Canada should stay in Afghanistan past 2009, NATO chief says
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
What?
As long as we have a UN mandate, I'm all for Canada remaining in Afghanistan regardless of what NATO or some general says.
As for NATO requesting us to stay in Afghanistan, I honestly don't see what that has to do with NATO seeing that its purpose is to protect its members from military aggression. What national military has stormed any NATO member yet?
We should stay until we have actually accomplished something. It was the right decision to go into Afghanistan in the first place, but in overthrowing their leaders we have inherited the duty to rebuild society there. It is not ok to invade another country and withdraw the minute you lose a few troops.
Why should we sign on so far ahead of time tho??
Seems to me we should be allowed to make the call ourselves when the time comes. From all I've been reading, there is no good news coming out of the country- just today a US airstrike killed 25+ people including several women and children- you know, the ones who are now "living free from opression" and of whom "6 million are now going to school, something they'd never dreamed of"??
Well, we're killing them AS we "save" them. I would figure we should do one or another, as the whole "can't make a democracy without killing several thousand natives" arguments is stupid beyond comprehension
Seriously, I am kind of hoping the US actually is so stupid as to attack Iran, then we'll ALL be getting the HELL outta there ASAP while the whole region lights up- I am still as sure as I was 5 years ago that the Afghanistan "mission" is a cruel joke, being played on decent, thinking people everywhere
Seems to me we should be allowed to make the call ourselves when the time comes. From all I've been reading, there is no good news coming out of the country- just today a US airstrike killed 25+ people including several women and children- you know, the ones who are now "living free from opression" and of whom "6 million are now going to school, something they'd never dreamed of"??
Well, we're killing them AS we "save" them. I would figure we should do one or another, as the whole "can't make a democracy without killing several thousand natives" arguments is stupid beyond comprehension
Seriously, I am kind of hoping the US actually is so stupid as to attack Iran, then we'll ALL be getting the HELL outta there ASAP while the whole region lights up- I am still as sure as I was 5 years ago that the Afghanistan "mission" is a cruel joke, being played on decent, thinking people everywhere
If I understand correctly, Canada is in Afghanistan on a UN mandate, and as such does have a moral responsibility to the world community. Just my two cents worth.
As for what the US is doing there, that's there issue and has no bearing on Canada. We are there on a UN, not US, mandate.
As for what the US is doing there, that's there issue and has no bearing on Canada. We are there on a UN, not US, mandate.
I wish people would study the area (Afghanistan) review the history of the people and the dynamics of government war and violence in the context of the region and the history and understand that anyone's efforts to "resolve" this issue....are doomed to lengthy painful and largely unsatisfactory results...
If you think killing all the Moslems and killing all the Taliban and killing all the people institutions and constructs that have coalesced into the situation in Afghanistan is the answer....then by all means let's kill them all....and will that achieve a result you'd all find more comfort in having contributed to..?
Nations have fought wars and been overrun and groups (women, blacks, Jews, aboriginals) have suffered at the hands of the conquistador, the imperialist the dictator the Prime Minister the King...forever.....
Support our troops ....bring them home.....
The corollary to the sentiment that bringing our troops home is the greatest way of supporting them is the choice that Canadians exhust enormous amounts of energy avoiding.....
Human history demonstrates repeatedly...to win the hearts and minds of anyone...believers, ideologues,whatever...war and violence don't have lasting effect....one fanatical regime is waiting in the wings to take the power vacuum produced when the current fanaticism has run its course....
If you want to help/save the people of Afghanistan....you've got to do more than put a ribbon on your car and write appeals on websites and blogs..... Canadians don't to that...Canadians wan to talk you to death...not really do anything that has a chance of addressing the fundamental issues....
Canadians would rather be led...."Oh if the petroleum companies want to protect their investments...let's all go to war...." "Oh if the moneyed the wealthy and the powerful want to commit years of blood and tons of our money to an action...an on-going potentially explosive situation for years and years into the future...well sure....let's sign on for decades...."
Maybe there's an element of shame involved here.... We sat back and let the Nazis slaughter Jews...we sat back and watched Tutsis and Hutus slaughter each other....it was our appetites and our sense of entitlement that demands that we have fosil fuels and a level of wealth and prosperity that the vast majority of all other people of the world don't have....so we can assuage our guilt in instalments....
Loony Tunes....
If you think killing all the Moslems and killing all the Taliban and killing all the people institutions and constructs that have coalesced into the situation in Afghanistan is the answer....then by all means let's kill them all....and will that achieve a result you'd all find more comfort in having contributed to..?
Nations have fought wars and been overrun and groups (women, blacks, Jews, aboriginals) have suffered at the hands of the conquistador, the imperialist the dictator the Prime Minister the King...forever.....
Support our troops ....bring them home.....
