Harper says he couldn't live with himself if he reduced Canada's mission in Afghan
- Thread starter Sassylassie
- Start date
Hrm, wouldn't that be making stuff up to suit your own needs to ask that question BitWhys? He doesn't say that it isn't one now..
Unless you know, you actually READ things other than this artical where it states the Bloc wants to turn it into a peace keeping instead of our state of war..
But hey, then Im "making up things" (known as stating the background facts to normal people), but Im sure its ok for you.
Harper quoted from the article...
“But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It’s neither war nor peace-keeping. It’s a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy.”
Yes, it IS indeed some kind of undefinable thing, which means we should wash our hands of it as soon as possible, look at the shifting justifications/explanations for the Iraq fiasco-
I understand that fluidity is very handy, but the fact that what we are supposedly trying to do seems to keep changing with the polls is quite troubling- Harpers "conviction" is suspect since there is NO definite ANYTHING with regards to our "mission"
I hear the odd set of numbers, and the mantra of the day, but I really don't think anyone has laid out what "victory" (or the recently adopted "success" instead of victory which is rising in the US to hide the dismal defeat they're being handed in Iraq) will lok like- to the supporters, honestly, what are the conditions by which succes/victory will be judged?? I have a feeling that, if we are ever to declare the like, it will NOT be what the "visionaries" have solemnly sworn to
I understand that fluidity is very handy, but the fact that what we are supposedly trying to do seems to keep changing with the polls is quite troubling- Harpers "conviction" is suspect since there is NO definite ANYTHING with regards to our "mission"
I hear the odd set of numbers, and the mantra of the day, but I really don't think anyone has laid out what "victory" (or the recently adopted "success" instead of victory which is rising in the US to hide the dismal defeat they're being handed in Iraq) will lok like- to the supporters, honestly, what are the conditions by which succes/victory will be judged?? I have a feeling that, if we are ever to declare the like, it will NOT be what the "visionaries" have solemnly sworn to
Success is judged by whether or not the Taliban come back to power. A miracle would be Afghanistan stabilized.
Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT the same thing.............I hate seeing them compared.
Reconstruction is a valuable ideal, one necessary for stabilization, but in a Catch-22, the place has to be stabilized before reconstruction can be successful........
The miracle won't happen unless NATO steps up to the plate. Success might not happen unless our European "allies" come out at night to play with the Taliban.
Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT the same thing.............I hate seeing them compared.
Reconstruction is a valuable ideal, one necessary for stabilization, but in a Catch-22, the place has to be stabilized before reconstruction can be successful........
The miracle won't happen unless NATO steps up to the plate. Success might not happen unless our European "allies" come out at night to play with the Taliban.
Depends on your definition - According to the UN it is "a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace." I provided what Canada's official website says is its role in Afghanistan and the two seem pretty similar to me.
fine. Using either definition does that mean that Harper wrong or not?
Last edited:
I'm not sure i get your points.
We are there to secure the country, then help rebuild, that has been hard pressed. In the process of our forword momentum, we have left in our wake, aparatus to do just that. Rebuild, restructure and relieve.
What is so wrong with that?
If we switch roles, mid march, you will see more then just a modest increase in the number of body bags exiting planes at Trenton.
I dissagree and so would most tacticians.
If you stray from the mandate of ridding the country of the insurgents and or their supporters, you leave a gaping hole for them to use against you.
"Peacekeeping" is a defensive position. Placing our troops in that position, at this stage, is tantamount to murder.
Before you go off, all half calked.
The south is not yet ready to be turned into an agricultural wet dream. It is still a tad hostile, to say the least. In the areas of the country, that have been pacified, the rebuilding has begun. Successfully. Now back to murder. If we change direction at this point, without serving the death blow to the anti powers that be, we are leaving our 6 open to serious attacks and an increase in casualties. Period. No amount of pussification of that fact will change it in any way. In doing so, you are needlessly putting our Soldiesr at risk, for the pacification of the electorat and nothing more. Simple, sacrificy of life, for the pandering political winds on Parliamenty Hill.
This is the very reason, politicians should not be allowed to dictate how war is waged, once declared.
If you stray from the mandate of ridding the country of the insurgents and or their supporters, you leave a gaping hole for them to use against you.
"Peacekeeping" is a defensive position. Placing our troops in that position, at this stage, is tantamount to murder.
Before you go off, all half calked.
The south is not yet ready to be turned into an agricultural wet dream. It is still a tad hostile, to say the least. In the areas of the country, that have been pacified, the rebuilding has begun. Successfully. Now back to murder. If we change direction at this point, without serving the death blow to the anti powers that be, we are leaving our 6 open to serious attacks and an increase in casualties. Period. No amount of pussification of that fact will change it in any way. In doing so, you are needlessly putting our Soldiesr at risk, for the pacification of the electorat and nothing more. Simple, sacrificy of life, for the pandering political winds on Parliamenty Hill.
This is the very reason, politicians should not be allowed to dictate how war is waged, once declared.
But a change of mission along the lines that Gilles Duceppe is suggesting with more resources put into rebuilding means one of two things. Either more canadian troops get deployed in Afghanistan to work on the reconstrcution side, leaving the same number of troops responsible for security. Or some troops move from the security focus to rebuilding. So either Gilles is suggesting we increase our involvement in Afghanistan or he is suggesting that we reduce our focus on securty, in the first case he is expanding the mission in the second he is inviting more casualties since the enemy will be afforded more space to move and attack.
I forgot to say that the person that should be answering the hard questions is Duceppe since it is he who wishes to change the mission. Harper's position is established.
So what are is your suggestion then?
It's an Army, not a Police force, babysitting service, Early childhood educater, and Army. We learn to hunt, and serve. If we aren't hunting, we're rebuilding.
Hunt or Peacekeep?
I agree, change is a really broad term; couldmean anything from changing the brass, changing the troops, changing strategy, changing tactics, etc.
No, I ment Harper was not wrong in his statement or position. We are there as a security establishing force. In our wake we are leaving structure, not rubble.