Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[canadianblue]

I've been to Montreal and Toronto, I never found those places that terrible. As for voting against the troops, most major urban centers tend to vote to the left of the spectrum, while most rural areas tend to vote to the right.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Why doesn't Harper do what the liberals always do-LIE-agree to remove the troops when our mandate has expired.  Really their is no need for him to act moral, the liberals and NDP have been walking over our dead soldiers for political gains for two years. 

Yup, that's exactly what we need, for the present government to throw away whatever vestige of integrity they might have. That element people were so desperately looking for not that long ago when we could have changed the name of this forum to hatethelieberals.army.ca, when nearly every thread got spun into an anti-government diatribe by those who couldn't form any other coherent thought.

 

[Brockvegas]

***Warning, Warning, Incoming rant***

God DAMMIT!!! I hate when politicions use military losses to further their agendas, and that is exactly what Mr. Duceppe is doing. To make things even worse is he's doing it on the backs of brave men who's families haven't even buried them yet!!! What the hell is wrong with politics in this country? How can people stand behind a person who would do this? Not to mention the fact that he is openly and publicly making threats to topple the current government! Is this not an act of treason? I agree that he absolutly has the right to criticize the government, that's part of our freedom, but there is a huge difference between criticism and threats!

I honestly believe that if Quebec were to hold a Provincial election right now, Mr. Duceppe would find himself signing forms at his local unemployment office. There is no way that any self respecting Quebecer, or any other Canadian for that matter, can agree with the course of action he is taking. In an effort to do whatever the hell he thinks he's accomplishing, he's making himself, and his party look like insensitive fools, not to mention reflecting poorly on the people of Quebec.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHH!!!!!!.............OK, I'm done........I need a smoke.

 

[Donut]

I don't think this has come up yet, but I've done some searching since a conversation yesterday at work.  I'd read the Afganistan Compact when it was first released, but didn't really correlate the dates of that with the dates of the change of government in Spring 2006.

The Liberals were in government through to Jan 2006, when the CPC won the election.  The handover is never instantaneous, and takes some weeks to complete.

Canada was a signatory to the Afghan Compact, the conference for which ended on Feb 1 2006(http://www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonConf/_docs/06jan30-AfghanistanCompact-Final.pdf).

If one takes a look at the actual compact, as a signatory to it, Canada has committed to Afghan development right through to end-2010,

From page 6 of the document:

International Security Forces
Through end-2010, with the support of and in close coordination with the Afghan Government, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and their respective Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) will promote security and stability in all regions of Afghanistan, including by strengthening Afghan capabilities.

So, there should be no mistaking the fact the Liberal Government of Paul Martin commited Canada to maintaining forces in Afganistan, including our PRT, through to 2011.  The 2009 date is a red-herring, and to hold ourselves only to that date is to back away from our international commitment, which was undertaken by the Liberal government.

This may be exactly what the CPC is planning, but they need to get to work on their information campaign to get these facts out to Canadians BEFORE the opposition parties can bring them down.


As well, NO OTHER NATO MEMBER has made any commitment to take over lead-nation of the Roll 3 Hospital at KAF...are we going to tell them "Too bad, we're packing up and leaving you without any surgical capacity in that part of the country?"

 

[aesop081]

Is this not an act of treason? I agree that he absolutly has the right to criticize the government, that's part of our freedom, but there is a huge difference between criticism and threats!

No its not...its legal political process........educate yourself a bit

 

[canadianblue]

Once again I think everyone should cool it with the treason comments. A politician saying they are willing to topple a government over the issue of Afghanistan isn't treason, it's unfortunately the way our democracy has worked, and it has served us well since 1867.

As much as I disagree with the approach taken by Gilles Duceppe he is still entitled to make criticisms, and if the people of his riding and his province disagree with him they will punish him come election time. Talk of treason, traitors, etc. is counter productive, and if we were to inundate the debate with it Canadian's will not be won over to support the mission.

 

[Brockvegas]

No its not...its legal political process........educate yourself a bit

CDN, and Sig, I apologize. Sometimes the brain-to-tongue (or in this case, keyboard) filter gets a bit clogged, and brain-farts slip through.