The corollary to the sentiment that bringing our troops home is the greatest way of supporting them is the choice that Canadians exhust enormous amounts of energy avoiding.....
Human history demonstrates repeatedly...to win the hearts and minds of anyone...believers, ideologues,whatever...war and violence don't have lasting effect....one fanatical regime is waiting in the wings to take the power vacuum produced when the current fanaticism has run its course....
If you want to help/save the people of Afghanistan....you've got to do more than put a ribbon on your car and write appeals on websites and blogs..... Canadians don't to that...Canadians wan to talk you to death...not really do anything that has a chance of addressing the fundamental issues....
Canadians would rather be led...."Oh if the petroleum companies want to protect their investments...let's all go to war...." "Oh if the moneyed the wealthy and the powerful want to commit years of blood and tons of our money to an action...an on-going potentially explosive situation for years and years into the future...well sure....let's sign on for decades...."
Maybe there's an element of shame involved here.... We sat back and let the Nazis slaughter Jews...we sat back and watched Tutsis and Hutus slaughter each other....it was our appetites and our sense of entitlement that demands that we have fosil fuels and a level of wealth and prosperity that the vast majority of all other people of the world don't have....so we can assuage our guilt in instalments....
Loony Tunes....
Any particular support for an opinion that going into Afghanistan was the RIGHT thing to do, or is it simply attitude masquerading as something more elevated than a vague feeling of rightness? What is this thing called rebuilding society? Rebuilding what into what? Where else has this rebuilding been done? Where has it been tried and what happened? Soviets tried for 10-years and what did they get? Lenin and Stalin tried it in the Soviet Union for longer than that and what did they get? Well, then there was the final solution. Bush and crowd are still trying to make the world safe for democracy. Great track record of moral excellence, this rebuilding of society.
Is there a manual on rebuilding society, or is this simply dreaming the impossible dream from La Mancha? Is there a manual on the proper overthrowing sovereign heads of state for the good of their citizens? God I’m sick of feel good normatives that float around and never ever are required to have operational renderings. Things are going boom, people are being maimed and killed, the infrastructures of lives destroyed; and we still speak of the right thing to do, the moral obligation of rebuilding society.
Who speaks for the rights of those who were destroyed while we perhaps act out the faint hope of salvaging our moral integrity against a backdrop of the impossible dream? Who plays Fat Panza and who Plays Donkey Hote? Perhaps the Evil Enchanter won a long time ago and we only think things are bad? Maybe we’ll wake up soon and think, gees, what was that dream about. Those who we set out save seem more likely to recover from their salvation than are we, the saviors.
The Dutch general's comments likely were a setup designed to play only for the Canadian domestic audience—a perk for Harper. We should keep in mind that generals fight wars, they don’t make policies about them.
Is there a manual on rebuilding society, or is this simply dreaming the impossible dream from La Mancha? Is there a manual on the proper overthrowing sovereign heads of state for the good of their citizens? God I’m sick of feel good normatives that float around and never ever are required to have operational renderings. Things are going boom, people are being maimed and killed, the infrastructures of lives destroyed; and we still speak of the right thing to do, the moral obligation of rebuilding society.
Who speaks for the rights of those who were destroyed while we perhaps act out the faint hope of salvaging our moral integrity against a backdrop of the impossible dream? Who plays Fat Panza and who Plays Donkey Hote? Perhaps the Evil Enchanter won a long time ago and we only think things are bad? Maybe we’ll wake up soon and think, gees, what was that dream about. Those who we set out save seem more likely to recover from their salvation than are we, the saviors.
The Dutch general's comments likely were a setup designed to play only for the Canadian domestic audience—a perk for Harper. We should keep in mind that generals fight wars, they don’t make policies about them.
Last edited:
Fine posts from both you fellows, Tom and Mikey, well put
It really does seem like our country is to be run by some kind of weird world polling- it's funny how some folks would say flat-out that Stephane Dion could never be PM since he's "foreign", but when some jerk from Holland tells US what WE as a country should be doing a few years from now with regards to our foreign policy, we can't even question the wisdom without bein called "traitors"
Just weird, is all
It really does seem like our country is to be run by some kind of weird world polling- it's funny how some folks would say flat-out that Stephane Dion could never be PM since he's "foreign", but when some jerk from Holland tells US what WE as a country should be doing a few years from now with regards to our foreign policy, we can't even question the wisdom without bein called "traitors"
Just weird, is all
I'm not sure we should even be there, let alone stay there. We've lost sixty people and we haven't taken an inch of ground. There is a seemingly endless supply of Taliban in Pakistan and no improvement in sight. We've been driven into buying second hand tanks and our losses seem to be accelerating. The Afghanis are not likely to like us any better in 2009 than they do now. At this point I would rather we fight a war for conquest rather than all this pi$$ing around trying to bring them democracy between suicide bombs.
Thanks to those who responded...
