Canadian involvment in Afghanistan
 

Since 2001, Canada has been doing various roles in Afghanistan. Recently, we have taken overn command of the Kandahar region and are doing a far more dangerous and combat-oriented mission. Unfortunately, we have lost some good troops and will probably lose more in the future.
all the while, many people still think that we are "peace-keeping", or aren't sure if we're even in Afghanistan! other complain that using the Armed Forcesfor nasty things like war which require them to proactively use their weapons is wrong.
Personally, I am appalled at the level of support that some elements of the Canadian people are giving our brave soldiers in Afghanistan. The army is a group which uses violence to further the intertests of the Canadian government. That's how the world is. Canada has an international duty to do, and it is being done by so few. They deserve our support, as well as active support by the government in terms of funding and acquistions, which the Conservatives are lined up to do, assuming the Bloc (which is determined to slow any aid to Canadian soldiers down, hence actively endangering their lives0 and the Liberals (who will probably be more-or-less inclined to give our troops the tools they need) and the NDP (whos defence platform consisted of having the Canadian Forces for peacekeeping only) don't block the legislation needed to do so.

Now that we've established that the Canadian army is a "group that uses violence", what are we supposed to discuss here?

Canada does not have an interest in becoming a leadership force in Afghanistan. Petty sentiments aside, there are simply no tangible gains that can be acquired by transforming our role from a supporting force to a primary force, particularly when resources that are scant must be diverted towards this commitment and away from other international and domestic priorities.

And what makes you think that we haven’t fulfilled our commitments in Afghanistan before assuming the task of rebuilding Kandahar?

Wow... I didnt know Canadians had troops in the middle east. Do they have troops anywhere else?? I'm surprised to hear this.

Really? Because I thought that Afghanistan, espeically the southern provinces, is a haven for terrorist fundraising. To put it simply, if we're going to be in on the War on Terror, we have a part to play. To put it quite honestly, it has far more than "petty sentiment" at hand. The Canadian Forces are actively protecting Canada and its allies by hindering terroist efforts in Afghanistan, hence contributiing to national secturity, global stability and prospoerity...fior both Canadians and Afghans.

Canadian troops were playing an active role in Afghanistan long before they were transferred to Kandahar. Our prior role was also more in line with our military capacity, which is far from capable of meeting the demands of the current mission without committing resources that are simply not available for a mission of this scale.

Wait, wait, wait - could you please elaborate that "international duty" part. I'm real curious what our duty ought to be, besides peace-keeping.

Please explain how Canada benefits from risking it's soldier's lives in an area which *will* be dealt with by other nations if we aren't there? I mean, besides the glory of it.

"CNN, America's most trusted network.", right Loyalist? :borg:

Because terrorism cannot be dealt with using Peace-keeping, a term that is so over-used and abused that it has resulted in people dying. "Peace-keeping" refers to montotring an international agreement between two willing combattants who are both willing to contribute to the peace process. Al-Queada and the Taliban are hardly "willing participants". Combat is what the army is for, it base function.


Canada often claims to be "world leader", although words are cheap, actions are not. Simply letting tohers do it because htye have to is hardly being an international citizen, nor it is being ethical.

Real clever, really, you know, no-one's ever thought of accusing some-one else of being brain-washed by the media from a supposedly "objective" standpoint because they take themsleves too seriously and can't come up with a decent argument. Seriously, that's original, I hope a huge number of posters don't steal your clever idea, go back in time, and spread it mindlessly around the internet, being rather smug and foolish, hence making you look like an unoriginal and ineffective debator. Because, you know, that would be awful.

I have never, ever heard a Canadian official claim that Canada is a world leader when it comes to military prowess etc. Perhaps on some other grounds Canada could be considered a world leader, but I hardly believe that it's claimed as one in that area. Perhaps a source on that one? Thanks.

This actually made me laugh. The nature of terrorism is that you cannot fight it with a war. That's why it was invented. The "War On Terror", like the "War On Drugs", are useless right-wing buzzwords. You cannot declare war on ideals. That doesn't work. War has it's place. WWII was a neccessary war, but since then, North America has been killing overseas for profit under several different "war" guises. The only way to actually fight terrorism is to prove the terrorists wrong by NOT invading their homes. You think people might have picked up on this after Vietnam, a country of about 50,000,000 then, sent the U.S. packing, but no. You cannot kill an idea.

Sure you can. Look at how well the "War on Poverty" and the "War on World Hunger" are doing. I'm glad nobody is going hungry or is improvished anymore.

Okay I concede, but you're a negative nancy.

