Command of NATO Forces in Afghanistan....

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada will boost its troop strength in Afghanistan should it take over command of NATO forces in the country as anticipated, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

O'Connor has told NATO that Canada wants to assume control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) after it takes over operations in southern Afghanistan from the United States.

"Canada's interested in commanding ISAF in '08," O'Connor said Thursday after meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in Ottawa.

"Canada is more than able to command ISAF."

O'Connor said about 100 additional military personnel would be required for command operations, in addition to the 2,300 soldiers currently taking part in the Afghan mission.

NATO is to begin taking over military operations in and around violence-plagued Kandahar province by mid-summer when the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom moves to a new phase.

NATO is expanding its force to 16,000 from 9,700 by late July, effectively doubling international troop numbers in the southern region which was the Taliban's heartland.

While it hasn't been decided which country will lead the force after next year, Canada is seen as the strongest contender for the job.

ISAF, which is controlled by NATO, now operates in a peace-building and reconstruction capacity in the Afghan capital, Kabul and areas north.

It will act more like a combat force if needed, however, in the southern regions, suggested de Hoop Scheffer.

"When NATO takes over in the course of this summer, you'll see of course those ISAF forces . . . busy in dealing with reconstruction and development," he said.

"But at the same time, the message to the spoilers, be it Taliban, be it drug lords, be it warlords, whatever, will be a very stern and strong message: 'You will be dealt with very robustly, if necessary."'

Canadian soldiers are among more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition forces which began a massive anti-Taliban operation across southern Afghanistan Thursday.

Dubbed Operation Mountain Thrust, it is the largest offensive since the 2001 invasion that toppled the former Taliban regime.

The offensive is part of a major push to squeeze Taliban fighters responsible for a spate of ambushes and suicide attacks against coalition forces and Afghan authorities in recent months.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n061555A.xml
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
Yes. This could be our chance to take charge in Afghanistan, considering we are in a leading role currently.

Hopefully Canada will finally purchase the long and short-haul tactical/strategic aircraft they so badly need. Apparently O'Connor and Gen. Hillier have come to an agreement or understanding on both.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
O'Connor seeks $15B in extra equipment for troops

With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment.

Government sources told CTV News that the most pressing requirement for the military is airlift capability, as the armed forces has reached their breaking point just by flying troops and supplies to and from Afghanistan.

"It's all about mobility -- mobility in transporting forces to the theatres of war, in supporting our ships at sea and battlefield mobility with those helicopters," retired Gen. Paul Manson told Canada AM Friday.

As part of its wish list, the military is asking for:

More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft;
Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military;
Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and
Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies.
Since 1991, Canada has rented all of the strategic airlift crafts that it employs from Russia and Ukraine.

Manson said that renting military equipment is not only costly in the long term, but it could also compromise Canada's security.

"When a crisis occurs everybody needs these airplanes at the same time and Canada could find itself at the bottom of the totem pole of those who are looking for the rental of those facilities," he said.

The helicopters are capable of transporting artillery, equipment, supplies and soldiers directly to the battlefield, and would eliminate the need for troops to travel by vehicle on Afghanistan's deadly roads.

"If you want to send soldiers overseas, you need to send them and their equipment. That means you need big airplanes and big ships," said Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Canada's new commander of land forces, at a change-of-command ceremony in Ottawa on Thursday.

"We have to have helicopters to move our kids around the battlefield so they don't suffer unnecessary casualties."

In its inaugural budget in May, the Conservatives pledged to buy more equipment to support a multi-role, combat-capable, maritime, land and air force, and promised to kick in an additional $5.3 billion over five years in spending for the military.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Canada on Thursday for increasing its military budget.

link
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe.../military_spending_060615/20060616?hub=Canada
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
38
Petawawa Ontario
RE: Command of NATO Force

That is a good thing, It shows that Canada is willing to Take lead in the War on Terror, and do things the Canadian way. Afghanistan will be done right, and wont implode like Iraq did.
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
38
Petawawa Ontario
Re: RE: Command of NATO Forces in Afghanistan....

dekhqonbacha said:
War on Terror???

You guys like "war on terror".
Well, what is it supose to be called? As far as I know thats what its being called, I mean its not the "War on mean people".......We are fighting against people who allow terrorism to thrive in their Countrys, who let peole train to attack the west....Hence the war on terror.....

But yea I ams ure we could give it another name...its not the nicest sounding...but people need to know what we are talking about...and that is its given name at the moment.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Why is Canada involved in a remote region of the world that is obviously within the ken of giants like Russia and China and India? It's like Japan suddenly deciding to police Ontario's Caledonia. We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
38
Petawawa Ontario
RE: Command of NATO Force

I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!

What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Re: RE: Command of NATO Forces in Afghanistan....

tamarin said:
Why is Canada involved in a remote region of the world that is obviously within the ken of giants like Russia and China and India? It's like Japan suddenly deciding to police Ontario's Caledonia. We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.

1. The nations you listed; Russian, China, and India, are introspective. They don't project themselves outside of their own borders, and as a result we cannot count on them to attend to the needs of other nations, even if they are a stones throw away.

