Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)

[kEiThZ]

There are many days when I myself down if this war is correct. Days like today, where one of the dead is a subordinate of a very close friend of mine. Every time there are Canadian casualties (and not just the dead but all the injured who aren't talked about) I have a tough time having breakfast in the morning. I don't ever forget that there are families out there who have lost a father, brother, sister, wife, son, daughter, nephew, niece, grandchild. Or that some unit has lost a comrade, or somebody else has lost a friend or a neighbour. The only thing keeping me going is a belief that the Afghan people will be better off for this and the scourge of terrorism will be diminished for my fellow citizens and the generation that follows us. I sincerely believe (and am convinced having seen much of the 'chatter') that should we fail to stem the scourge of violent extremism emanating from that region that it will visit us in our cities and communities. I for one, will not accept on blind faith that since Canadians are such nice folks that terrorism will not come to Canada. Others, of course, are entitled to their own opinions.

There are a few on here who think they have the solution. So I am still challenging anyone out there to come up with an alternative to our current strategy in Afghanistan. The way I see it we (the West) has two options:

1) Stay. Help the Afghan government along, keep building the ANA, make the ANP more competent, stabilize the country. Leave when the government has the ability to exercise at least some limited authority throughout the country.

2) Leave. We can be sure that about 6 months to a year after the last western soldier has left Afghanistan, the Taliban will be back, knock over the Kabul government and bring back the Dark Ages with a vengeance. History will repeat itself. The international community will shun the Taliban as they did in the past. And the Taliban as they did in the past will rent out the country to jihadist groups so that they can bring in the revenue they need. And we'll see increasingly frequent and violent acts of terror in our countries as a result.

3) Sacrifice the Afghans. The only compromise path out that I see is for us to strike a grand bargain with the Taliban. 'We'll accept you taking over the government of Afghanistan with all your backwards policies as long as you agree not to shelter terrorists.' Essentially the compromise means sacrificing the rights of the Afghan people for our security.

If anybody has any other options lay em out. I would particularly like to hear an equivalently detailed idea from any of the anti-war crowd (Mot, Jade_lee, Moonmouth, etc.). So far Jade_lee has advocated for option 2. And Mot has refused to advocate for any option at all, stating he has the right to criticize the war effort without actually offering any concrete advice. So if there's another way, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Brian69]

Sorry to hear things are hitting close to home. As far as the options go:

1) Without a timeline for an exit this option would be the least palatable from a domestic point of view, and quite frankly I think it's time the French and Germans and the like start stepping up and doing their job. If the Canadians were rotated in and out of the hotspots along with other nations rather than shouldering so much with the Americans and Brits the casualty rate would be more spread out (terrible as it is to contemplate any casualty rate) and it would go over far better here at home. This would be the best option but only if all Western nations step up to the plate (and perhaps even an Asian nation or two as well, though I doubt this will happen)

2) For the reasons you already state I think the is a bad thing, and those who think the Taliban are worth leaving alone are quick to forget that it isn't just the Taliban operating there, and we've already seen the handiwork of the others who operate there

3) It's a nasty deal and I'm sure there'd be another hue and cry if the media starting doing nightly reports on Life Under the Taliban in future but it would ease the pressure of troop losses. I really don't like this option myself but its far better than #2. As much as I'd prefer to save the Afghan people the greatest danger to the West is from an unmonitored Afghanistan and perhaps it's up to the Afghan people to change things from within over time if such a change is possible

 

[kEiThZ]

Sorry to hear things are hitting close to home.

