Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)

[Hydrogen]

Then given the actual situation in Afghanistan as it was in 2001 (taliban, al queda, warlords, an on-going civil war, failed state status), and your stated support of military action, what would you have done?

 

[Mot]

I have never spun it. Earlier on in the thread I posited the question what would you as the US president have done on 9/12? We could have basically flattened the few earth huts they had, made the place more of a moonscape than it already is and called it a day. I would have considered that an abandonment of our highest principles and traditions as a nation...not too mention, yes, it would have been detrimental to our strategic interest. Al Qaeda would have regrouped there and we'd probably be sacrificing skycrapers all over the place...sooner than later in Toronto too. But we've chosen the right path here of helping that country get stabilized and stand on its own feet. And if the newer plan works out that should be sooner than later. The ANA already leads 60% of the combat missions in Afghanistan. We are working ourselves out a job as fast as we can. And that's as it should be.

As for the other locales...yes, we should have been involved. It disgusts me that we as a society didn't have the courage to get involved. But even when we were involved the chattering classes start to turn tail well before any of the door knockers on the ground. Case in point...our internention in Somalia. One scandal and it costs Canada a whole regiment. 19 dead Americans and they begin pulling out the next day. Looking at public reaction from this mission alone, do you really think the public would have supported action in those missions? The operational risks in places like Darfur are markedly worse and equal to or greater in complexity than Afghanistan. If the public think that 108 casualties are bad. Just imagine what they'll say when we have to start fighting the Sudanese Army and Air Force and their guerilla proxies, all of whom are better armed and better trained than the Taliban. I posit, that because of Afghanistan, the Axworthy doctrine is dead. No country will ever want to help prevent genocide again. And that's too bad. Everyone wants to help until the bullets start flying. I remember when folks were complaining about how horrible the Taliban were pre-9/11. Now those groups are complaining about us actually doing something about their complaints.

The "Folks" are telling the leadership after 7 years the strategy has done very little to help with the Taliban complaints. The Taliban still firmly hold their control. So we're supposed to trust the judgement of the very people who've done a bad job from the start. You say we are helping Afghanistan to stabalize when the opposite is true after 7 years of our presence in the country.

 

[Mot]

Then given the actual situation in Afghanistan as it was in 2001 (taliban, al queda, warlords, an on-going civil war, failed state status), and your stated support of military action, what would you have done?

i believe militaries aren't necessarily the right way to build or rather re-build a nation. Militaries are trained to fight and kill and they do this very well. Basic training in the US military entails breaking the soldier down and building them back up to dehumanize the enemy. To kill on instinct, not to think twice. This is valuable and much needed training in some situations but again I believe not for nation building. As just an example the US military was brilliant in the early days of the Iraq war because they were doing what they were trained to do. The aftermath proved a disaster.

Going into Afghanistan seemed the right thing to do back in 2001. When we had an actual enemy in the country, Al Qaeda and our military had an actual target. Now it's years of mismanagement and civilians not trusting our troops and vice versa, you can't build anything without trust. I don't know how to fix this giant mess, I wish I could come up with something. I hope someone in a leadership role does.

We have no choice but to do it the way Keith is talking about because it was already decided a troop surge would fix the situation. Obama pushed it and it will happen. We'll wait and see. I am curious if it doesn't will they ask for even more, until we end up dwindling down into Vietnam circa 1975.

 

[Tewder]

The conservative 8 billion price tag placed on the Canadian force's Afghan adventure has ballooned into over 11 billion dollars and that price will surely be higher. Just think of what the Afghan communities could have done with that cash.

The 'cost' argument is bit of a strawman argument here isn't it? I mean, you either support the mission and accept the cost, or you don't. Canada didn't once say it accepted the cause for war in 1939 but opted out because it would be pricey...

Support military action as you will, but let's be truthful to oneself and not spin the mission into something that it never was (but the powers that be would like to present as the raison d'etre of the mission - i.e. liberation of the Afghan people form the Taliban).

I agree with this. The 'humanitarian' argument for the mission is a bit of a strawman too. Canada's support of its ally, its international obligations, and its self-interest in stabilizing a 'rogue' nation harbouring the serious threat of a major terrorist outfit is more than ample rationale for its military presence. Period. It's not about rebuilding Afghanistan or giving them billions in aide instead of military intervention. It's about Canada's objectives, pure and simple. I'm okay with that.

