Liberals stand by deadline to abandon combat role

[jolinar of malkshor]

The federal Liberals, who want Canada to end its combat role in Kandahar, Afghanistan, just over a year from now, were ducking for cover yesterday after John Manley's assertion that there is "no operational logic" to setting such a firm deadline.

Meeting with his MPs and senators in Kitchener, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said the party was still studying Manley's recommendations. However, he repeated the Liberals' official position that Canada must end its combat mission in Kandahar by February 2009.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Cana...88318-sun.html

What does it take? Why wont the opposition parties do the right thing? The bloc and NDP are just as bad. Give your head a shake Dion.

[Resolute 14]

Facts are, the Liberals are trying to buy support in Canada by taking an anti-"war" stance in Afghanistan. The lives and future of the people in Afghanistan mean less to Dion, et al than a single vote in Canada.

[burn_this_city]

Bring on an election so Flip Flopper is exposed for the pathetic leader he is.. The guy is pandering to the gutless portion of society.. What a sin it would be to sacrifice so much then cut and run... Glad to see Manley wasnt drinking the red koolaid when he penned that report.. The man has guts and my respect.

[Azure]

Dion is trying to use Afghanistan as a political posturing point to try and gain votes.

I doubt it will work. Hopefully the Liberals get a need leader sometime soon, so that the opposition party can actually do their job correctly.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The guy is pandering to the gutless portion of society..

I agree, they are gutless. They could learn a lesson or two from the good men and women in our society who voluntarily put their paint job in harm's way with a yellow magnet.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I agree, they are gutless. They could learn a lesson or two from the good men and women in our society who voluntarily put their paint job in harm's way with a yellow magnet.

Not really sure how I'm supposed to take that.. How about my buddy from high school who died in afghanistan this summer at the ripe old age of 24.. Would you like to tell his family he died for nothing?

[RougeUnderoos]

Hey, I'm for the war. I support it completely and I'm sorry to hear about your friend and I believe he died for a truly noble cause. I hope they stick around as long as it takes, kill all the religious lunatics and help get that place back on the road to where it once was.

But I'm still as gutless as the anti-war people. Very few of us aren't. Calling them gutless insinuates (at least to me) that people who support the war are somehow "braver" than those who don't. That's all.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I agree, they are gutless. They could learn a lesson or two from the good men and women in our society who voluntarily put their paint job in harm's way with a yellow magnet.

I joined the reserves with the intent on being able to train to someday defend my country and the principles of being Canadian... does that mean that I am able to accuse the liberal party of using the Afghanistan mission as a political tool rather than as an opportunity to truely help out an impovrished people? Or do I have to go to Afghanistan before I can make that comment?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I agree, they are gutless. They could learn a lesson or two from the good men and women in our society who voluntarily put their paint job in harm's way with a yellow magnet.

Oh good god. Now people can't even publicly support the troops without being labled as fakes.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Hey, I'm for the war. I support it completely and I'm sorry to hear about your friend and I believe he died for a truly noble cause. I hope they stick around as long as it takes, kill all the religious lunatics and help get that place back on the road to where it once was.

But I'm still as gutless as the anti-war people. Very few of us aren't. Calling them gutless insinuates (at least to me) that people who support the war are somehow "braver" than those who don't. That's all.

That really wasnt what I was trying to say.. I think I'm gutless for not being over there fighting, but I believe we must support our people until the end .. I just think Dion is pandering to a part of society that doesnt realize what they take for granted everyday had a cost to be attained.. The whole cut and run additude is quite disheartening.. The opposition stance reaks of vote buying rather than sound policy..

[Sainters7]

I had an interesting chat with a soldier about a month back who had made some great points. He basically explained that this mission has still never been fully explained properly to the public by the media, who seem to just be twisting it for their own political reasons. He also explained that this is in fact a generational war, and the pullout dates some are hoping for are laughable. He thinks this is a 20-25 year mission, as they are rebuilding the country's infastructure completely, as well as trying to flush out the Taliban stronghold in Khandahar.

I left alot out but he made some great points. It was interesting talking to him, as he provided me with some thought on the Afghanistan mission that I had never heard before.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

That really wasnt what I was trying to say.. I think I'm gutless for not being over there fighting, but I believe we must support our people until the end .. I just think Dion is pandering to a part of society that doesnt realize what they take for granted everyday had a cost to be attained.. The whole cut and run additude is quite disheartening.. The opposition stance reaks of vote buying rather than sound policy..

Interesting... if you're against the War in Afghanistan you're automatically someone who doesn't appreciate Canada and being Canadian?

