News   Jul 11, 2024
 261     0 
News   Jul 11, 2024
 404     0 
News   Jul 10, 2024
 653     0 

Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)

I partially agree - as such, I have merged the two current Afghanistan threads to one.

What part do you agree with?

In reply to something said about Canada pulling out of the invasion of Iraq at the last minute,,,,,that is not true. Jean Chretien has publicaly stated otherwise. And I will find you exactly what he said because I own his last book published. That is what Bush would like the rest of the world to think according to Chretien.
 
What part do you agree with?

What the good moderator agreed with is that you have jacked many threads to turn them to your personal soapbox. I petitioned to close the Hillier thread on the basis that you had resurrected and hijacked the thread and moved away from the original topic. The mod agreed. Note that, the Afghanistan thread is still open here. At least this is a thread where your posts demonstrate at least some marginal coherence.

But do keep pushing the mods limits though, quite a few of us here will be glad to see you discover the limits of their patience.
 
So was he lying to us in 2002, or is he lying to us now?

what 2002 lie are you referring to?

I think it was on March 17 that he was sent a note from the British government asking if Canada was willing to provide political support for the military action against Iraq as the Americans had already been told by Chretien on sept 9 2002 that UN backing was the only thing that would lead Canada into Iraq. It was 2:15 when he rose in the commons on March 17 2003 and said "if military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate."

The American response to that?

"you told us right from the beginning what you intended to do, and it was our mistake that we did not take you seriously. We assumed that, at the last moment, a practical guy like Chretien would decide to come along. That was our fault. We should have believed you. Others may have double-crossed us, but not you."
 
Sorry, 2003 - when he announced (at the last minute) that he was pulling out of the invasion - remember that everyone assumed that the UN would go along with it; and it was only towards the end that evidence started to mount that the WMD claims my have been overstated.

You mean the Americans and their coalition of the willing assumed it. Canada wanted Blix to do his job....Bush continued to ready his troops. Our military involvement needs to be examined more closely as I find the explanation given by others about our participation lacking in detail that makes any sense considering what Chretien has put on the public record.
 
"Jean CHRÉTIEN's decision to oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein was not unexpected. The Prime Minister had been saying for months that Canada was unlikely to join an invasion without explicit support from the United Nations. And although he had left a sliver of doubt about Canada's involvement - it could occur under certain undefined circumstances - he told the House last week he believes UN arms inspectors could have gotten Saddam's co-operation on disarmament, given a little more time. A government official told Maclean's the Prime Minister would likely have joined in a U.S.-led invasion had his proposal for a final end-of-March ultimatum to Saddam been adopted. Chrétien was quick to add in his statements that Canada would be eager to commit resources and funds for the reconstruction of Iraq following the war" from Macleans

Who was the government official who said Chretien would have joined? That is not what Chretien says. As far as our government encouraging our troops to help the American government out in Iraq....perhaps it's more likely that they knew the military working closely with the Americans would have wished to stay and since it involved so few with their big fat egos.....I just begrudge paying for it.
 
It was not unexpected, because the UN had failed to support the US invasion. What was unexpected though, was that the UN would fail to support the invasion. It was pretty clear that was the case when the vote actually took place; but what about after the US Secretary of State made his quite convincing presentation, and before the French spoke out?

Did you actually live through this, or did you recently pop out of a cave somewhere, and have only read about this?

>Which is being a stronger ruler? Violating international law and saying "up yours" to international institutions that prohibit you from doing so, or choosing to let democracy have its day? Accusing anyone who opposes you of being a traitorous coward, or recognizing that your country doesn't want to be there?

Chretien may be slightly hypocritical, but he was also a stark realist. Once the war got going and the chaos erupted following the firebombing of Baghdad, everyone from Turkey to France to Canada (all of whom refused to join the absurdly-named "coalition of the willing") sent aid and stabilization personnel to ensure that no further damage was done by American incompetence.

Had Harper been in power in 2003, Canada's reputation in the world would not be the same. If Harper had been in power in 2003, we would have been what Ann Coulter & Fox News thinks we should be: Uncle Sam's puppet.<

Of course I lived through it and I disagree with the performance of Colin Powell in that he was rehashing old evidence that is clearly not representing what he said it was in hindsight. There were no WMD.

This discussion is now off topic so I expect it to be cut off by those who I annoy here. So stop will ya.
 
it was Harper who moved our troops to into a fierce battle position and Hillier supported that as he wanted to go after scumbags, you know the same people who fought against the Russians in that other war there in Afghanistan, they were funded by Americans. Hell it now appears that the Americans helped train them too. After all these years it's as if lessons learned in combat make war worse. The enemies get smarter. Both sides.

Somewhere on this thread I once posted a timeline of our involvement published in the Globe. It was Hillier and Harper who kicked our involvement in Afghanistan up a notch. Both Warmonger, scaremonger type personalities I suppose.

I also respect the fact and acknowledge that Chretien was partnered with both Mexico and countries in South American in their stance against the Iraqi invasion by the US government. It took guts to stand up to a friend's bad judgement.
 
The local strategy

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2009.03.25
EDITION: National
SECTION: Issues & Ideas
PAGE: A16
DATELINE: WARDAK PROVINCE, Afghanistan
BYLINE: David Brooks
SOURCE: The New York Times
WORD COUNT: 813

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuilding Afghanistan, village by village

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You drive up to the forward operating base in Wardak Province in an armoured Humvee, with the machine-gunner sticking up through the roof and his butt swinging on a little perch just by your head. Outside there's a scraggly downtown, with ragamuffin Afghan children, almost no old people (the median life expectancy is 45) and dust everywhere. The dust of Afghanistan piles up in front of the storefronts and covers the ruins of the buildings destroyed during the Soviet period, or during the civil war or during some lost conflict from centuries past.