Being in the CF, we accept the sacrifice as part of the job...what makes it hard to take are opinions like some of those on here....people who don't offer sincere principled opposition to a military mission (which I am actually quite grateful to hear often - it means there are folks who will keep a check on the executive using the military as handyman's tool for foreign policy) but rather some generic talking points from any anti-war, anti-bush, anti-harper campaign. They do not care to understand what our military does and how we do it. They do not care to understand the sacrifices we or our families make. Yet, they are always willing to pass judgement. They will call us part of the war machine, warmongers, etc. I had a colleague who was actually called a baby killer in the Rideau Centre while walking through at lunch time in uniform a few months ago. That's what makes the sacrifices hard to swallow, that there are folks out there who hate and despise those of us in uniform (a few fine specimens are on this forum) for no particular reason other than that we chose to serve our country, but who will nonetheless ultimately benefit from the sacrifices my colleagues make regardless.

 

[Brian69]

Being in the CF, we accept the sacrifice as part of the job...what makes it hard to take are opinions like some of those on here....people who don't offer sincere principled opposition to a military mission (which I am actually quite grateful to hear often - it means there are folks who will keep a check on the executive using the military as handyman's tool for foreign policy) but rather some generic talking points from any anti-war, anti-bush, anti-harper campaign. They do not care to understand what our military does and how we do it. They do not care to understand the sacrifices we or our families make. Yet, they are always willing to pass judgement. They will call us part of the war machine, warmongers, etc. I had a colleague who was actually called a baby killer in the Rideau Centre while walking through at lunch time in uniform a few months ago. That's what makes the sacrifices hard to swallow, that there are folks out there who hate and despise those of us in uniform (a few fine specimens are on this forum) for no particular reason other than that we chose to serve our country, but who will nonetheless ultimately benefit from the sacrifices my colleagues make regardless.

Well, as one whose father spent 22 years in the CF I don't mind discussing the worthiness of the mission in Afghanistan in general but I do find it a bit distressing to to see comments that slag the opinions of a mother who lost a son in the conflict. Extremely presumptuous as I see it. This doesn't prevent me from being critical of the CF (as my father even had his issues with it) and not about to support any mission it takes on but does prevent me from comprehending a purely anti-military point of view.

Bias? *shrug* who knows? But until human nature changes there will always be a need for the military. It hasn't changed yet.

 

[jade_lee]

I don't support the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
I have given my reasons why.
The evidence thus far suggests the mission is unsuccessful.
The Afghani people are in more danger.
Our very own Canadian forces are about to weaponize their drones.
Precision bombing puts civilians at risk but this does not outweigh this new intended
practice.
I have no power over the invasion of Afghanistan.
I will wait for the results of it like everyone else.
The current political situation is that their current leader will cease to have power prior to their next planned election. They will be leaderless. Who will constitutionally be the elected leader? Nobody for a time it seems. How is this progress?

 

[Brian69]

There's nary a solution among the list. Do you believe time moves forward?

 

[Hydrogen]

I don't support the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
I have given my reasons why.
The evidence thus far suggests the mission is unsuccessful.
The Afghani people are in more danger.
Our very own Canadian forces are about to weaponize their drones.
Precision bombing puts civilians at risk but this does not outweigh this new intended
practice.
I have no power over the invasion of Afghanistan.
I will wait for the results of it like everyone else.
The current political situation is that their current leader will cease to have power prior to their next planned election. They will be leaderless. Who will constitutionally be the elected leader? Nobody for a time it seems. How is this progress?

Reads like: "I'm thoroughly clueless about what to do and dislike everything about the efforts of anyone else because those efforts aren't perfect according to what I think should be done."

What would I do? That is rather an after the fact question don't you think?

Your effort to squirm away from answering is once again noted.

Every generation has it's own unique brand of terrorist, Solutions are found once the arms are laid down or great leaders are found.

I'll take that as an admission from you that you have no reasonable, realistic alternatives that would actually benefit the Afghans. You await Great Leader instead - even though you constantly claim that Rome is burning.

 

[Tewder]

I can't believe you believe our society is so cleansed of vile antisocial behaviour you claim to exists uniquely in Afghanistan which legitimizes our troops occupation there.

[ "if you are not with us you are against us" is pure Bush rhetoric that I never bought into.

