Manley panel gets it wrong

Avro

There may be no oil but there is an oil pipeline. The pipeline to bring crude across the bloody desert is not any kind of a pipedream. While Afghanistan has no oil, it does have a route for a pipeline which is the sole reason we are there. That, and to prop up the puppet government. The war on terror went away a long time ago.

Avro

Oh wow, predictable was it? Either they suggested we pull out or stay... flip of the coin there, therefore predictable no matter what they said...... moving on.....

And yet, he doesn't explain how. And how would this person seem to know more about the overall big picture compared to the people who made this report? This guy is bitching and moaning all for the sake that he didn't hear what he wanted.... get used to it.

First this was Harper's nugget.... now it's the Liberal's nugget? All in the same paragraph? WTF is this guy smoking?

Such a narrow view of things. Oooo.... some of our soldiers are dying? Wow... last I checked, that's what happens in a War, people die..... usually soldiers.

So? Most people in the US don't even realize they're still fighting in Afghanistan either. Ask the soldiers why they are there. They're not there to please our government or the US for that matter... Regardless if the sole original reasons for invasion were for oil and profit, our soldiers are there now, and the reasons why they still go over tour after tour and people are still joining the military to go over to fight, are far above and beyond trivial crap such as oil and profit.

From an unjust invasion our forces have created justifiable reasons to be there and to stay there, and it's for the people... the villagers, etc....

Oh, but I guess that's all irrelevent I suppose. If you think it is, then you seemed to have forgotten what our military has and always will represent.

It makes no difference what the US thinks or knows, because they know very little to begin with. What matters is Afghanistan and its people. If they don't want us there, then by all means leave. But they want us there, our troops want to be there, my family who's already been over there want to be there.... so I think they have a better understanding of the overall picture and their own personal reasons of heading over..... which I won't question.

If Afghanistan was like Iraq, then I'd be all for getting our troops out of there.... but it's not, so I don't.

I think this guy requires further research into what's truly going on over there. The details about the oil pipeline, the arm twisting by the US to get NATO into the situation are all true and valid, but our involvement has not gone as what the US has wished, and they are not all that near getting this pipline going to begin with, if ever.

Regardless of the intentions of the US, Our involvement as NATO in Afghanistan has allowed us more control over what occurs there then in comparison to what the US has been able to get away with in Iraq. Our sole involvement as NATO and not under the rule of the US forces has allowed us to divert from what just the US wants, but rather what Afghanistan wants. Once they are able to get back on their feet as a nation and be able to defend itself, they will no longer require our help as they presently do.

That's the US's biggest mistake was to get NATO involved. Their original intentions have been modified by the other various nations in the country, such as Canada. This is why the US decided to bicker and moan about us not getting the job done as they want, because it's taken them forever to get their scam of a pipline completed and we're diverting our goals and requirements to what NATO and those nations feel it should be, not what the US wants.

I'm glad we're in Afghanistan because we're screwing up the US's plans. Take what the US started and turn it against their original intentions.

Once again, this tool got his facts screwed up. The only NATO country who's been rampant on the bombings and air strikes, is the US, not Canada. Canada's track record for Civilian Casualties is far less then most other NATO countries, esspecially the US. Considdering we're doing most of the fighting, I'd say we're doing a great job. And most of our Civlian Casualties have been open and explained how they occured.

Second, it's not a Tribal Civil War. If anything, Iraq is. Afghanistan is the People of Afghanistan vs. The Taliban whom controlled the country's affairs for so many years. If this was a Tribal Civil War, then the situation over there would be far worse and far more out of control then it currently is.

Gee... Check out CBC's The National, or perhaps Global's National News, or perhaps even CTV, where they have had numerous reports and interviews with various current and former members of the Taliban. Check some of the threads I have started in these forums alone..... There's also countless sites online where one can get the above information.

Get a friggin clue and also, while you're at it, get some real education on what's truly going on there.

Oh no... Drug Dealing Tribal Chiefs? Apparently this guy is also clearly ignorant as to why the drug trade is still currently active there.

#1 - It's not illegal in their country.
#2 - These drug exports and development are usually the only forms of income to many remote and poor villages. Corn, Wheat, and other products they were given to grow instead not only cost too much to develop for these people, but they're not getting enough profit to make ends meet, as other countries and areas are selling for far less then what they can sell for.

