NDP calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan

[George Wallace]

Just saw in the Maritime News (ASN) where Jack Layton is upset that Cpl Paul Davis' father disagrees with the NDP platform to pull Canadian Troops out of Afghanistan and bring the Taliban in to negotiations.   :

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Who would have thought that the military which has gone far too long and forgotten may now decide the next government.

 

[warspite]

What Jack in the box doesn't understand is that when someone is shooting at you, they don't want to talk, they don't want a peaceful resolution to the conflict, they want to force us out and kill anyone who stands between them and power.

What Jack in the box doesn't understand is when some Taliban insurgent shoots at a Canadian there had better be some bullets, artillery shells and maybe a missile or two heading in his direction not harsh words.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Well I have to admit,  I agree with large areas of the NDP policy.  I think that more resources should go into public healthcare, transit, education and affordable housing. I honestly see the benefits to demand side economics (obviously not the only solution, but moving on).  However I just can't agree with the NDP on their foreign policy. 

We went in there because they did pose a real threat to us at the time.  They were actively supporting and protecting groups who had hostile intentions. They threatened us,  we couldn't ignore the threat. And not to overplay the point,  this was just after September 11.  There was no doubt at the time that it was the right thing to do.  Even then though I remember talk that this would be a long struggle and we'll be tempted to pull out.

If we pull out of Afghanistan,  the Taliban will take over again,  there is no doubt of that.  There is no doubt that they will take our retreat as a victory and resume their horrible practices all over again.  Sometimes giving into an aggressor only inspires them to do worse.  I think we need to be there until there is a stable country,  out of our our intrest.

I'm also hearing talk that Mr. Layton's statements are encouraging the Taliban. http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/09/02/1795140-sun.html  I do have to say that I believe this to be true.  If we disagree with what Mr. Layton is saying,  your voice is as free as his his let him know Layton.J@parl.gc.ca

Now,  remember democracy depends on free and open dialogue.  If he is wrong,  you can bring up facts to prove it.  Don't let this issue be boiled down to "support our government's decisions without question or be a traitor"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0isbNpCLodQ&mode=related&search= 

 

[larry Strong]

Done. Sent to the Smartypants from Toronto:



Sir

When people have no clue what they are talking about, it's best to remain  silent.

Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove to the world you are one.


Sincerely

Laurence A Strong CD

 

[The Bread Guy]

More on some who think Jack Layton is helping the Taliban....

Fallen soldier's father slams Layton's call for troop pullout
Toronto Star, 2 Sept 06
http://tinyurl.com/k76m4

An NDP call for Canada's military to pull out of Afghanistan isn't sitting well with the father of a soldier killed there.

Jim Davis of Bridgewater, N.S., lost his son six months ago and is critical of NDP Leader Jack Layton's demand for an end to the military mission.

Davis said yesterday that Layton has not only insulted the memory of the dead and injured, but endangered the lives of those still fighting.

"I mean, that's ridiculous and I can't believe he would do that, endanger the lives of our soldiers by saying such a thing," Davis told CTV News.

Cpl. Paul Davis, 28, died in March when the vehicle he was in rolled over while on patrol in Kandahar.

On Thursday, Layton said Canada's Afghan mission had gone astray, with no clear goals or exit strategy. "This is not the right mission for Canada. ... In particular, it lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance," he said.

Davis said statements like that encourage the Taliban to keep fighting. "Playing politics with the lives of our soldiers is despicable," he said. "We made a decision to go after the Taliban, trying to get Afghanistan back on its feet, so it doesn't make sense for us to call it quits." . . . .

 

[HDE]

Apparently the "far left" tend to dominate at NDP conventions, one of which is happening early in September,  so Jack is busily trying to cobble together a more "moderate" policy than they'd push for.  Can't be a good sign when GI Jack is seen as one of  the more rational types the NDP attract

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Now,  remember democracy depends on free and open dialogue.  If he is wrong,  you can bring up facts to prove it.  Don't let this issue be boiled down to "support our government's decisions without question or be a traitor"

thanks for keeping us all in line.

lol,  I'm sorry if I came across in a bad way.  I guess I am venting my frustrations about how we're starting to let rhetoric take the place of real debate. "Support our troops. Bring 'em home" or "The world changed on 9/11" or "Talk of retreat emboldens our enemy"  I'm tired of complex political arguments being boiled down to 30 second soundbites so that people can feel they understand the topic without actually knowing the details.