Pretty sure that's been happening way before then. What happened to all those Indians I read that settled here on this continent before the white man came?

Not just limited to "North America" either, because I know you're just implying the U.S. when you say that. Just about any war fought for imperialistic gain was rationalized, because let's be honest; we feel a little guilty. Especially when we know we're collectively doing something that we feel/know is wrong. Since when is taking something that's not yours okay? So we just lie to ourselves, and the people at large. Then it's all better!

Another fringe benefit is that anything can and will be rationalized. After all, we're fighting a war that won't end in our lifetimes against a state-less, faceless enemy. You're with us, or you're with the terrorists. Okay?

You can't fight it with appeasement, either. Canada is taking a 3D approach: defence, diplomacy and development to combat terrorism. The fact is that unless we or one of our allies have troops stationed there, the Taliban will re-emerge, continue growing poppies and Al-Queada will renew training camps and planning operations.

So, really, the only way to help the Afghan people is to allow fundamentalists to stomp all over their freedoms, force them to choose an archaic way of life, and allow them all kinds of room to plan attacks against you? Sorry, buddy, but life's not that sweet. Keep in mind that the the US had enevr stepped foot into Afghanistan, even helped them fight of the Russians, yet is still continually targeted as some kind of global scapegoat.

Totally different situation. Veitnam was a general uprising against a military regime that was supported by a foriegn power (the USSR) and fought with using a large, conventional, at one point conscript army. Afghanistan is a country in which tribal indentities are far more important than national ones, the number of people actually engagaing the Allied troops in relatively small, and we're using well-trained and well-equipeed professional armies.

By the way, you can kill an idea. Defence is only one component in the process, but it is still a component. Just look at Russia ( a young capitalist society) and China (less and less Communist by the day).

I'm not saying the army is the only thing we need to rebuild Afghanistan and defeat terrorism. But it's an essential part of the plan nonetheless, and it is working in conjunction with agencies such as CIDA in order to take Afghanistan off the terroist map.

Although Canada is part of the coalition presence in Afghanistan, you have to be able to abstract their role from the mission as a whole. We play a small part in a larger operation that is coalescence of several larger countries, and each role is finely crafted to meet the respective capacities of each country. Canada is currently tacking an operation that exceeds its capacity, and irresponsibly puts the military apparatus under severe strain in terms of procuring the right vehicles, training and general infrastructure needed to wage this type of war (modern guerilla warfare, a phenomenon that Canada has never encountered).

I think our troops in Afghanistan deserve our support. What they are doing is fighting an honourable war not just against the Taliban but the obstacle in restoring communities that were under oppressive Taliban rule in the past.

Soldiers like Greene, who was attacked by an Afghanstanian, should be commended for his work by trying to converse and make peace with the local leaders. Not to mention, trying to gain the trust of the locals by helping them restore their needs like education, health and security.

Even if it does not benefit Canada a great deal, it is the right and honourable thing to do.

It may well be the honourable thing to do, but does that mean that Canada should increase it's expenditure in this area? As in, it hasn't pulled it's weight up to this point so more resources need to be spent on Canada's military actions there? That's the point of contention as far as I know.

Since when did we go into Afghanistan to help out the Afghan people? Bullshit. We went into Afghanistan because we are scared shitless of an Islamic minority, and wanted to save our own asses.

Either way, they're getting our help. And either way, Canada is using its military responsably in it's mission to further Canadian interests through the managed use of force.

How many troops does canada have over there exactly? like 5?

Um, like 2200? Jackass.

And how many should there be? You seem in favour of increasing Canadian presence there, so at what point is it going to be adequate in your view?

Asking for 'more' sucks. Asking for a specific concrete amount which will not increase in future might get more people on your side of the argument.

So how much money/troops/etc. should Canada commit to that area?

Whatever it takes, within the boundries of what the Canadian Forces can provide. I'm not neccesarily pushing for more troops, I'm saying we should have a continued presence in Afghanistan. I find the juvinle "like,what,5?" remark offensive, as it is offensive to Canada's mission and canada's troops.

I agree that the '5' post was just an inflamatory remark. However, the 'whatever it takes' money-pit mentality isn't something that is easilly sold to the public.

Funny, when a Canadian says stuff like this, it's ok. But let an American make a similar statement and you get stuff like:

"Well just cause that's the way the world is doesn't make it right."

"Americans are imperialists!"


Love how the Canadians show up late to the party and now loyalist is trying to give them a pat on the back for holding the fort down after the US and the UK took the place apart. Until they can do something about the opium trafficking, I'll remained unimpressed as usual by Canada.