Hince they go back to growing and exporting drugs so they can still have food on their tables for their families. Even NATO nations have confirmed that if they attempted to restrict their growing and selling of these drugs, they would hinder the Afghan people even further and cause more to side with the Taliban so they can get money and food.

And that's what the true balance is in winning in Afghanistan is all about.... making sure you can provide a better way of life then the other guy (ie: The Taliban)

Wrong yet again. I won't even bother to explain where he screwed up here.

Not exactly, yet true none the less. This conflict will not end easily until negotiations occur with the Taliban and a sharing of Power occurs in Afghanistan. Karzai has said this, the people of Afghanistan are saying this, and many NATO nations have said this as well.

One would think that if Karzai was a US hincemen in power and doing what they wanted, he wouldn't be promoting talks with the Taliban..... oh, and forget the fact that recent polls say most Afghans are pleased with Karzai and how he is trying to keep Afghanistan's interests.

Half Truth yet again.

Duh... and as explained above, currently nessicary. Do some friggin research as to why, rather then to just point the finger and say no. What a tool.

Wrong yet again.... apparently this ignorant fool needs to read more then he types. There are various objectives, both political and non for why they remain there.

What a moron this guy is

Instead of this fool continually being stuck back in 2001-02 with the same rantings without updating his information available at his disposal, perhaps he should go over and ask the soldiers why they stay there and risk their lives.

Perhaps he should then go and ask the people of Afghanistan whether they want us there or not and why.

Perhaps he should just do what everybody else should do and ignore the US and do what feels right in principle. The US is in there for their stupid Pipeline and to pin blame for 9/11... I see us there as making sure this doesn't occur.

Just because we're so-called allies with the US, doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards for them, nor will we.

Canada entered Afghanistan based on our agreements under the NATO organization and our obligations we promised we would uphold. Our government/military choose the Kandahar Provience, it was not picked for us.

We knew it would be a hard place to be, our forces knew what they were getting into, and they still do.

This Report goes in two directions.

It suggests we stay, but only if the following is met:

Switch gradually to training/reconstruction, rather then combat.

Get the Afghan Army trained more to take our positions.

Get more Nato Forces to help in Kandahar (Besides Canada adding more.... it says nothing about us needing to add more of our own troops.)

Get Helicopters for our troops.

Among other reasons.... but it does not state we should stay there regardless.... it states, that unless these things are met, we will not win.... if we do not have a chance at winning, then why stay?

Basically I see this report as a good thing. We either get what we need in order to meet those demands, or we don't.... hince we then pull out.

It doesn't say that, but it is very clear that option is still out on the table.

I have great admiration for our forces and their principles as to why they are there and continue to go back after their tours are over. Just because other NATO nations have bogus intentions for being there, doesn't mean we do, let alone follow to suit those intentions.

I believe this report was about as clear, logical and accurate to what is required to win, or at least to meet the requirements of getting Afghanistan able to defend their own country. Either we meet these demands of the report, or we loose..... if we're going to loose, then we might as well pull out.

It meets pretty much what both sides want.

We logically can not just cut, run and hope for the best, nor can we just logically keep fighting the way we are.

We're smack dab in the middle of this crap, and Canada has never been known to cut and run, ever, regardless of how difficult the mission or battle. We're not known for taking the dainty missions.... Vimy Ridge is a prime example of this, as no other allied nation could take it. It's what we do.

Afghanistan is clearly not a black and white situation and I feel this guy requires more reading before he shoots his mouth off on things he doesn't fully understand.

Do I want us there forever? No.

Did I want us to go over in the first place? No.

But we're there now, and the only logical solution out of this has been clearly explained in the report..... which for the most part, I agree with

Praxius

The Manley report gave a thumbs up to stay the course past 2009 the key date for this mission and one that is no surprise.

How would the panel know more than this person who btw has studies this region his whole life.

Simple, he blames both of them, what are you smoking?

Shame to see ou have such a glib attitude on our sodliers dying.

No, where does he say that?

So what you say is that because our soldiers will do their duty we should send them into conflicts without thought of the dangers for them? It contradicts what you aid about Iraq.

Also, if we are there for freedom why if they wanted it did the Afghans not do it on their own? They clearly out number the Taliban.

