Dion, Ignatieff meet with Karzai in Afghanistan

[kilekaldar]

What does this mean exactly? "Dion and Ignatieff said they agreed with Karzai on the use of air and artillery strikes as weapons in the counter-insurgency fight."
Do they and other critics of air strikes and artillery fully realize the implications to NATO troops if we stop using it?
I doubt it, since Dion and other liberals are hopelessly ignorant of the realities of ground combat.
After all, it's not them getting shot at.

********************************


Dion, Ignatieff meet with Karzai in Afghanistan

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080112/dion_karzai_080112/20080112?hub=TopStories

Updated Sat. Jan. 12 2008 12:25 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff have met with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

But a CTV reporter in Kandahar said Saturday the meat of the meeting -- a continued presence by Canadian combat troops -- hasn't come out yet.

"That is the real heart of the matter here," he told Newsnet. "There are too few troops in Afghanistan, not too many."

A Liberal news release issued Saturday said they told Karzai that while the party believes Canada's combat mission should end in 2009, the party supports the continuation of diplomatic and development efforts.

"We are convinced after the day we've had that we will have plenty of things to do that will involve, yes, to take risks, but anywhere we will go whether Darfur or Haiti, there are always risks," Dion told reporters in Kabul.

"We are not afraid of the risks. But we want to sure that we have a balanced mission after 2009 that will be optimally helpful for the people of Afghanistan."

Karzai's reaction to the statement isn't known yet, but Oliver said reports indicate he thanked Canada for its service in his country to date.

Canada has about 2,500 troops operating in Kandahar province, one of the most violent regions in the country. Seventy-six of them have died since 2002, along with a Canadian diplomat.

The current mandate from Parliament has the combat mission ending in February 2009, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper would like to see it extended.

He is awaiting the report of a special blue-ribbon panel, chaired by hawkish former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, to recommend a path forward for the mission.

Other issues

Dion and Ignatieff said they agreed with Karzai on the use of air and artillery strikes as weapons in the counter-insurgency fight.

The use of such firepower is being blamed for civilian deaths.

Dion and Ignatieff said they wanted a NATO-wide solution that protects detainees from being transferred into situations where they could face torture.

"This was a wonderful opportunity to meet face-to-face with President Karzai to hear first-hand the impact that troops and civilians are having here," Dion said.

"The Liberal Party of Canada is very proud of the contributions our men and women in uniform have made to try to bring peace and stability to this region."

"We had a very fruitful discussion about the NATO mission in Afghanistan and Canada's role in it. I hope it was the first of many more to come," Ignatieff said.

While Ignatieff is the party's deputy leader, Bob Rae, the former Ontario NDP premier, is the Liberals' foreign affairs critic.

With files from The Associated Press

 

[Flip]

Thanks for that kilekalder!
I'll check outside for flying pigs now.... ;D

The report says very little about the two liberals learning anything
or if Karzai thinks they have any usefull ideas.

Seems to me they get to shake hands and say the same old crap. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state? 

 

[brihard]

Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state? 

Yeah, that's the baffling part of this.

Ignatieff taking this view doesn't surprise me- he's got about as much credibility as a pure academic can in this field; he's certainly neither naive nor ignorant on how war is waged. Dion? I couldn't give less of a damn.

 

[Bane]

Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state? 

This totally normal and a non-issue.  This type of thing happens in many many countries.  For instance, during the CIA's campaign against the Soviets in the 80's, both Democratic and Republican Representatives and Senetors met with afghan warlords, Saudi and Pakistani politicians and top officals from the Saudi GDI and the Pakistani ISI.  Law makers are to be involved in the running of their country.  They can't sign deals and should be Canada's representative at offical functions but it is their duty to go.  If Harper was in opposition again, I'd expect him to be out there learning, discussing and making his views known too.

As I pointed out this article last time this came up:
The Edmonton Journal - 19th of Jul, 2005 pg. A7
WASHINGTON - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper told an international gathering of conservative political leaders Monday he would take Canada more deeply into the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and would create a national security commissioner to oversee the work of police and security agencies.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Why are opposition leaders meeting with foreign heads of state? 

ONLY because the Head of State in question agreed, I would surmise...  He reads the papers, and he knows how the debate is unfolding here.

MUST he meet with these guys?  No.  SHOULD (politically speaking) he meet with these guys?  Makes sense....

Still, I hope people reading the accounts realize that the (Un)Dynamic Duo do NOT speak for Canada - I'm sure Pres. Karzai does...

 

[Tow Tripod]

Can somebody tell me what a balanced mission means!?!?!?!? I don't get this terminology at all other than it sounds very Jack Laytonish. Thanks

Tow Tripod

 

[Redeye]

Stephane who?

Seriously, who is this guy?  I love that Ignatieff went too - since his plan I think is to allow Dion to keep embarrassing the party until he can take over.