2. Japan does not have the ability to deploy Forces outside of it's own borders, baring special permission. This is a result of the peace treaty signed with the United States post-WW II. Just some FYI.

3. Why is it so ludicrous for Canada to deploy to Afghanistan? We've deployed to nations all over the globe. From Lebanon to East Timor. The distance shouldn't play a factor. And while the history of Afghanistan shows a nation rife with turmoil, you have to acknowledge the fact that the nations intervening havn't been there for noble purposes. We are, and will continue to make a difference in Afghanistan.
 

Claudius

Electoral Member
May 23, 2006
195
0
16
We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.

The very definition of simple-mindedness:

"They could never have a stable government or a functioning democracy."
"Why not?"
"Because they've never had one before, stupid.".

The complete vacuum of logic in that thinking always astounds me. It's not a point. It's not even rational.

"The kid's only 2 years old. He's never walked before. What on Earth makes you think he ever will?"

lol.


.
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
Re: RE: Command of NATO Force

EastSideScotian said:
I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!

What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.

Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?

War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.

USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
38
Petawawa Ontario
Re: RE: Command of NATO Force

dekhqonbacha said:
EastSideScotian said:
I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!

What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.

Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?

War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.

USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
Ireland, and Spain are perfectly capable of fighting terrorism on their own...? thats a pretty poor point.

They indicated what they think it means.... but you still havent told me what else you would call this war...

My point is...its called the war on terror because thats what it is... its stupid to say its not.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Its not War on Terrorism because it is not battling the thousands of groups that are terrorist. It is only battling one group and they changed its name to fight extremism so they just want to fight Islam Terrorism, and not al terrorism so it is faulty.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
Re: RE: Command of NATO Force

dekhqonbacha said:
Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?

War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.

USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.

Yes, very poor point indeed. Your are comparing Afghanistan to Spain and Ireland?
 

Claudius

Electoral Member
May 23, 2006
195
0
16
Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?

Yes...if IRA terrorists made a major attack costing thousands of lives on any NATO member nation soil...yes.

.
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
Re: RE: Command of NATO Force

EastSideScotian said:
...


My point is...its called the war on terror because thats what it is... its stupid to say its not.

The USA was attacked by Al Quada, not terrorism. Terrorism was the tactic used, but Al Quada was the actual group of persons who attacked the USA.
...
Terrorism is a tactic. Al Quada is a tangible enemy.
Bush declared a war on a tactic.
....
By definition, a war on a tactic can never end. It will always exist because the tactic always exists.
...
Yes, a war on terror is a strange thing. Despots have used it for their own purposes…calling political dissidents terrorists and enacting their own oppressive versions of the “patriot act”. It was used as a reason to invade Iraq, and is referred often during talk of Iran. It seems to permeate everything in the world now, which seems ludicrous in light of such things as Aids and Global Warming. It’s going in the wrong direction, coloring the way other realities are seen to the point of blurring them.
I hope America finds some clarity and definition for it’s foreign policy soon. I think the political slate needs cleaning and some new definitions and priorities need to be floated. One man has decided how the world should be viewed for too long, and in spite of declared good intentions this world view nurtures fear and anger, and that’s no way for Americans to live their lives.

When I provided the link, I hoped you would notice this.

Terror is a pronounced state of fear, an overwhelming sense of imminent danger.

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks, in order to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, bring about compliance with specified political, religious, or ideological demands.

The very phrase "War on Terrorism" is the subject of debate and disagreement. First, there has always been considerable debate as to what constitutes terrorism. Under some definitions, all military action is terrorism, and thus some contend that it is impossible to wage a "War on Terror". In addition, the notion of declaring war on an abstract concept is troubling to some (in the same vein as the war to end all wars, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and the War on Crime). The "War on Terrorism", like the War on Drugs, involves a mix of military and non-military forces.

Among those who accept the term "War on Terrorism" there are disagreements as to what actions and by what states, should be considered as part of the "war." For example, the Bush administration, despite considerable international and domestic disagreement, contends that the pre-emptive 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation is a crucial part of the "War on Terrorism". Likewise, Russia has recently asserted that its ongoing struggles with Chechen rebels should be part of the international effort.

Only two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Noam Chomsky, on the extreme left end of the debate, argued that the United States is a leading terrorist state.

The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by Russian and European governments, and eventually the U.S. government, to stop attacks by anarchists against international political leaders.

The next time the phrase gained currency was its use to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish terrorist attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" and attempted to crack down on Irgun, Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them. The Jewish attacks, Arab reprisals, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Bush.

He says it will end when every terrorist group of global reach is defeated.

Analysts say the incidents show that not only are there no front lines in the "war on terror" but that there is no single war against it because there are few common causes, no common enemy and no common strategy for fighting one.

Others note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but rather a tactic; calling it a "War on Terror," they say, obscures the differences between, for example, anti-occupation insurgents and international jihadists.

P.S: if you disagree with quotes, I cannot help with it. The only thing I can do is to provide the source.