Canada, U.S. should leave Afghanistan: expert


Praxius
#1


CTV.ca | Canada, U.S. should leave Afghanistan: expert

Quote:

A retired American colonel and prominent academic is calling for U.S. president-elect Barack Obama to reconsider his plans to expand his country's military mission in Afghanistan.
Andrew Bacevich, a foreign affairs specialist at Boston University, said the U.S. and allies like Canada should start to withdraw from the war-torn country because it "simply does not make sense" to stay.
Appearing on CTV's Question Period Sunday, he said the original objective of the mission was to make sure the region does not become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists, who could then have a safe haven to launch attacks on the West.
Bacevich said that now the Taliban has been forced out of power, there is really no need for Western countries to stay in the country and try to make it into a modern democracy.
"Our interests there are very limited. As long as Afghanistan is not a sanctuary for terrorists that have the aim and capability to attack us in the West, we don't really care that much about what happens in that country," he said.

Quote has been trimmed
I have mixed opinions on his statements, but I'll wait until I hear some feedback from others.
 
VanIsle
#2
It's high time someone from the armed forces gave an honest opinion. I hope now people can start to bring on the pressure to bring all troops home to both Canada and the United States. We are losing people to this ridiculous war all the time and the money it is costing both countries is destroying everyone's way of life. Bring our troops home!
 
talloola
#3
Yes, although I agree with the original reasoning that took the coalition there, the
time has passed, and it is time to slowly remove ourselves from that country,
the taliban isn't going anywhere, our presence there will not remove them, their
numbers are increasing and it seems that the country and it's people will have to
find a way to exist without us or any other country , intervening.
 
Spade
#4
The political elites of this country have a sacred trust not to send, in our name, our armed forces into a mission that has no hope for success. The apologists and propagandists cry that our casualties should not be in vain. But, this is not an investment account in which we are averaging down. This is an errand on which we send our best and bravest youth; they answer with their patriotism and their lives. We owe it to them to be truthful!

Bring our forces home, now!
Last edited by Spade; Jan 12th, 2009 at 01:37 PM..Reason: Clarity
 
Unforgiven
#5
Well a couple of things come to mind.

You have to ask the questions: Is the Afghanistan government able to stand on it's own? Even in the remote areas and under their own protection? Is the Taliban likely to attempt to reinstate itself as the Afghan government by over throwing the current democratically elected government?

Would they again allow for terrorist organizations to use Afghanistan as a training grounds and again launch terrorist cells into the West?

I think that at this point the Taliban are most likely to return and terrorism will be job one. So I would have to disagree that this is a fruitless deployment.

We've already got hundreds fo lives invested in turning this country into a peaceful state. I think it would be disingenuous to simply pack up and leave. That it costs money now and times are tough, big F'n deal. Money isn't important with lives are on the line. Don't think so? Consider just how much you are willing to pay right now if I happened to be holding a gun to your, your wife's or your children's head and demanding money. Would it be important to see if you could stick to a budget there?

People are dying for this so we should take that pretty bloody seriously and get this job done. If anything Canada should be sending 30,000 more troops over there. I see a lot of able bodied men around while our country is at war. That isn't right. Auto manufacturers need a bail out? They should be making nothing other than tanks, and military vehicles to support our troops rather than farting around here looking to protect their jobs.

There are bad people in the world and it takes a mountain of guts to be the one to stand between them and us. We're there and we need to finish the job there. Then get our military the hell out of there.
 
Tyr
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Well a couple of things come to mind.

You have to ask the questions: Is the Afghanistan government able to stand on it's own? Even in the remote areas and under their own protection? Is the Taliban likely to attempt to reinstate itself as the Afghan government by over throwing the current democratically elected government?

Would they again allow for terrorist organizations to use Afghanistan as a training grounds and again launch terrorist cells into the West?

I think that at this point the Taliban are most likely to return and terrorism will be job one. So I would have to disagree that this is a fruitless deployment.