That said, Keithz is correct in the sense that Canada's humanitarian 'concerns' have been a huge factor in the nature and character of the mission, the policies and strategies of carrying the mission out. This says a great deal about our nation and separates us from many others in that we are not willing to 'scorch and burn' in the achieving of our objectives. We prefer to act responsibly to the best of our ability, to facilitate self-sufficience and to strive for a long term solution that will hopefully benefit the people of Afghanistan, at least as far as what we consider to be 'beneficial' culturally speaking (democracy, equality etc). In fact it could probably be argued the effectiveness of the mission there has been hampered somewhat, or 'slowed' at least, by these sorts of humanitarian concerns, and that if we really wanted a swift and efficient resolution to the Taliban we could have done it militarily in a more ruthless way. Instead we wring our hands with self-doubt when a Canadian serviceperson makes the split decision to shoot an unidentified approaching civilian, rather than risking death at the hands of a suicide bomber. Lets give our heads a shake here. In the grand scheme of things our military effort is positively 'saintly' and to characterize the Canadian military as merciless invading huns is so completely wrong that it obviously smacks of an agenda whose integrity I seriously question.

i believe militaries aren't necessarily the right way to build or rather re-build a nation. Militaries are trained to fight and kill and they do this very well. Basic training in the US military entails breaking the soldier down and building them back up to dehumanize the enemy. To kill on instinct, not to think twice. This is valuable and much needed training in some situations but again I believe not for nation building. As just an example the US military was brilliant in the early days of the Iraq war because they were doing what they were trained to do. The aftermath proved a disaster.

Going into Afghanistan seemed the right thing to do back in 2001. When we had an actual enemy in the country, Al Qaeda and our military had an actual target. Now it's years of mismanagement and civilians not trusting our troops and vice versa, you can't build anything without trust. I don't know how to fix this giant mess, I wish I could come up with something. I hope someone in a leadership role does.

I don't think there is any indication that our mission is failing in Afghanistan. Again, it may be costing more money or taking more time, but those are strawmen arguments that speak more of Canada's political resolve than real failure or success in Afghanistan. We can sit here and talk about the rise of the Taliban and all kinds of negative things but we can also sit and talk about lots of good things that have been achieved. In fact I have been hearing that the Afghani people actually are greatful and welcoming of the efforts of Canada there and are hoping for more long term progress against the Taliban. I suppose it's however you wish to spin it, but lets recognize it for what it is, political spin that at the end of the day shouldn't be governing Canadian foreign policy, here or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

don't think there is any indication that our mission is failing in Afghanistan. Again, it may be costing more money or taking more time, but those are strawmen arguments that speak more of Canada's political resolve than real failure or success in Afghanistan. We can sit here and talk about the rise of the Taliban and all kinds of negative things but we can also sit and talk about lots of good things that have been achieved. In fact I have been hearing that the Afghani people actually are greatful and welcoming of the efforts of Canada there and are hoping for more long term progress against the Taliban. I suppose it's however you wish to spin it, but lets recognize it for what it is, political spin that at the end of the day shouldn't be governing Canadian foreign policy, here or anywhere else for that matter.

I think the question that should be asked is - just what is the mission about at this point in time? Are we there to rebuild the country and be there in the long term - however long it takes? We have to be frank to ourselves and admit that wasn't the original objective back in 2001. Are we there to eliminate the Taliban as a threat? What does that entail? Be truthful to the Canadian people and let the people decide whether the cost of doing so is worth it - it shouldn't take months and hide and seek to figure out just how much money the task had cost and will continue to cost.

It's nice to quote Second World War as an example of Canadian resolve - and it's a noble one, but to equate the goals of the Axis powers and the Taliban, not to mention their tactics as a justification of intervention of a similiar nature is probably not helpful.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

As for the other locales...yes, we should have been involved. It disgusts me that we as a society didn't have the courage to get involved. But even when we were involved the chattering classes start to turn tail well before any of the door knockers on the ground.

We as a society, by itself, simply does not have the resources to get involved everywhere - and beyond that, even if we do, involvement does not take place in a vacuum - but in a minefield of local, regional, national and international interests. I agree with the assessment that there is a moral imperative to be involved - but how, without making more of a mess than what is?

Case in point...our internention in Somalia. One scandal and it costs Canada a whole regiment. 19 dead Americans and they begin pulling out the next day. Looking at public reaction from this mission alone, do you really think the public would have supported action in those missions?

And why is that? Is it about the deaths, or is it about just what gains are there to be made? And let's not diss the pacifists here - if you should recall, some of the strongest voices against US involvement in Somalia comes from the right, precisely because the effort is International, with very little "payback". Recall the term "it is not in our national interests"? I do.