That's rich. You've been asked repeatedly what Canada should do differently with respect to Afghanistan and you have no constructive answer except to criticize our presence there categorically... and you justify this and the abandoning of the Afghani people to the Taliban with disingenuous relativistic rhetoric that the ills of Canada are essentially somehow equal to those of the Taliban. Nobody here is buying that, and if you 'truly' believe that to be so then what is happening in Afghanistan should be the least of your concerns.

 

[Whoaccio]

This is sort of OT, but it is about Canada's role in Afghanistan.

GLORIA GALLOWAY

Globe and Mail Update

March 8, 2009 at 11:30 AM EDT

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — A Canadian helicopter has ferried Canadian troops into a combat operation for the first time in the country's military history.

One of the country's six Chinooks helped lift a contingent of 180 soldiers deep into Taliban territory west of Kandahar city on Saturday where the troops raided a series of compounds in search of weapons and bomb-making equipment.

Two British Chinooks also took part in the mission, with each of the three choppers carrying about 30 soldiers in two separate waves.

The assault was quickly declared a success by Canadian military brass. A large amount of fertilizer and diesel fuel was found in one of the compounds and detonators were discovered in another along with small arms and ammunition.

There was no confrontation with Taliban fighters during the twelve hours that forces were on the ground but two Afghan men were detained after being found in a compound with the explosive material.

Missions of this nature are a regular part of the job for the Canadian troops stationed in Kandahar. But, until Saturday, the military has had to travel to target destinations in armoured vehicles over roads planted with explosive devices that have claimed dozens of Canadian lives.

“The things that the helicopters do is provide us with a real sense of surprise and shock action,†said Maj. Rob McBride who led the mission. “The helicopters landed us right where we needed to be. We were right on top of them (the insurgents) before I think they really knew what hit them.â€

Canada announced last August that six of the heavy-lift Chinooks had been purchased from the Americans for $292-million, a price that included training and spare parts. They arrived here in Kandahar in December and have been used to make supply runs to forward operating bases.

But this was the first time a Chinook, or any Canadian helicopter, has carried soldiers to a conflict zone.

Other countries have, of course, been relying for decades on helicopters to ferry soldiers into battle. Choppers were an icon of the Viet Nam war. And several NATO allies, including Great Britain, the United States, the Netherlands and Australia, all have Chinooks in Kandahar.

But Canada has not had heavy-lift helicopters since 1993 when the country's fleet of Chinooks was sold to meet demands for cuts to defence spending that had been ordered by the Conservative government of the day.

So, until the arrival of the Canadian choppers, requests by Canada's military for helicopter lifts were placed far down the international list.

When the choppers touched down Saturday in a poppy field in the parched farmland of the Zhari district at about 7 a.m. Kandahar time, there were no villagers in sight. Gradually the local residents appeared at the tops of hills above the dry riverbed and dust-choked grape vines to observe the operation.

One of the compounds appeared to have been recently vacated.

But the helicopters and the size of the ground force, which included a small number of Americans and Afghans in addition to the Canadians, seemed to convinced the insurgents to keep their distance, said Maj. McBride.

Lt. Col. Roger Barrett, the commanding officer of the 3 RCR Battle Group based in Petawawa, Ont., said the objective of the mission was to move far into Khari to disrupt Taliban operations. And the helicopters, he said, did the job.

“From our point of view, having the Canadian aviation here was an excellent tool in the toolbox that we haven't had before,†said Lt. Col. Barrett. “It allowed us to strike deep into this territory, quickly, efficiently, and then extract out quickly and efficiently.â€

I must admit I am a little bit embarrassed. Dien Bien Phu was 55 years ago, and we are just now, for the first time ever, carrying out a raid via helicopter?

Jesus.

 

[kEiThZ]

I must admit I am a little bit embarrassed. Dien Bien Phu was 55 years ago, and we are just now, for the first time ever, carrying out a raid via helicopter?

