The war is not winnable by my best estimation. And it certainly is a war of ideology. We weren't "attacked", if you will. We were not responding to a real, or even imagined, threat. We began the effort by being the agressors. You cannot defend such an action without some form of ideology... Some sense that a greater good is beng served.
I never said it wasn't a war of ideologies. In fact I've said the opposite everytime I've been asked. They see no problem running a country under the banner of Islam and where killing is a form of negotiation.
But there is one small detail that you've over looked...I'll touch on that when the appropriate time comes.
Ironically, the people you are fighting are unwilling to deny the ideology of the war. And because of this, your enemy is winning support and their supporters are unswayed by western propaganda and justifications.
No...they win support when reactionary western journalists think they're doing the world a favour as they blow the lid off the next big Abu Graeb story...wrong.
They gain support everytime a unit of insurgents uses a school to mount an attack and drastic measures must be taken and innocent children are killed. Great photo ops for the journalists that care more for ratings then the cause.
They gain support when they flick on the telly or the puter and point out to all that congregate around the only one in town...Look, even their own people, they're own politicians, say they are wrong.
Using Al Qaeda as an example, it is easy to use political propaganda and western ideology to cast Osama Bin Laden and his followers into a bad light here in the west. In Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etcetera, it is much more difficult and all but impossible to do likewise. The reason, of course, being that the peoples in those countries know the truth of Al Qaeda. There's a reason for Bin Laden's popularity in the Middle East.
I rarely speak of either anymore, I have very lil interest in either and they have become quite irelevant to the war in Afghanistan.
I admire your optimism, but I really don't see this war as winnable. We really don't belong over there... And we're really not wanted over there. And you haven't any hope of ever changing that.
Agian, I'll get to this in a minute.
You're right. Soldiers should not be social workers or police officers. Unless, of course, it's their job to be social workers and police officers.
But of course.
Which is part and parcel in a peacekeeping mission.
And take a good, hard, long look at the Soldiers in the wake of the Combat variety. Though there are combat operations ongoing, one can not rebuild while one is under fire. Speaking of absurdity.
Engineers, medics, Doctors, nurses, and so on.
These people can not work, when the Taliban hold the town.
Are you followin' me here?
Your description of your enemy is anything but true. For a person who is so adamnat about sticking to fact, you tend to deviate from the facts quite frequently.
Ummm, ya...
Since this is the first time you've pointed out what you percieve as 'deviating from fact', you'll have to excuse me, if I call BS.
Anyone...and I mean anyone, no matter what nation they serve, ours, theirs or US, if you use people...civilians, as human shields, you are snailshyte, pure cowardous.
That's not to say it isn't tactical geneous, look at the support the world gives the Hezbollah over lil babies they made sure ended up dead and on the 6 o'clock news. Pure tactical geneious.
The war on the homefront is raging and folks like yourself are the casualties. No offence.
I know, you think I'm brainwashed by the media and Gov't spin, but you'ld be wrong, you'ld be hard pressed to find a post where I agree with the Gov't in general. I just know better of the situation, the people involved and the intricacies of combat and of course the law pertaining to the whole of the situation. Most people just know how they
feel and run with that. A lil research goes a long way.
The fact of the matter is that our soldiers face an enemy that is far fewer in number, far less armed, and exceedingly less equipped in terms of body armour, etcetera. To label them cowardly for refusing to stand up and say, "Here I am brave Canadian soldier with the big gun, body armour, and multi-national coalition... Here I am, an unarmed, undefended, patriotic defender of my own country... Shoot me without cause and show how brave you are," is absurd.
Ahhh, you see, you just assumed I ment one because of the other. You shouldn't make such assumptions. And for the record, before you accuse me, I have a great deal more respect for those that dawn their nations uniform, then that of the 'insurgent', which is just a negative spin word that means the same as 'freedom fighter'. But and I do mean BUT here, I have stated to many a folk here and elsewhere, that if you fail to give the enemy respect, you will lose. Just look back through the posts of mine in this thread, I made reference to WWII German officers. Though my Nation stood in opposition the the German machine, and they were the enemy, I still respect the men that performed their asigned duties with tactical knowhow.