When someone...say the United States declares its behaviour as the standard to be emulated... to be established as the bencmark behavior among and across all other nations and people of the world, that proposition demands that we look very carefully at what our ideas of "justice" our ideas of "lawful" and "legal" mean under the light of focused analysis.
We have the "legality" of many behaviors over the years manifested by the United States and the consequences of those behaviors.
Analyze those outcomes and make the determination for yourself.
Is the world a better-off more generally peaceful and co-operative collection of folk or is it divided and roiling with conflict poverty and fear?
You pick a model......
When someone...say the United States declares its behaviour as the standard to be emulated... to be established as the bencmark behavior among and across all other nations and people of the world, that proposition demands that we look very carefully at what our ideas of "justice" our ideas of "lawful" and "legal" mean under the light of focused analysis.
We have the "legality" of many behaviors over the years manifested by the United States and the consequences of those behaviors.
Analyze those outcomes and make the determination for yourself.
Is the world a better-off more generally peaceful and co-operative collection of folk or is it divided and roiling with conflict poverty and fear?
You pick a model......
1.) not to be crass, but what do you think a war is? 60 people in over 5 years is nothing, more soldiers die in traffic accidents. And what good is land? When you aren't fighting a standing army land is useless. Technically the laws of war allow us to do some nasty things to Afghanis about now, but we aren't going to just because we could.
(not at Juan)
Im also perplexed by the need for a UN mandate. A UN mandate is not required for action. A NATO commitment is far more binding. The UN is a forum for debate, not any kind of authority or governing body. NATO is an alliance we willingly joined and benefit from. It does not matter if its an offical army attacking you.
The SS in WWII were not an official army, but I don't think anyone was confused if they were German. A sovereign nation is responsible for all actions coming from within its borders. Afghanistan either allowed or was unable to stop its sovereignty from being used. Thus it is responsible either way.
Zzarchov
So your preference is to have law of the jungle...?
If you have a standing army of 250,000,000 men, have a demonstrated capacity to fire missiles at and destroy orbiting satellites, enormous wealth......you should simply exercise that power....
C'mon China!
Sure Zzach saves a lot of pissin around doesn't it!
So your preference is to have law of the jungle...?
If you have a standing army of 250,000,000 men, have a demonstrated capacity to fire missiles at and destroy orbiting satellites, enormous wealth......you should simply exercise that power....
C'mon China!
Sure Zzach saves a lot of pissin around doesn't it!
The moral case may not be grasped, but the legal case doesn’t seem too well wrapped either. So, we’re in Afghanistan not for any of the high-minded moral reasons offered, but are simply exercising the rights of collective self-defense as provided under the NATO Charter. The NATO Charter can be read here: http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm. It isn’t very long.
Pray tell what organization undertook an armed attack against which NATO member and when? What was the event called? Surely not 9/11. An argument that the 9/11 attack was launched from Afghan territory or the Afghan government of the day could realistically have prevented the attack should be a real Bob and Doug show at The Hague.
The NATO operation needs the UN because the operation doesn’t seem to wash as collective self-defense under the NATO Charter. Under the Charter armed attack against member states allow armed responses if disputes cannot be settled in a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. Compromises of member territorial integrity, political independence or security allows member to consult with each other, not attack another nations. The operation needs the UN because it first must seek peaceful resolution and in absence of resolution carry out armed operations only until the UN Security Council undertakes measures to restore peace and stability. When did it meet these requirements?
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations
And
Article 5
…Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
I hadn’t read the Charter previously, and one read certainly does not buy any particular expertise. However, if I’m going to run my mouth, I at least try to work a bit at the ideas I try to express. Do work a bit and try to elevate attitude to at least opinion. Most any idea can be reasonably well supported; it just takes a bit of effort.
Pray tell what organization undertook an armed attack against which NATO member and when? What was the event called? Surely not 9/11. An argument that the 9/11 attack was launched from Afghan territory or the Afghan government of the day could realistically have prevented the attack should be a real Bob and Doug show at The Hague.
The NATO operation needs the UN because the operation doesn’t seem to wash as collective self-defense under the NATO Charter. Under the Charter armed attack against member states allow armed responses if disputes cannot be settled in a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. Compromises of member territorial integrity, political independence or security allows member to consult with each other, not attack another nations. The operation needs the UN because it first must seek peaceful resolution and in absence of resolution carry out armed operations only until the UN Security Council undertakes measures to restore peace and stability. When did it meet these requirements?
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations
And
Article 5
…Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
I hadn’t read the Charter previously, and one read certainly does not buy any particular expertise. However, if I’m going to run my mouth, I at least try to work a bit at the ideas I try to express. Do work a bit and try to elevate attitude to at least opinion. Most any idea can be reasonably well supported; it just takes a bit of effort.
