Some disapointing news for Jack and the NDP

[octothorp]

I'm never a fan of categorically refusing to negotiate with any government or organization. There are three ways to put pressure on another government: military, diplomacy and economy. Any time you say 'we absolutely will not negotiate with x under any conditions', you limit your options and weaken your stance. It's the same problem with the approach the US has used with Iran until recently. That said, I don't think it's in NATO's best interest to negotiate with the Taliban; for one thing, there isn't a clear top-down structure within the organization and there's no guarantee that deals made with top members will be honoured by others. Secondly, it's difficult to imagine that a reasonable agreement can be reached. As with Iraq, the difficulty is that recruitment of Pashtuns into the Taliban will not stop until NATO withdraws, and yet withdrawing before the Taliban is clearly defeated would be disasterous. Despite the good news posted in the original article, redevelopment of infrastructure does not equate with defeat of the Taliban. It means that we're doing good work there, but it doesn't mean we're any closer to winning. Good news, yes. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and pretend that the end of this conflict is in sight either for us or for the people of Afghanistan.

[transplant99]

Despite the good news posted in the original article, redevelopment of infrastructure does not equate with defeat of the Taliban.

So the question is....

Is the Taliban a military orginization or are they a legitimate government?

If the goal was to remove then completely from Afghanistan, then there will never be "victory".

If it was to undermine the iron-fist rule they were using, then victory has been achieved, but the war will continue.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So the question is....

Is the Taliban a military orginization or are they a legitimate government?

If the goal was to remove then completely from Afghanistan, then there will never be "victory".

If it was to undermine the iron-fist rule they were using, then victory has been achieved, but the war will continue.

I'd classify them as simply a military organization. Even when in power, they were never really much more than a military organization masquerading as a government.

I guess it's a matter of semantics then on how you define victory. If you define victory according to your second definition, then victory was achieved before our troops even went over there. I'd define victory as reaching a point where Afghan citizens can maintain their own safety and democratic government without outside intervention, which is why I see it victory as being attainable but still a long way off.

[KAI]

The rpoblem is that in many middle eastern countries if "victory is accomplished, then wouldn't that mean that democracy is established with the rule of law and a constitution? If so then what do the USA and it's alies do if the people of say Afganistan decide to elect a military government who has hostile plans. For democracy to work the world needs to respect the decisions of the people, however in many middle eastern counries the western world is not seen as a friend. So for the Americans "victory will only come when they can convince the citizens in middle eastern countries that the american way is the right way.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

I think the American military, as large as it is, is at or near the limit of it's ability. Also the will of the American people is likewise at or near the limit. If it is indeed correct that something needs to be done about North Korea, who is going to do it?
Only the Americans would, and I don't think they are able at this time. So I suppose they may wish to negotiate and try to control in that manner a dangerous entity like Kim Il Jong, as they do not at present have a military option.
If one did manage to topple the North Korean regime, what kind of humanitarian effort will be required to assist the impoverished people of that country. The reports that do escape tell a tale of woe.
I don't know the thinking behind negotiating with one "evil" regime and fighting another, but surely the people of the Korean peninsula would pay a severe price if there were an outbreak of conflict.

Trying to remember what American politician said that the US underestimated the resolve of the Vietnamese, and over estimated the resolve of the American people. Seems like another conflict added to the ones ongoing, would be inconcievable in this current climate.

Straw man argument. Conflict was initiated with the Taliban first. To negotiate or deal with North Korea from a position of strength, past conflicts must be resolved.

[KAI]

http://www.cursor.org/stories/archivistan.htm

"For every American who dies in either Afghanistan or Iraq, about 17 innocent Afghan or Iraqi civilians perish."

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by KAI

http://www.cursor.org/stories/archivistan.htm

"For every American who dies in either Afghanistan or Iraq, about 17 innocent Afghan or Iraqi civilians perish."

So idoes that 1 American that dies...kill 17 Afghans before he dies?

Or are those death coming from the Taliban?

Why don't we show Canadians versus Afghans?

1:1000 ????

[Flames in 07]

Wow, I'll take "positive threads that get unhinged because the far left want to somehow bend a afghan success story into a conservative failure, and all the while accuse everyone who is not pro NDP as being favorable to negotiating with the Koreans" for 800 please Alex.

Starting at exactly post #15 this should have been a new thread.

[Flashpoint]

I would like to see more reporting on both the successes and failures in Afghanistan, without a political slant.

The list of positives above are wonderful. I am sure one could quickly come up with a list of negatives to offset each gain (heroin production, reconstituted Al Quaeda etc). I doubt that anyone could effectively look at both and decide whether our presence in the region was a net gain or not.

