• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What'll CAN Coalition Mean for AFG Mission?

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,367
Points
1,260
So, IF the Jack & Gilles get their coalition, what happens to CAN's mission in AFG?

The Liberal platform promise (.pdf) is:
A Liberal government will ensure that it is understood that Canada’s commitment to maintain a military presence in Kandahar will end by July 2011.... 

The Liberal Party remains committed to helping the people of Afghanistan as they work to build a stable, secure and democratic country. We are proud of the efforts of the men and women in uniform and the civilians who have taken up this challenge. The Liberal caucus took the lead in drafting and passing the motion in Parliament on the mission in Afghanistan. Our changes to the motion forced the Conservative government to accept our views that: the mission needs to change so there is a greater emphasis on training, security and reconstruction; the military mission in Kandahar needed to have a firm end date of 2011; and the government must go beyond an exclusively military focus in its approach to Afghanistan by increasing efforts with respect to development and international diplomacy. 

The Liberal amendments also imposed a greater commitment to transparency and accountability on the government. Too often, the Conservatives have not been forthcoming with Canadians about developments in Afghanistan, particularly with respect to such crucial issues as the treatment of detainees transferred by Canadians to Afghan authorities. This lack of transparency and accountability has harmed both our international credibility and domestic support for our efforts in Afghanistan. Under a Liberal government, this approach will change and we will be guided by the both the letter and the spirit of the resolution that was passed in the House. 

We will also ensure that our international partners understand the nature and extent of the commitment that Canada has made. We will not say one thing to a domestic audience and another to our allies. Although we understand that Canada must maintain a long-term commitment to the people of Afghanistan, we will be unequivocal that we cannot continue to be asked to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility in Kandahar indefinitely. We will ensure that it is understood that Canada’s commitment to maintain a military presence in Kandahar will end by July 2011....


NDP's pledge (scan of web page attached below):
....Jack Layton and the New Democrats will:
- Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance
notice and in consultation with our allies.
- Ensure that Canada delivers on the aid and development assistance commitment made through the
Afghanistan Compact.
- Ensure that women and human rights groups in Afghanistan can access Canadian development
dollars, and that corruption at all levels of government is addressed effectively.
- Ensure that the United Nations, not NATO or the US, becomes the lead organization in the
provision of security and development assistance in Afghanistan.
- Explore and promote opportunities for negotiating peace at the national, regional and international
levels, in line with proposals made by the President of Afghanistan and leading security experts....


And since the Bloc'll have a word in, here's a bit of their platform (scan of Google English translation also attached below):
The Bloc Québécois stresses the importance of a rapid rebalancing of the mission for particular humanitarian aspect. Moreover, in May 2006, the Bloc Quebecois voted against the extension of the mission until February 2009 in its current form. But from the moment it has undertaken, we believe that Canada must respect this commitment and continue its military effort in the Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan. A sudden withdrawal would be fraught with consequences for the Afghan people. This gesture would be irresponsible to our allies, who rely on the collaboration of Canada....

Any way of squaring the circle?  Anyone?  Anyone?
 

Greymatters

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Ref the Liberal platform:
Committed... to build a stable, secure AND democratic country - yet pulling out in the next three years when it is fairly certain that the country will be neither secure nor democratic by then.
Proud of the efforts of men and women in unifrom - yet failed to recognize their efforts during their previous Liberal term.
Must go beyond an exclusively military focus - pretty easy to accomplish considering thats already been done.
Greater commitment to transparency and accountability - The pot calling the kettle black...

The NDP platform:
Ensure Canada delivers aid and development assistance - isnt that already being done?
Ensure women human rights groups in Afghanistan can access Canadian dollars - isnt that already being done?
Corruption at all levels is addresses effectively - very vague, what methods will be used?  Eliminate it or just reduce it to an acceptable international standard?
Ensure the UN and not NATO or the US is the lead - yes, yes, we've seen how successfully that ends; it's why NATO and the US starting leading nowadays
Peace... in line with the President of Afghanistan and leading security experts - apparently, neither the President of Afghanistan nor any leading security experts are involved at the moment...

The Bloc platform:
Rebalancing of the mission for particular humanitarian aspect - many examples worldwide of how humanitarian aid without security only leads to dead humanitarian aid workers, or no aid at all
Believe that Canada must respect this commitment and continue its military effort in ISAF - isnt joining with the Liberal and NDP parties contradictory to this concept?

Summary:
Political rhetoric.
Political posturing.
Political power struggle.
 
 

geo

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Heh.... if you think Afghanistan is hard.... imagine other places in the world they might want to send us....

Congo?
Sudan?
Somalia?
Zimbabwe?
Haiti?

The 1st 4 countries haven't asked for any intervention - which would mean that we'd have to "invade" the country - over the standing government's complete opposition.... AKA declaring war on them........ NOT!!!

None of the Liberal / NDP / BQ parties are prepared to go that route - so they'd bring the Cdn Forces home again....
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,472
Points
1,060
geo said:
Heh.... if you think Afghanistan is hard.... imagine other places in the world they might want to send us....

Congo?
Sudan?
Somalia?
Zimbabwe?
Haiti?