I often get the feeling that Dion wishes to prove that he can in fact suck and blow at the same time.  And while opposition leaders meeting foreign heads of state isn't totally out of the ordinary, I do enjoy the fact that it seems as though certain Liberals believe they should act as though they're a government in waiting until this little anomaly (in their mind) passes.  Dion showing up in Bali is a prime example of this.  I don't recall Harper or Day going to foreign summits etc as though they represent the Canadian public quite in the way it seemed the Dion did.

 

[Flip]

Can somebody tell me what a balanced mission means!?!?!?!? I don't get this terminology at all other than it sounds very Jack Laytonish. Thanks

Tow Tripod

"Balanced mission" means; the mission the CF finds itself in when they run the government. ;D

Or to put it another way, A balanced mission is a political device that uses the CF
to make Iggy and Dion look really good. 

 

[Armymedic]

Any money that on one of the first days of debate once thn house open, Dion will stand up and state, "Mr Speaker, now I have been to Afghanistan and seen what goes on there....."

Bets on whether or not he goes down south and visits anything? More than the PRT and KAF that is?

 

[a_majoor]

Well if our current "3D" (Defence, Development, Diplomacy) mission is not balanced, perhaps they could descend from the heavens and give us their definition of what a "Balanced Mission" is?

 

[Flip]

Well if our current "3D" (Defence, Development, Diplomacy) mission is not balanced, perhaps they could descend from the heavens and give us their definition of what a "Balanced Mission" is?

Descend from the heavens in what, a SeaKing or a hot air balloon? ;D
Sorry cheap shot, I know...

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Dion and Ignatieff said they agreed with Karzai on the use of air and artillery strikes as weapons in the counter-insurgency fight.

The use of such firepower is being blamed for civilian deaths.

So by pulling more troops away from the front lines NATO will somehow end up using less air and artillery?
Because clearly the answer to less air and artillery isnt more boots on the ground, its less!  :
wow, just wow.

 

[stegner]

What Dion wants is more Development and Diplomacy in the 3-D Policy (implemented by the Liberals by the way) that is what he means by making the mission more balanced.  The vast majority of Canadian funds is going to the defence aspect.

 

[scotty884]

"Sir I spotted Mr. Dion in the open....." said a Tech,  "SO?" answers the FOO,  " He wants less air raids and arty calls" replies the tech,  "F#$% that! 3, this is 39 FM BTY!!!" ahhhh one can only wish..... ;D ;D ;D :threat:

 

[George Wallace]

What Dion wants is more Development and Diplomacy in the 3-D Policy (implemented by the Liberals by the way) that is what he means by making the mission more balanced.  The vast majority of Canadian funds is going to the defence aspect.

After reviewing many of your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you really don't have a firm grasp on any of these subjects.  Surely, in all the reading you must have done to come to some of these discusions, you must have read that there can be "NO SAFE" Development, nor Diplomacy without there having first been a Defence aspect to remove any and all THREATS?  You are making statements like a person studying Canadian and world history and politics in Grade Eight.  In other words, you seem to be very ill-informed.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

I like this quote by him

Are soldiers qualified to make strategic assessments-when their training deals exclusively with tactical matters?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What Dion wants is more Development and Diplomacy in the 3-D Policy (implemented by the Liberals by the way) that is what he means by making the mission more balanced.  The vast majority of Canadian funds is going to the defence aspect.

Fine.  We will build more Schools, medical clinics, wells and housing...but we won't lift a finger to stop anyone from blowing them up, burning them down or otherwise terrorising the locals.  Sound more "balanced" to you?  In your "balanced" mission, does the CF even get to defend itself while doing all of this development?

As for more diplomacy- who, PRECISELY, do you think we should be negotiating with?  Keep in mind, Afghanistan is a sovereign nation with its own (very) complex internal politics.  The Afghan government might be a tad offended if we "diplomacy" the wrong people.

Frankly, Stegner, your grasp this subject appears weak at best.  Go do some reading.

 

[stegner]

Mr. Wallace,

Thanks for your comments.  Though I am quite curious about them.  I was merely restating Dion's position as on an ealier post someone was asking what did Dion mean with the more balanced approach.  I never submitted anything else.   So kindly defer from your personal attack, as I never said that defence was not an important part.   As you have alluded, defence is required to reduce the threat, as there can be no aid workers without security.  However, there are no aid workers from CIDA or Foreign Affairs in great numbers, because they would not have protection.   From my analysis, what Dion has suggested, is that Canada should take a slight break from overall defence in Khandahar and focus on development though the CF will still need to provide security  to CIDA and the like as he feels with this policy the Aghani society can be rebuilt more quickly.  That is his opinion not mine. 

 

[George Wallace]

..........  That is his opinion not mine. 

I must say, in my defence, that your posting style does not indicate that.  You are posting as if it is your opinion, and that it is in line with his.