It's still a shameful thing for him to do so soon after our recent losses.

 

[canadianblue]

Agreed, especially since it does come off as insensitive since he is only doing it now that a soldier from Quebec has been killed. As for recent losses, I think that whenever a soldier gets killed people will ask questions about what we are doing there, and what the cost will be, and whether it will be worth it. The problem is that the current government has not done a good job of answering any of these questions to the Canadian public, thus leaving very little information outside of the knowledge of combat deaths in Afghanistan for the public.

 

[Brockvegas]

The problem is that the current government has not done a good job of answering any of these questions to the Canadian public, thus leaving very little information outside of the knowledge of combat deaths in Afghanistan for the public.

I'm in 100% agreement with that statement. If the general public could only see the positive things that are going on over there, and I don't mean a 30 special every three months, but every night with the rest of the news, it would restore faith not only in the CF, but in our government as well.

How could anyone criticize a new school, or a hospital, or a police force that's actually protecting their citizens, instead of terrorizing them. Can Harper's government really be that blind to the benefits of Canadians gaining that kind of knowlege?

 

[canadianblue]

The problem is that the newsmedia today is based more on a if it bleeds it leads program. You see it not just in Afghanistan but in every aspect of news programs.

Another important part that Harper has to make clear if he wants more support for the mission is that it has been approved and sanctioned by the United Nations, this is not, nor has ever been a unilateral mission akin to Iraq. Tell Canadian's what we are doing there, and why we are doing it, and give them a timeline for when Canada will eventually pullout. While I fully support helping the country getting rebuilt, and the Taliban getting rooted out, I think their has to be a point in time when the Afghans can take over and protect their own country without help from us.

As for the post which stated Harper should lie about the war in order to get a majority and continue with it. I can't even come up with the appropriate words to say how absolutely immoral that is. That's more immoral then Jack Layton calling for a pullout, because at the very least he would have been truthful to the Canadian public. I don't think it is ever appropriate for a government to mislead people in such a way, their would be an uproar over it, and I think that a large portion of Conservative MP's would end up leaving. I'm not even close to being a conservative, however I have enough respect and trust of Harper to know that he wouldn't lie to the Canadian public in such a manner.

 

[punisher_6d]

The problem is that the newsmedia today is based more on a if it bleeds it leads program. You see it not just in Afghanistan but in every aspect of news programs. 

I have to politely disagree.  Human deaths in any form wherever they occur are in fact "news."  One thing you can give the Canadian media credit for is the fact that they cover the repatriation of Canadian soldiers extensively from the solemn ramp ceremony at KAF to the heart-wrenching arrival to their families at CFB Trenton.  You don't see that in too many countries, and the Canadian military is one of the few that allows this access at the wishes of the next-of-kin.  This coverage is important for ordinary Canadians to see and further emphasizes the importance of the mission and the sacrifices Canadian soldiers are making on behalf of the nation. 

 

[canadianblue]

Good point.

 

[RangerRay]

With the most recent Iposo-Reid poll showing 51% in favour of the mission with the high casualty figures, I think the Opposition may shoot themselves in the foot playing up their opposition to the war.

Having said that, I am wary about an election campaign focusing on this as the overriding issue.  15 second sound bites win elections, which is not enough time to sufficiently communicate why we should be in Afghanistan.  You can convey "feelings" and "emotions" in 15 seconds, but it is harder to convey logic in such a short time.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

With the most recent Iposo-Reid poll showing 51% in favour of the mission with the high casualty figures, I think the Opposition may shoot themselves in the foot playing up their opposition to the war.

That 51% isn't spread evenly throughout the support for different political parties.  Ie 51% of NDP/liberal potential supporters don't support the war.  The ndp wanted to steal Liberal votes by being the only national party against the war.  Last election their "lend us your vote" campain was successful.  The Liberals are being eaten into on both sides,  people who are socially/morally/economically left of center,  who also support the war have to grind their teeth and choose between politicians that are in line with their own political stripes and politicians who will help to do what needs to be done.

The best that the liberal party can do is to hopethat they can fend off the attacks from both sides by refusing to make a unified stance - which in an election,  they can't do (not without looking like they have no principles or strong leadership).  It looks like they have decided that the NDP can take away more votes that the Tories on this issue - this will cost the dearly in at least 5 riding's where the ndp are a non factor. 