I have spoken with several NDPers,  and a few NDP candidates in the last election, and I can honestly say they have a very different perception on the situation.  They all told me that Afghanistan was a civil war in which we had no right to interfear in. They don't believe that the Taliban government did us any wrong - seeing a distinction between the taliban and Al-quida. They dismiss out of hand that if we left the Taliban would take over and be allot worse than before. They also believe that this current administration has deliberately taken on more dangerous roles for our troops to put itself in the good graces of our trading partners, one in particular, and so businesses that they hold intrest in would prosper.  (Basically the argument I heard was they're putting our soldiers on more dangerous postings so America will like us more and let businesses owned by Conservatives make more money in the states.  I asked them for evidence of that motivation... I received none.)  Also that by increasing our presence there we freed up American resources so they can declare their illegal war of aggression in Iraq. Also I heard that by having such a high profile role we increase our likelyhood of being attacked at home. (Which seems funny because we were on Al-quida's hit list for a long time anyways.  We were going to be attacked a few times in this country but our Muslim community stopped them, turning them into the authorities.)

I feel that the NDPers I spoke with are good people,  many were smart, educated and they all mean well.  I just disagree with their interpretations. I think, as hard and painfull as it is, that we are doing the right thing.  I however do find it contradictory to argue against being in Afghanistan and then advocate going to Darfur.... a mission with no clear mandate,  end date or exit strategy... I want to know how they can be against Afghanistan but for Darfur.  Do they think we should only do good in places where we know we can kick ass without getting hurt?

But I said before I'll say it again,  it is hard to sit there and listen politely when someone is standing up there advocating something you'd die to prevent.  That's the fun side of Democracy,  the one with the most gibbled up perceptions still gets to speak. All he is doing is showing why the NDP continually flop on the national stage.  Doing things that make the partents of fallen soldiers publicly denounce you.... bad PR epically for the swing voters.  (I want to make a happy face here,  but honestly I just feel sad)

 

[HDE]

The NDP seem dead keen on sending our "peacekeepers" into Darfur and/or south Lebanon.  Apparently these aren't inherently "dangerous"?  Sorry, the reality is that the NDP have a miserable history of supporting the Canadian military and their sudden concern for our soldiers reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[McG]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/03/afghanistan-taliban.html

4 Canadians killed, 9 injured in Afghan battle
Last Updated Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:39:17 EDT
CBC News

...

NDP Leader Jack Layton, during a news conference in Toronto on Sunday, reiterated his call to get Canadian soldiers out of Afghanistan.

"This is the wrong mission for Canada. It's not balanced. It doesn't represent the equilibrium between humanitarian aid, reconstruction and comprehensive peace process that Canadians would want to see," he said.

Looks like he's found his favorite sound bite because he has pulled it out again.

Has anyone shown him the lunacy of his argument: We are not providing enough humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, so we should remove our military effort.  The fact is, if we are not providing enough humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, then we should increase our humanitarian effort in Afghanistan.  We do not need to reduce our military footprint to increase our humanitarian footprint (in fact the opposite is likely true).

 

[warspite]

I say Jack in the box should travel over there himself and see whats going on...then again he would probably get lost by not following the clear logical instructions and directions handed to him... or maybe he might learn something .

 

[TCBF]

They won't relate.  They are tribal warriors who want to deal with other warriors.  Some arseclown starts spouting his UN/NGO/Pol weasel-worded soliloquy, the whole meeting goes down the toilet. 

 

[orange.paint]

Scary part is I found my past 6 weeks in disturbing civilianland ,most people will agree with the NDP stance.I find they love the troops but don't quite support harper/mission, and a total lack of education on their part.