Jesus.

To be fair our political masters are to blame. First Mulroney's administration forced rapid cuts on defence which caused us to get rid of the original Chinooks (which were bought by the Dutch who ironically now give us rides on the same choppers in Afghanistan on a non-priority basis). Next, the Liberal governments forced the CF to buy a one-size fits all civilian helicopter that does none of the jobs it's supposed to do well. It's not as small, nimble and stealthy as the Kiowa, and has nowhere near the effective lift of the Huey. But it did keep Bell Helicopter working though....

Finally, there's the issue of escorts. Air mobile operations with the chinook require fast gunships for escorts. Currently we are using our Griffon's with door guns as escorts....the much vaunted 'Canadian' solution that our minister referred to. A Canadian solution in the same vein as several other decisions, the Griffon is so slow it's slowing down the Chinook in each package they send out. So much for speed and the element of surprise. Yet, that will probably never get remedied as the Canadian public would probably never tolerate the purchase of gunships, until we loose a Chinook with 40 souls onboard (and then we'd probably pull out instead of buying the kit we need).

 

[jade_lee]

" We must use our vast resources of wealth to aid the undeveloped countries of the world. We have spent far too much of our national budget in establishing military bases around the world and far too little in establishing bases of genuine concern and understanding. "-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Hydrogen]

jade_lee, did you ever consider that things might have changed since the 1960's? You realize that the quote you posted is from over 40 years ago.

It's clear that the quote has been selected so as to suggest that money has not been spent of aid in the way you consider appropriate. Do you actually believe that to be true?

How would you aim aid money then? Moreover, how would you prevent recipient countries from becoming dependent on such aid money?

 

[lordmandeep]

No number will matter until something is done about the situation in Pakistan...

Its the Wild East out there....

 

[afransen]

To be fair our political masters are to blame. First Mulroney's administration forced rapid cuts on defence which caused us to get rid of the original Chinooks (which were bought by the Dutch who ironically now give us rides on the same choppers in Afghanistan on a non-priority basis). Next, the Liberal governments forced the CF to buy a one-size fits all civilian helicopter that does none of the jobs it's supposed to do well. It's not as small, nimble and stealthy as the Kiowa, and has nowhere near the effective lift of the Huey. But it did keep Bell Helicopter working though....

Finally, there's the issue of escorts. Air mobile operations with the chinook require fast gunships for escorts. Currently we are using our Griffon's with door guns as escorts....the much vaunted 'Canadian' solution that our minister referred to. A Canadian solution in the same vein as several other decisions, the Griffon is so slow it's slowing down the Chinook in each package they send out. So much for speed and the element of surprise. Yet, that will probably never get remedied as the Canadian public would probably never tolerate the purchase of gunships, until we loose a Chinook with 40 souls onboard (and then we'd probably pull out instead of buying the kit we need).

Do you have any explanation why Harper cut spending on new equipment for the military/coast guard? Is it just the usual cycle of announce, take credit, quietly cancel, repeat?

 

[kEiThZ]

Do you have any explanation why Harper cut spending on new equipment for the military/coast guard? Is it just the usual cycle of announce, take credit, quietly cancel, repeat?

Which cuts are you referring to exactly? They have had a few projects cut (JSS for example) simply because industry wasn't willing to bid on it or because of project risks, etc. Projects do get canned for more than political reasons. The CF has so far done well under the Conservatives. Though in fairness to Martin, had he stuck around, I think the CF would have done almost well with one exception....there was no way the Liberals were going to get us the C-17s despite the Air Staff requirements. Chretien was an altogether different story. The guy essentially hated the military to the point where he would not even read defence intelligence briefs (Iraq was probably the exception). And some projects I was glad to see get canned like the LAV AGS...no replacement for a Leopard tank, especially against an IED. We'll see what happens with the political hot potato that is to be the fixed wing SAR replacement for the Buffalo, gets its RFP out.