If an election comes,  this issue will be a very major factor.  It is one of the few that clearly separates the political parties.

 

[canadianblue]

I think that if any election comes up they should give atleast 15 minutes of the debate dedicated to the issue of Afghanistan. Their are a number of ways to get that information out whether it be canvassing, townhalls, e-mails, etc.

The Liberals are being eaten into on both sides,  people who are socially/morally/economically left of center,  who also support the war have to grind their teeth and choose between politicians that are in line with their own political stripes and politicians who will help to do what needs to be done.

You just described me perfectly, left of center, however very few parties speak for me on that issue. If this was a direct democracy I would definitely vote in favour of the mission, but when an election comes I feel that I have to take into account all of the issues not just one with our current parliamentary system. You'll find that even in the NDP their are differences of opinion on Afghanistan, and some differences of opinion in the Liberal's. This is what we know for sure:

The NDP have been opposed to the mission since day on, and will remain opposed to the mission in the foreseeable future.
The Liberals originally supported the mission, then opposed the mission once new leadership came into play.
The Conservatives have always supported the mission, and will continue to do so as long as parliament permits.
The Bloc is opposed to the mission, more or less due to the fact their are high levels of dissaproval with the mission as compared to the rest of Canada.
The Green's are irrelevant at the time being until they get an MP elected.

I exempted the Bloc since they are not a nationwide party.

I think another reason why the Bloc is more outspoken now than before may be due to the byelections coming up. Currently their is apparently a tight byelection in a riding in Montreal where the NDP could come out on top. According to some poll's Jack Layton is considered the best federal leader by residents in Montreal. With Quebec provincially going back to divisions based on the right and the left with the Liberals [center left] taking government and ADQ [center right] the opposition, the Bloc is fearing they could start losing their social democratic/democratic socialist vote to the New Democrats, while the rural conservative vote will seep away to Harper in the next election.

 

[a_majoor]

The big problem (as many people have noted) is the government of the day is not articulating the what and why of our mission in Afghanistan. Besides the humanitarian work (building schools, medical clinics, microfinance of business, rehabilitating agricultural and other infrastructure), there are some compelling strategic resons for being there:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65224/post-605332.html#msg605332

Afghanistan, on the other hand, is bracketed by Iran, the 'Stans, China, India and Pakistan, and the 'Stans are part of Russia's "Near Beyond". Ripple effects in Afghanistan impact directly on 3 nuclear powers, one potential nuclear power and indirectly on yet another. Afghanistan also sits near the seams of several of Huntington's "Civilizations", several sects of Islam, and over two billion people between China and India alone. Just based on those factors, devoting resources to Afghanistan has a far higher ROI than any amount of resources devoted to Darfur.

We need to make choices, and the choices we make need to be based on logic and reason. While genocide is terrible wherever it occurs, the highest priorities lie with looking after our own interests first and foremost, and stabilizing a pivot point between hostile and nuclear armed civilizations should certainly take a far higher priority than almost anything else.

While navel gazing seems to be Canada's national sport, we are a wealthy and capable middle power, and we do have the resources to take action both here and abroad to safeguard our interests and further the prosperity and security of ourselves and our allies. Ruxted has characterized this division as "Little Canada" ("sorry sport, but we don't want to dirty our hands") and resuming our place in the world as the Leading Middle Power; the vision of Louis St Laurent (a Liberal Prime Minister back in the days that had a real meaning).

If Mr Duceppe, Dion or Layton want to argue that we are indeed a weak and cowardly "Little Canada", then we should step up and proclaim we are proud of our ability to take action as the representatives of the Leading Middle Power, and anything less is unworthy of ourselves, our nation and our history.

 

[DBA]

I have to politely disagree.  Human deaths in any form wherever they occur are in fact "news."  One thing you can give the Canadian media credit for is the fact that they cover the repatriation of Canadian soldiers extensively from the solemn ramp ceremony at KAF to the heart-wrenching arrival to their families at CFB Trenton.  You don't see that in too many countries, and the Canadian military is one of the few that allows this access at the wishes of the next-of-kin.  This coverage is important for ordinary Canadians to see and further emphasizes the importance of the mission and the sacrifices Canadian soldiers are making on behalf of the nation. 