We've already got hundreds fo lives invested in turning this country into a peaceful state. I think it would be disingenuous to simply pack up and leave. That it costs money now and times are tough, big F'n deal. Money isn't important with lives are on the line. Don't think so? Consider just how much you are willing to pay right now if I happened to be holding a gun to your, your wife's or your children's head and demanding money. Would it be important to see if you could stick to a budget there?

People are dying for this so we should take that pretty bloody seriously and get this job done. If anything Canada should be sending 30,000 more troops over there. I see a lot of able bodied men around while our country is at war. That isn't right. Auto manufacturers need a bail out? They should be making nothing other than tanks, and military vehicles to support our troops rather than farting around here looking to protect their jobs.

There are bad people in the world and it takes a mountain of guts to be the one to stand between them and us. We're there and we need to finish the job there. Then get our military the hell out of there.

People are dying for this so we should take that pretty bloody seriously and get this job done.

We should have never been there in the first place, but that's a huge misadventure that our gov't lied to us about. So far, over 100 of our troops and 000's af Afghani's

If anything Canada should be sending 30,000 more troops over there

If anything, we should be pulling all of our troops out within 6 months to end this imperial adventure that has proven so costly
 
#juan
#7
There is another question: Was the central government in Afghanistan able to stand on it's own before we got there? Seems to me the Taliban, likely headquartered in Islamabad, or Riyadh, were pretty much controlling things in Afghanistan when our troops were first deployed there. Meanwhile, Canadian troops, who do a lot of good humanitarian work, are being blown up on a regular basis by these idiots. I think we should bring our troops home now.


 
L Gilbert
#8
I am sure there is no shortage of "experts" offering opinions on Afghanistan. If the US, Canada, etc. should get out of the country, so should Al Quaeda and Taliban. It isn't their country either ........ Bin Laden is a Saudi.
Our guys pull out and the country reverts back to an oppressive, medieval tyranny. Whatever the original excuse for going into Afghanistan in the first place was, the people are the important factor and they ARE being helped.
 
Praxius
#9
While I had no support for us going into Afghanistan in the first place, and I knew our reasons for going there were screwed up.... the fact that remains now is that we are there.

We took action, our leaders made a decision and now our forces are over there..... for better or for worse.

When I ask those who have already served over there (The troops we send over like my cousin or her husband) many of them say they want to go back because of what they see the children go through and how little they all have over there... and if they feel they're making a difference and want to be there..... who am I to tell them no?

But on the other side, there are some who come back and still have no idea why we're there.

So what do we do?

It's complicated...... sure I'd like for us to leave as soon as possible and forcus on things that actually have to do with Canada..... but the thing that keeps coming back to me, are the consequences that will occur from our actions.

We can not simply just wash our hands from what we are responsible for creating, and then telling the Afghans "Well, you're all on your own now, see ya."

We leave, then the Afgan army will be on its own against the Taliban...... How long do you think that conflict with last until the Taliban are back into power?

Is that a bad thing?

Depends on if they start making examples out of civilians and afghans who helped us while we were there to fight against them.

As I see it, we screwed up..... we screwed up real bad by joining into the war in Afghanistan....... but for us to just walk away and leave the Afghans by themselves before they're even ready..... to just give them all these promises, help, hope, etc..... just to leave them to be slaughtered by the Taliban..... is far more worse then having our troops stick it out until 2011 when it is hoped the Afgan army/police can handle things on their own.

And how royally PO'd do you think the people in Afghanistan will be towards the West if we pulled this kind of stunt? Probably PO'd enough to take it out on us sometime down the road..... and then we'd be right back over there blowing sh*t up again, defeating the whole purposes of leaving right now in the first place.

So to me, as much as I hate that we even went over, I feel we should stay until 2011...... but no longer.
 
