to this point.

But, I am uncomfortable with the current role that Canada has taken.

 

[able]

Hamilton, you talk a damn good fight, don't you think it's about time you joined up, take some of your goofy ideas with you, and be prepared to get a rifle butt bounced off your head. Don't worry about the other side harming you, your buddies will deal with you long before you make it into combat. Having been in the military myself, I believe a heroic horses ass should put their money where their mouth is, get going, I'll cheer for you.

 

[Tim Hamilton]

Hamilton, you talk a damn good fight, don't you think it's about time you joined up, take some of your goofy ideas with you, and be prepared to get a rifle butt bounced off your head. Don't worry about the other side harming you, your buddies will deal with you long before you make it into combat. Having been in the military myself, I believe a heroic horses ass should put their money where their mouth is, get going, I'll cheer for you.

Actually I was there last year. I just left the military 7 months ago, but good job completely avoiding the subject, making random assumptions and a general ass of yourself.

 

[able]

If you did serve your time there, then you have my deepest respect, and thanks. Far too many people on the internet say much the same things as you did, but never spent a minute in uniform. From my own experience, I can say that I would not be happy in Afghanistan, primarily because there are too many cheerleaders and not enough soldiers. Also, fighting with outmoded equipment would cause me to wonder if I were there to win or to just put on a good show.

 

[earth_as_one]

I don't like Harper. His nose is way too far up Bush's arse. If Harper was PM when Bush was shopping for allies in Iraq, Harper would have committed Canada to the disaster unfolding in Iraq. When Israel killed hundreds of innocent people in Lebanon last summer, including Canadians, Harper quickly parroted the Bush administration's talking points about Israel's "measured response". That tells me he is an idiot whose strings are pulled by the same people who pull Bush's strings.

But I'm not in favor of Canada pulling out of Afghanistan. Canada made a post 9/11 commitment to the American people. Now we are obligated by our word to our closest friends regardless of mounting casualties. But we don't have to be stupid about our involvement.

Canada should not take on missions until we are properly prepared. Our soldiers must have the best training and equipment. Canada is not obligated to win the Afghanistan war single handedly, make up for a lack of commitment by European allies or compensate for inadequate American involvement due to their adventure in Iraq.

Canada should not renegue on our commitments because of increasing casualty rates. Instead Canadians must demand our wounded recieve the best medical care possible and that they and their families recieve generous benefit packages. Veterans leaving the forces should get free education, training and preferential employment opportunities. Veterans and their families should be honored for their sacrifices.

The war in Afghanistan might be a lost cause. But that's beside the point. What is important is that Canada does what we said we would do to the best of our ability. Canada should take advantage of this experience. Our troops are being battle hardened in modern warfare. The lessons learned in this war, should be used to prepare our military for future wars.

Unfortunately, Canada does not appear to be learning the lessons of modern warfare. Harper is about to spend billions on obsolete tanks and helicopters. That effort and expense makes about as much sense as France's pre-WW II marginot line. Tanks and helicopters are expensive weapon systems which have been rendered obsolete by low cost RPGs and MANPADS. Instead we should focus our efforts on modern weapon systems like unmanned surveillance and attack drones. Unfortunately none of Canada's political or military leaders seem aware that buying this obsolete equipment is a huge expensive mistake.

 

[Lineman]

Obsolete equipment?
The leopard 2 upgraded to the 2A6 standard is viewed as the best Main Battle Tank available. The future chinook helicopter has no equal. Though an old design its most recent upgrade packages makes it as modern and more effective than any other mid to heavy lift helocopter out there. The LAVIII is state of the art and packs as big a punch as any other infantry fighting vehicle out there. Coyotes have a surveillance package most other militaries drool over. Where the CF does trail behind is the unmanned aerial reconnaisance and escort/attack helicopters. Still, next to our southern neighbours, one of the best equipped militaries in Afghanistan.
As for the Germans, French, and others not suffering the number of casualties as Canada, they're in the "quieter" northern provinces. From what I've read they don't leave their bases very often either. "Nobody moves, Nobody gets hurt" but they don't accomplish much either.
Canada took on the toughest job in the most dangerous part, the home of the Taliban, Kandahar. Now we can act like politicians and cry and whine about who got the bigger piece of cake but my impression is our military has accepted their task and have done it with quiet conviction and professional pride. Not full out aggressive "shoot it if it moves" but not "sit behind the walls and keep your head down" either. It's not American but not German, the right mix.
Our troops are there, they're commited (as mentioned above and confirmed by the few I have had the pleasure to talk to), let's support them and let them finish the job.
As for PM Harper being President Bush's puppet, well, Chretien put Canada in Afghanistan and Martin put Canada in Kandahar. I wonder why they've never been accused of the same...

 

[earth_as_one]

The French Marginot Line was the most advanced fixed defensive system ever devised. But German mechanized infantry and tanks simply went around it, rendering it obsolete.

