Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan

[Hank C]

OTTAWA (CP) - NDP Leader Jack Layton says Canada should pull its troops out of Afghanistan by February because the mission has gone astray.

Sniping at both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President George W. Bush, Layton said the Afghan mission has lost its direction. It has no clear goals, no exit strategy and no criteria to judge success, he said at a news conference Thursday. "This is not the right mission for Canada," he said. "There is no balance. In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance."

The focus in Afghanistan has changed from reconstruction to open war and Canada should have no part of it, he said.

"Stephen Harper wants to take Canada in the wrong direction."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay quickly brushed off Layton's proposal.

"Canada will not go back on its word to its allies and people of Afghanistan to fight terrorism and help to develop and stabilize the region," he said.

MacKay pointed out that the Commons voted last spring to extend the Afghan mission to 2009.

"It's unfortunate that Mr. Layton cannot accept the will of Parliament."

The NDP voted against that motion, but it passed with support from a splintered Liberal party.

Paul Manson, a retired general and president of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said Layton's suggestion would be a "catastrophe."

Manson said he sensed "partisan politics at work here."

"A precipitous, unilateral pullout by Canada, in the short term, would reflect very badly on Canada, but more importantly it would have a very serious effect on the people of Afghanistan," he said.

Both NATO allies and the Afghan people and government would feel betrayed, Manson said.

The NDP announcement came the same day as Canadian and NATO forces in Afghanistan were marshalling for a major battle to retake a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan.

Commanders warned Afghan civilians Thursday to flee the Panjwaii district near Kandahar, though the precise timing of the operation remained secret.

Layton moved to stave off predictable attacks by insisting that his party supports Canadian troops and multilateral efforts to fight terrorism.

But he says Canada needs an independent foreign policy that stresses international development, peace-building and human rights.

"Why are we blindly following the defence policy prescriptions of the Bush administration?"

That course has cost dozens of lives and billions of dollars with no end in sight, he said.

"Canadians want a foreign policy rooted in fact, not fear," he said. "One that is uniquely independent, not ideologically imported. And one that leads the world into peace, not follows the U.S. into wars."

He said Canada should be working for a "comprehensive peace process" involving all parties to the fighting in Afghanistan.

Manson said there is nothing to suggest that the Taliban insurgents want to negotiate anything.

"They simply want to return to power."

The general said a general withdrawal by NATO would leave Afghans "once again facing the horrors they saw when the Taliban was in power."


©The Canadian Press, 2006
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?&src=n083171A.xml

 

[Hank C]

What a politically motivated coward, its sad our troops are fighting for a misinformed idiot like Layton.

 

[BitWhys]

Faced with the choice of doing what we're doing now and redeploying to a more strategic position as Jack is calling for, I'll take the latter.

 

[WilliamAshley]

RE: Layton & NDP against

War in general is bad especially when the reason for the war is purely designed to change government by force.

A better solution to help the afghans would be to establish colonies in Northern Canada and mass export refugees into established acro's. Perhaps even baffin Island. Perhaps they could gain transit through russia then take the artic route over to Scandinavia then the North Atlantic Ocean, where everyone is concerned about them.

Then they could establish diplomatic ties with both governments in Afghanistan and get refugee exchanges.

With the Baffin Afghani's protected from "muslim law" in that muslim dominated country, we would prevent war and destruction and develope northern Canada and baffin Island. We just need to get some thermal buildings and clothing, and establish sustainable enviroment through greenhouses and seal raising.

It is not likely they will pull out before 2009 and Afghanistan is being cooled from Russian influence. It would fall into the S5 block if Pakistan fell into it more deeply in the Long run Russian and Chinese Influence in the Middle east will ofset european.

The simple fact is that it would be a better solution to "divide" afghanstan into regions and get people migrating in a defensive zone that are attempting to flee. That is doing a couple "major" convoys to transport refugees from trouble areas. Then leaving the political beleifs of the region alone. It is far easier to "police" an area, then patrol it. Also they are still actively engaged in counter geurilla attacks after 5 years if the information is accurate. It is a muslim country plain and simple. Muslim law is harsh, much like US law, it is just different things. It would be far more benificial to export liberal muslim scholars and establish a "fair" education system, then support a war. That is educate regions and exile criminals to the danger zones. This would create a potential stable state by dividing the people by zones. The other answer is genocide but that is sorta nasty.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan

Faced with the choice of doing what we're doing now and redeploying to a more strategic position as Jack is calling for, I'll take the latter.

"redeploying to a more strategic position" sounds to me like a "tactical advance to the rear" otherwise known as RUN AWAY!

Jack would leave the Afghanis to the tender mercies of the Taliban.

