Canada, allies will never defeat Taliban, PM says
- Thread starter Tyr
- Start date
Defeat the Taliban! Who gives a ****, if we want to be a free country we will have to defeat Israel.
Well, funny about that: I'm more willing to believe lunatic Muslim extremeists that take credit for the attack......
As for defeating the insurgency, not so. The point is to keep Afghanistan forever out of the hands of those that would use it as a training base to attack the west. Indeed, they may have to go into Pakistan as well, as it looks like the Taliban are doing far too well there..........as long as we prevent them creating a safe haven from which they can plan and launch attacks on the west, we are successful.
The problem is largely lack of soldiers. Only the Brits, and the USA is willing to go shoulder to shoulder with us, and toe-to-toe with the Taliban.....other NATO countries have proven themselves useless.
Politically, it has become necessary for us to radically change our cmmitment in 2011. This saddens me, but I understand we are a democracy, and can not fight an extended war without the will of our people.......
I grieve for the West. We have lost 20 soldiers in 6 months......which has led to massively increased calls for our withdrawal, and (tonight on CBC) a reference to that casualty count as "horrendous" In 1943, as a nation of 12 million, against an enemy that had never attacked land in the western hemisphere, we lost 708 soldiers in 6 HOURS (at Dieppe)......and there was no call for withdrawal....merely a quiet determination to see it through.
That was the Canada I am proud of.
Hold on, did we even complete the original mission for which we were sent there, to capture Bin Ladin?
And then once we got there, we decided, heck, forget Bin Laden, let's go after Iraq. Then in Afghanistan, we decided, heck, while we're here, let's clean up house... and still no Bin Laden. Oh the focus!
And why is Obama looking for Western European allies? Wouldn't allies who know the local language, religin, culture, etc. be preferable. Oh, sorry, forgot, that's the enemy we're trying to help and defend, or attacki, or... who's the enemy again, and whom are we trying to help? Ah, they all look the same anyway, right?
Isn't that sort of defeatist talk, I am surprised that Harper actually said it, but moving on. I know that kind of talk fits into a few peoples agenda, but not the soldiers your country sent.
"I agree the Liberal's signed the Afghan Accord." That statement couldn't be farther from the truth. It was Canada who signed the Afghan Accord. As for the benchmarks, it was up to us to make sure they met them. They had no stable gov. capable of meeting anything.
Last edited:
Here is a pretty good assessment of what is happening now with the Afghanistan issue:
As the United States seeks a new way forward in Afghanistan, it should seriously consider leaving behind old alliances that are proving to be more of a hindrance than a help in prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism. A good place to start is with NATO.
September 11, 2001. NATO rallied to America's side and immediately invoked the collective defense article of its charter, affirming its founding principle that an attack against one member state was an attack against all member states. NATO's initial display of unified determination to confront radical Islamism, however, quickly gave way to a half-hearted effort in Afghanistan that has been held back by limited troop contributions and national caveats on the employment of those troops that ultimately has limited the ability of coalition commanders in the field to effectively fight the war.
NATO's Western European members are in a difficult situation. Lacking domestic support for continuing operations in Afghanistan, but understanding their commitments to the alliance, many member states have imposed national caveats on their forces that severely restrict their usefulness to commanders on the ground. Some are restricted to their bases in support roles, while others are only permitted to engage in reconstruction and humanitarian operations. Some can only operate during daylight, and others are only able to fire their weapons in self defense (ruling out their use for offensive operations). The end result is that very few nations, the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, are bearing the brunt of the fighting, and the dying, in operations targeting the Taliban and al Qaeda.
NATO is not likely to get its act together in time to save Afghanistan, and a failed Afghan state is just not a realistic option. Losing in Afghanistan would not just open the door to terrorists seeking a safe haven from which to operate. it would pave the way for failure of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of nearly 200
million that is barely hanging on against Islamic radicals threatening it not only from Afghanistan, but from within its own borders as well.
The United States is running out of options, and the time has come to consider abandoning an ineffective NATO in favor of coalitions of like-minded nations that possess both the will and the ability to succeed. Some of those nations will be NATO member states; others will not. There is no escaping the reality that NATO has fallen victim to the same national divisions that have rendered the United Nations impotent. It is a basic truth of international relations that alliances come and go, but national interests are enduring. Given what is at stake in Afghanistan, for the region and for the world, the United States must acknowledge that the current NATO effort is not working. Doing so will allow Washington to finally craft a strategy for succeeding where America and its allies have thus far failed.