I think the point that was trying to be made was if a large percentage of stories reported are for their attention grabbing and popular interest potential it can leave people with a poor understanding of things beyond superficial facts and soundbites. It's the much talked about shift from news that informs to news that entertains. That politicians exploit this shallow understanding is to be expected in an adversarial election system.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

I think Mr. Harper has a few tricks up his sleeve for Dion and the "poutine eating Duceppe" come the recommencement of the house in the fall. I'd be very surprised if he didn't have a few surprises in store for our two house clowns in his throne speech.

I think what you may see is Dion and Duceppe being served up very cold plates of poutine. Once this happens taliban jack will be left with no other recourse but to bite his tongue, in fear of getting some of the same and being labeled as the court jester.

Tune in it may get lively

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

.... I like Poutiene,  why are you using it the same way I'd use a disparaging term for some of my bodily waste?

I just ran into a friend of mine,  he's works for the NDP's campain (back in Toronto for the provincial election).  Anti-afghanistan mission sentiment isn't as entrenched as one might think.  After 45 minutes I got him from "Canada has no interest in that region,  we have nothing to gain so we should go" to agreeing that 1) we had to go 2) we have clear obtainable objectives 3) when we reach those objectives it will automatically trigger a withdraw 4) we are making good progress towards those goals and 5) we have a moral obligation to help.

If I am able to take a foaming at the mouth NDP campaign organiser and turn him 180 degrees on an issue with 45 minutes of discussion, I'm sure a mass Media campain can be made that can sway the swing demographics.  We do have the harder case to make, but this is a just cause.

I've never heard ANYTHING  from a thorn speech that would cause the opposition to fear criticising the sitting government - it is kinda how our system works.  Besides ... have you seen Layton during the debates?  Like those annoying yappy dogs that you just want to kick to shut them up but you can't because you'd kill it.  Add to that ... his blooming flower in french speech ...  ^-^

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

.... I like Poutiene,   why are you using it the same way I'd use a disparaging term for some of my bodily waste?

I just ran into a friend of mine,  he's works for the NDP's campain (back in Toronto for the provincial election).  Anti-afghanistan mission sentiment isn't as entrenched as one might think.  After 45 minutes I got him from "Canada has no interest in that region,  we have nothing to gain so we should go" to agreeing that 1) we had to go 2) we have clear obtainable objectives 3) when we reach those objectives it will automatically trigger a withdraw 4) we are making good progress towards those goals and 5) we have a moral obligation to help.

If I am able to take a foaming at the mouth NDP campaign organiser and turn him 180 degrees on an issue with 45 minutes of discussion, I'm sure a mass Media campain can be made that can sway the swing demographics.  We do have the harder case to make, but this is a just cause.

I've never heard ANYTHING  from a thorn speech that would cause the opposition to fear criticising the sitting government - it is kinda how our system works.  Besides ... have you seen Layton during the debates?  Like those annoying yappy dogs that you just want to kick to shut them up but you can't because you'd kill it.  Add to that ... his blooming flower in french speech ...  ^-^

Agree with everything except the poutine....yuck!
I was at the Peacekeepers banquet on 9 Aug here in Dartmouth (doing my Padre thing...prayers, grace etc) and the guest speaker was Peter Stoffer, NDP and MP for Sackville. Peter is 100% behind our troops and understands the mission....his boss J. Layton does not like him very much but Peter is a solid guy and he has solid support in this riding and will continue to win it for the NDP. why ? because he supports troops and veterans and I believe is in politics because he believes in Canada and not just there for himself. He is in the wrong party in my humble opinion and I told him so...he laughed and told me I wasn't the first to say that.
short answer....support for the mission is present across the spectrum of the political process....it needs to be explained better by our present government to bolster this support and they need to stop wallowing in this "Canada's New Government" crap...hey I'm a party supporter and it's wearing thin....and start being a mature government who is confident in who they are and not in the fact that they are not the other fellows.
With that I'm off to chapel to pray for the whole dang bunch of them>>>