[Newsbot]

Title: The Afghan pullout reconsidered - Opinion
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-08-20 11:18:53
Canadian

[ridenrain]

I think NATO and the US are getting worried that none of the other Euro-wimps will take Canada's place. Canada will still be there, protecting our interests and we;ve already done more than France, Germany, Italy and the rest.

[Akhenaten]

I said this last year (and last week for that matter) and no one really believes it, but I'll say it again: we're not going anywhere in 2011. Won't matter who's in office.

[Praxius]

$1:

But this attitude suggests that Canada has been engaged in Afghanistan as a favour, rather than in its interests. And if it has been in its interest to send soldiers to Afghanistan, it is not clear why those motivations are going to dissipate in 2011.

Correction.... they were sent over because of our agreements with being a part of NATO, which was ordered to go.... thus we went.

It wasn't done as a favor or for our interests..... we were upholding our part of the bargain.

But as mentioned in the report and by everybody else here, nobody else in NATO seems to want to uphold their own agreements, even after so many years of us doing so.

So honestly, wtf should we stay beyond? If every other NATO country seems to be allowed to twist the rules and agreements to suit themselves so they don't have to do anything serious, then why the hell are we allowing ourselves to be continually suckered into doing all the work?

Patting us on the back and telling us "Good Job" can only go so far.

$1:

Canadian leaders have viewed the commitment to NATO as an obligation, but not just one that is for the sake of others, but an integral part of the country's place in the world. Certainly, people have a right to be frustrated with the performance of other NATO members, but leaving the job entirely to others does not mesh with Canadian values and may put the organization at risk. Afghanistan in 2011 might begin to look like Iraq in 2003 – as an American war with few constraints.

To frigging bad.

It was an obligation from the get go, and unless we pulled completely out of NATO, which we should have done, we had obligations to uphold.

Leaving the job to be left up to others doesn't "mesh with Canadian values?"

So it's perfectly fine for us to be the cannon fodder and allow everybody else to leave the job up to us as they watch behind the lines in safety?

What are our values? To be the World's biggest Suckers with no balls to stand up and tell everybody else to do their damn jobs themselves?

If we remain in there beyond 2011 in a military fashion, the crap will certainly hit the fan.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Correction.... they were sent over because of our agreements with being a part of NATO, which was ordered to go.... thus we went.

Not quite. We made the offer to go before NATO had even sat down to talk about it.....back in the days when approval for sending troops was at 67% (positively bloodthirsty for Canada). Granted your rational is correct in terms of the excuse (the alliance), but to say we were 'ordered' to go is incorrect imo. We were chomping at the bit to go.

[ridenrain]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

Correction.... they were sent over because of our agreements with being a part of NATO, which was ordered to go.... thus we went.

Not quite. We made the offer to go before NATO had even sat down to talk about it.....back in the days when approval for sending troops was at 67% (positively bloodthirsty for Canada). Granted your rational is correct in terms of the excuse (the alliance), but to say we were 'ordered' to go is incorrect imo. We were chomping at the bit to go.

Where do you get those details? I believe that 93.7% of the readers here are sure that you yanked those numbers out of your ass.

[Akhenaten]

The only one talking outta his ass is you when you try and speak for everyone.

[ridenrain]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

Correction.... they were sent over because of our agreements with being a part of NATO, which was ordered to go.... thus we went.

Not quite. We made the offer to go before NATO had even sat down to talk about it.....back in the days when approval for sending troops was at 67% (positively bloodthirsty for Canada). Granted your rational is correct in terms of the excuse (the alliance), but to say we were 'ordered' to go is incorrect imo. We were chomping at the bit to go.

Where do you get 67%?

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Where do you get 67%?

Memory (could've been as low as 64%). Got a problem with that?


But here's Chretien offering troops before NATO had a mandate (something else I mentioned that came from memory):

$1:

From the moment of the attack, I have been in close communication with President George Bush who has been a symbol to the world of calm, courage, resolve and wisdom. I told him that Canada stands shoulder to shoulder with him and the American people. We are part of an unprecedented coalition of nations that has come together to fight the threat of terrorism. A coalition that will act on a broad front that includes military humanitarian, diplomatic, financial, legislative and domestic security initiatives.

I have made it clear from the very beginning that Canada would be part of this coalition every step of the way.

link

[ridenrain]

I didn't see that before and I've been looking for it. Thanks.
It still adds nothing to your 67% though.

Why we're there is neither here nor there at this point in time though.
Many other NATO nations are there too but their hiding in the back or prevented by their government from fighting. I'm proud that we stood up and fought the good fight but we had a vote and we agreed to stop combat operations in 2011. Considering support for this mission in Canada has always been low, I don't see it as worthy of revisiting it. I also find it dishonest of some people to push this mission purely for political reasons now.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

It still adds nothing to your 67% though.

Nope it doesn't. Ever try and find a specific poll result from 2001 (and from Canada)?
But i did find a couple from 2006 and 2005 with approval ratings of 55% and higher. Considering approval has gone steadily down since the mission started then I feel comfortable with my point. (the point stands regardless of whether or not it was 55%, or 60% or 80%).

$1:

I also find it dishonest of some people to push this mission purely for political reasons now.

If that's directed at me then you haven't been listening to anything i've said about Afghanistan...better to listen than to assume. If you think I'm simply "pushing the mission now for purely political reasons' you're plain crazy and have no real reason to think that.

[bootlegga]

I'm sure Canada will still be in Afghanistan after 2011, but the size and scope of the force will be much smaller.

My guess is we'll continue training Afghan police and army units, maintain our air wing, and have a PRT or two, backed up by a company of troops. The old Leo 1s will be given to the Afghans as a farewell present. Call it 1,000 troops max, but maybe as few as 500.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I have mixed feelings about this. Based on NATO's request, I say fuck off and bring them home in 2011. Let the other NATO countries with larger militaries do something for once. On the other hand, we made a commitment to a friend, neighbour and ally, on top of the fact that Canadians were also killed on 9/11.

This is one time I seriously don't know how I feel.

[ridenrain]

We stop combat in 2011 and we should then push the training of the police. We all remember how advisors always get in harms way and I'm sure every casualty is going to be thrown in the face of any government after 2011. It's too bad the RCMP are even worst off than the army when it comes to funding.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Eventually its going to get to the point where the CF will just fall apart because of extension after extension. The CF needs a break, and really the average person doesn’t give a shit. The only ones whom feel the stress are the military members; it’s going to be impossible soon to keep up with the attrition.