As the United States seeks a new way forward in Afghanistan, it should seriously consider leaving behind old alliances that are proving to be more of a hindrance than a help in prosecuting the Global War on Terrorism. A good place to start is with NATO.
September 11, 2001. NATO rallied to America's side and immediately invoked the collective defense article of its charter, affirming its founding principle that an attack against one member state was an attack against all member states. NATO's initial display of unified determination to confront radical Islamism, however, quickly gave way to a half-hearted effort in Afghanistan that has been held back by limited troop contributions and national caveats on the employment of those troops that ultimately has limited the ability of coalition commanders in the field to effectively fight the war.
NATO's Western European members are in a difficult situation. Lacking domestic support for continuing operations in Afghanistan, but understanding their commitments to the alliance, many member states have imposed national caveats on their forces that severely restrict their usefulness to commanders on the ground. Some are restricted to their bases in support roles, while others are only permitted to engage in reconstruction and humanitarian operations. Some can only operate during daylight, and others are only able to fire their weapons in self defense (ruling out their use for offensive operations). The end result is that very few nations, the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, are bearing the brunt of the fighting, and the dying, in operations targeting the Taliban and al Qaeda.
NATO is not likely to get its act together in time to save Afghanistan, and a failed Afghan state is just not a realistic option. Losing in Afghanistan would not just open the door to terrorists seeking a safe haven from which to operate. it would pave the way for failure of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of nearly 200
million that is barely hanging on against Islamic radicals threatening it not only from Afghanistan, but from within its own borders as well.
The United States is running out of options, and the time has come to consider abandoning an ineffective NATO in favor of coalitions of like-minded nations that possess both the will and the ability to succeed. Some of those nations will be NATO member states; others will not. There is no escaping the reality that NATO has fallen victim to the same national divisions that have rendered the United Nations impotent. It is a basic truth of international relations that alliances come and go, but national interests are enduring. Given what is at stake in Afghanistan, for the region and for the world, the United States must acknowledge that the current NATO effort is not working. Doing so will allow Washington to finally craft a strategy for succeeding where America and its allies have thus far failed.
Here are 15 good reasons why we probably won't defeat the Taliban:
AFGHANISTAN IN NUMBERS
AFGHANISTAN IN NUMBERS
- The population of Afghanistan is nearly 30 million. Ninety percent of the population is Sunni, and 10 percent Shiite.
- In Afghanistan, one of the world's poorest nations, 70-75 percent of the population is illiterate. Seventy percent of the people live in rural areas.
- Forty-one percent of the people are destitute. Five million depend on charity for their basic nutritional needs.
- Unemployment in the country is at a rate of 40 percent; 82 percent of the employed make a living from agriculture, while 6 percent work in industry.
- The standing NATO international forces in the country number 65,000. The US has 37,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is planning to double this number.
- Civilian deaths have doubled since 2006. According to the UN, 2,100 civilians were killed in the country, with NATO forces responsible for 40 percent of these deaths.
- Afghan security forces number 160,000, but only 30 percent of the army and 3 percent of the police are classed as "good" or "very good."
- In the first five years after 2001, the US lost an average of 50 soldiers a year, while this number increased to 100 in 2006, 120 in 2007 and 155 in 2008. The number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001 has surpassed 1,000. At least 600 of these were Americans.
- The US has spent $33.37 billion on rebuilding the country.
- Six-hundred and eighty schools have been constructed, and following the Taliban's fall from power 4.2 million students returned to school. Of the nearly 6 million students, 35 percent are females.
- While 670 health clinics were built, 10,000 health professionals were trained. Seventy percent of children are vaccinated, but in the nation where the life expectancy is an average 45 years, one of every five children dies before reaching the age of 5.
- The nation's economy has grown by 10 percent annually since the fall of the Taliban. The gross domestic product (GDP) has doubled, but the GDP is only $11 billion.
- Of the 34 provinces, 18 no longer produce opium, but Afghanistan still provides 93 percent of the world's opium. Fifteen percent of the public are involved in the opium trade.
- Since 2001, over 4 million refugees have returned home to Afghanistan, but in Pakistan and Iran another 2.8 million refugees have yet to return home.