I posit, that because of Afghanistan, the Axworthy doctrine is dead. No country will ever want to help prevent genocide again. And that's too bad. Everyone wants to help until the bullets start flying. I remember when folks were complaining about how horrible the Taliban were pre-9/11. Now those groups are complaining about us actually doing something about their complaints.

When you think about it, just how many genocides were nipped in the bud through military action in the latter half of the 20th century? I'd be hard pressed to come up with a list. The doctrine is not dead - it was never alive in the first place. You yourself have suggested the reason - countries by default aren't that interested in preventing genocide in the first place, unless there is sufficient public embrassment and/or it is happening in an area that's too close to comfort and/or there is national gain. God forbid you should try to empower any sort of supranational body with the authority to intervene for humanitarian reasons free from national interests...

AoD

 

[Mot]

The 'cost' argument is bit of a strawman argument here isn't it? I mean, you either support the mission and accept the cost, or you don't. Canada didn't once say it accepted the cause for war in 1939 but opted out because it would be pricey...



I agree with this. The 'humanitarian' argument for the mission is a bit of a strawman too. Canada's support of its ally, its international obligations, and its self-interest in stabilizing a 'rogue' nation harbouring the serious threat of a major terrorist outfit is more than ample rationale for its military presence. Period. It's not about rebuilding Afghanistan or giving them billions in aide instead of military intervention. It's about Canada's objectives, pure and simple. I'm okay with that.

That said, Keithz is correct in the sense that Canada's humanitarian 'concerns' have been a huge factor in the nature and character of the mission, the policies and strategies of carrying the mission out. This says a great deal about our nation and separates us from many others in that we are not willing to 'scorch and burn' in the achieving of our objectives. We prefer to act responsibly to the best of our ability, to facilitate self-sufficience and to strive for a long term solution that will hopefully benefit the people of Afghanistan, at least as far as what we consider to be 'beneficial' culturally speaking (democracy, equality etc). In fact it could probably be argued the effectiveness of the mission there has been hampered somewhat, or 'slowed' at least, by these sorts of humanitarian concerns, and that if we really wanted a swift and efficient resolution to the Taliban we could have done it militarily in a more ruthless way. Instead we wring our hands with self-doubt when a Canadian serviceperson makes the split decision to shoot an unidentified approaching civilian, rather than risking death at the hands of a suicide bomber. Lets give our heads a shake here. In the grand scheme of things our military effort is positively 'saintly' and to characterize the Canadian military as merciless invading huns is so completely wrong that it obviously smacks of an agenda whose integrity I seriously question.



I don't think there is any indication that our mission is failing in Afghanistan. Again, it may be costing more money or taking more time, but those are strawmen arguments that speak more of Canada's political resolve than real failure or success in Afghanistan. We can sit here and talk about the rise of the Taliban and all kinds of negative things but we can also sit and talk about lots of good things that have been achieved. In fact I have been hearing that the Afghani people actually are greatful and welcoming of the efforts of Canada there and are hoping for more long term progress against the Taliban. I suppose it's however you wish to spin it, but lets recognize it for what it is, political spin that at the end of the day shouldn't be governing Canadian foreign policy, here or anywhere else for that matter.

So Jade, Alvin and I are all building strawmen arugments according to you. I think you might need to understand the definition of a strawman argument before tossing it around at everyone you don't agree with. Simple disagreement does not a strawman make. You must prove intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, which you didn't even attempt.

If you want to see a strong man argument, you need to look at your own writing. This is exactly a strawman argument. "In the grand scheme of things our military effort is positively 'saintly' and to characterize the Canadian military as merciless invading huns is so completely wrong that it obviously smacks of an agenda whose integrity I seriously question." No one has proposed any thought of the Canadian army as merciless huns on this forum except you. Which easily smacks of an agenda and questions the integrity of anyone who makes this kind of thing up out of thin air.

Your anectodal information about afghans being happy belies the reality of polls trending downward by The Asia Foundation. Afghans are steadily losing confidence in the mission, our presence and their biggest concern is security. Security is something that should have been accomplished within the last 7 years. We're a bit late in the game to get on first base.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:
I think the question that should be asked is - just what is the mission about at this point in time?

I think this is perfectly reasonable, and should be done. The politics involved have muddied the waters somewhat in terms of what the real objectives are. Parliament has blessed the mission to 2011 so we'll see.