During the Taliban's seven-year rule, much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women were banned from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished instantly. Communists were systematically eradicated and thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet.

What a pile of nonsense, the U.S. didn't need NATO for this mission and any conspiracy you may have as well as the author is nothing more than and acid induced fantasy. Oh yeah, we rescued the Afghans for the Americans.....

Wow, grab a clue, what the U.S. does will affect all it's NATO allies....speaking of tools.

He actually goes to these places and dosen't judge it from the comfort of his living room like you do. It's a typical ad hominem attack, i don't agree with him so I'll say he dosen't do his research.....pathetic.

That's because you don't know.

This conflict will last for decades and it's time Canadians were told this.

Karzari's job is to try and make everyone happy and I don't blame because he has alot to lose.....his head one way or another. No wonder he has done nothing to clamp down on corruption in his government.

Which half?

Yep, and your research trumps his alright.

Another ad hominem.

.

Ad Hominem yet again....

Like I said, just because they want to do there duty doesn't mean we have to ask them of it.

That would be irrelevant and how do you know he hasn't?

I don't think the U.S. is there for a pipeline they don't need, I think they are there because of....duh....9/11.

We went in to help our ally and were asked by the americans and Afghans to stay.

No need to hide behind the bravery of our soldiers again and again I get your point and it still makes no argument for a conflict.

If the report isn't followed it dosen't mean we lose or loose as you put it.

More than two sides to this friendo.

Ah yes the old cut and run speech made for American tv and coming to CTV this spring.

We have never been in a conflict that will last a decade or two.

Yeah the worldly journalist who has studied this region for a long time needs more reading, perhaps he should give you call since you have the whole thing figured out because you watch a show once.

So you want to cut and run....interesting.

Why not, do we not help out ally and combat those who would attack the West. Do we not fight for the Canadians killed on 9/11?

darkbeaver

#juan

So either you think GWB made 9/11 happen through the dirty tricks department or you think Bin Laden did GWB a favor in giving him and excuse to invade.

Or perhaps you think Bin Laden and Bush are drinking buddies and came up with the pllt over some beers a falafels.

Of course this also implies that U.S. relies on middle east oil when it dosen't at all.

Praxius

Of course this also implies that U.S. relies on middle east oil when it dosen't at all.

....Although the US is an oil producer itself, it relies heavily on crude imports from elsewhere in the world to fuel its cars, homes and factories......


.....Canada exported 782.5 million barrels of oil to the US in 2004, while Mexico exported 609 million barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Saudi Arabia, which is by far America's biggest supplier in the Middle East, exported 570 million barrels in the same year.

Yet again Avro you are talking nonsense. The Americans have built four huge permanent bases in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if the did the same thing in Aghanistan. There will be an American presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the forseeable future.

Cobalt_Kid

Avro

So either you think GWB made 9/11 happen through the dirty tricks department or you think Bin Laden did GWB a favor in giving him and excuse to invade.

Or perhaps you think Bin Laden and Bush are drinking buddies and came up with the pllt over some beers a falafels.

Of course this also implies that U.S. relies on middle east oil when it dosen't at all. __________________
Some people are like a Slinky ... not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.




Yet again Avro you are talking nonsense. The Americans have built four huge permanent bases in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if the did the same thing in Aghanistan. There will be an American presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the forseeable future.

Avro

It said it is recommended to stay there... IF these conditions are met. I don't see how complicated that is to understand.



Well for one thing, there was more then just one person on the panel, with people who were also experienced in the current situation and region. I saw nothing in the original post in #1 claiming this guy has all kinds of experience over there.... just that he spent some time abroad, paticularlly in the US.... whoopie do.

The fact that he didn't even cover some key factors that even someone such as myself are aware of, kinda shows his lack of knowlege on the situation.



Not enough to be as paranoid as this guy blaming everybody under the sun except himself.



Get used to it.... it's what you accept when you join the forces. If they were in a war that they themselves did not personally believe in and had no desire to be there, then my story would change. If you don't like them dieing for something they personally believe in, which even their families confirmed, then don't join the military.



Bringing up the point that another soldier died shortly after the report would be something he was trying to hint at... .either that or trying poorly to bring some emotional appeal to his side of the argument. In other words, his comments were irrelevent and a waste of my time.