Similarly, tanks and LAVs are obolete. I don't care how sophisicated they are. I don't care whether they have heavy armor or active armor. Any idiot armed with an RPG-29 costing less that $1000 can take that stuff out. That's why the Israelis couldn't invade Lebanon last summer. Israeli tanks are as good as tanks get, but they were more or less useless against Hezbollah RPGs and IEDs using shaped charges.

http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370105

...the RPG-29 is a severe blow to the West. It is the great equalizer. For $500 per launcher and $250 per missile round, a militant group can purchase a light, mobile weapon that is easy to conceal and that can reliably destroy a main battle tank that costs millions of dollars.

The long-term implications for Israel are even more significant. If Palestinian militants are ever able to acquire significant quantities of RPG-29s they could for the first time ever present a significant challenge to the Israeli army. This is particularly true because the Israelis have demonstrated an aversion to ground fighting and taking casualties in the campaign against Hezbollah. There is no doubt that groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which have close ties to Hezbollah, have been observing the conflict in South Lebanon with strong interest and have noted Israel's reluctance to send more ground troops in against Hezbollah fighters who are armed primarily with RPG-29s.

In fact, given the proximity of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to major Israeli population centers (the distances could easily be traveled on foot by armed militants, who would have to keep themselves dispersed enough to avoid being destroyed by aircraft or armored vehicles) it is possible to imagine that sometime in the future that a Palestinian militia armed with such man-portable weapons could possibly successfully invade and conquer Israel without the use of expensive military equipment such as aircraft and tanks. If militants could penetrate Israeli territory enough to turn the battle into hand-to-hand fighting within major population centers, F-16s and nuclear weapons would be of no use to Israel. The previously unthinkable defeat of Israel could become a possibility...

http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

MANPADS are why Iraqi insurgents have been shooting down American helicopters lately. Here is an Iraqi insurgent propaganda video:

That was a primitive MANPADS. Iran is currently cranking out next generation MANPADS which aren't fooled by flares and can take out low flying aircraft from the side and front as well as from behind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misagh-2

Tanks, LAVs and low flying aircraft may have been effective in past wars, but they are now OBSOLETE. We may as well arm our troops with slingshots and muskets.

Those Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) which take out tanks and LAVs have gotten more sophisticated. They aren't primitive roadside bombs, but sophisticated modern weapnons which use shaped charges.

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

I don't claim to understand the physics behind them, but new generation IEDs using shaped charges can cut through armour like a hot knife through butter.

I don't think the new reality has dawned on our war planners. We can't rely on armor or mobility anymore. The only way our soldiers can be safe from these next generation weapons is for them to use remotely operated and expendible drones. If a MANPADS missile downs a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), no soldier dies. We just lost some replaceable hardware. Soldiers are much harder to replace than hardware.

 

[able]

More and more, I am in favour of remotely controlled vehicles ( air, land, sea), and don't understand why they have to cost so much. I used to design, and build, industrial machinery, and when I see the prices of these remote control weapons, I am shocked. Far less expensive units could be put in the field, after all, they are expendable aren't they? It seems to me that everything in todays world has been elevated to rocket science, when it is in fact not the truth. A remotely controlled vehicle of any kind, should be able to be produced for under 20,000 dollars, and yet, it costs millions. How much profit do people require these days. As an example, an aircraft can be built for less than $10,000, the electronics for $10,000, now how in the hell does that become $1,000,000 or more dollars, talk about a markup for a disposable weapon.

 

[earth_as_one]

I have to admit I can't believe how expensive this stuff is either. Remotely piloted vehicles should be dirt cheap. Instead of spending hundreds of millions on helicopters and tanks, the Canadian forces should visit the various Remote Control clubs across the country and enlist the services of people who play with this technology as a hobby. How expensive can it be to mount a video camera on a remote controlled airplane? Add a few instruments and an uplink to a satelite and now you have a vehicle which can be flown in Afghanistan be controllers in Canada. Add a little more horse power and the remote controlled aircraft can carry a bomb or a missile. I can't see why these systems should cost more than 30K.

Tanks cost about 30,000K. We could put a 1000 RPVs in the air for the cost of a single tank. The insurgents could shoot them down, but when they do we loose a cheap expendible vehicle and no Canadian soldiers. Tanks have their place, but they aren't the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[able]

Earth: You are not wrong in your assumptions, but a trip to Afghanistan by an aircraft might leave it a little travel worn, and out of fuel. Believe it or not, you can build a man carrying plane for under $10,000. Of course, in this age of experts, everything has to be carried to ridiculous extremes. When I see a fighter pilot reduced to the job of controlling a ridiculously overpriced model plane, it makes me want to cry. I suppose my main gripe is the workforce itself, everyone wants to be classified as an expert, when their job was previously regarded as superfulous knowledge for a well trained tradesman. I guess that is what makes these toy planes so expensive, instead of one well trained person building the whole thing, we have to employ 100 plus, so called experts.