It's nice to quote Second World War as an example of Canadian resolve - and it's a noble one, but to equate the goals of the Axis powers and the Taliban, not to mention their tactics as a justification of intervention of a similiar nature is probably not helpful.

AoD

Without intervention the chances of further AQ attacks would have been far greater.

We shouldn't forget that in 1939, before the benefit of hindsight, the arguments for the 'mission' in Europe were less clear and far more politicized than we would perceive them today, and many Canadians (francophone Quebecers for the most part) and Americans were against any participation whatsoever. I agree that the scale of the two issues is different but there are some more generalized parallels to be made.

So Jade, Alvin and I are all building strawmen arugments according to you. I think you might need to understand the definition of a strawman argument before tossing it around at everyone you don't agree with. Simple disagreement does not a strawman make. You must prove intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, which you didn't even attempt.

If you want to see a strong man argument, you need to look at your own writing. This is exactly a strawman argument. "In the grand scheme of things our military effort is positively 'saintly' and to characterize the Canadian military as merciless invading huns is so completely wrong that it obviously smacks of an agenda whose integrity I seriously question." No one has proposed any thought of the Canadian army as merciless huns on this forum except you. Which easily smacks of an agenda and questions the integrity of anyone who makes this kind of thing up out of thin air.

... no 'intentional misrepresentation of meaning' there then

Paranoiac ravings or hyperbole notwithstanding, my point is that humanitarian considerations or financial concerns are peripheral to a critique of Canada's policy regarding Afghanistan and are in and of theselves inherently strawman-like as they divert conversation from what the true issue is, namely Canada's objectives and are we achieving them.

 

[Tewder]

We failed in our mission there.

If this article was not submitted two weeks ago, it could just as easily been written in 2003,20004...2009. We're not making the progress in Afghanistan needed for us to ever get out of there.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ghanistan/home


The return of the Taliban
As the insurgents infiltrate the area west of Kandahar, Canadian troops concentrate on holding territory until U.S. forces arrive
Article Comments (154) JANE ARMSTRONG

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

The Taliban still firmly hold their control. So we're supposed to trust the judgement of the very people who've done a bad job from the start. You say we are helping Afghanistan to stabalize when the opposite is true after 7 years of our presence in the country.

How do you read 'failure' into this article or that we've done such a 'bad' job that it somehow proves our military is not to be trusted? The article describes Canadian forces barely holding on to hard-won *gains*, to be sure, but that is not 'failure' in any dictionary: from the article "Two years after the success of Operation Medusa, a Canadian-led routing of Taliban forces from this region of southern Afghanistan, the insurgents have returned, emboldened and newly confident." Emboldened insurgents have returned but that doesn't mean they've taken control! What's more, the article clearly states that the locals are hoping for the Canadian/Americans to prevail even if they are naturally hedging their bets for fear of reprisal from the Taliban. It also states that the situation will be a lot different when the increased numbers of American troops arrive... How is all of this 'failure'? How does this indicate in any objective way that the mission has been the colossal waste that you characterize it as being?

...on that note, going back to the following statement of yours:

The Taliban still firmly hold their control. So we're supposed to trust the judgement of the very people who've done a bad job from the start. You say we are helping Afghanistan to stabalize when the opposite is true after 7 years of our presence in the country.

Again, where in the article that 'you' posted does it indicate that the Taliban still 'firmly' hold their control? It doesn't say that they 'control' anything, and that is not at all how the situation is characterized, and so yet again I ask you why it is you say that Canada and its allies have done a 'bad' job? Sounds to me they've done remarkably well given the meagre forces and resources available!

Furthermore, you state:

They want the liberators killed! We're not winning the hearts and minds of Afghans.

Where in the article that 'you' posted is this implied? On the contrary the position of the locals is reported as being onside with the allies despite the very real fear of reprisals from the Taliban.

The mission is a failure for the last 7 years, the taliban warlords still rule, minorities still suffer, support for the new government is faltering, the people see us as occupiers.

Again, where is any of this indicated in the article that 'you' posted?

No offense but you're sounding like a broken record on this topic, and the very document you cite doesn't back you up in any way whatsoever.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yes you are mischaracterizing and actually either lying deliberatly or lack adult reading skills, because I've never claimed military action is not necessary.

Apparently, you are not above mischaracterizing others or personal attacks either.

Please cut and paste where I said I want us to "rampage" in the Sudan. I bet you can't. You are wrong on all counts

What do you consider an intervention in Darfur? A Sunday picnic?