Spade
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I am sure there is no shortage of "experts" offering opinions on Afghanistan. If the US, Canada, etc. should get out of the country, so should Al Quaeda and Taliban. It isn't their country either ........ Bin Laden is a Saudi.
Our guys pull out and the country reverts back to an oppressive, medieval tyranny. Whatever the original excuse for going into Afghanistan in the first place was, the people are the important factor and they ARE being helped.

Time for you to read Ann Jones' "The Afghan Reconstruction Boondoggle" from tomorrow's (Jan. 13 in Asia) Asia Times. Click here (external - login to view).

To quote a paragraph or two:
"t's hard to overstate the magnitude of the failure of American reconstruction in Afghanistan. While the US has occupied the country - for seven years and counting - and efficiently set up a network of bases and prisons, it has yet to restore to Kabul, the capital, a mud brick city slightly more populous than Houston, a single one of the public services its citizens used to enjoy. When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s, they modernized the education system and built power plants, dams, factories, and apartment blocs, still the most coveted in the country. If, in the last seven years, Bush did not get the lights back on in the capital, or the water flowing, or dispose of the sewage or trash, how can we assume Obama will do any better with the corrupt system he's about to inherit?

and

"Don't think of such stories, and thousands of others like them, as merely tales of the everyday theft or waste of a few hundred million dollars - a form of well-organized, routine graft that leaves the corruption of Karzai's government in the shade and will undoubtedly continue unremarked upon in the Obama years. Those multi-millions that will continue to be poured down the Afghan drain really represent promises made to a people whose country and culture we have devastated more than once. They are promises made by our government, paid for by our taxpayers, and repeatedly broken. "

Bring our forces home now!
Last edited by Spade; Jan 12th, 2009 at 03:21 PM..Reason: clarity
 
L Gilbert
#11
I think we should not have gone there in the first place, in spite of my compassion for the Afghans. But the fact is that we ARE there and we are what is keeping the Taliban from moving back in to tyrannize the Afghans. And I don't give a crap that Ann Jones considers the people of Afghanistan a lost cause or not nor whether the benefits of us being there is done most effectively and efficiently or not.
 
Unforgiven
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TyrView Post

People are dying for this so we should take that pretty bloody seriously and get this job done.

We should have never been there in the first place, but that's a huge misadventure that our gov't lied to us about. So far, over 100 of our troops and 000's af Afghani's

Lied to us you say? Please explain.

Quote:

If anything Canada should be sending 30,000 more troops over there

Quote:


If anything, we should be pulling all of our troops out within 6 months to end this imperial adventure that has proven so costly

Imperial adventure? I disagree but I would like to see why you feel this is so.
 
Unforgiven
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

There is another question: Was the central government in Afghanistan able to stand on it's own before we got there? Seems to me the Taliban, likely headquartered in Islamabad, or Riyadh, were pretty much controlling things in Afghanistan when our troops were first deployed there. Meanwhile, Canadian troops, who do a lot of good humanitarian work, are being blown up on a regular basis by these idiots. I think we should bring our troops home now.

The Taliban was the government there.
So who would you prefer stand against these idiots?
 
dumpthemonarchy
#14
Finally a general speaks honestly. Canadians haven't died there in vain, al-Qaeda is gone, mission accomplished. The general is correctly saying that Afghanistan has never had a central gov't, let alone democracy, and they are not going to get either anytime soon.

Even in a modern looking, but authoritarian city state like Singapore, the prez, Park Lee Wan or something, constantly pontificated on "Asian values" as opposed to Western values like democracy. They can have it.

The general is so correct, they are no longer a danger so its time to go home. Let the military industrial complex wither away.
 
talloola
#15
[quote=Unforgiven;1037573]Well a couple of things come to mind.