I don't support the War... I've never thought of myself as 'gutless' or someone who supports 'cutting and running', but apparently that's the only available brush to paint someone who doesn't support it. I'd support it if we (NATO) were there to win, but we're not. We're there to break even. Watch and see what kind of 'victory' is achieved in Afghanistan in the end and then we'll discuss how that was worth the cost of young Canadian men and women.

If Afghanistan sinks back into chaos (whether or not Canadian soldiers stay there), are the sacrifices Canadians made there going to be deemed 'worth it'?

[Ford Prefect]

I'm amazed the liberals could come up with enough gumption to stand by any kind of view point, about anything. I wonder how many opinion polls they had to run before they felt safe enough to have an opinion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

That really wasnt what I was trying to say..

The opposition stance reaks of vote buying rather than sound policy..

Okay, well, that's how I took it. Sorry. It is a sentiment I've heard before though and it just kind of annoys me.

Anyway, it does reek of vote buying. Most things they do does.

The funny thing about this whole Liberal anti-war stance is that they started it in the first place. As soon as they were out of office they started clucking about the war like it's a Conservative thing.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, well, that's how I took it. Sorry. It is a sentiment I've heard before though and it just kind of annoys me.

Anyway, it does reek of vote buying. Most things they do does.

The funny thing about this whole Liberal anti-war stance is that they started it in the first place. As soon as they were out of office they started clucking about the war like it's a Conservative thing.

Thats what infuriates me the most.. They should be all for sticking with it.. Instead they try and buy votes in Quebec (where the majority of the antiware sentiment lies)

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Interesting... if you're against the War in Afghanistan you're automatically someone who doesn't appreciate Canada and being Canadian?

I don't support the War... I've never thought of myself as 'gutless' or someone who supports 'cutting and running', but apparently that's the only available brush to paint someone who doesn't support it. I'd support it if we (NATO) were there to win, but we're not. We're there to break even. Watch and see what kind of 'victory' is achieved in Afghanistan in the end and then we'll discuss how that was worth the cost of young Canadian men and women.

If Afghanistan sinks back into chaos (whether or not Canadian soldiers stay there), are the sacrifices Canadians made there going to be deemed 'worth it'?

I don't see how its bound to sink back into chaos if we stay the course, putting a completely unrealistic end date will guarantee that.. If we cut and run now in 1 years time it will only strengthen the resolve of Al-Qaeda.. I fail to see how any military mission ever breaks even.. What of all the afghan people who sided with NATO and coalition.. I guess f'em they can hang when the forces leave..

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, well, that's how I took it. Sorry. It is a sentiment I've heard before though and it just kind of annoys me.

Anyway, it does reek of vote buying. Most things they do does.

The funny thing about this whole Liberal anti-war stance is that they started it in the first place. As soon as they were out of office they started clucking about the war like it's a Conservative thing.

I think it still stems from the attempted correlation of Harper to Bush. The Liberals tried to cash-in from anti-american/anti-Bush sentiment in Canada by trying to paint Afghanistan as being an equal 'blunder' as the Iraq war and thus further equate Harper = Bush. Should be interesting if this correlation continues to be worth exploiting for votes as the US Presidential election gets into full swing and Bush-bashing gets stale as it will be moot.

[CaptainCrunch]

I might go long here and I apologize for that but I don't think that the Afghanistan situation, the liberal position and some of the loose accusations here can be summed up in a paragraph or two, so feel free to stop reading at any time.

First of all, Dion, the Liberal position, and the effects on the next election.

Dion first and foremost has put himself into a extremely bad position. At first glance his vote is pandering to a Quebec position that might not be there in a few months, Currently the Canadian contingent is comprised of the Van Doos or the royal 22nd regiment, one of Canada's most famous francophone formations. The big concern with rotating the Van Doo's into Afghanistan was that there would be a massive backlash in Quebec against the current government in Ottawa as casualties started to mount. To Dion it would make sense to support what is a silly position under the guise of gaining support in Quebec for the Liberal's. However by all reports the Van Doo's have done an exceptional job so far, exceeding past deployed groups in terms of humanitarian assistance support, combat operations and training with the Afghan army. Because of this we aren't seeing the massive negative downturn that was expected in Quebec.

Dion recently went to Afghanistan didn't learn anything, didn't listen and didn't do his homework. Instead he talked about changing the mission unrealistically and setting a deadline for a Canadian battlegroup withdrawl, none of which are realistic.