1) You do not support the current military operation in Afghanistan.
I said it is a failure, that after 7 years we're mired in a guerrila war. I supported going in but 7 years later is still a giant mess

So you supported going in. Good to know. What would you have us do now? Just pull out and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves? Taliban and all? Try not to evade the question next time you answer. How about for once answering honestly and directly on this one.

2) You consider a military operation in Afghanistan to be murderous and not helpful to the Afghans at all. Ergo you see absolutely no benefit to the operation at all.

I said that it is a failure, "murderous and not hepful" is your own dramatic flair. Your embelishments are bizarre

I will submit that perhaps 'murderous' was off base. But you don't consider the mission helpful, yes? So pray tell why you don't consider it helpful? I posit that you don't consider helpful because people are getting killed over there. So is 'murderous' that far off base now?

3) You are against both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and have attempted to lump them together in this thread and have grouped them together in the deserter thread. You do view them as part of a 'neocon' agenda. Do you not?

I compared your logic in your support of the failed Afganistan war to that of creators of the Iraq war. You also said we need to build infrastructure in Afghanistan, to which I pointed out Iraq already has this infrastructure and it's not working

What are you smoking dude? Nobody ever said we were going to Iraq to build infrastructure. All I said earlier was that the US has plowed in more into Iraq than it has Afghanistan when Iraq clearly has more development to begin with.

4) You want NATO and the US to exit Afghanistan immediately. You have not expressed any concern in this thread at all about what would follow except to say that they should leave.

Never said this, never even implied it. Feel free to go back and cut and paste where you think I did

In this very post you are arguing that we should leave because it is a failed war. And again you have not expressed any concern for what would happen to the Afghans after NATO left. I challenge you to find one post where you have expressed concern for the Afghan people after a NATO or US pullout.

5) You have not presented an alternate solution and you have admitted that you have no solution.

And you want more of the same failed strategy.

And you are willing to accept something akin to near genocide just so you can parrot that line above. Wanna predict what will happen to the Hazaras if NATO or the Shias if NATO pulls out?


You are a expert military strategist and nation buider the way I am and bank excutive, you see I was a teller for a few years back in the 80's so it makes me a banking expert.

Except that tellers don't need a university education and half a decade of military training and experience to do my job. I assure you that my 80k a year pay cheque is for far more than than what you did punching the keys on a calculator and operating a cash register.

6) Am I mischaracterizing you when I say you're a pacifist? Perhaps I am because you suggested that it would be okay for us to rampage through the Sudan. So perhaps you're not a pacifist, it's just that you're selective about the wars we wage and the people we save. In this case, it's apparently better to abandon the country with the lower human development index and go help the one that's better off.

If I got anything wrong above, please point it out. Otherwise, I am sorry the truth hurts so much.

I am sick and tired of you debating every topic in your over the top drama queen way, then reporting people to the mods for the exact same things you are saying to others.

And when you can't really debate effectively you resort to lines like this. You should know that in my time here that was the first complaint I made. In my complaint, I stated that I found Prometheus to be a nice guy and insightful and that he should not be sanctioned in any way. My only contention was that he stop Christian bashing as the last 4 threads that he started had to with that issue and I felt it was becoming a pattern that was debasing UT. You on the other hand have complained to the mods several times....in this very thread!

They even let you get away with such angry language as this:

You're known for snark and intolerance around here. So a lesson from you isn't exacly from a good source. I am intolerant to those who are intolerant, so sue me.

Not everyone with a different point of view is an asshole, just the self righteous Cons.

And you want to debate whose conduct is better?

 

[kEiThZ]

Your anectodal information about afghans being happy belies the reality of polls trending downward by The Asia Foundation....

Did you actually read the survey and use the link I posted? I strongly suggest that you actually read stuff yourself instead of using ABC News as your source.

Yes, the survey says that security is the number one concern for Afghans. I'll give you a guess as to who they want working towards more security for them.

The "Folks" are telling the leadership after 7 years the strategy has done very little to help with the Taliban complaints. The Taliban still firmly hold their control. So we're supposed to trust the judgement of the very people who've done a bad job from the start. You say we are helping Afghanistan to stabalize when the opposite is true after 7 years of our presence in the country.

1) The Taliban are not firmly in control of any district in Afghanistan. I challenge you to find a single credible source that says so. They are active in a number of districts but they are not "firmly in control". You are eroding your credibility quite quickly with flat out falsehoods like this.

2) What has prevented the mission from succeeding was a lack of resources when the US ran off to Iraq. So your solution to this problem is to not add resources but simply shut down?