From today's Globe and Mail:
Now, I am a great admirer of Lewis MacKenzie.....he is Canada's General emeritis
, IMHO.
Now, I am a great admirer of Lewis MacKenzie.....he is Canada's General emeritis
, IMHO.
"That was the Canada I am proud of."
That truly was the "Greatest Generation" there are a few of them still around to be proud of.
That truly was the "Greatest Generation" there are a few of them still around to be proud of.
Just out of curiosity, what are NATO's option when one of their members goes berserk and tries to involve all members in their insanity.
From the article just above is America wanting out of NATO because her members are 'reluctant' to wage the 'all out war' which seems to be what America wants the right to do over an incident that should have been handled by one Ranger.
Defense is something that happens on home turf not half a world away from your closest national border. Once you are in another country that is an act of aggression, NATO or the UN is not required to support or contribute any support when the acts are aggressive in nature. All supportive NATO troops should be inside the borders of the USA. Is there some actual words that say Canada has to follow the US around the world to fight in wars that she says are defensive.
Go punch somebody who has done nothing to you and see how far your plea of self-defence goes when standing before any Judge.
You can get away with killing somebody if they are in your home and attempting to kill you. See them on the street a few days later and you kill them you will be going to jail for a very long time.
Rather than the US find new partners to create terror in other lands NATO might have to turn it's guns on a common enemy, one of their own, the USA.
I can't believer some of you support the US having the right to be as aggressive and violent as she thinks a situation calls for when the reasons are provable lies.
The only way the US can exist is with a perpetual enemy and perpetual war, her wars necer stopped at the end of WWII, the name just changed.
From the article just above is America wanting out of NATO because her members are 'reluctant' to wage the 'all out war' which seems to be what America wants the right to do over an incident that should have been handled by one Ranger.
Defense is something that happens on home turf not half a world away from your closest national border. Once you are in another country that is an act of aggression, NATO or the UN is not required to support or contribute any support when the acts are aggressive in nature. All supportive NATO troops should be inside the borders of the USA. Is there some actual words that say Canada has to follow the US around the world to fight in wars that she says are defensive.
Go punch somebody who has done nothing to you and see how far your plea of self-defence goes when standing before any Judge.
You can get away with killing somebody if they are in your home and attempting to kill you. See them on the street a few days later and you kill them you will be going to jail for a very long time.
Rather than the US find new partners to create terror in other lands NATO might have to turn it's guns on a common enemy, one of their own, the USA.
I can't believer some of you support the US having the right to be as aggressive and violent as she thinks a situation calls for when the reasons are provable lies.
The only way the US can exist is with a perpetual enemy and perpetual war, her wars necer stopped at the end of WWII, the name just changed.
Colpy's article brings this up. Crime in American and Canadian cities. Obviously the preferred choice is to get rid of the criminals so everyone can have a more peaceful existence. Now if they have been fight that crime for 100 years and have yet to make any sort of headway (it is not unknown for some that are 'presented' as crime-fighters are actually be involved in that criminal organization). Now if they (the ones that 'protect the cities) are the same ones that are calling the shots in Iraq and Afghanistan (same training on how-to-do-things) then it is readily apparent stability will never come to an invaded nation and the fault is not with them it is with the ones who have not had one stable city in their own land in more than 100 years. The trend is actually even getting worse over the decades, the trend is worse if the public start accepting that. Knowing criminals run things and pleading to the world that it is the 'protectors' who have control. By rights they should not move on to other chores before they finish the one they are supposed to be battling now.
What I find amazing is that the rest of the world watched while the U.S. bombed to death a couple million in Korea, a couple million in Vietnam, a million in Laos and Cambodia and have now directly, and indirectly, have caused the deaths of a million Iraqis with no official complaints from the rest of the "free" world.
The Afghani "Freedom Fighters" have been fighting off the western brand of freedom and the socialist brand of freedom for 90 years. It is obvious after 90 years that these people don't want to be no mind consumers who claim a religion they don't partake in, feverishly support corrupt govts who do the biddings of bankers and weapons manufacturers, a fake patriotism built on lies and half truths, or servitude to their creditors. What's wrong with that?
Does the fact that we haven't really tried to increase that number in less time indicate that we might view that as a tactic (has been tried)that doesn't work. BTW we can break treaties and pass out poisons with the best of em.