Canada asked to lead in Kabul


sanch
#1
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Quote:

OTTAWA ó Canada has been asked by NATO to consider taking over the command of the entire Afghanistan mission in 2008, a senior government official says. This request, as well as a NATO meeting scheduled for next week in which the future of the Afghanistan mission will be discussed, is in part behind the government's sudden decision to hold a vote tonight on whether to extend Canada's commitment to the mission by two years, according to the official.

Canada has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan. The official said that Canada could just "barely" take over the command in two years.

All of this is expected to come out later today from the government in the debate on extending Canadian involvement in the mission to 2009, the official said.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay hinted at it yesterday outside the House of Commons:

"What has changed, obviously, is there is going to be a command change in the near future," he said of the need for a debate and vote.

 
Jay
#2
That would help increase our standing in the world arena I think.
 
Mogz
#3
Putting Canada in Command of Afghanistan would mark the first time Canadians have been in Command of a Theatre of Declared Offensive Operations since the Korean War (1950-1953). This is a great opportunity for the Canadian Command structure to exercise everything they've been taught. Furthermore it means things in Afghanistan would be run the Canadian way, and therefore hopefully calm some of the worriers in this nation about American "occupation". In all this is a great honour for Canada, to be asked to lead a multinational task force in a war zone. NATO doesn't make a decision like this lightly, further proof that our Forces are getting the job done.
 
mabudon
#4
I just don't think things in Afghanistan really CAN be done "the Canadian way"

And as for increasing our standing in the "world arena" I don't see what value that would give us, really- if folks think we are a "sissy" nation then so be it, I am not ashamed of a country that largely keeps to itself and helps out when it can. Besides, with the US sliding into ruin, our "standing" will go up just by default

I STRONGLY oppose our country becoming "responsible" for the "reconstruction" of that country- the only way ahead is for us to step back and honestly assist in them helping themselves and from all I've read that isn't exactly what we're doing (I understand it's a "component" but it should be the whole deal, security can't be "granted" by an outside power without creating dependence and a dependent country should NOT be the objective)
 
Jay
#5
Quote:

Besides, with the US sliding into ruin, our "standing" will go up just by default

Considering this isn't reality, I can't see how the default will be applied.

Being viewed as a "sissy" nation by our enimies isn't a goal.
 
BitWhys
#6
Its a pity the straight goods had to come from an unnamed official but that'll be par for the course with our current government of the day.
 
Jay
#7
If they came out an announced it previous to the debate otherwise, people would be up in arms about that too....you can't win for loosing and that is what the Harper government is up against; antagonists. IMO.
 
mabudon
#8
Really, Jay, you think it would have been FAIR, DEMOCRATIC and EXCUSABLE to have this debate, a vote and THEN tomorrow, say, announce that we are taking over the mission for an indefinite period of time as per the debate where this "little factiod" somehow didn't come up??

Disingenuous sounds like a euphemism for that tactic, and it ain't antagonism, it's concern
 
sanch
#9
Before any one gets too excited

Quote:

All of this is expected to come out later today from the government in the debate on extending Canadian involvement in the mission to 2009, the official said.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay hinted at it yesterday outside the House of Commons:

"What has changed, obviously, is there is going to be a command change in the near future," he said of the need for a debate and vote.

The article cites MacKay as saying the need for a debate is because of the change in the command structure. Obviously with the request by NATO Harper needs to have a debate and vote and that is what they are going to do.
 
mona
#10
I feel that with every step our canadian soldiers take, takes canada one step closer to being the next target.
I felt a lot safer when the liberals were in power, with Harper in bed with Bush, he is putting this country in danger, I have talked about this to many of my friends and they think the same thing.

Obviously Harper never told the canadian public his plan for our boys and girls in the middle east or he would have gotten 0 votes in this country, hopefully the liberal will knock him our of office soon.
 
Jay
#11
Perhaps you could qualify those statements?

The liberals sent the army in didnít they?

How is Harper putting the country in danger....
 
dekhqonbacha
#12
Always the responsibles are targeted rather than anyone else. Since Canada took the mission in Kandahar, we see that the number of death is rising.

If Canada is responsible for whole country, mosty canadian troops and diplomats will be targeted.

The bigger the number of soldiers the more causalities should be expected. If Canada takes the responsability for Afghanistan, more soldiers will be needed.
 
JonB2004
#13
We can't take over the entire mission in Afghanistan because we don't have enough soldiers.

Why don't we just cut and run from this mission. Screw the Afghanis.
 
dekhqonbacha
#14
JonB2004
that sounds good for you, but the country is getting benifits from this war. there is always something to pay for something you get. in this case the cost is the live.
 
JonB2004
#15
I don't think we should be paying to help the people in Afghanistan when there is alot of people in Canada who need help.
 
dekhqonbacha
#16
JonB2004
in fact, you're not helping Afghans for free. One soldier dies someone else will replace him/her. when there is an opportuny, like this one, canada cannot miss.
 
JonB2004
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

JonB2004
in fact, you're not helping Afghans for free. One soldier dies someone else will replace him/her. when there is an opportuny, like this one, canada cannot miss.

This mission is none of Canada's business. We should cut and run. I just don't care about the Afghanis.
 
dekhqonbacha
#18
you need the economy to run, to renew equipent of army, to train soldiers in real battle, to have a word to say over someone.

there is always cost to pay for anything you get.
 
Colpy
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

JonB2004
in fact, you're not helping Afghans for free. One soldier dies someone else will replace him/her. when there is an opportuny, like this one, canada cannot miss.

This mission is none of Canada's business. We should cut and run. I just don't care about the Afghanis.

So, will you care when the Islamists, trained in the New Taliban Afghanistan, detonate bombs in the Jewish section of Montreal?
 
JonB2004
#20
When the Islamic radicalists set off bombs in Canada, then, and only then, will I support the mission in Afghanistan.
 
dekhqonbacha
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

When the Islamic radicalists set off bombs in Canada, then, and only then, will I support the mission in Afghanistan.

maybe you will be the victim in that bombing and you die. How will you be able to support it when you will've parished?
 
JonB2004
#22
Well, I won't because I'll be dead.
 
Colpy
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

When the Islamic radicalists set off bombs in Canada, then, and only then, will I support the mission in Afghanistan.

I used the example of the Jewish section of Montreal, because that is what Ressam (the guy caught with explosives going to LA airport) wanted to do.

We've been very lucky.

You forget, bin Laden himself listed Canada in the top five targets of the terrorists.

When we've been hit, it is a little late.
 
no new posts