Tewder:



I think the question that should be asked is - just what is the mission about at this point in time? Are we there to rebuild the country and be there in the long term - however long it takes? We have to be frank to ourselves and admit that wasn't the original objective back in 2001. Are we there to eliminate the Taliban as a threat? What does that entail? Be truthful to the Canadian people and let the people decide whether the cost of doing so is worth it - it shouldn't take months and hide and seek to figure out just how much money the task had cost and will continue to cost.
AoD

I 100% agree. Moreover, Canadians should be told about every mission and risk the CF undertakes. Us military types remain deeply resentful of the simplistic image of the Canadian military as peacekeepers. It costs lives. The Medak Pocket is an excellent example of what goes wrong when Canadians think peacekeeping is all sugarplums and kittens. Biggest firefight since the Korean war. Canadians got limited combat support in the field. They ran our of rations (they turned over to locals) and were forced to eat dog food to survive the fight. Yet the myth of peacekeeping as cheap and easy military operations persists.

Coming back to this Op, I for one would support our government explaining the mission more to Canadians. And that's actually a frequent critique of most military personnel. Canadians need to be told that the mission evolved with the UNSC resolutions so that it has become a peacemaking mission that involves some counter-insurgency aspects, governance building, development and training of the Afghan security apparatus.

We as a society, by itself, simply does not have the resources to get involved everywhere - and beyond that, even if we do, involvement does not take place in a vacuum - but in a minefield of local, regional, national and international interests. I agree with the assessment that there is a moral imperative to be involved - but how, without making more of a mess than what is?

For each situation the answer is unique. In Darfur, I think it'd be very hard to actually accomplish what the West wants without balkanizing the country. In Afghanistan, however, I think there is room for success....albeit I think and most analysts I talk to will agree that the next year or two is crucial in turning the tide. Security is essential to allow development to proceed. Our guys are getting sick of rebuilding the same school for the third time.

And why is that? Is it about the deaths, or is it about just what gains are there to be made? And let's not diss the pacifists here - if you should recall, some of the strongest voices against US involvement in Somalia comes from the right, precisely because the effort is International, with very little "payback". Recall the term "it is not in our national interests"? I do.

Fair enough. Perhaps, the US right did not see Somalia in their interest....but Africa and the Caribbean have long been considered Canada's domain of interest. Our military, our foreign policy establishment and aid efforts dedicate significant resources to those regions (current obligations in Afghanistan notwithstanding), yet we still fail miserably to take on commitments when it counts like Somalia or Rwanda. I would argue its because the Canadian public for all its pride in peacekeeping is not interested in keeping or making peace where our lives will be lost. I find it tragic that for all the talk about Rwanda, a Canadian general on the ground requesting assistance from UN staff (who were Canadian in this case) and from NDHQ in Ottawa received nothing despite his pleas that a genocide was about to occur. Our public's sentiment in this case is well represented by Mot's view in this thread and can be summed up as, 'I want to help them, as long as I don't have to do it myself.'

When you think about it, just how many genocides were nipped in the bud through military action in the latter half of the 20th century? I'd be hard pressed to come up with a list. The doctrine is not dead - it was never alive in the first place. You yourself have suggested the reason - countries by default aren't that interested in preventing genocide in the first place, unless there is sufficient public embarrassment and/or it is happening in an area that's too close to comfort and/or there is national gain. God forbid you should try to empower any sort of supranational body with the authority to intervene for humanitarian reasons free from national interests...

AoD

We have the Axworthy R2P doctrine for it. The UNSC is empowered to carry through with the doctrine. It won't be fulfilled for the reasons I gave above....and because after Iraq and Afghanistan the US public will have no appetite for helping anybody anywhere either.

 

[Mot]

Apparently, you are not above mischaracterizing others or personal attacks either.



What do you consider an intervention in Darfur? A Sunday picnic?

1) You do not support the current military operation in Afghanistan.
I said it is a failure, that after 7 years we're mired in a guerrila war. I supported going in but 7 years later is still a giant mess

So you supported going in. Good to know. What would you have us do now? Just pull out and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves? Taliban and all? Try not to evade the question next time you answer. How about for once answering honestly and directly on this one.

2) You consider a military operation in Afghanistan to be murderous and not helpful to the Afghans at all. Ergo you see absolutely no benefit to the operation at all.

I said that it is a failure, "murderous and not hepful" is your own dramatic flair. Your embelishments are bizarre

I will submit that perhaps 'murderous' was off base. But you don't consider the mission helpful, yes? So pray tell why you don't consider it helpful? I posit that you don't consider helpful because people are getting killed over there. So is 'murderous' that far off base now?

