NATO Summit: Canada declines to extend Afghanistan training mission

[Azure]

CHICAGO—Canada has turned down requests from its NATO partners to extend its Afghan mission past 2014, offering a modest sum of money in place of troops to train the country’s security forces.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered his verdict Monday after weeks of speculation about whether his Conservative government would heed the demands to commit special forces’ soldiers and other specialized troops to teach Afghans how to combat the Taliban insurgency.

That means that after 13 years in Afghanistan, Canada will quit the country for good in March 2014.

By that time, Harper said, foreign forces will have been fighting in the country longer than it took to complete both World War I and World War II.

“If you ask me, frankly would I wish it was earlier, I would say, ‘yes.’ But I think we’re doing it as early as is feasible,” Harper told reporters on the final day of the NATO summit here.

In place of troops, Canada will commit cash. Harper said Ottawa is willing to contribute $110-million annually over three years starting in 2015 with the strict goal of helping fund an Afghan army with an estimated strength of 228,500 soldiers.

Harper said Canada will also make available development assistance for Afghanistan, but any money that is to be managed directly by Karzai’s government will have strict accountability provisions to ensure it is not pilfered, siphoned off or misused.

“We often work through international institutions instead of Afghan institutions because of concerns that we have,” he said. “I was very frank with President Karzai today as I have been in the past that Afghan governance must improve and we have very real expectations in that regard.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/p...aining-mission

Great news, IMO. Obvious that they don't want our help anymore, so why bother. Time to bring everyone home.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its takes time to build a properly equipped and trained army, one that can effectively fight in the field and becomes more then a band of thugs.

I don't think sending money and equipment is enough and it won't create a professional army.

I do think that NATO can create mixed training cadres without requiring 100's of troops from Canada.

The problem is that the government is incompetant and corrupt, and I have no doubt that the minute that the last combat unit leaves that the government will be deposed, collapse or throw its lot in with the taliban.

Sadly the woman and children over there will be f##ked no matter what happens.

[Itse]

The "government" in Afganistan is just one group of armed thugs in no way better than the other armed thugs out there.

Arming and training them does nothing to improve the situation in that country.

[GreenLantern2814]

That part of the world has never really gotten past tribalism as the dominant form of government. The idea that it would ever get past that stage with outside help is laughable, and it's about time this mess was allowed to sort itself out without costing Canadian lives.

[Azure]

I was willing to support the mission until Afghan troops began firing on NATO forces. Then it became clear to me that there was no point in being there.

[HotHotHeat]

Hard to help a country that cant help themselves, and refuses to join the 21st century

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

That part of the world has never really gotten past tribalism as the dominant form of government. The idea that it would ever get past that stage with outside help is laughable, and it's about time this mess was allowed to sort itself out without costing Canadian lives.

It would probably help if it wasn't mercilessly destroyed by foreign powers every 20 years.

[Itse]

Closer to 200 years actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game) Although mostly the foreign forces have lost.

It would alkso propably be more accurate to say "armed to the teeth by foreign forces". The US especially.

And the tribalism comment about "that part of the world" is not really fair. Most of it was a part of ancient Persia for crying out loud, one of the first multicultural superpowers of the world. The Afgans had armies to beat both Russians and English in open warfare during the Great Game. They even had a relatively stable era of steady (but slowish) modernization before they unwillingly became a pawn in the Cold War.

There are longstanding ethnic conflicts in the area true, but outside of some very remote mountain areas "tribalism" is just not a descriptive word of what is or has been going on there.

I've been doing some studying on Afganistan lately. Maybe I'll try to post a quick summary later.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Itse

Closer to 200 years actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game) Although mostly the foreign forces have lost.

It would alkso propably be more accurate to say "armed to the teeth by foreign forces". The US especially.

And the tribalism comment about "that part of the world" is not really fair. Most of it was a part of ancient Persia for crying out loud, one of the first multicultural superpowers of the world. The Afgans had armies to beat both Russians and English in open warfare during the Great Game. They even had a relatively stable era of steady (but slowish) modernization before they unwillingly became a pawn in the Cold War.

There are longstanding ethnic conflicts in the area true, but outside of some very remote mountain areas "tribalism" is just not a descriptive word of what is or has been going on there.

I've been doing some studying on Afganistan lately. Maybe I'll try to post a quick summary later.

Yeah, my point was more about the soviets then americans.

Tough to rebuild when there's nothing left because of 40 years of total war.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Itse

Closer to 200 years actually. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game) Although mostly the foreign forces have lost.

It would alkso propably be more accurate to say "armed to the teeth by foreign forces". The US especially.

And the tribalism comment about "that part of the world" is not really fair. Most of it was a part of ancient Persia for crying out loud, one of the first multicultural superpowers of the world. The Afgans had armies to beat both Russians and English in open warfare during the Great Game. They even had a relatively stable era of steady (but slowish) modernization before they unwillingly became a pawn in the Cold War.

There are longstanding ethnic conflicts in the area true, but outside of some very remote mountain areas "tribalism" is just not a descriptive word of what is or has been going on there.

I've been doing some studying on Afganistan lately. Maybe I'll try to post a quick summary later.

Have you read Eric Margolis (sp?) book "war on top of the World", its almost a must read.