Afghanistan was never Canada's war

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
January 18, 2008
Thomas Walkom

American Defence Secretary Robert Gates may well be right when he says that Canadian and European troops in Afghanistan are not well equipped to fight a counter-insurgency campaign. But what has been lost in the controversy over his impolitic remarks is that we did not sign on to fight insurgents – there or anywhere else.
The International Stabilization and Assistance Force, which NATO now commands and which includes some 2,500 Canadian soldiers, was set up in late 2001 by the United Nations to do just what its name suggests – stabilize a country emerging from years of civil war and assist the fledgling Kabul government in its redevelopment efforts.
Fighting the Taliban (or, as they were called then, the Taliban "remnants") was a job that Washington insisted on reserving to itself through what it called Operation Enduring Freedom.
Canada helped out in that one too, sending troops to serve under U.S. command in 2002. But in those days, America wanted to keep its sometimes squeamish allies well away from a dark war that was aimed primarily at capturing terror suspects and transferring them to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
It was only after 2003, when the U.S. found itself troop-short and bogged down in Iraq, that Washington changed the rules of engagement for its allies. Gradually, Afghanistan became NATO's war. Washington's plan then was to gradually reduce its 20,000 troop commitment to Afghanistan and switch them over to Iraq.
Which is why, since 2006, Canadian troops have found themselves under fire in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar.
It's worth remembering that we keep sending soldiers to Afghanistan not because Canada has been attacked by the Taliban, but because our friends, the Americans, feel they are at war with them.
The Dutch are in southern Afghanistan for the same reason. So are the British – who have paid a severe price at home for their decision to support Washington's various anti-Islamist wars.
That's why Gates' comments rub so raw in this and other NATO countries. Since 2001, one Canadian diplomat and 77 soldiers have died in Afghanistan. More than 250 more have been wounded in action. Yet this was never our war. It was always America's.
The U.S. chose to declare Afghanistan the enemy after the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Had Washington elected to avenge 9/11 by invading the country from which most of those terrorists came, Canadian troops would now be fighting in Saudi Arabia.
Their call, their war, their show.
Now, Washington has shifted its focus again. On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it will send an additional 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan – bringing the total number of U.S. troops there to more than 30,000.
It is in this context that Gates made his remarks. In effect, the American public is being told that its soldiers have to fix Afghanistan because the pusillanimous Europeans and invisible Canadians aren't up to the job. Or, as the Washington Post noted editorially: "It's becoming clear that the war must be won by U.S. troops, and not by NATO."
Which, in the broader scheme of things, is just fine. Let America, freshly confident after its counterinsurgency successes in Iraq and Vietnam, finish its own war itself. Then Canadian troops can come back to Canada. And the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can refocus on the North Atlantic.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/295277
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Gates is a psycopath, they all are, thier plan is falling apart and they're desperate, they need cannon meat, they're running out of willing bullet stoppers, even sending lots back pumped full of drugs and on light duty orders.Seventy-five per-cent of in theatre US personal in a recent poll just want to pull out and skip both countries.
 

Westerner

New Member
Jan 18, 2008
25
1
3
Alberta
You think we would have learnt from the Soviet's experience in this country or that of many nations who have failed to circumvent this region. The Soviet Union tried to prop up a government in this country before, which some people supported but many rebelled against it. It ended up starting out as a request of a government from sending a few soldiers to quell an uprising to being involved into a full scale insurgency war. As we all know it ultimately was a victory for the insurgents.

Like the Soviet's and others through the ages we have overlooked the diverse regional demographics and the complex tribal alliances and brotherhoods of this country. We simply came charging in unprepared, unplanned, and unstudied. We arrogantly got involved there and have now become caught in a religious, regional, and ethnic conflict that we really have no place in being part of. There is no real victory here and our only simple stated goal is to be there long enough so this nation's “government” can manage its own people effectively. It has not been defined as to what would be needed for this government to be able to manage its own affairs nor has it been said when if any time soon this vision will come to be realised. In essence we could perpetually be involved militarily on behalf of Afghanistan's provisional government indefinitely.