That is because Iraq is different. Also, don't forget.... we're not in Iraq. And I never said anything about disregarding the dangers which they may face and throwing them into the thick regardless. Two main differences between Iraq and Afghanistan:

Iraq doesn't want anybody in their country, even now.

Afghanistan now wants us to remain so they can have a chance to build up their country and be able to defend themselves for once from organizations such as the Soviet Union, the Taliban, The US and NATO itself..... so that this crap won't occur to them again for a long time.

Our soldiers see the people, the children, and they see how little they have and they also comment about their spirits and how it is additictive, in that it makes them personally want to give them a chance.

Our soldiers have found something justifiable now for being there.... we now have praise from the Afghans themselves, and now you and this guy bitching about the report want to pull that all out, take off, and leave these guys to be ruled by the Taliban again.

Talk about not just screwing with their heads, but also making them loose trust in everybody/anybody..... and esspecially with Canada's Rep, that's something our troops do not want to do. They don't want to be fighting forever, but they do want to make sure things are done right.



For one thing, they didn't have their own army. Second, the Taliban ruled for several years after the war with the Soviet Union, which after the US helped Afghanistan win against them, they buggered off like they always do and left them with very little assistance. Then the Taliban took over and:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghani..._and_civil_war



Take another hit buddy, because I think your words that you are reading are blending together.

I didn't say anything about "rescue the Afghans for the Americans" ~ I said if anything, our influence and involvement will perhaps "rescue the Afghans from the Americans" As they screwed them before in the past, they were screwing them when they invaded and they're still trying to screw them over.

And the US didn't need NATO? Now who's the ignorant one? I suppose you think they would have had everything in Afghanistan all taken care of much better then it is now, and oh yeah.... they'd have Iraq all taken care of too?

Oh yeah... Iraq is a hell hole created by the US, and if it wasn't for NATO's involvement, Afghanistan would be almost exactly the same as what Iraq is now.

No, the US doesn't need help from anybody. They can take care of everything they start. Sure.... they've proven this so far.



Yeah, you're like a spade shovel. The US isn't as big of an influence as it used to be back in the 80's-early 90's. The US is a joke of a country and it's crumbling into the pool of it's own rot and ignorance of the world around it.

The US has a big military? Sure... all with the latest gadgets and doo dads to make them look all fancy and tough.... yet have so many ill-trained, racists, pig headed and incompetent soldiers filling the ranks... the Quantity is there, but I haven't seen any Quality in years.



What's pathetic is your own limited assumtion.... which you can shove back up yourself for all I care.

Wow, he goes to these places you say, and yet he applies none of this wonderful worldly intelligence as examples of proving his case, let alone presents any case in point situations. Yeah... no reason to not believe him... cripes... grow yourself a brain.



Considdering you haven't even bothered to present evidence in this either, you clear haven't a damn clue... just as much as he doesn't.

Once again, his comment was:

"Afghanistan's so-called "national army" is made up of U.S.-paid mercenaries. The "army" does not need more training, as Manley claims. It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government -- which does not exist."

The True Answer:

"The National Army of Afghanistan was officially established in the 1880s when the nation was ruled by Emir Abdur Rahman Khan. Prior to that the army was usually made-up of a combination of tribesmen and militia forces, as well as a special army force under the ruler of the country..."

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

Even a child could look this information up, which apparently you couldn't do either.

They are being supplied equipment and training by NATO forces, including Canada.... and there are no US Mercs in their forces.

If you want to look for US Mercs.... goto Iraq, and while your at it, get your F*cking wars straight.

Oh and there is a ligit government in place and the army does require further training.... even with my own personal military experiences and upbringing I know you can not have a fully functioning and able bodied/trained military for an entire country within a couple of years.

This guy, as well as your self it seems, are pretty ignorant on what's going on over there.



Canadians have been told this for the last number of years.... Follow along and keep up with the information.

Where has anybody ever said, recently, that this will all be done within another year or two?

Nobody! Because Nobody is that stupid.



What the hell are you smoking? Salvia??

Karzari has been trying his best to crack skulls with the US about their moronic air strikes which seem to kill more civilians then they do Taliban.... he's been imposing further restrictions on how far NATO can go without the Afghan Gov.' approval.... he has been fighting for more collaberation between his new forces and NATO.... he's been doing a great job.... far greater then the schmuck in Iraq who sent everyone in the Government home for a week because it was too hot.