Cowardous comes when you deviate from a military code and begin to use people as weapons, shields, fodder and no amount of grandstanding behind comments like "an enemy that is far fewer in number, far less armed, and exceedingly less equipped in terms of body armour," will change that fact. But then again, I was trained to be a 'civil' Soldier.
I know serveral men in Afghanistan, served with some, trained some, back when they were green as green can be, there is a reason we don't loose men in battles. We lose good men when cowards use roadside bombs and cars packed with kids as shields. Knowing we are less likely to or second guess, firing on a car full of kids...
While of course, they wouldn't hesitate to do so.
You following me here?
If our Canadian (Or American) forces were in the same circumstances, we would not be so quick to apply such demeaning and false allegations against them. And we wonder why the 'Coalition of the Arrogant' aren't winning the 'hearts and minds' of the folk living in occupied territories.
Speaking of deviating from the facts. First you make an assumption, then you just make stuff to bolster it?
From the stories and communications I heard from the feild, we are do quite well with the IP's of Afghanistan.
Let's not forget that our nations are the aggressors. We've invaded countries without cause... We've endeavoured to tell them that their way of life is wrong and that they should be more like us... We've denied them the means to adequately defend themselves and conduct themselves in a manner that we deem appropriate... We label them cowards for defending themselves in the only means available to them... And we expect them to throw down their arms, end their resistance, and concede that their country is no longer their country.
OK, for the last time...here goes the explaination of an act of war, for those of you who obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
9/11...Had the planes hijacked by a terrorist organisation been directed solely at and hit solely, civilian targets, it can and could only be considered an act of terrorism. A nation would have had to be complicit to make it an act of war. Remember that. Especially the word "complicit".
The fact that the Pentagon was targeted, a military installation, makes it a bonified act of war, between the US and a the nation that launched the attack, again, a nation would have to be complicit to have war declared upon them in the aftermath.
The Nation of Afghanistan, knew of the organisation, harboured and protected it. Refused to allow the group to be taken into custody, acting as their protectoret. Thus acting as an accomplice.
Guess what that means?
Under the UN's definition of a failed state, and as Afghanistan is a signatory member of the UN since 19 November 1946 and well aware of UN regulations and international law, specifically pertaining to what is a 'failed state', and specifically the section that reads...
And I quote facts here.
Wiki said:
A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains a
monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g.,
through the dominant presence of warlords,
militias, or
terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a
failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains "a monopoly on the legitimate use of force" (which includes the problems of the definition of "legitimate") means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have "failed." This problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on the means of violence (
de facto) but will need one if it needs to use it (
de jure).
The term is also used in the sense of a state that has been rendered ineffective (i.e., has nominal military/police control over its territory only in the sense of having no armed opposition groups directly challenging state authority; in short, the "no news is good news" approach) and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of high crime rates,
extreme political corruption, an extensive
informal market, impenetrable bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics,
cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area but do not compete with the state, or a number of other factors.
Please note the hilighted portions, all of which apply to the Talibans actions and their control over the state. Not to mention the evidence of 'indicators' which are easily accessed via the net, if you so choose to look them up.
Now, the Nation of Afghanistan did not actually attack the US, but it did and continued to allow "Traditional leaders" to thwart the intervention of justice, contrary to Afghanistans mandates as a UN member state. Thus being 'complicit' in an act of terrorism and by defacto complicit in an act of war.
Thus leading us to...The acts of NATO. (If you are not familiar with them, please feel free to look them up and the rules pertaining to the mandates thereof of NATO's signatory membership.) You attack one, you attack all. We, Canada, are a signatory NATO Member and thusly obligated to act accordingly.
A NATO Nation was attacked, the perpetrators acted with and by the protection and authority of the Gov't of Afghanistan. Thus the invasion of said nation, only after all 'reasonable' diplomatic means had been exhausted. Iraq is a totally different set of curcumsatnces that I really think was misguided, so I will not discuss them here, as they do not pertain to a Canadian perspective on the conflict in Afghanistan.
And to add insult to injury... We actually have the arrogance and eqo to think that we're actually going to succeed in convincing them that they really don't need or want their own country, values, and culture. :roll:
I actually agree, if that were our goal.