Personally I am against being involved in this war and feel it is an ill-conceived, interventionist endeavour. Of course I always get the same remarks from people that I must be against our soldiers or that I must be misinformed and have been told of all the progress and the same line being spouted out such as women can go to schools and etc. My response to those people is simply where were they fifteen or even ten years ago? No one really did seem to care then and the situation was widely known. Also I am not against soldiers I just fail to see why ours should be involved in bolstering some Islamic Republic.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
I was reluctantly for this war and still am but if the Americans don't like the way we are doing things I would be happy to pack up our heros, leave and let them do it alone.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I've been saying for years that Canada shouldn't be involved in Afghanistan in the role of combat but hey...If the Yanks don't want our help...bring our folk home!

Perhaps the difficulty that America is having (see the Soviet invaison of Afghanistan) is that like everything American it's bluster and perspective, just like increasing troop strength in Viet Nam would bring about early victory....

You can't tell a Yank anything....PERIOD
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
First of all, I would agree that Mr. Gates' comments were out of line.......simply niot diplomatic.

However, he was quite correct......how many Canadians have died because they were exposed to mined stretches of road, simply because our military does not have the helicopters necessary to lift troops, supplies, etc.?

AND, although I haven't looked into Mr. Gates' comments carefully, I think he was commenting on those of our "allies" hesitant to take action on the ground. Certainly to say the Brits are untrained in respect to fighting insurgency is silly.

AND, Mr. Gates should look in his own backyard.....you DO NOT beat insurgents by bombing the hell out of the place.......that is known as recruiting for the insurgents......the way to beat insurgents now and always has been to out-guerilla the guerillas........unfortunately difficult in the terrain of Afghanistan, and in this political climate, as going toe-to-toe causes high casualties in the short run.

However, this IS CAnada's war.........we are a NATO signatory, obliged to react when our allies are attacked.........Canadians died on 9-11...........and (for all you lefty internationalists) the UNITED NATIONS called! Don't we have to drop all and leap to the forefront when that illustrious institution needs us? (sarcasm alert)
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
First of all, I would agree that Mr. Gates' comments were out of line.......simply niot diplomatic.

However, he was quite correct......how many Canadians have died because they were exposed to mined stretches of road, simply because our military does not have the helicopters necessary to lift troops, supplies, etc.?

AND, although I haven't looked into Mr. Gates' comments carefully, I think he was commenting on those of our "allies" hesitant to take action on the ground. Certainly to say the Brits are untrained in respect to fighting insurgency is silly.

AND, Mr. Gates should look in his own backyard.....you DO NOT beat insurgents by bombing the hell out of the place.......that is known as recruiting for the insurgents......the way to beat insurgents now and always has been to out-guerilla the guerillas........unfortunately difficult in the terrain of Afghanistan, and in this political climate, as going toe-to-toe causes high casualties in the short run.

However, this IS CAnada's war.........we are a NATO signatory, obliged to react when our allies are attacked.........Canadians died on 9-11...........and (for all you lefty internationalists) the UNITED NATIONS called! Don't we have to drop all and leap to the forefront when that illustrious institution needs us? (sarcasm alert)

Not so sure our combat roll was required considering the Americans have plenty of troops....oh waity, they're all in that fake ilegal war in Iraq, I forgot that.....well they still have enough to handle the Taliban and considering we aren't properly equiped we should just step back and let the pros handle it since they are so good at nation building. (sarcasm alert)

This would have been over along time ago if the Yanks had gone in quicker with 10 times the troops and left the non threats alone.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
First of all, I would agree that Mr. Gates' comments were out of line.......simply niot diplomatic.

However, he was quite correct......how many Canadians have died because they were exposed to mined stretches of road, simply because our military does not have the helicopters necessary to lift troops, supplies, etc.?

AND, although I haven't looked into Mr. Gates' comments carefully, I think he was commenting on those of our "allies" hesitant to take action on the ground. Certainly to say the Brits are untrained in respect to fighting insurgency is silly.