He has more support from his own people then you or this idiot with the report seem to be aware of, and he's been anything but best buddies with Bush.... mainly due to the Civilians and his Police/Army getting shot up by Bush and his moron ill-trained troops who like to shoot at anything that doesn't look like them.



Oh FFS, read something for once outside of a forum. The Original Quote I responded to was:

"Ominously, the war is spreading into Pakistan. Canada is backing Musharraf's dictatorship in Pakistan while claiming to be fighting for "democracy" in Afghanistan."

1st, the Half Truth is that the war is spreading into Pakistan.

2nd... Canada (Harper himself) was the first person to suggest booting Pakistan out of the Commonwealth after his enacted Martial Law a few months ago, and it was approved to boot them out. Hardly what I would call support for his government.

3rd... It's the US who's been suck-holing Musharraf and filling his pockets will billions... not Canada.



More then what you have contributed thus far.



Perhaps if your bum buddy you worship so much provided some actual facts and information like I have, then perhaps I would have had something a bit more worth while to respond with. But like I am doing, much like you are doing.... he's spouting his little opinion on how he thinks things should be.

The problem is, I know more then he does about the situation. Is that a fact? Not Sure, but if he wanted to prove himself, he should have done a better job as flexing his "I know all" attitude.

And don't forget... I'm not getting paid by the Toronto Sun for my little opinions... So for this tool acting like he's the be all end all source for what should be done, one would think he'd get some of his information correct for once. He hasn't... therefore he's an idiot.



We're not asking them. Did you make the decision for them to go over there? Did I?

Irrelevent Comment.



Because he's spouting off the same mentality of what I read and heard constantly from 3 years ago in probably the same reports he read himself (Which I also bet he used to make sound like he was actually there)

If he wanted good fodder for making Canada leave Afghanistan and just to say screw it.... find a majority of the population over there who don't want us there and want us to leave right now.

He won't find a majority, because that majority does not exist. That's how I know.

If he is aware of this, then he purposely avoided the subject to help boost his own personal views and therefore kinda proves how reliable and unbiased he truly is when facts are presented to him.

If he wasn't aware of this, then once again.... proves my original comment.



Yeah duh.... look a bit further into that while you're at it. I have supplied enough information for one day.



*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...sistance_Force

We did not jump in to help an ally, and we did not go in because the US asked, or the Afghans asked.... it was an approved mission by the UN to send in NATO.... we are a part of NATO, it was approved by the UN (Not the US) Therefore we went.

If we just joined because an ally needed our help, then we'd be in Iraq right now wouldn't we?



No one thing ever does. It's a complicated collective of various variables which cause a conflict. That is why I don't care too much for this guys limited and narrow viewed opinion about the Report. Based on much of what I have been studying, observing, talking to, asking of people I know and who have gone over, etc.... the Report is logical and sound, based on all things to considder. Our soldier's wants and needs are a part of a bigger picture, much like everything is these days.



Ah, pretty much it does. If we do not get the equipment requested, and the troops added to what was requested, then this will either go on forever with no end in sight, or we will loose.... either way, both are a loss no matter how you look at it.

We do not have enough troops down there to keep the entire provience secure. We have lost most of our troops from IED's.... something the Helicopters would help with. We need UAV's for better recon.



Two main sides.... Those who want to stay and win, and those who feel we shouldn't be there in the first place and leave.



Not quite what I was saying, but word it whatever way you like. It only makes you look more ignorant.



Well there's a first of everything I guess.



Repeat. You already said something similar to this above, and was already made of fool out of for it. I already explained where, when and how I came to my conclusions and where I got my information.

Just because you alone like to back this idiot up and saying he's experienced in what he's shooting his mouth off on, doesn't make it so. Once again, I explained where I got my info.... I didn't see much in what he's spouted off, and that is exactly what I am responding to.... what his little report had to say. It started the thread, It is the topic at hand... I responded.

It's not my fault this guy only knows how to shoot off opinions without supplying some relative information. Remember, he's the Pro in the magazine, not I..... so I guess that makes what he has to say all well and true. You know, considdering how he bitches about Canadian Media not covering the information properly for Canadians, when he's part of the exact same thing he was bitching about, not to mention he proved himself as a case in point of what he bitched about. What a tool indeed.



