Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)

[kEiThZ]

I would rather say I don't know than just make it up, or be wrong consistently for 7 years pushing militarism as a solution. Be careful, your posts will be here for years for us to revert back upon. Just like the ones from 6 months ago. If your increase military force scheme does not work will you be prepared to admit you and the leadership have been wrong?

YES! I have issues with how we are working with Afghanistan now and I do voice those opinions to anybody who will listen. Anyway, the plan here is not just mine....I just happen to know more about it because its part of my day job. The plan is one that's been hashed out with Afghan and regional input. One that's supported by NATO and the US military and the US administration. And note that I never said just a military surge. Both the US military establishment and our own have long been advocating for increased aid and development in Afghanistan. Personally I would like to see a doubling of the investment in that country.

I am curious and wonder if you will tell me the truth. Did you support the invasion of Iraq back when it began? Because you are using the same rationale in your Afghanistan arguments that the brokers of that war used. Plus Iraq was firmly in the 20th century with a far better infrastructure that you say we need to build in Afghanistan.

I don't support the Iraq war. It has distracted the US from finishing the job in Afghanistan and if Iraq does work out there will not be a net improvement to either regional security or US Security. As someone who grew up in that part of the world I was sympathetic to the view that in some regions, unfortunately, strong men do help keep the peace. And I didn't see how Iraq was any worse than North Korea or Iran for that matter.

But your effort to tie Afghanistan to Iraq is as misguided as the neo-cons here. The original rationale for the Iraq War was that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and that it possessed WMD. Both of which were patently false of course. Nobody said we are running off to free Iraqis from oppression. That came after the fact. Please don't try and confuse the issue or worse, intentionally misrepresent or misinterpret history.

Yet the Afghan people are asking for security as a top concern because violence has increased.

And who do you think will bring them security? Seriously, what do you think would happen if NATO picked up and left tommorrow. Do you sincerely believe that violence would end and that there would be peace in the region? Do you know how many people would get slaughtered? It'll be quite a busy few months at the soccer stadium in Kabul.

As a left winger of course I want us to end the needless suffering of anyone who lives under oppression. As a pragmatic person I know that is not possible. I am not seeing the use of the military as the main impetus to achieve peace in these situations, I am certainly not seeing it working in Afghanistan after 7 years.

Let's be honest here. You are a pacifist who does not believe in using military force regardless of the consequences period. You don't honestly care what happens to the Afghan people as long as NATO leaves. Just admit the truth. As a pacifist, you are willing to allow the Afghan people to be slaughtered by the Taliban and its okay with you as long as your country is not loosing anybody. You'll be happy as long as we're not part of the big 'neocon agenda' and there are no Canadians or Americans are killed. How many Afghans get killed in the process? Meh, not your problem.

Some want me to make up a plan out of thin air because I point out the current plan is not working, I cannot do that because as you stated democracy is organic it grew from the need and want to have it (hard won), it was fought for by the people who yearned for it in their country. Not because others forced it onto them.

Yes I want you to give an alternative. It's quite easy to be a critic. It's much harder to take a principled stance on a solution. You sir, obviously lack the moral courage to do that. I can respect folks who are principled isolationist or even principled pacifists though I disagree with them. The most useless people in my books are the kind that lack principle altogether.

The West imposed our style of democracy on Germany and Japan after WWII. Nobody seemed to have complained then. We even did it by having show trials of Nazis and promptly executing a few.

That being said, nobody here or in our policy establishment or defence establishment believe in 'imposing democracy' on Afghanistan. That's the kinda uninformed BS people pick up reading 2 paras in the Globe and Mail with their morning cereal. The hope of the UN, NATO, and every NGO that is in Afghanistn is that a somewhat stabilized Afghanistan will at least follow its own develoment path to get there in a century or two.

Lastly, I am sick and tired of people thinking that all of us military folks are warmongers and that all we want is to run off and kill a few Afghans. Most of us genuinely believe in the mission because we have seen the dismal situation that the Afghans live in. We have also seen how cowardly NGOs refuse to do reconstruction in unsecured areas. So that leaves NATO no choice. We have to use military forces to bring security and do reconstruction. Canada has approached this the same way we do other UN missions. In fact, the mission framework is based on a peacemaking/peace enforcement type of mission. We are there to help.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You'll never see any good in risking our lives to help the Afghans and I am rather fearful of how many will die if we suddenly up and leave (the west's inattentiveness can lead to the occassional mass slaughter...think Rwanda).