Jack would abandon our allies, both Afghan and those from NATO.

Jack would let Afghanistan become once again a training ground and staging area for attacks on the west, and Canada would be very close to the top of the list.

Jack is a complete idiot.

 

[athabaska]

We need a clear and decisive debate within Parliament and the country as to why we are in Afghanistan. Canadians can't even point the place out on a map but our soldiers are being killed.

I never like the argument that we can't pull out because of some symbolism. That's not worth the death of our troops and is a self-defeating approach that is never resolved until there's an even bigger mess (Vietnam, Iraq).

I haven't yet heard the last Prime Minister or this one make the case to the Canadian people that our country should be at war in Afghanistan. We are doomed to spin our wheels if a god chunk of the Canadian population thinks it's not worth it or we are some sidekick to the Americans.

The PM should have the stature to go Parliamnt and open this issue up. Either get the Canadian people on side or, if Canadians aren't convinced, then bring our forces home. If he can convince a large majority of Canadians that it's a worthwhile endeavor, then all parties should stand behind our troops...including the NDP and BQ.

I think Layton is a smirking asshole. However, the PM has dropped the ball on Afghanistan by not selling our military presence to the Canadian people. We are a democracy and sending soldiers off to die should be supportd by the population.

 

[Colpy]

I would agree the government has done a poor job of "selling" the Afghan mission to the Canadian people.

The subject has already been before Parliament, and we can't run a military mission if we are so unsure of ourselves that we need to debate and vote three times a year.

 

[#juan]

Re: RE: Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan

Faced with the choice of doing what we're doing now and redeploying to a more strategic position as Jack is calling for, I'll take the latter.

"redeploying to a more strategic position" sounds to me like a "tactical advance to the rear" otherwise known as RUN AWAY!

Jack would leave the Afghanis to the tender mercies of the Taliban.

Jack would abandon our allies, both Afghan and those from NATO.

Jack would let Afghanistan become once again a training ground and staging area for attacks on the west, and Canada would be very close to the top of the list.

Jack is a complete idiot.

Colpy, it is not that simple. If the entire coalition had stuck with this area and finished it before running off to blunder into Iraq, it would be finished by now.

The general consensus is that we are following the U.S. into one of their oil wars to make points with Bush.. Any war without clear objectives is sheer nonsense. The Canadian people should be told exactly why we are there and what our roll is. If Harper wants us in a permanent, American oil war, he will have to get a majority government first. The Canadian Parliament should vote on it.

 

[BitWhys]

"redeploying to a more strategic position" is an only slightly varied rendering of Ronald Reagan's take on his decision regarding the bombing of the barracks in Lebanon back in the day so if Layton's an idiot he's in the company of a cherished right wing icon.

curious, that.

how soon they forget. :wink:

 

[BitWhys]

"Jack would let Afghanistan become once again a training ground and staging area for attacks on the west, and Canada would be very close to the top of the list."

nonsense. In their time the Taliban had sovereignty. Assuming a less agressive posture by no means affords the Taliban the carte blanc MO they had before. Being welcomed by the goverment of the day gives us all the leverage we need to keep the Taliban off-balance enough to at the least prevent them from giving those who would "export terror" (as the latest talking point goes) workable shelter.

No law against us turning the tables and mounting guerilla offensives of our own when needed.

 

[athabaska]

Re: RE: Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan

I would agree the government has done a poor job of "selling" the Afghan mission to the Canadian people.

The subject has already been before Parliament, and we can't run a military mission if we are so unsure of ourselves that we need to debate and vote three times a year.

I'd argue the opposite. If we aren't confident that there is the overwhelmong support of the Canadian people then we shouldn't be involved. Countries should go to war and not just their military. The decision to start killing people shouldn't be ambivalent and a compartment of society on par with other issues.

I still don't know why Canadian troops are in Afghanistan. 90% of Canadians can't point out Afghanistan on the map and 98% couldn't give a definition of 'Taleban'. There has been no national debate and that dooms this 'mission' to failure because few Canadians care about Afghanistan more than the price of gas at the pumps or who will make the NHL playoffs this year.

In general I support the Conservative government but on Afghanistan I'd give Harper an 'F' in leadership. He hasn't convinced me there is any plan that is achievable and, like Bush on Iraq.... 'More of the same' is not a realistic plan and will only lead, indeed, to more of the same.

 

[JonB2004]

Re: RE: Layton & NDP against our Troops in Afghanistan

The general consensus is that we are following the U.S. into one of their oil wars to make points with Bush.. Any war without clear objectives is sheer nonsense. The Canadian people should be told exactly why we are there and what our roll is. If Harper wants us in a permanent, American oil war, he will have to get a majority government first. The Canadian Parliament should vote on it.