It's too bad bush bungled the afghanistan mission so badly, as by now it might
have been much better for the afghans.
His jump from afghanistan to iraq really put that mission on hold, and allowed
the taliban and others to regroup and build a much larger force and plan their
comeback, and it will be interesting to see what obama does, but might be too
late for them as well.
If our public becomes too fed up with the non accomplishment, and more deaths
to our military, our politicians probably will begin to move the other way, as,
for them it is all about being re elected next time anyway.
 
talloola
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

The Taliban was the government there.
So who would you prefer stand against these idiots?

If all forces leave, then Karzi will 'fall' for sure, so I imagine the u.s. will hang
around there to protect him, but not sure how much good he can do, as his
government can only protect a small part of the country, and it might become
smaller and smaller.
 
Spade
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

If all forces leave, then Karzi will 'fall' for sure, so I imagine the u.s. will hang
around there to protect him, but not sure how much good he can do, as his
government can only protect a small part of the country, and it might become
smaller and smaller.

Which one is Karzai?
 
Tyr
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Lied to us you say? Please explain.

[b][i]

Imperial adventure? I disagree but I would like to see why you feel this is so.

Probaly poor terminology. Perhaps misguided is better. We (Canada) have no business being in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never attacked us. If there is a perception of a problem, the UN should madate Canada to provide troops fro a set time frame (1 yrs max)
 
Tyr
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I am sure there is no shortage of "experts" offering opinions on Afghanistan. If the US, Canada, etc. should get out of the country, so should Al Quaeda and Taliban. It isn't their country either ........ Bin Laden is a Saudi.
Our guys pull out and the country reverts back to an oppressive, medieval tyranny. Whatever the original excuse for going into Afghanistan in the first place was, the people are the important factor and they ARE being helped.

The Taliban are primarily Pashtuns which is the majority in Afghanistan - so it is their country. Not too many "native" Canadians or Americans there.

Suddenly by divine right we get to invade and conquer? If the Taliban landed at Halifax bound and determined to show Canada thae senselessnes of their society, would that be acceptable to you?
 
EagleSmack
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by TyrView Post

Probaly poor terminology. Perhaps misguided is better. We (Canada) have no business being in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never attacked us. If there is a perception of a problem, the UN should madate Canada to provide troops fro a set time frame (1 yrs max)

You want to answer to the UN now? Take orders from them? So much for the independence of Canada.

man⋅date
noun, verb, -dat⋅ed, -dat⋅ing.


–noun 1.a command or authorization to act in a particular way2.a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
 
Tyr
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I think we should not have gone there in the first place, in spite of my compassion for the Afghans. But the fact is that we ARE there and we are what is keeping the Taliban from moving back in to tyrannize the Afghans. And I don't give a crap that Ann Jones considers the people of Afghanistan a lost cause or not nor whether the benefits of us being there is done most effectively and efficiently or not.

What Islamic country has declared Al Quada a "terrorist" organization? None

It's an Islamic country governed by Islamic society and we have no right to change that
 
Unforgiven
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

It's too bad bush bungled the afghanistan mission so badly, as by now it might have been much better for the afghans.

Yep to bad alright. But it's spilled milk. Now we have Obama and things sounds as though they will change.

Quote:

His jump from afghanistan to iraq really put that mission on hold, and allowed the taliban and others to regroup and build a much larger force and plan their comeback, and it will be interesting to see what Obama does, but might be too late for them as well.

I don't think they have regrouped with a much bigger force. They fight a much different war than what we've been used to. It takes time for us to figure it out, adapt our methods and deploy in a manner that will bring success on the battle field.

If anything, the Taliban should be quaking in their flip flops as we meet the demands of the soldiers with better suited hardware, planning, and a huge new deployment in troops. As they secure regions, peace will follow and cities will be come calmer and get about the business of living instead of fighting a war.

Instill a higher standard of living in a group of people and they won't want to give it up very easily.

Quote:

If our public becomes too fed up with the non accomplishment, and more deaths to our military, our politicians probably will begin to move the other way, as, for them it is all about being re elected next time anyway.