AND, Mr. Gates should look in his own backyard.....you DO NOT beat insurgents by bombing the hell out of the place.......that is known as recruiting for the insurgents......the way to beat insurgents now and always has been to out-guerilla the guerillas........unfortunately difficult in the terrain of Afghanistan, and in this political climate, as going toe-to-toe causes high casualties in the short run.

However, this IS CAnada's war.........we are a NATO signatory, obliged to react when our allies are attacked.........Canadians died on 9-11...........and (for all you lefty internationalists) the UNITED NATIONS called! Don't we have to drop all and leap to the forefront when that illustrious institution needs us? (sarcasm alert)

I don't know Colpy. Canada legitimately joined the "war on terror" but the invasion of Iraq as far as I'm concerned, cancelled all bets. We have gone from a simple NATO signatory, to a lacky nation slathering after a larger rogue state who is only after the oil and killing hundreds of thousands in the process. Why do we want to be a part of this?
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
First of all, I would agree that Mr. Gates' comments were out of line.......simply niot diplomatic.

However, he was quite correct......how many Canadians have died because they were exposed to mined stretches of road, simply because our military does not have the helicopters necessary to lift troops, supplies, etc.?

Why aren't those roads being swept? What US never learned in Viet Nam is hoisting your troops over their land gives stone-age soldiers a psychological lift because they see you're afraid to walk on their turf and fight them where they live.

AND, although I haven't looked into Mr. Gates' comments carefully, I think he was commenting on those of our "allies" hesitant to take action on the ground. Certainly to say the Brits are untrained in respect to fighting insurgency is silly.

Mr Gates hasn't considered that all Uncle Sam's high tech gadgets and million-dollar-machinery can't win a battle against primative methods - another thing they never learned in Viet Nam.

AND, Mr. Gates should look in his own backyard.....you DO NOT beat insurgents by bombing the hell out of the place.......that is known as recruiting for the insurgents......the way to beat insurgents now and always has been to out-guerilla the guerillas........unfortunately difficult in the terrain of Afghanistan, and in this political climate, as going toe-to-toe causes high casualties in the short run.

You don't win friends with foreign policy that is very close to date rape either.

However, this IS CAnada's war.........we are a NATO signatory, obliged to react when our allies are attacked.........Canadians died on 9-11...........and (for all you lefty internationalists) the UNITED NATIONS called! Don't we have to drop all and leap to the forefront when that illustrious institution needs us? (sarcasm alert)

Woof!
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
Thomas Walkom, "...Washington's various anti-Islamist wars..."

Walkom is a leftist demagogue. Walkom says NATO should stay in the North Atlantic. These two comments discredit him.

We acknowledged that this cause was ours the day we commited to it, and to say that it is not so is a design of deception. To use Gates careless words to discredit our effort is about as low as a snake can get.

T.W., "The U.S. chose to declare Afghanistan the enemy..."

At some point in this string of lies one has to throw out the entire article. At no time did America declare war on Afghanistan. At all times was it the U.N. and Canadian, American, British et all, intention to help the people of Afghanistan, while eliminating a terrorist haven.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
This is quite simple
911 happened, ,many were killed, including victims from all over the world, including canada

A coalition was formed and went to Afghanistan, after the Taliban 'refused' to give up
Bin Laden, as, they could have handed him over to the U.S., and that war would not
have happened, they chose not to do that. They knew where he was, they could have banded together and knabbed him, "they didn't want to", they were loyal to him and
very arrogant in their ways, and wanted to control that country and deliver their brutal control of the people.

If the U.S. hadn't taken the side step to Iraq, which was very ignorant and unnecessary,
they would have remained in Afghanistan, and by now, I believe, that country would have
made huge progress. I believe in the work being done in Afghanistan and that they need
the help, and now that the U.S. is going to go back in 'large' numbers, maybe they can pick it up again, and move forward with greater success.