Before you comment further, please go through this slide deck....notice how violence is rather restricted to a few areas...contrary to your assertion that all of Afgahnistan is run by the Taliban:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090129_afghanwar.pdf

ps. I can't believe you cited ABC News as a credible source.

 

[Mot]

I must report you to the mods again keith. Since you do it so often to others.

Your below statement is a mischaracterization of what I am saying and a personal attack on me. You have no idea how to share your ideas without ad hom attacks. You can't help but get personal. You need help.
I think it's time to ban Keith again until he gets his act together.

"You are a pacifist who does not believe in using military force regardless of the consequences period. You don't honestly care what happens to the Afghan people as long as NATO leaves. Just admit the truth. As a pacifist, you are willing to allow the Afghan people to be slaughtered by the Taliban and its okay with you as long as your country is not loosing anybody. You'll be happy as long as we're not part of the big 'neocon agenda' and there are no Canadians or Americans are killed. How many Afghans get killed in the process? Meh, not your problem"

 

[afransen]

How exactly is it a mischaracterization? It may not be charitable, but it would seem to explain where you're coming from fairly well.




My concern with the ANA is who pays for it, and is it an institution that will be sustainable once the West is no longer holding the Afghan government's hand.

 

[Mot]

How exactly is it a mischaracterization? It may not be charitable, but it would seem to explain where you're coming from fairly well.




My concern with the ANA is who pays for it, and is it an institution that will be sustainable once the West is no longer holding the Afghan government's hand.

Please take the time to read my posts and tell me exactly where I said any of those things.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

"You are a pacifist who does not believe in using military force regardless of the consequences period. You don't honestly care what happens to the Afghan people as long as NATO leaves. Just admit the truth. As a pacifist, you are willing to allow the Afghan people to be slaughtered by the Taliban and its okay with you as long as your country is not loosing anybody. You'll be happy as long as we're not part of the big 'neocon agenda' and there are no Canadians or Americans are killed. How many Afghans get killed in the process? Meh, not your problem"

I am sure humanitarian reasons are the driver behind involvement in Afghanistan, just like they are in Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, etc. Please explain to me why Canada wasn't involved in preventing one of the worst genocides in the last 50 years by military force, for example - but was so willing to intervene in Afghanistan, for example? I am sure the lack of strategic interests in the region - or our strategic partners not having such interests in the region have nothing to do with it. To bring it back to Afghanistan - for how long did the West knew about the abuses by Taliban, and at the end of the day, what was the "fuse" that actually resulted in intervention in the region? Humanitarian reasons? Please.

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). At best that's a positive side effect to the cold hard equations of realpolitik. Now, if you are really principled, I am sure military intervention in all those forementioned locales, plus a few others are more than justified. The question then becomes - why aren't we or the west involved? Or better yet, shouldn't we and the west be involved? Let's think about the implications of that view for a moment before we throw weighty words like "coward" and "lack of principle" from the high chair.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I must report you to the mods again keith. Since you do it so often to others.

Your below statement is a mischaracterization of what I am saying and a personal attack on me. You have no idea how to share your ideas without ad hom attacks. You can't help but get personal. You need help.
I think it's time to ban Keith again until he gets his act together.

Nice try but Afransen nailed it bang on:

How exactly is it a mischaracterization? It may not be charitable, but it would seem to explain where you're coming from fairly well.

Please tell me how is it a mischaracterization:

1) You do not support the current military operation in Afghanistan.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[afransen]

Keithz:



I am sure humanitarian reasons are the driver behind involvement in Afghanistan, just like they are in Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, etc. Please explain to me why Canada wasn't involved in preventing one of the worst genocides in the last 50 years by military force, for example - but was so willing to intervene in Afghanistan, for example?

One good reason is that Canada couldn't do either, alone. And failure to act in one situation doesn't mean the action was unjustified.

To bring it back to Afghanistan - for how long did the West knew about the abuses by Taliban, and at the end of the day, what was the "fuse" that actually resulted in intervention in the region? Humanitarian reasons? Please.

It's moot at this point. Humpty dumpty is off the wall, whatever caused him to fall isn't very important to the task of putting him back together again. Whether the war began for humanitarian reasons or not (I lean toward not), the war continues for humanitarian reasons, at least in part. It's my motivation to support what we're doing there.