4 more weeks....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an important piece from our friend, and I think she is a friend – not an uninformed cheerleader, Christie Blatchford in today’s Globe and Mail – reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060904.wxblatchford04/BNStory/National/home

Love the soldiers? Love the soldiering
Sad faces and peace talk aside, the new NDP line is a fraud, Christie Blatchford writes

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
From Monday's Globe and Mail

I covered Jack Layton during the last federal election. I like him. I know him not to be a stupid man, and he's certainly fun. We exchanged iPods on the campaign plane one day. I used to joke and call myself his unofficial publicist, so shamelessly affectionate were the pieces I filed from my time on his tour.

I saw him on CBC Newsworld yesterday afternoon and if I could have, I would have reached into my television set and grabbed him by the throat -- anything to shake some sense into him and knock off that pious expression of sorrow.

Mr. Layton had his sad face on. This is what our politicians wear when they talk about dead Canadian soldiers. Mr. Layton is not alone in this. And I don't doubt that he also was genuinely sad, or that all of them are sad.

But of the major federal parties, only Mr. Layton and the New Democrats want to invite the killers of Canadian soldiers to the negotiating table.

He was on the tube because four young Canadians from the Royal Canadian Regiment were killed yesterday; it must be of some considerable comfort to their families that as part of the fallout, folks like Mr. Layton were invited on air to give their views.

It is not putting it too harshly to say that Mr. Layton would engage in the "comprehensive peace process" he envisions for Afghanistan with the killers of these young men.

Indeed, he said as much last week. "We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said. Asked if by this he meant the Taliban, Mr. Layton repeated, "A comprehensive peace process has to bring all the combatants to the table." Since the combatants include on one side the soldiers of the North-Atlantic-Treaty-Organization-led coalition there at the request of the Afghan government, and on the other the Taliban and their ragtag collection of allies, it's pretty clear what he meant.

I wonder how he might actually swing it, were he the PM and that process was starting today. Would he chide the "combatants" ("Bad Taliban!") even as he welcomed them to the peace talks? Would he pull out the chairs for their representatives? Would he pour the tea for those who have killed 23 Canadian soldiers this year?

Mr. Layton, as he briefly reminded Newsworld viewers yesterday, doesn't think this is the mission for Canada; there isn't the "proper balance" between nation-building and combat; the soldiers ought to be brought home next February.

This is all part of the party's effort to position itself as being supportive of the troops while also being opposed to the mission. Of course it is possible to do both things. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that Canadian soldiers go only where their government tells them to go, do only what their government asks them to do: The soldiers should always be supported, because they only do the bidding of their political masters. If the political masters get it wrong, soldiers ought not to carry the can.

But Mr. Layton and the NDP take this one step further. He and they want to be seen as soldier-loving.

This is a fraud, as even a cursory parsing of Mr. Layton's statement last week illustrates. It's pretty clear what New Democrats don't like: They don't like the "aggressive" nature of the mission; they don't like that it's a counterinsurgency; they don't like the "combat" thrust of it.

But combat is what all soldiers are trained to do, and was even where there were actually places in the world for peacekeepers. Aggression is part of who soldiers are, as integral as boots and weapons, and was even when Canadians were posted in Cyprus. Aggression is not a bad thing or a character flaw; it is a prerequisite of those who wear what soldiers call the "green suit," the uniform.

Now, it happens that Canadian soldiers are also good at the softer skills of their trade.

They can sit down with village elders, build a bridge physically or metaphorically and make friends with school children as well as and probably better than any other soldiers in the world. They are gentle when circumstances allow, and hard when they don't, and they can switch gears in a New York minute.

But they are also terrific, courageous and dogged soldiers, and to be perfectly frank, for many of them, combat is considered the only real test of professionalism.

In the early days of the mission in Kandahar province, when the Canadians were just beginning to get the lay of the land and the Taliban was still getting the measure of them, our soldiers were holding two and three shuras a day and giving out toys to lovely Afghan children at every turn. Then, starting in February, their vehicles began to get blown up by roadside bombs and suiciders, and then the Taliban ambushes began, and then the rocket and mortar attacks on their patrol bases.

The time for peacemaking was over, and the war was on: The Canadians are there to provide security such that Afghanistan can rebuild. The former necessarily comes first. Reconstruction efforts and capacity-building for the new Afghan government haven't ended, but for months now, they have taken a back seat to fighting.