*shakes head* you're hopeless.



Explained above...

Cobalt_Kid

Praxius

You actually had time to answer all that? Wow must be nice to have nothing better to do.

Praxius

When Pearson visited Johnson at his Texas ranch in the 1960s the US leader reportedly punched out the Canadian PM over his unwillingness to send Canadians to fight in Vietnam (way to go Mike).

Considering Harpers displayed willingness to bend over to please Bush by jumping on the "War on Terra" chuckwagon, any visit to Crawford by our PM would be more like a sequel to Brokeback Mountain.

Zan

Corruption is widespread, characterized by cronyism, bribery and a variety of shakedown enterprises managed by government officials. Parts of the Afghan National Police (ANP) remain notoriously corrupt and ill-disciplined - perceived by many Afghans to be more a threat to public security than a source of protection. The judiciary is reportedly subject to interference from government officials and militia commanders; judges, lawyers and police are poorly paid and generally under-trained. The security and justice sectors overall - police, courts and prisons - display persisting inadequacies. The rights and security of ordinary Afghans are thereby undermined. In some districts, militias in the pay of chieftain-warlords menace local populations with protection rackets and other crime. Strengthening the justice and security sectors, especially the ANP, compels a coordinated and sustained international commitment. This commitment must recognize the reality that, in some cases, assisting Afghans to improve governance will not mean instituting Western concepts of law and justice. Often enough it will mean blending familiar international procedures with the best of traditional Afghan approaches to the peaceful settlement of community disputes and private differences.

Cobalt_Kid

Don't forget it was the Liberals / PM Jean who joined up in the war, not Harper. Harper's just juggling what was already decided before he became Prime Minister.

I don't mind people bitching and moaning about Harper or the Government, or the war itself for that matter.... just put the blame on the right people for the right things.

Cobalt_Kid

Driving home from work today, this news item was on the radio:

An Afghan journalist has been sentenced to death by a provincial court for distributing "blasphemous" material.

more here

As a Canadian citizen, I can't help but wish for 5 minutes with the Panel on Canada's Role in Afghanistan. I'd like to ask them if our presence there - if the blood of our youth, the loss of our identity - MY - identity as a nation of peace keepers will be well spent losses - in addressing issues such as this.

I was driven to pore over the Manley Report after hearing this news, and I found myself wondering how much of the stated needs/intentions our presence there will actually come to any kind of fruition that I can personally support and celebrate - as a Canadian, as a human being.

Regarding Governance, the report states:



So, my best understanding of the above is that the Government of Canada is fully aware of 2 things:

1 - the issues facing the Afghan people regarding the lack of Human Rights, and how the governance and corruption of Afghanistan is currently handled...

and

2- the current situation appears to have a distinct possibility of continuing to some degree- and not a small degree, if what I'm reading between the lines is accurate....regardless of any interventions we may hope to implement to bring a semblance of justice to what now passes for a justice system in that country.

After all that, I'm no wiser, no more convinced that what we're doing there can possibly have a big enough impact on Afghanistan to at least eradicate headlines such as the one above...

OR...

Is this one of those purposefully grey areas of the Manley report that we ..." must recognize the reality that, in some [these??] cases, assisting Afghans to improve governance will not mean instituting Western concepts of law and justice"

Am I then to infer that justice and human rights are now the sole domain of "Westerners"?

No. I don't accept that. If my country is to be at war, I want a much more vehemently committed statement about our intentions in this regard.

Not that I'll get it, but just sayin.

Praxius

We had two choices, Iraq or Afghanistan, George Bush wasn't going to take a complete no for an answer, remember that "you're either with us or against us" nonsense. I think it's pretty obvious now what the best choice was, Iraq is an even bigger mess than Afghanistan.

The diversion of the bulk of US forces to an ill thought out and incompetently run campaign in Iraq has significantly changed the global strategic situation, forces that could have been available to stabilize Afghanistan in the early days of the new regime were squandered on a fools crusade, something the Liberals were against.

It's been Harpers closeness to the Bush administration and his willingness to participate in the "War on Terror" that has put us in the present predicament, not choices made years ago.

The Li