The Canadian Forces mandate under the UN's ISAF operation, is not to turn Afghanistan into a western style nation, but to return the nation to a 'sucessful' state. Run with a code of conduct that does not foster or bolster military activities beyond its borders in any other manner then self defence.
I have stated several times around this board and others, that to force western democracy on any nation is eronious at best. It is not for all. A nation should be allowed to choose it's own course and pick its own rule of law, without outside interference. So long as in doing so, it does not suborne terrorist or militia activities that directly affect other nations without provokation.
So what do we do... Do we weaken the rules of engagement, declare countries like Iraq and Afghanistan lawless territories ushered into chaos as a result of their own doing?
Again, I am not discussing Iraq.
Perhaps you are not aware of what the ROE or QR&O are.
These are the set rules of combat engagement that the Canadian Armed Forces ostencably fight and/or operate by and/or under, in combat.
Do not fire unless fired upon and what not.
My issue is with the use of human shields and the Guerilla tactics of our foes. It is one thing to stand and face off with a uniformed lorce, but it is an entirely different animal we hunt here.
It is far to complicated to fully explain in the character constraints of this boards filters, but sufice it to say, my ideas are ugly, but tactically sound. Sure, the loss of civilians will grow, but that battle would be won.
Are you aware that during WWII, the Dutch absolutely hated the Allied Forces?
They were quite happy with the Nazi trains running on time, minus the the 2000 Dutch per day sucoming to the ordinance of the Allied bombers.
Yet today, 60 plus years after the fact, the Dutch honour the Canadian Vetrans and war dead of WWII and the Canadian Armed Forces and people in general, moreso then our own nation. It is no lie, that a Canadian flag in Holland is worth more then the weight of its posessor, in gold.
Why do you think that is?
Does the word 'liberation' mean anything to you?
Even the indoctrinated can one day see the light, once the bombs stop falling.
Do we give our invading forces the power and authority to engage in torture and other crimes against humanity?
In certain situations, yes. But then again, you would have to have an understanding of what it measn to be in combat and what it means to be standing with your men in the thick of it.
Would it thoroughly disgust you to know that I would kill a child with very little hesitation, if my men or my mission were in jeapordy?
If it does, you're thinking like a civilian. Sometimes things are ugly, but the greater good demands us to run on instinct and do things that we wouldn't otherwise do or be something we are not. It is in how one goes on after the fact, that defines the honour in the action.
Ugly things should cause one to reflect, not rejoice.
Do we create a fancy superlative to disguise what can only accurately be described as genocide?
Again, I think your 'deviating' from facts here, if not reality.
Or do we just acknowledge that we were wrong to have interfered in their affairs, concede that we probably provoked attacks like 9/11, and get out of their country?
Though I would support the US's past 'Manifest Destiny' policy in the middle east as the sole cause of 9/11, I would hardly advocate the fact that it justified the acts of 9/11.
But since you 'went there', if the foriegn policy of the US was the likely cause of said events, then the policy of the Taliban and Al Qeada are the direct cause of the woes of Afghanistan today. You can have your cake and eat it to.
Sometime the best defence, is a wicked offence...lol. But you;ld be wrong at any rate. They drew first blood.We merely upheld our obligations and reacted to their actions.
We went in there under the veil of bringing peace, democracy, and rule of law.
Actually, no.. we didn't. We went in under the pretence of securing a pipeline route, everything else is just icing and spin.
We were met with heavy resistance and the war has dragged on for far longer than even World War II. We have had little to no success in winning the hearts and minds of the people we're allegedly there to help, and you seem to be suggesting that our troops be permitted to destroy whatever accomplishments we have made in the Middle East, and effectively become the people the propaganda says we are there to eradicate.
We were met by a battle hardend group, convinced they are holy warriors.
We have won the hearts and minds of those not steeped in the indoctrination of the fanatic extremists.
And no, I am not saying we should destroy what we have accomplished that you just said we haven't.
I'm saying that when in combat with a snake, one must become a snake. The Australians did it in Veitnam, with great success. It was only the bleeding hearts and the whiners back home that had them removed from combat operations in southeast asian.
Had they been allowed to stay, they would have won the war in that quaint lil piece of jungle real estate.