Yeah that's a problem. Way to many people sitting on their asses complaining about what they see on TV and the Internet while our country is at war. My Dad told me that during WWII an able bodied man not in the military was a coward in the eyes of the public.

Way too many people want a free ride.

Politicians will do exactly what the most vocal group tells them to do. Not the majority, the most vocal group. I can't think of more than a handful that should be in our nations capital running our country. Of course we have the government we deserve.
 
Unforgiven
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by TyrView Post

Probably poor terminology. Perhaps misguided is better. We (Canada) have no business being in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has never attacked us. If there is a perception of a problem, the UN should madate Canada to provide troops fro a set time frame (1 yrs max)

Not too clear on NATO are we?
We belong to a group, with a pledge that anyone who is attacked within that group can call on the rest of the group to come to it's defense.

We're not misguided even slightly about Afghanistan. Perhaps you don't know or perhaps you've been misguided, I'll set you straight right here.

A terrorist group, Al Qeada committed the attacks on the US. The US is a member of NATO and of course our closest friend, trading partner, ally and the closest people of our kind to us on the planet.

In our agreement if someone attacks them, it's is just like attacking us and we will respond just as they will should we face the same situation. That's the way it is and so for good reason.

Al Qeada isn't a country but a group, and as such can't have war declared upon them. But as a group they can be hunted down and brought to justice or killed which ever being the case. Any country that supports them will either give them up or suffer with them.

Other wise it would simply be an easy matter to avoid repercussions for attacking any country. Simply claim your military is a terrorist group and what can you do? That dog don't hunt!

Tracing the terrorists backward from the act to the place where they set out from led to Afghanistan. Not by lies that Bushco made up, not by suspicion or innuendo but by factual investigation leading right back to Afghanistan. 18 of the 19 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan. Trained to do just the kind of thing they did 09/11/2001.

The Taliban being the only form of acting government if you want to call it that, in Afghanistan were asked to hand over Ossama bin Laden to the US along with any Al Qeada. They refused. After being warned of the consequences, they continued to refuse. These are the consequences.

No imperial invasion, no oil barons, no slaves, crusades or hordes.
A country that hosts and trains terrorists to attack anyone in North America needs to have their *** kicked as far as I'm concerned.

And that is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan right now.

The Taliban not only choose to allow for the export of terrorism from Afghanistan, but have shown they are an extremist and brutal regime based on, fueled by and promoting hatred. The later part I would feel isn't my concern if the former didn't effect me. As it stands, screw the Taliban.

That's why we're there. Any questions?
 
EagleSmack
#24
Brilliant...but they will still rip that post apart Unforgiven.
 
Tyr
#25
Al Qeada isn't a country but a group, and as such can't have war declared upon them. But as a group they can be hunted down and brought to justice or killed which ever being the case. Any country that supports them will either give them up or suffer with them.

I'm very clear on Canada's obligations to NATO. Are you?

You statement above obviates Canada's obligation, much like say going after Somali pirates if they hijack a Danish ship. It may be dictated by the gov't "flavour of the day", but it's not an obligation.

NATO's intent has never been to become a "bounty hunter"

If you are deluded enough to think this is a "NATO" operation, then one would think that the full force of NATO should be there including;

Estonia (external - login to view), Greece (external - login to view), Hungary (external - login to view), Iceland (external - login to view), Latvia (external - login to view), Lithuania (external - login to view), Luxembourg (external - login to view), the Portugal (external - login to view), Slovakia (external - login to view), Slovenia (external - login to view), - all members of "NATO"

Were they excused for "recess" and never came back? Beyond the fact that Greece, Hungary and Portugal have larger armed forces than Canada, you'd think they would have contributed?

Turkey (who has a much more vested interest in the region) committed to half the amount of troops Canada did. Make sense to you?