I am sure to some of the families of the 66 dead Canadians, the mission is not "worth it". To others, any success is a testament to the fallen.

The reality is that bullet point lists of accomplishments or failures are easy to make. The "big picture" is what is hard to get a handle on.

[mykalberta]

I was debating whether or not to post in this thread or not.

To be truthful, those stats are wonderful but they dont mean a lick of difference. Its like Harper said, there is no reason in staying if everyone isnt behind it. Why would troops want to be over there when you have political donkeys taking pot shots at them from behind and on the sidelines.

Also, the laughable conduct of most of the European countries over there not willing to shoulder at least part of the burden makes me quite sick and is the singular reason why I think we should leave.

If the cons want to run on a stay in Afghan platform (too risky IMO) they should make some hockey reference like "Canadians dont shy away from the corners and cherry pick like some" (polite for saying, we arent gutless Euros). Damn that was good. I should quit my moderatley paying job as an IT backup admin and go work for some Right Wing think tank - on second thought nah, too much travel east of Alberta and on the wrong side of the 49th.

MYK

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Wow, I'll take "positive threads that get unhinged because the far left want to somehow bend a afghan success story into a conservative failure, and all the while accuse everyone who is not pro NDP as being favorable to negotiating with the Koreans" for 800 please Alex.

Starting at exactly post #15 this should have been a new thread.

One could also see it as a failed attempt at a positive thread derailed right at the title that framed the debate. If the 'far right' want to title every success in Afghanistan as a failure for the 'far left' it's not all that shocking the other side gets its back up and the debate spirals into where these typically head. Honestly, the title's implication that the NDP is cheering for setbacks for Canadian Forces in Afghanistan is infantile, regardless of what one thinks of the NDP.

[Aeneas]

About the European countries. They did send troops when the people of these countries were soundly against it. The US has shouldered the largest burden, but Canada, Britain, and Holland have done their share. Germany has sent troops but to a relatively quiet area of Afghanistan, but the very fact that they did send troops is remarkable. Looking at the backlash against having North American troops over there, it is small compared to the average European's response.
I wish our European NATO allies would take on a more vigorous role, but I understand the climate these government's are working in.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by KAI

The rpoblem is that in many middle eastern countries if "victory is accomplished, then wouldn't that mean that democracy is established with the rule of law and a constitution? If so then what do the USA and it's alies do if the people of say Afganistan decide to elect a military government who has hostile plans. For democracy to work the world needs to respect the decisions of the people, however in many middle eastern counries the western world is not seen as a friend. So for the Americans "victory will only come when they can convince the citizens in middle eastern countries that the american way is the right way.

My perspective is that spreading democracy is never a suitable reason to invade a country. If, however, you invade a country for any reason and end up forcing a regime change, democracy is pretty much the only way to leave the country. Afghanistan may in the future have a talibanesque government either by democratic election or by force, and the west doesn`t really have any control over that. But we can at least give them the chance for self-determination by helping the democracy get established. I think at this point, it`s NATO`s primary concern to make sure that they aren`t culpable for future conflict in the region. If they establish a democracy, then all blame for the actions of whoever is elected must ultimately rest with the populace and not with NATO.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I was debating whether or not to post in this thread or not.

To be truthful, those stats are wonderful but they dont mean a lick of difference. Its like Harper said, there is no reason in staying if everyone isnt behind it. Why would troops want to be over there when you have political donkeys taking pot shots at them from behind and on the sidelines.

Also, the laughable conduct of most of the European countries over there not willing to shoulder at least part of the burden makes me quite sick and is the singular reason why I think we should leave.

If the cons want to run on a stay in Afghan platform (too risky IMO) they should make some hockey reference like "Canadians dont shy away from the corners and cherry pick like some" (polite for saying, we arent gutless Euros). Damn that was good. I should quit my moderatley paying job as an IT backup admin and go work for some Right Wing think tank - on second thought nah, too much travel east of Alberta and on the wrong side of the 49th.

MYK

I always thought the term "right wing think tank" was an oxymoron?

(It is a good line that you wrote there, though...no question about that!)

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I always thought the term "right wing think tank" was an oxymoron?

(It is a good line that you wrote there, though...no question about that!)

Hmmmm... how about "conspiracy bunker"?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Also, the laughable conduct of most of the European countries over there not willing to shoulder at least part of the burden makes me quite sick and is the singular reason why I think we should leave.



MYK

That is an awful reason to leave. The "No one else s helping why should I stick my nose out" argument.

Yes the Euros are being cowards but all the more reason we should stick it out. There will be ups and downs but we have dragged this country back from the pit of hell.