The Humvee takes the serpentine path through the checkpoint and you pass a double line of soldiers heading out on foot patrol. There's a soldier that looks from a distance like a child in gear, but it turns out to be a tiny American woman smiling under her armour, pack and rifle, and you think that of all the great powers who've humped their way over these mountains, not another one sent out warriors as unlikely or effective as these.

After the checkpoint, there's a parking lot with great lines of heavy vehicles. For years, the coalition forces fought this war on the cheap, but that's changing. The U. S. has just increased troop levels 10-fold in Wardak. The parking lots are bursting with hulking machinery, the avalanche of metal America brings to a war it takes seriously.

There's a line of porta-potties and you're brought into a plywood room. There are about 25 Army Rangers inside, linebacker types with crew cuts, except for a special-ops guy, Major Moses, who is dark-skinned with a thick beard. These men have been through Iraq, and they now have the habits of counterinsurgency warfare deep in their bones in a way they didn't just a few years ago.

As they talk, it becomes clear that aside from killing bad guys, they're also trying to figure out how to reweave Afghan society.

Before the Soviet invasion in 1979, Afghan towns had three parallel authority structures: the tribal elders, the religious clerics and the government representatives. The Soviets decimated the tribes and the indigenous government. That left only the mullahs, and their sudden unchecked prominence helped explain the rise of the Taliban.

The terror and the fall of the Taliban reduced clerical authority, too. By 2002, when the coalition forces arrived, village society was fractured, social capital decimated. The resulting disorder has been a perfect nesting ground for the insurgents. The insurgents are not popular in Afghanistan, the way

they sometimes were in Iraq. But they have money, and young men in the villages talk about "taking a Taliban day" -- that is, accepting a few hundred bucks to plant an IED.

Between 2002 and 2005, the coalition and the Afghans were slow to recognize the perils of social fragmentation. The general view was that warlord-ism and civil war were the biggest threats. Therefore, power should be centralized with the national government. The country should be restored through a strong national government spreading outward.

That approach has had some success. The Afghan National Army is the country's most trusted institution. But it's also had many shortcomings. The national police force is ineffective. The central government has rarely been able to reweave the social fabric at the village level. Nobody's been able to establish rule of law or end rampant corruption.

So the Afghans and the coalition are adapting. There's been a shift to supplement central authorities with village authority structures. Under the National Solidarity Project, villages elect Community Development Councils. Western aid agencies give the councils up to US$60,000 to do local projects, but it's not the projects that matter most. It's the creation of formal community structures. These projects are up and running in 23,000 villages.

Mohammad Halim Fidai, the Governor of Wardak Province, and the guys in the plywood room are creating the Afghan Public Protection Program (APPP). Under it, villages would no longer depend solely on the national police sent from Kabul. Local committees would hire their own constabulary to guard schools, bridges and neighbourhoods. Alongside just 26 national policemen in the area, there will be 250 local men from the APPP.

The program is controversial. Many feel it will lead to a return to local militias and warlordism. But if Afghanistan is to stabilize, there have to be local authority structures. The culture of conversation and consensus has to be formalized in institutions. These local structures have to be connected upward to the central state. And that's beginning to happen amidst the armoured Humvees and the daily threat of death.

When you put more boots on the ground, you not only augment your army's firing power, you give it the capacity to experiment. A few years ago, the good guys had only vague ideas about how to win this war. Now they're much smarter.
 
I read today that Obama thinks perhaps financially supporting Afghans who are war weary is part of the solution as it worked somewhat with the Sunnis in Iraq.
In the same article printed in the Toronto sun it was mentioned that insurgents dressing as police are a big problem as it's not difficult to obtain or copy the police uniforms there. Aren't we going to pay the salaries of the Afghani police?

A footnote: 268K for Hillier's party which he claims was more for recruiting purposes. Doesn't look like his plan worked in that regard but we still have to fork out the cash to pay for this "great general's farewell". It's not the money we spend it's all about who gets it.
 
Last edited:
Aren't we going to pay the salaries of the Afghani police?

We do. Not only that, but Canadians came up a credit union of sorts to pay the police and military in Afghanistan. They now get issued debit cards with their pay being transferred by direct deposit. No more having to rely on their corrupt bureaucrats to hand over pay.
 
Obama is smart if he is seriously trying to get others involved in the decision making process....Iran, Russia, China, India and Pakistan need to be part of the discussions on how to proceed in Afghanistan. Starting from scratch is not a bad idea in terms of creating the institutions Afghanistan needs to function independently of American troops generally and the small number of other military forces there. I do however keep asking myself, "where the hell is all this money coming from?".

Our we going to get Afghanistan right now that Iraq will be left to carry on carrying on? When are they closing Gitmo again?
 
Looks like history is repeating itself again. The new Obama strategy is pretty much the Canadian game plan in Kandahar taken to the national level. Once again the allies do the work and the Americans win the war!

'New' strategy:
Keep combat pressure while training Afghan Army to take over. Check.
Focus aid and development on vital districts susceptible to Taliban influence. Check.
Assist the Afghan government to improve governance. Check.
Focus on improving law and order in districts under government control. Check.

What not to do:
Re-arm tribesmen. Canada spent half a decade taking their guns away and getting them to learn to rely on local law enforcement, Aghan security forces and NATO for security. Now the yanks want to give the guns back. Yikes!
 

Back
Top