3) You are against both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and have attempted to lump them together in this thread and have grouped them together in the deserter thread. You do view them as part of a 'neocon' agenda. Do you not?

I compared your logic in your support of the failed Afganistan war to that of creators of the Iraq war. You also said we need to build infrastructure in Afghanistan, to which I pointed out Iraq already has this infrastructure and it's not working

What are you smoking dude? Nobody ever said we were going to Iraq to build infrastructure. All I said earlier was that the US has plowed in more into Iraq than it has Afghanistan when Iraq clearly has more development to begin with.

4) You want NATO and the US to exit Afghanistan immediately. You have not expressed any concern in this thread at all about what would follow except to say that they should leave.

Never said this, never even implied it. Feel free to go back and cut and paste where you think I did

In this very post you are arguing that we should leave because it is a failed war. And again you have not expressed any concern for what would happen to the Afghans after NATO left. I challenge you to find one post where you have expressed concern for the Afghan people after a NATO or US pullout.

5) You have not presented an alternate solution and you have admitted that you have no solution.

And you want more of the same failed strategy.

And you are willing to accept something akin to near genocide just so you can parrot that line above. Wanna predict what will happen to the Hazaras if NATO or the Shias if NATO pulls out?


You are a expert military strategist and nation buider the way I am and bank excutive, you see I was a teller for a few years back in the 80's so it makes me a banking expert.

Except that tellers don't need a university education and half a decade of military training and experience to do my job. I assure you that my 80k a year pay cheque is for far more than than what you did punching the keys on a calculator and operating a cash register.

6) Am I mischaracterizing you when I say you're a pacifist? Perhaps I am because you suggested that it would be okay for us to rampage through the Sudan. So perhaps you're not a pacifist, it's just that you're selective about the wars we wage and the people we save. In this case, it's apparently better to abandon the country with the lower human development index and go help the one that's better off.

If I got anything wrong above, please point it out. Otherwise, I am sorry the truth hurts so much.

I am sick and tired of you debating every topic in your over the top drama queen way, then reporting people to the mods for the exact same things you are saying to others.

And when you can't really debate effectively you resort to lines like this. You should know that in my time here that was the first complaint I made. In my complaint, I stated that I found Prometheus to be a nice guy and insightful and that he should not be sanctioned in any way. My only contention was that he stop Christian bashing as the last 4 threads that he started had to with that issue and I felt it was becoming a pattern that was debasing UT. You on the other hand have complained to the mods several times....in this very thread!

They even let you get away with such angry language as this:



And you want to debate whose conduct is better?

You have a knack for distortion, mischaracterization, taking things out of context (on purpose) Your responses to my rebuttals are complete fabrications of anything I have said and you've continued this practice after I showed you where you lied, then you went scrounging through the archives into a thread where I bore my soul about attacks on my family (you know where I said social conservatives are assholes for forcing me spend my life saving in court and to sell everything I own and move to Canada because I love another man). The same response you posted above which I personally called you out on in response to your private e-mail to me months ago.

80k is all you make, how sad.

 

[Hydrogen]

i believe militaries aren't necessarily the right way to build or rather re-build a nation. Militaries are trained to fight and kill and they do this very well. Basic training in the US military entails breaking the soldier down and building them back up to dehumanize the enemy. To kill on instinct, not to think twice. This is valuable and much needed training in some situations but again I believe not for nation building. As just an example the US military was brilliant in the early days of the Iraq war because they were doing what they were trained to do. The aftermath proved a disaster.

Going into Afghanistan seemed the right thing to do back in 2001. When we had an actual enemy in the country, Al Qaeda and our military had an actual target. Now it's years of mismanagement and civilians not trusting our troops and vice versa, you can't build anything without trust. I don't know how to fix this giant mess, I wish I could come up with something. I hope someone in a leadership role does.

We have no choice but to do it the way Keith is talking about because it was already decided a troop surge would fix the situation. Obama pushed it and it will happen. We'll wait and see. I am curious if it doesn't will they ask for even more, until we end up dwindling down into Vietnam circa 1975.

Right now, military power is the only way to bring security to Afghanistan - unless you can think of a better way to do so. This effort is being followed up with the training of a Afghan civil police force.

Nation building can only take place within a secure environment on the ground, and there are people in and around Afghanistan who understand that bringing instability, insecurity and violence is a sure way to break that society down once again. Aid organizations, NGO's and helping governments can only be effective if the country is first secure, otherwise they run the very great risk of being targets themselves.