This is not a "oil war". This war has an objective. The objective is to wipe out the Taliban. And the Canadian people know why we are there. I think people are beginning to oppose the mission because of the increasing soldier deaths.

 

[EastSideScotian]

Re: RE: Layton & NDP against

War in general is bad especially when the reason for the war is purely designed to change government by force.

A better solution to help the afghans would be to establish colonies in Northern Canada and mass export refugees into established acro's. Perhaps even baffin Island. Perhaps they could gain transit through russia then take the artic route over to Scandinavia then the North Atlantic Ocean, where everyone is concerned about them.

Then they could establish diplomatic ties with both governments in Afghanistan and get refugee exchanges.

With the Baffin Afghani's protected from "muslim law" in that muslim dominated country, we would prevent war and destruction and develope northern Canada and baffin Island. We just need to get some thermal buildings and clothing, and establish sustainable enviroment through
greenhouses and seal raising.

It is not likely they will pull out before 2009 and Afghanistan is being cooled from Russian influence. It would fall into the S5 block if Pakistan fell into it more deeply in the Long run Russian and Chinese Influence in the Middle east will ofset european.

The simple fact is that it would be a better solution to "divide" afghanstan into regions and get people migrating in a defensive zone that are attempting to flee. That is doing a couple "major" convoys to transport refugees from trouble areas. Then leaving the political beleifs of the region alone. It is far easier to "police" an area, then patrol it. Also they are still actively engaged in counter geurilla attacks after 5 years if the information is accurate. It is a muslim country plain and simple. Muslim law is harsh, much like US law, it is just different things. It would be far more benificial to export liberal muslim scholars and establish a "fair" education system, then support a war. That is educate regions and exile criminals to the danger zones. This would create a potential stable state by dividing the people by zones. The other answer is genocide but that is sorta nasty.

WOW....

Just WOW...

Your ideas are a joke, I hope.

Fist off to swat down your first foolish comment

War in general is bad especially when the reason for the war is purely designed to change government by force.

What do you think World war 2 was about? It wasnt about tkaning back german invaded countires....and then letting the Nazis keep power? No, its was to stop the Nazis from doing it again, and having a Facist government. The Taliban was not a nice government.

A better solution to help the afghans would be to establish colonies in Northern Canada and mass export refugees into established acro's. Perhaps even baffin Island. Perhaps they could gain transit through russia then take the artic route over to Scandinavia then the North Atlantic Ocean, where everyone is concerned about them.

Your right what a great friging idea! Maybe we could stick them in a completely differant enviroment, and let them rebuild their culture, or atleast we could let them try and have fun keeping whats left of their culture. And then, we can spend lots more tax money houseing them and getting them jobs at bottle cap factorys. But more of the real point is they would then be a new tax burden, also completely stupid.

Then they could establish diplomatic ties with both governments in Afghanistan and get refugee exchanges.

They could give us their poor people, and non taliban people, and the taliban can have afganistain all to themselves and invite Bin Laden over for slumber parties again.

That is educate regions and exile criminals to the danger zones. This would create a potential stable state by dividing the people by zones. The other answer is genocide but that is sorta nasty.

Yes lets turn the Afganis against each other. We can have the Good Muslims the ones the bake cupcakes and float on clouds on one side of the map, and then all the ones the enjoy killing and opressive behaver on the other. Then, we could have the North and south Korea of the middle east.


The point is Mr or Mrs Ahley or William, We are their to Get rid of the Taliban, so the People dont have to leave their country, and dont have to live in fear of a government that doesnt alow school, or woman to hold political power, or any out side of their homes. We want them to have a chance to take control of their countries direction and start fresh with upholding their culture and and help to maintain their freedom as human beings.

We wont move them out, or devide them up, we as a democratic socity know the effcts of segragation, and we as the people had the power to decide to do away with it, we as a socity as Canadians have an accountable government system, where the government if for the poeple and not for the poeple who hold power to let their voices be heard.

Think about this, our govenrment, lets us speak our minds and dissagree, and lets use choose our direction and leaders, the afganis have not been able to do that for years under taliban rule, we will change that by removieng the taliban and createing a stable government.

Thats also why Layton is a information and fact deprived fool trying to get a vote from all the others information and fact deprived fools.

Most importantly Canada does not abck down from a commitment, we give our word and work through it, thats what a Canadians are, we are a hard working and determaned nation with pride and freedom, and we should let others have the ability to feel the same.