They will not have assistance from Musharaff, so the U.S. and others will probably have
remain for several years along that border, once the country is stabilized.






George Bush and his henchmen are totally to blame for the bog down that has happened
in Afghanistan. He has made a huge mess out many things, and that's a shame.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48

Perhaps the United States could have learned a lesson from their allies in Israel….

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

Moral issues aside, the Israeli action was focused on the people responsible for the terrorist attack and that is an entirely reasonable position to take. While there may have been innocent people killed in the punishing action, a similar reprisal as that undertaken by the United States against the Al Queada terrorists would have been far cheaper and more sensible as opposed to allowing their ineptitude in failing to secure the safety of Americans through diligent intelligence work before the September 11 atrocity escalated into the mess of Afghanistan. While Americans seem unable to deal with anything that comes along without the “big-stick” approach, this failure of American intelligence and the Bush family’s favouritism shown the Bin Laden family after the assault raises more questions than it answers.

Canada and other nations compelled to join the fray in Afghanistan are shedding dollars and blood that represent the consequences of compounded errors committed by our American neighbors, and nothing less.

The United States at the hands of the principle players involved in fomenting war in Iraq and rallying an outraged citizenry to seek retribution against those responsible for the September/11 attack used not only the people of America as pawns in a much larger game, but sought and successfully achieved drawing (through the U.N. whom the U.S. criticized over “weapons inspections” in Iraq) many other nations into the mess created by their ineptitude and poor intelligence systems. The United States has successfully set the benchmark for responses to even an imagined or ‘implied’ “urgent necessity” in response to global terrorism.

Would the reaction of the United States and it’s allies resonate with actions taken in Chechnya?

People here at Canadian Content focus on discrete segments and relatively minor issues when discussing the failed policies of the United States and very little comparison or reference is made to how other nations have handled terrorism in the past. Did England bomb Ireland and call on NATO to “live up to it’s commitments” by joining English efforts to quell the unrest in Ireland?

Too many Canadians and too many Americans have become “one-trick-ponies” in terms of their thinking. Media doesn’t invite comparisons since the principle architects of media in Canada and the United States have an agenda that doesn’t want there to be broader focus but instead invites knee-jerk reactionism to the “party-line” kind of thinking.

It’s a “digital-speak” world and many it seems have been successfully condition to salivate when the bell rings…


 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
This is quite simple
911 happened, ,many were killed, including victims from all over the world, including canada

A coalition was formed and went to Afghanistan, after the Taliban 'refused' to give up
Bin Laden, as, they could have handed him over to the U.S., and that war would not
have happened, they chose not to do that. They knew where he was, they could have banded together and knabbed him, "they didn't want to", they were loyal to him and
very arrogant in their ways, and wanted to control that country and deliver their brutal control of the people.

If the U.S. hadn't taken the side step to Iraq, which was very ignorant and unnecessary,
they would have remained in Afghanistan, and by now, I believe, that country would have
made huge progress. I believe in the work being done in Afghanistan and that they need
the help, and now that the U.S. is going to go back in 'large' numbers, maybe they can pick it up again, and move forward with greater success.

They will not have assistance from Musharaff, so the U.S. and others will probably have
remain for several years along that border, once the country is stabilized.






George Bush and his henchmen are totally to blame for the bog down that has happened
in Afghanistan. He has made a huge mess out many things, and that's a shame.


Point to just one other nation that has prospered from American intervention in the last fifty years, just one. The Taleban were marked for extermination long before 911, the Bin Laden story was a convienient ploy that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths in just the opening weeks of the invasion and occupation. The Taleban insisted on proof of BinLadens involvment in 911, none was ever offered and none has ever been offered. To this day hwe remains off the FBIs most wanted list.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
This is quite simple
911 happened, ,many were killed, including victims from all over the world, including canada

A coalition was formed and went to Afghanistan, after the Taliban 'refused' to give up
Bin Laden, as, they could have handed him over to the U.S., and that war would not
have happened, they chose not to do that. They knew where he was, they could have banded together and knabbed him, "they didn't want to", they were loyal to him and
very arrogant in their ways, and wanted to control that country and deliver their brutal control of the people.