One of the last interviews I had this July in Afghanistan was with a young captain who had just returned from weeks of combat. He described entering the smouldering ruin of an elementary school the Taliban had occupied and gutted, burning everything -- children's desks, little pictures of the students, drawings on the wall. As much as anything else, he was shaken by the raw evidence of nihilism.

That's what the Taliban do -- burn schools, threaten teachers, behead and target those who would build up, as opposed to reduce to ashes. Oh yes, they kill too.

They are wonderfully egalitarian about it, to be fair. The NDP would have to admire that spirit. The Taliban kill Canadians, Americans, Romanians and the British, too, and try to kill soldiers from the other countries (there are seven key ones, but a total of 26 NATO members contributing to the mission) that make up the coalition in Afghanistan, although mostly who they kill are Afghans, especially civilians who either get in the way of their roadside bombs and suicide bombers or don't get out of the way (usually because the Taliban are occupying their homes and hiding behind them) when they decide it's time to fight.

As Mr. Layton said in that speech now posted on the party website, New Democrats may "grieve with each family that loses a loved one in this and all conflicts, or sees a loved one injured in the line of duty," but their grief is dishonest. You can't position yourself as a soldier-lover when you loathe soldiering.

That statement ends with a pitch for donations and a call for signatures on a petition. "Support our troops," it says. In a pig's ear.

cblatchford@globeandmail.com

I agree.

I’ve met Jack Layton a couple of times; he is a pleasant, likable fellow (ditto his wife), reminds me of Brian Mulroney in some ways: a quick, real smile, a firm handshake, attention focused on you (for a few moments) while he registers who/what you are – I suppose that helps in working politicians.  He is, no doubt, an intelligent man.

I think he is also a terrible cynic: he is off to Québec next week for his Party’s convention and he is running scared because the delegates are, so I read/hear, far to the left of the Party’s leadership and way too far left for the Canadian voters.  Layton desperately wants (needs, if he likes his job) to increase his seat take which must happen, mostly, at the expense of the Liberals and he even more desperately wants at least one seat in Québec so that the NDP can, finally, claim to be a real, national Party.  His crocodile tears and cut and run position is, he thinks, a vote-getter amongst some (enough?) traditionally isolationist Québecers.

Blatchford is right: Layton does not, cannot respect soldiers because he hates the business of soldiering.

 

[GAP]

Did not Jack Layton enspouse the ideal that we should be in Darfur?

Well, Jack baby, here's where your vaulted Darfur mission is heading......

Sudan orders peacekeepers to leave Darfur by Sept. 30
MOHAMED SAEED Associated Press Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060904.wdarfur0904/BNStory/International/home

KHARTOUM — Sudan said Monday that the African Union has no right to transfer its peacekeeping mission in Darfur to the United Nations and must withdraw its troops from the western region by month's end.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jamal Ibrahim said that the AU had indicated that it could not continue its presence in Darfur beyond Sept. 30.

“If they are unable to continue with their assignment in Darfur beyond Sept. 30, then they have to leave before that date. At the same time, they have no right to transfer this assignment to the UN or any other body. This right rests only with the government of the Sudan,” he said.

The government on Thursday rejected a UN Security Council resolution for the deployment of a 20,000-strong UN force in Darfur.
More on link

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Isn't there a law against people giving comfort to the enemy? Is it only during declared war or can it apply to this time of fighting an enemy who is like a Medusa? ie a many headed bag of snakes.

I believe that Layton and his ilk are giving comfort to the enemy. The Taliban and Al Queda are internet savvy and they read all this blather and hoist it aboard. It makes them want to further divide our resolve by sowing seeds of discord and mis-information.

During the Vietnam era I thought people like Jane Fonda and her ilk should have been prosecuted for their visits to North Vietnam and bashing of US Forces and US Foreign Policy. Jack Layton is doing the same as she did, although he doesn't have "a pair" large enough to venture a visit to the Taliban or say....Osama himself...somewhere in Pakistan. :rage:

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it only during declared war or can it apply to this time of fighting

I remember a line from a recent article that comes to mind here. It was from a British officer in Iraq:  "The Americans are at war.  We are on operations."