 

[athabaska]

Quote: "We are their to Get rid of the Taliban, so the People dont have to leave their country, and dont have to live in fear of a government that doesnt alow school, or woman to hold political power, or any out side of their homes. We want them to have a chance to take control of their countries direction and start fresh with upholding their culture and and help to maintain their freedom as human beings."

Baloney. We aren't at war with dozens of regimes that oppress their own people. In fact we have 'good relations' with them. We actually help to prop up thug regimes like the Saudis and helped re-instate another thug regime in Kuwait (ya sure, it was for freedom and woman's rights. Ha! Ha!).

If we are in Afghanistan on the pretense of bringing freedom then get the troops home now. It ain't goin to happen. It ain't going to happen this year and it ain't going to happen ten years from now.

fortunately more and more Canadians don't want Canadian soldiers killed to achieve polyanish goals that aren't obtainable. It's one thing for Canadian soldiers to be killed for positive outcomes but when it's pie-in-the-sky ridiculous outcomes, it's just sad and a waste.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Layton & NDP against

Wel, the head of NATO forces in the region has been widely quoted today as having said that the next few weeks will be "decisive" in the "mission" in Afghanistan...

SO I suppose that after say, 5 weeks, we will have this decision rendered???

THAT is the sticky point for me I suppose, and it should be for a lot of other folks... if the next few weeks are "DECISIVE", what exactly does that mean????

Is it possible that there can be any other decision taken besides "Stay the Course"?? All the buzzwords of late can be discarded at this juncture I suppose, support the troops and all, now we must sit out the next few weeks and await the "decision" as rendered by events in that troubled country.. and I'm NOT being smart, even tho I think the "mission" is a huge sham, I am awaiting the "decision"

I sure hope that wisdom will be utilized to interpret the data leading to this "decision"...

And I would hope that the only thing we need to decide is how long we are to continue throwing our soldiers lives onto the fire like seasoned wood (to paraphrase another member here, sorry I forget who) a contribution which will make the fire itself more and more hungry and give it the ability to consume even more fuel as the days and weeks and months wear on

 

[athabaska]

Yes, so in 5 weeks the troops can come home either defeated in their mission or as victors. Unfortunately the rhetoric is the same as has been heard in Iraq for 3 and a half years. If we don't stay the course the sky will fall. Victory is just around the corner...again.

It's THEIR country. We should get out. Colonialism is over and along with it White Man's burden.

 

[Gonzo]

Canada shouldn't have gone in the first place. And once it was decided that Bin Lauden (remember him?) was not there we should of left. Layton gets my vote next election.

 

[Lineman]

RE: Layton & NDP against

Why did we go there in the first place?
Because the government, the Taleban, were aiding a terrorist group who is responsible for an attack on our ALLY with whom we have a mutual defense treaty. The Taleban government refused to hand the terrorist leader over for prosecution and vowed to continue supporting him and his group. The attack was so horrendous and shocking that our ally's goverment and its people demanded the capture or destruction of the terrorist group.
Why are we still there?
Because even if the terrorist leader cannot be found and the camps are destroyed, without Canadians, Brits, Dutch American, and many other nations, the deposed government of Afghanistan would certainly return to power and resume supporting the terrorist group and more.
Yes as Canadians we may be imposing some of our morals and ethics on a society that has followed a different cultural path than ours, but we are selective in what we are imposing. We seek to only impose the most basic of human rights. Education, equal rights for men, women, and children etc. Many others may want a western style democracy to take root but I believe any form of government which would guarantee these basic rights would be agreeable.
We are now way past the point of abandonment. Many people have begun to support the "foreign troops" and the reconstruction efforts, roads, schools, water, and basic medical care will do that if you've never had it. Leaving now would certainly be a sentence of death for those that have.
What is left for us to do?
Defeat the remnants of the previous government so it cannot return Afghanistan to its former state, rebuild the basic infrastructure, and stay until a measurable and stable amount of prosperity (their standard of prosperity not ours) takes hold. It may take a generation for some to be raised in peace to be able to forget old wars and feuds.
(Yap yap Too much coffee and tooo late in the day)

 

[Zzarchov]

couple of things:

1.) The Taliban is not and was not the government of Afghanistan, It was one side in a civil war that controlled PART of afghanistan. We allied with the other side.

2.) If we left they wouldn't magically sweep into power over afghanistan. They would probably return to their strongholds from before we came along, weaker than before once the Northern Alliance is free from the wests restraining hand.

 

[Colpy]

Canada shouldn't have gone in the first place. And once it was decided that Bin Lauden (remember him?) was not there we should of left. Layton gets my vote next election.

I just this minute watched Jack Layton say Afghanistan had a "cocaine economy".

That's about as much as the idiot knows about the situation.