Frankly if Dion pushes this and forces an election on this issue he is in a terrible position, especially if he has to debate his reasoning in a public forum. The only way that he can defend his actions is to basically attack the military's effectiveness over there, in other words he's going to have to say that Canada's troops are not getting the job done, Humanitarian projects are not having the desired results etc. In terms of public sentiment Canadians for the most part seem to have a higher then normal feeling of pride in the job that the military is doing, Harper can put Hillier one of the more popular CDS' in history in front of the media and cut Dion to pieces.

It almost makes me wonder if Dion's handlers are pushing this agenda on him to force an ill timed election which will lead to a defeat and resignation of Dion while maintaining the status quo in the house of commons, which leaves the Liberal's four more years of opposition status and allows them to continue to rebuild their party.

Canada's Mission in Afghanistan

Right now Canada's mission is three fold.

First the prosecution of the Taliban. Right at the moment its essential for any of the forces in the south to continue to punish, demoralize, and force the Taliban into constant movement so that they can be bled dry, not have a chance to re-organize and not hamper the humanitarian effort.

Second the rebuilding of Afghanistan's infrastructure and civilian services. This is not a task thats going to take one or two or 25 years, it is a generational task and can not happen without the above mentioned first action. If the Taliban can continue to attack and destroy construction efforts, demoralize humanitarian efforts, and scare civilians into accepting Taliban rule. you cannot fight defensive wars against a small mobile enemy, especially one that can resupply across the Pakistan border. You have to make the Taliban membership die in a horrific and bloody action while attempting to destroy their competent field level and political leadership. This is a job that will take a exceedingly long time and will cost lives by the bushel full. The biggest issue is the support of the UN nations outside of Canada, the Dutch, the American's and the Brits. Canada cannot rotate out until a significant replacement force can be bought in from a nation other then the ones mentioned above. If France or Germany or some of the other nations were willing to rotate their combat units from the relatively safe areas around Khandahr into the more dangerous areas, Canada could rotate their units to safe areas and focus on Dion's concepts for a short time. Canada, the U.S., the Dutch and Great Britain need to find a way to pressure Nato to support this kind of rotation, if they leave before a proper rotation plan is put into place they leave the wild lands relatively open to re-occupation by the Taliban against the will of the Civilians who are finally starting to see some positive change and traction in their lives.

Someone said it above, The Taliban will probably never be defeated, only contained and marginalized, and if that happens then you can rotate a different army group in there comprised of

The Afghan Army

Have you ever seen how long it takes to build and train an army. Its longer then 6 years. First and foremost you have to train an army by changing its message. Canada and the other nato nations trying to build an army there are trying to build a small professional army that can hold its own against the insurgents there. In order to do that, you can't give them uniforms and guns and set them lose, you'll lose half of them to the battle hardened Taliban on the first day, and on the second day the rest will desert. You have to give them discipline, unit identity and pride, teach them to fight like a modern army, and then teach them to communicate and work effectively with NATO troops. Training will be ongoing and while troop levels provided by NATO should be able to be reduced as new Afghan units come on line, there will always be a advisers cadre provided by NATO.

Based on the above, Dion is completely wrong.

If Canada pulls out without a suitable replacement, we will gain resentment from NATO who right now is depending on Canada, we will be resented by the Afghanistani who have began to trust the maple leaf, we will be resented by the American's because we'll effectively be bailing out on them in the South, we will be viewed as weak and indecisive by the rest of the world.

Look, I fully expect that at some point in the next 5 years Canada's contingent will come home, our military is spending a lot of money over there, and we don't have the combat capability to support a generational war. realistically we have two full brigades of actual combat troops which equates to about 6000 combat ready infantry troops. fine you say, we have roughly 2300 over there not all of whom are infantry members, however the ones that are over here are getting trained, rearmed, losing experienced members and recruiting new ones. Frankly Canada's military has been on a war footing for 4 years now, and an army of our size can't sustain that. Canada needs to rest and rearm its troops, not commit them to UN missions, and not even think about deployment to other worldly hotspots.

Canada's next step is to work with the American's to force Nato formation rotations, and force NATO to get other units into Afghanistan to replace Canada's battlegroup. But if Dion thinks thats going to happen because Canada sets a short term deadline he's deluded and dumb.

Anyways, I don't know if this makes any sense, but its long enough for me.

[flylock shox]

^^^^ That post was so long I can only assume I agree with it in its entirety.

Hear hear!

[burn_this_city]

beautifully put Cap'n.. Personally I think theres a large contigent of liberals that want Dion to fail to force a leadership change..