Some nations can't see the validity in using deadly force except in time of war.  Other nations apply deadly force as an operational requirement regardless of whether or not a state of war exists.

 

[Infanteer]

Ok, I've cleaned this thread up now.  This is a serious political discussion that is becoming an issue in Canada and we need to tackle the issue on the level here.  This isn't a "slander Jack Layton" or a "bash the NDP" thread, so keep the noise level down.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Warmington_Joe/2006/09/05/1803054.html

Do we have the guts to hang in?
By Joe Warmington
 
TRENTON -- The airstrip here is from where they head to war.
It is also where they return. Too many times in boxes.
There will be more this week. Although five more Canadians were killed in Afghanistan, there was no sign here that anything significant had happened.

In fact, the Canadian flag at 8-Wing was not at half-mast since, it seems, these deaths don't fit the criteria for such an honour.
But there's nothing routine about dead Canadian soldiers -- even though they are getting used to it here.
The flag may not be lowered but not everybody has accepted it as regular course. Mike Swayze sets his own protocol at his tiny wooden bungalow, nearby on Hwy. 2.

Drive by and you'll see a Canadian flag, awkwardly attached to his shed, flying at half-mast. But the honour is there and the intent noted by everybody travelling by.
He said he has been doing it "ever since" Ottawa's decision not to lower flags on federal buildings every time a Canadian is killed.
"I think it should be down each time," he said. "That's why I lower mine."
He wants the men and women to know he cares and that people care. The poor soldiers must wonder about the pitiful performance of NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for their pullout.

"This is the wrong mission for Canada," said Layton, just days after sick musings about having a dialogue with the Taliban.
He did all of this on a day when, while we lost soldiers, we were also part of a hugely successful NATO mission in which up to 200 enemy fighters were killed.
Soldiers die in war. These people are trained and understand that. Their deaths are a heroic sacrifice for the country and for freedom and not a tragic car accident on Hwy. 401. It's already a difficult enough task to stabilize Afghanistan without Layton undermining them.

"It's more than disgusting, it's improper," John Oakley morning show host on AM 640 in Toronto, said as his phone lines lit up. "It's almost ghoulish."
There certainly is a time for debate and Layton will be buoyed by the fact many agree with him.
"We are putting our nose where it doesn't belong," truck driver Frederick Stockli said just east of here. "We should have never been there in the first place. What are we doing there? Do we have the means to fight a lost cause?"

A horrible insult

Imagine if our men and women of such valour in the two world wars had taken that attitude on the very worst days? It's a matter of your will. Do we have the will?
Talking about pulling out and saying we can't win is gutless, cowardly and unfair to the people fighting for us. It is also a horrible insult to all those who have already died.
And what a morale boost for the Taliban!

It would be nice if we could live a free life with no sacrifice and if no one had to die. Layton lives in dreamland!
Would you like this kind of person in your slit trench? Of course he or she wouldn't be there anyway, because it takes a special courage -- courage like the heroes have over there.
There are a lot of Canadians buried around the world so we can enjoy our SUVs and The Sopranos on TV. They are not lost causes.

Pro-troop rally?

Sadly, in war, it's us against them. It turns out the us are in our own country. We'll find out what this country is really made of. The prime minister's longevity depends on how he steers this but so far he seems strong in his resolve.
What can we do to support our troops? Can we do some support of pro-troop rally? Any ideas? Anybody with me?

Mike Swayze is.
"I hope the (soldiers overseas) know (of the support)," he said. "I am hoping some of the guys flying helicopters around here will see that my flag is at half-mast."

Perhaps so will the next pilot flying into that Trenton airstrip with the latest Canadian casualties of war.

joe.warmington@tor.sunpub.com

• You can call Joe Warmington at (416) 947-2392 or e-mail at joe.warmington@tor.sunpub.com

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

Lost cause? That's a very bizarre statement. Anyway, defeatism not only sucks as a general attitude, but it also sabotages our efforts in Afghanistan.

I was reading Giap's (commie Vietnamese general) memoirs and he mentioned the fact that although the Tet offensive was a total failure for the Viet Cong and NVA, the American media and the left wingers in the States turned it into a victory. In a liberal democracy, media-shaped perception is almost as important as reality.