Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
1 casualty is too much...but if we're going to look at it from a statistical viewpoint, you are right.
I think the biggest problem is that Canada is one of the 'few' countries who actually has troops on the front lines.
Most of Europe has troops there, yes...but they are NOT sharing the burden.
|
Thats my biggest beef with the mission.
Someone needs to be there, the Taliban can never be allowed back into power.
but I think Canada is handling a unshare burden in this fight. There are other NATO troops but thier rules of engagement keep them in the relatively safe areas and don't expose them to much in the way of combat, and that has to change.
I've always been a strong proponent of NATO, and its always pissed me off when Canada didn't live up to thier end of the agreement, now it pisses me off that Canada is living up to thier end, and other nations aren't.
55 casualties over 4 years is a light casualty count, and the person who said that 1 is too many is clinging to a over romaticized viewpoint of the realities of the 21st century world.
A defense only military strategy will fail for any country that implements it over time, you give your enemies a chance to re-arm, your give your enemies a chance to find financing and troops, and you invite strikes against yourself. You have to have the capabilities to deploy troops to assist in international efforts, and you have to have the capabilities to protect your nations foreign policy on a global scale.
One of the benefits of Afghanistan is that its put the repairs of our military back in the public limelight, and allowed the governement to properly equipt and fund the men and woman who put on the uniform. But the military is still facing a severe rust out in the next 15 years if funding isn't increased and older equipment isn't replaced. Sadly the years of neglect by our previous governments both Liberal and Conservative in the name of saving money, is actually going to cost us a lot more money then we might have saved.