I find it odd. On other threads you attack the excesses and dangers of religious zealotry. The taliban and al qaeda are stellar examples of that zealotry and hypocrisy gone wild. And typical to that kind of thinking, the members of these groups all too often see no reason to negotiate anything. To them, their own necessity and the things they do are all defined by the idea that they are doing gods bidding. They are not interested in any nation-building other than their own dark-ages version of it. Everyone opposed to them is an enemy.

To the power-hungry chieftains in the region, defeating Western militaries has become the aim. But don't confuse that goal with actually caring for the people of Afghanistan. They don't.

 

[kEiThZ]

You have a knack for distortion, mischaracterization, taking things out of context (on purpose) Your responses to my rebuttals are complete fabrications of anything I have said and you've continued this practice after I showed you where you lied...

That the best you've got in a serious debate? You accuse me of lying? Tewder made the same points. How come you didn't accuse him/her of lying?

Next, how about responding to my arguments instead of making such ridiculous assertions. I have provided credible links and evidence and I have engaged in reasoned debate with others on here. You seem to be the only one who thinks I am lying, distorting, mischaracterizing or taking things out of context.

Please go ahead and show which portions of what I have said are fabrications. As Afransen pointed out earlier, my comments may not be flattering to you but they are completely your views as others would see them, not just me. I just happen to call you out on them.

Even now, you have yet to tell us what you think would happen should NATO pull out tommorrow. Even now you have resorted to accusing me of lying and complaining to the mods yet have not uttered a single word of concern for the Afghans who would ultimately suffer and die for views like yours. You still have not offered a single idea on what should happen or be in place in lieu of NATO's effort in Afghanistan. So given your refusal (or inability) to furnish views of concern or opinions about an alternative, would anybody here be far off base in saying you don't care much for the Afghan people? You clearly prize Canadian lives over Afghan lives. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But you should be honest about it.

...then you went scrounging through the archives into a thread where I bore my soul about attacks on my family (you know where I said social conservatives are assholes for forcing me spend my life saving in court and to sell everything I own and move to Canada because I love another man). The same response you posted above which I personally called you out on in response to your private e-mail to me months ago.

And you should stop mischaracterizing my posts..... I posted that as an example of the type of language you use and its says so in my post. Are we supposed to feel sorry for you perpetually and not challenge you on anything because you faced some phantom discrimination in a different era in a different place?

80k is all you make, how sad.

Funny, I too feel I am underpaid Then again I am happy to serve my country and am proud of being able to contribute to its betterment.

But it's amazing to see how you let the personal direct attacks roll. Notice, I haven't called the mods on you for that. Ultimately, comments like that prove your integrity more than anything else. There's no need for the mods to do anything to ya, you're digging your own hole there.

 

[Mot]

Right now, military power is the only way to bring security to Afghanistan - unless you can think of a better way to do so. This effort is being followed up with the training of a Afghan civil police force.

Nation building can only take place within a secure environment on the ground, and there are people in and around Afghanistan who understand that bringing instability, insecurity and violence is a sure way to break that society down once again. Aid organizations, NGO's and helping governments can only be effective if the country is first secure, otherwise they run the very great risk of being targets themselves.

I find it odd. On other threads you attack the excesses and dangers of religious zealotry. The taliban and al qaeda are stellar examples of that zealotry and hypocrisy gone wild. And typical to that kind of thinking, the members of these groups all too often see no reason to negotiate anything. To them, their own necessity and the things they do are all defined by the idea that they are doing gods bidding. They are not interested in any nation-building other than their own dark-ages version of it. Everyone opposed to them is an enemy.

To the power-hungry chieftains in the region, defeating Western militaries has become the aim. But don't confuse that goal with actually caring for the people of Afghanistan. They don't.

I am going to give you the same response I have said all along. After 7 long years the Taliban is as powerful as ever. Our military presence has not stemmed the tide of their religious zealotry. Why would you find it odd that I am critical of a strategy that is not working to end the religious oppession there? The people are still living under the taliban rule while we waste lives and treasure. I am advocating for not more of the same tactics that aren't working. That is exactly why I am critical of the mission.

You are correct that a police force is a far better way to help people than an outside military force the people lost trust in. Thanks for sharing that effort. I forgot about it. I do find it sad that they are just in training after all these years.

Why would I confuse power hungry chieftans as humanitarian? I've said nothing in that regard.