So what is the official UN stance at the moment? Are we in Afghan legallly or not? I thought we were, but correct me if I'm wrong.
If we're not, then certaily we ought to get out of there for one simplre reason: precedence. If Canada can flaunt international law, then who are we to tell others to respect it. Then it becomes nothng short of the law of the jungle.
I was even somewhat supportive of an Invasion of Iraq due to Saddam's behaviour, yet even with that I was still vehemntly opposed to attacking Irack without a UN mandate. When it became obvious that Bush was about to snub the world, I was revolted.
So if I expect the US to abide by international law, then how can I expect any differently from my own country? International law is for all and does hold a certain moral value.
If we're not, then certaily we ought to get out of there for one simplre reason: precedence. If Canada can flaunt international law, then who are we to tell others to respect it. Then it becomes nothng short of the law of the jungle.
I was even somewhat supportive of an Invasion of Iraq due to Saddam's behaviour, yet even with that I was still vehemntly opposed to attacking Irack without a UN mandate. When it became obvious that Bush was about to snub the world, I was revolted.
So if I expect the US to abide by international law, then how can I expect any differently from my own country? International law is for all and does hold a certain moral value.
Good question: Yes, I always thought that Canadian presence in Afghanistan ultimately operated under UN mandate (as does the NATO operation). Below is some detail of various supporting documents. I also believed that what we are doing at present is likely a serious legal torturing of the formal terms of the supporting documents.
After reading though the documents below I think I was generally correct. What was agreed to and what we have today seem vastly different. I was surprised to find that the mission started with the Bonn Agreement. A meeting in Bonn was held to restore a semblance of order and authority to the region following the US unilateral invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The invasion ended a two decade civil war but left no central authority to administer the region. The subsequent events seem similar to the lead up to US behaviour in Viet Nam.
According to the documents, Canadian presence in Afghanistan is supported under both the Assistance (humanitarian relief)and the Security Force Assistance mandates. However, it is a UN not a NATO mandate; it is most definitely not a war; the rules of war do not apply; and we most definitely cannot do nasty things to Afghans; in fact under the mandate we are required to prevent Afghans from nasty things to each other. The ISAF mandate exists only so long as conditions in Afghanistan continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security. I wonder when the last time was that the Afghanistan threat was assessed.
God I hate dealing with legalistic renderings of things, but sometimes I am unwilling to simply let what seem to be wholly uninformed comments stand. If we all read the stuff below, then our comments might be raised a notch or two above the level of barroom blab. I may not be completely correct here, but I did learn a thing or two.
NATO Afghanistan Fact Sheet http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm
UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNAMA
UNSC Resolution (International Security Assistance Force) http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
Bonn Agreement http://www.afghangovernment.com/AfghanAgreementBonn.htm
After reading though the documents below I think I was generally correct. What was agreed to and what we have today seem vastly different. I was surprised to find that the mission started with the Bonn Agreement. A meeting in Bonn was held to restore a semblance of order and authority to the region following the US unilateral invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The invasion ended a two decade civil war but left no central authority to administer the region. The subsequent events seem similar to the lead up to US behaviour in Viet Nam.
According to the documents, Canadian presence in Afghanistan is supported under both the Assistance (humanitarian relief)and the Security Force Assistance mandates. However, it is a UN not a NATO mandate; it is most definitely not a war; the rules of war do not apply; and we most definitely cannot do nasty things to Afghans; in fact under the mandate we are required to prevent Afghans from nasty things to each other. The ISAF mandate exists only so long as conditions in Afghanistan continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security. I wonder when the last time was that the Afghanistan threat was assessed.
God I hate dealing with legalistic renderings of things, but sometimes I am unwilling to simply let what seem to be wholly uninformed comments stand. If we all read the stuff below, then our comments might be raised a notch or two above the level of barroom blab. I may not be completely correct here, but I did learn a thing or two.
NATO Afghanistan Fact Sheet http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm
UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNAMA
UNSC Resolution (International Security Assistance Force) http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
Bonn Agreement http://www.afghangovernment.com/AfghanAgreementBonn.htm
Last edited:
Zzarchov wrote:
More Canadian soldiers do not die in traffic accidents........Out of the sixty that died, only a half dozen died in road accidents.
The war in Afghanistan is not winnable because we are not fighting to win. We are fighting some dopey holding action that we can't possibly win. In 2009 we will still be losing soldiers to suicide bombs. The only Afghans who want us there is the puppet government who would last about five minutes after NATO pulled out.
More Canadian soldiers do not die in traffic accidents........Out of the sixty that died, only a half dozen died in road accidents.
The war in Afghanistan is not winnable because we are not fighting to win. We are fighting some dopey holding action that we can't possibly win. In 2009 we will still be losing soldiers to suicide bombs. The only Afghans who want us there is the puppet government who would last about five minutes after NATO pulled out.