If the U.S. hadn't taken the side step to Iraq, which was very ignorant and unnecessary,
they would have remained in Afghanistan, and by now, I believe, that country would have
made huge progress. I believe in the work being done in Afghanistan and that they need
the help, and now that the U.S. is going to go back in 'large' numbers, maybe they can pick it up again, and move forward with greater success.

They will not have assistance from Musharaff, so the U.S. and others will probably have
remain for several years along that border, once the country is stabilized.






George Bush and his henchmen are totally to blame for the bog down that has happened
in Afghanistan. He has made a huge mess out many things, and that's a shame.


Point to just one other nation that has prospered from American intervention in the last fifty years, just one. The Taleban were marked for extermination long before 911, the Bin Laden story was a convienient ploy that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths in just the opening weeks of the invasion and occupation. The Taleban insisted on proof of BinLadens involvment in 911, none was ever offered and none has ever been offered. To this day he remains off the FBIs most wanted list.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Point to just one other nation that has prospered from American intervention in the last fifty years, just one. The Taleban were marked for extermination long before 911, the Bin Laden story was a convienient ploy that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths in just the opening weeks of the invasion and occupation. The Taleban insisted on proof of BinLadens involvment in 911, none was ever offered and none has ever been offered. To this day hwe remains off the FBIs most wanted list.

I'm only concerned on this thread about Afghanistan, don't want to wander. We'll have
to agree to disagree on this one, I believe what I said, 100%, so be it.

Right now I'm into
Saturday night hockey, I suppose that's a conspiracy too. Maybe the U.S. government is responsible for injuring
Sydney, so that Ovetchkin will have a better chance to win scoring championship, and WASHINGTON CAPITALS,
might win the standley cup.
 
Last edited:

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Point to just one other nation that has prospered from American intervention in the last fifty years, just one. The Taleban were marked for extermination long before 911, the Bin Laden story was a convienient ploy that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths in just the opening weeks of the invasion and occupation. The Taleban insisted on proof of BinLadens involvment in 911, none was ever offered and none has ever been offered. To this day he remains off the FBIs most wanted list.

Taiwan (protected from China by the USA)

South Korea (protected from China, North Korea by the USA)

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

East Germany

Georgia

Estonia

Belarus

Ukraine

Hungary (Liberated from communist dictatorship because of the collapse of the USSR, economically destroyed by military competition from the USA)

El Salvadore

Columbia (both debatable I grant you, but both would be MUCH worse off if not for US military aid, IMHO)

West Germany

France

Belguim

the Netherlands

Denmark

Great Britain

Ireland

(defended from the USSR by American military might.....)

Israel
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Hey Colpy how's it goin dude..:)

Just wondering if you listened to Fred Thompson (U.S. candidate running in the primaries...or something like that...) addressing folk about "What makes America great.."

Thought you'd like to know that according to Freddy Boy "more Americans have died bringing freedom to other people than all other nations combined..." I may have the quote fouled up but the intent was very clear....

How many million Russians died or or how many Brits or any other nation you'd care to name who participated in two world wars.....?

But this proud American claims that America has made a sacrifice unequalled in all the world....

I'm sure you'd find that supportable ....right?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Hey Colpy how's it goin dude..:)

Just wondering if you listened to Fred Thompson (U.S. candidate running in the primaries...or something like that...) addressing folk about "What makes America great.."

Thought you'd like to know that according to Freddy Boy "more Americans have died bringing freedom to other people than all other nations combined..." I may have the quote fouled up but the intent was very clear....

How many million Russians died or or how many Brits or any other nation you'd care to name who participated in two world wars.....?

But this proud American claims that America has made a sacrifice unequalled in all the world....

I'm sure you'd find that supportable ....right?


Hey Mike!

Thompson has sunk to the bottom of the polls for good reason......his statement was idiotic.......