So, sorry, the NATO committment angle doesn't wash even to back up an irrational argument. Next, rationalization no doubt be a NORAD committment, so save your breathe that won't wash either
 
Tyr
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Brilliant...but they will still rip that post apart Unforgiven.

probably because it so easy....
 
Zzarchov
#27
He's not that great an expert if he thinks there has never been a modern and stable nations-state of Afghanistan.

Its march to liberalization had the hickups of the early 50's, but was pretty stable and progressive under its constitutional monarchy.

If we don't consider Afghanistani citizens equal human beings to us who deserve our help, then why doesn't Col. Ethnosupremist over there just advocate whiping out all these apparently lesser people.

Borders define laws, not humanity.
 
Tyr
#28
If Kurdish excursions continue into Turkey (NATO member), how many divisions are we expected to send? Or would that count? Kurdistan isn't a country, but rather a group of "terrorists"

"The Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan (PKK), also known as KADEK and Kongra-Gel, is considered by the US to be a terrorist organization
 
Tyr
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by UnforgivenView Post

Not too clear on NATO are we?
We belong to a group, with a pledge that anyone who is attacked within that group can call on the rest of the group to come to it's defense.

We're not misguided even slightly about Afghanistan. Perhaps you don't know or perhaps you've been misguided, I'll set you straight right here.

A terrorist group, Al Qeada committed the attacks on the US. The US is a member of NATO and of course our closest friend, trading partner, ally and the closest people of our kind to us on the planet.

In our agreement if someone attacks them, it's is just like attacking us and we will respond just as they will should we face the same situation. That's the way it is and so for good reason.

Al Qeada isn't a country but a group, and as such can't have war declared upon them. But as a group they can be hunted down and brought to justice or killed which ever being the case. Any country that supports them will either give them up or suffer with them.

Other wise it would simply be an easy matter to avoid repercussions for attacking any country. Simply claim your military is a terrorist group and what can you do? That dog don't hunt!

Tracing the terrorists backward from the act to the place where they set out from led to Afghanistan. Not by lies that Bushco made up, not by suspicion or innuendo but by factual investigation leading right back to Afghanistan. 18 of the 19 terrorists were trained in Afghanistan. Trained to do just the kind of thing they did 09/11/2001.

The Taliban being the only form of acting government if you want to call it that, in Afghanistan were asked to hand over Ossama bin Laden to the US along with any Al Qeada. They refused. After being warned of the consequences, they continued to refuse. These are the consequences.

No imperial invasion, no oil barons, no slaves, crusades or hordes.
A country that hosts and trains terrorists to attack anyone in North America needs to have their *** kicked as far as I'm concerned.

And that is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan right now.

The Taliban not only choose to allow for the export of terrorism from Afghanistan, but have shown they are an extremist and brutal regime based on, fueled by and promoting hatred. The later part I would feel isn't my concern if the former didn't effect me. As it stands, screw the Taliban.

That's why we're there. Any questions?

No. but hopefully I've provided some answers for you and given you the impetus to do some actual research
 
Cliffy
#30
unforgiven,

Quite the rant. Complete nonsense but entertaining. Do you believe everything governments tell you? The majority of Canadians and Americans do not believe the official stories because the are not credible. Plans to invade Afghanistan were drawn up long before 911 for reasons that had nothing to do with Al Qeada or the Taliban. But did you notice that Bush & Co. wanted to invade Iraq instead but were almost forced to go to Afghanistan first? Do you remember Bush saying he was not interested in Bin Laden? He wasn't important. He just wanted to go after Hussein.

The whole official story, from 911 to Iraq and Afghanistan, is so full of holes you would think Chaney personally shot the text with his 12 gauge. But if you still believe that stuff after all the evidence to the contrary, then nothing will change your blind faith in a bunch of criminals guilty of crimes against humanity.
 

Similar Threads

15
Troops May Leave Afghanistan By 2010
by Curiosity | Apr 12th, 2007
64
no new posts