The 1st 4 countries haven't asked for any intervention - which would mean that we'd have to "invade" the country - over the standing government's complete opposition.... AKA declaring war on them........ NOT!!!

None of the Liberal / NDP / BQ parties are prepared to go that route - so they'd bring the Cdn Forces home again....

...and promptly cut funding by 70%, sell all the weapons and vehicles, and replace them with snowshovels, fire axes, and wheelbarrows and sandbags.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
A Torch post:

Hell no, we won't fight!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/hell-no-we-wont-fight.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

Greymatters

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
I'm expecting an announcement on the cancellation of all military weapons acquisition, replacement or refurbishment programs until they can be 'reviewed' by the new triumvirate...
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Greymatters: Then there are troikas:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=_eUtQjseKaIC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=stalin+%22second+troika&source=bl&ots=AdOTR-3NHK&sig=YqrPdi5a9PMzEAsunt6QIhtW7bM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

Mark
Ottawa
 

Greymatters

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
While I dont approve of their actions, I wouldnt group them together...
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
I was curiously waiting for this topic to appear.
 

Marauder

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
That flushing sound you hear is the CF being sent back up the river to buy Taliban Jack's "loyalty" (har har) and muffled silence.

I love it when the "will of the people" is put forth front and centre.
 

Zartan

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I expect this to be the very topic that undoes the coalition. Perhaps we could see a new majority coalition arise from the ashes of such an event.... A Unity Government ala 1917 composed of Conservatives and likeminded liberals? I highly doubt the coalition is a very cohesive political unit - and I can't expect it to get better.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,090
This is one big reason the folks in the Project Management Offices, Treasury Board, and Public Works need to stop justifying their jobs with red tape and get a move on things - lots of capital projects could be delayed EVEN LONGER than they already have been.  While some very good progress has been made recently in terms of signing the contract for the C-130J, purchasing 6 CH-47D for the sandbox, and a myriad of armoured vehicle & specialty vehicles for the Afghanistan mission...there are some projects that have taken forever to get off the ground.  (And in my personal, humble opinion - it blows me away as to why some projects, which seem simple enough, take forever to go anywhere....but thats for a different thread.)


Anybody else angry at the fact that a government that was not elected may be leading the country only 6 weeks after the current government was VOTED IN?  *Rant off*
 

Nauticus

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Marauder said:
That flushing sound you hear is the CF being sent back up the river to buy Taliban Jack's "loyalty" (har har) and muffled silence.

I love it when the "will of the people" is put forth front and centre.
Well, thats what a democracy is.

I just hope the Coalition government doesn't touch what Harper's government has done a decent job trying to fix as far as the military goes.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
494
Points
930
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/30/the-tories-made-them-do-it/  Andrew Coyne has taken a very lonely position vis a vis the coup I tend to agree with parts of it.  I certainly believe that these events would have occured regardless: they were just looking for a stimulus.  As for the Military Mission there will be little change over the winter but, once the NDP get comfortable at the cabinet table you will begin to see fewer expeditions outside the wire and more focus on mentoring which whilst not a bad thing in itself can't exist without the teaching by example.  By the end of next year, our involvement in peace making exercises will have come to a complete end.

As for all those contracts for ships, planes, vehicles etc.  FORGET IT  Money spent on the armed forces is wasted according to the NDP.  For the liberals, it doesn't buy enough votes so it is totally secondary.  Maybe though it isn't all wasted.  We can make Jack our foreign minister and send him to negotiate with the Taliban.  He could take Sven along as a policy advisor too.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,367
Points
1,260
<minor hijack>Just a reminder - before we start calling this a "coup" again, let's remember the definition:
a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force

Sudden?  Yes
Decisive?  Nope
Illegal?  Nope
By Force?  Nope
</minor hijack>
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
494
Points
930
A coup d'état is as defined above, "coup" actually means "a brilliant, sudden, and usually highly successful stroke or act".  Now you can probably present a logical argument disputting the brilliance of this act but it does fit the above description.  It doesn't have to be illegal although if we were still considered a moral nation, it would definitely be considered as immoral. PARDON my detour we now return to the topic at hand and the possible ramifications of such a parliamentary move on our mission in AFG, indeed on the Forces in general.
 

Greymatters

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Not much more that can be debated until some 'proclamations' are made by the new powers...
 

stealthylizard

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Under the Liberals, nothing would change.  Really not sure what would happen if the mission fell to the NDP or Bloc.  :crybaby:
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,426
Points
1,110
Hey Lizard,instead of  Shoulder Arms, it would be Shoulder.......nothing I guess.

The NDP would quickly disarm us....after all if you just "talk" to the bad guys, they will understand!! :rofl:
 

TN2IC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
*Silly Tin mode*



((Background classical music starts playing))
A coup d’état (pronounced /kuːdeɪˈtɑː/ AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]), often simply called a coup, is the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a part — usually small — of the state establishment — usually the military — to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government.

Guess what some folks are thinking if this Coalition takes power... Beer Hall Putsch, here we come. ;D


*End of Silly Hat mode*  :dontpanic:
 
Top