The question then becomes - why aren't we or the west involved? Or better yet, shouldn't we and the west be involved? Let's think about the implications of that view for a moment before we throw weighty words like "coward" and "lack of principle" from the high chair.

AoD

Well, Canada is hard pressed to maintain its commitment to Afghanistan. I don't see how we'd be able to involve ourselves in other interventions. We can abandon Afghanistan, but I don't see how that helps Darfur.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keithz:



I am sure humanitarian reasons are the driver behind involvement in Afghanistan, just like they are in Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, etc. Please explain to me why Canada wasn't involved in preventing one of the worst genocides in the last 50 years by military force, for example - but was so willing to intervene in Afghanistan, for example? I am sure the lack of strategic interests in the region - or our strategic partners not having such interests in the region have nothing to do with it. To bring it back to Afghanistan - for how long did the West knew about the abuses by Taliban, and at the end of the day, what was the "fuse" that actually resulted in intervention in the region? Humanitarian reasons? Please.

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). At best that's a positive side effect to the cold hard equations of realpolitik. Now, if you are really principled, I am sure military intervention in all those forementioned locales, plus a few others are more than justified. The question then becomes - why aren't we or the west involved? Or better yet, shouldn't we and the west be involved? Let's think about the implications of that view for a moment before we throw weighty words like "coward" and "lack of principle" from the high chair.

AoD

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.

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, Canada is hard pressed to maintain its commitment to Afghanistan. I don't see how we'd be able to involve ourselves in other interventions. We can abandon Afghanistan, but I don't see how that helps Darfur.

We are involved in Darfur. Canada has loaned hundreds of vehicles, provided weapons, funding and logistic support to the African Union force. We even offered a presence on the ground. That got turned down because the Sudanese objected to 'white guys' running around their country and telling them what to do.

My concern with the ANA is who pays for it, and is it an institution that will be sustainable once the West is no longer holding the Afghan government's hand.

Good question and one I asked at a CSTC-A briefing myself. Right now they are basically using left over soviet crap. The Americans are in the process of standardizing them to US/NATO kit. We have Canadianize the battalions in RC(South) with Canadian weapons and training but that's mostly compatible with the rest of what they are going to get. A good chunk of the stuff comes through donations. The Air Corps got their helicopters that way. All those European countries that don't like to give lives for the cause have suddenly found that multi-million dollar choppers keep the veneer of NATO unity alive a little longer.

CSTC-A is working out a long term funding model with NATO. It's going to be a while though before they are fully independent...unless we want they to have North Korea style defence expenditures (25% of GDP). NATO still pays for virtually everything. We need them to be on par with us so they can take over and we can leave. That don't come cheap. So the west will be funding the ANA for a while. The good thing is that fielding a force twice the size of the CF still costs about half the cost of the CF in Afghanistan so the amount of aid funding is a relative pittance. For the US alone, it would be cheaper to fully fund the ANA than to have the presence they do right now on the ground.

 

[jade_lee]

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. Whenever I think of large quantities of cash I think Iraq and how the money was sent in cash....I wonder what bang Canadians got for their military expenditure in Afghanistan?

 

[Hydrogen]

Who would you send the cash to? Did they have operating foreign exchange, banks, products to buy in Afghanistan then? How far would approximately $336 for every man, woman and child go?

Do you honestly believe sending in cash would have solved problems?

But then why ask; you never saw the taliban as a problem (at least not your problem). They were just fine for the Afghans according to you.

So very charitable.

 

[afransen]

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. Whenever I think of large quantities of cash I think Iraq and how the money was sent in cash....I wonder what bang Canadians got for their military expenditure in Afghanistan?

I'm sure it would be thoroughly wasted by corrupt government officials.

 

[jade_lee]

If you recall the huge cash infusion after WW2, money certainly has helped even damaged societies in the past.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you recall the huge cash infusion after WW2, money certainly has helped even damaged societies in the past.

Do you care to explain who you would give the money to and how you would give it out? We just put in ATMs for the ANA and the ANP so they could get paid. So how do you plan on giving out cash to the rest of the society? And how exactly would they be able to rebuild if there was no security or development assistance. We occupied Europe after WWII. That's what allowed them to rebuild. Ditto for Japan.

 

[Mot]

Nice try but Afransen nailed it bang on:



Please tell me how is it a mischaracterization:

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

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.

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


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.