The Shotgun Blog
« Ezra Levant on CTV | Main | Klaus the iconoclast »
Friday, February 01, 2008
New Group Supports Afghanistan Mission
The Committee believes Canadian troops must stay in Afghanistan and that Canada must remain dedicated to that country's reconstruction and to preventing the Taliban from coming to power.
Supporters of this new association include New Democrats and Conservatives, Muslims and Jews, Christians and atheists, gay rights activists and feminists.
Any association that can unite such a diverse crowd must have something going for it.
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on February 1, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5502099dc8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Group Supports Afghanistan Mission:
Comments
The touted membership of this group leaves me highly suspicious.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-02-01 9:10:53 AM
The post forgot to mention if it was also represented by a complement of blacks, asians and aborigines as well as a diveristy of physical and mental handicaps.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-02-01 9:12:37 AM
Interesting but we aren't in Afghanistan to be in solidarity with Afghans...we're there to protect our trade relations with the US (our mission is probably irrelevant in achieving this) and to make the CF feel like a "real" army (a foolish & expensive attempt to tag along with the big dog) and to let Peter McKay attend high level meetings(hardly worth $6 million per day and a dead soldier every couple of weeks).
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2008-02-01 9:55:05 AM
I would bet as many or more Canadians die in the oil patch every year in industrial accidents so that you can keep your house warm and your car running and can have a job to go to.
We need freedom, democracy, security and an efficient economy and that includes secure trade to maintain the life we want for ourselves and our families.
To belittle the contribution of our military in securing our world is troublesome as is the ignorance of those who are crippled or killed in other endeavours that are just as vital.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-02-01 10:09:00 AM
Epsi-
While searching for the Rogers Pass, 38 surveyors were killed in one winter. Without that sacrifice, BC would not have become a province.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-01 10:27:35 AM
Hey Fred,
Can you give us some proof of your assinine assertions, or is that just from your Ron Paul fan club newsletter? :)
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-01 11:44:46 AM
"to make the CF feel like a 'real' army..." proves just how ignorant Fred is of Canadian history. What an insult to our brave military both past and present. By the way, we were already defending freedom long before "the big dog" as you claim decided to enter WW II. For anyone knowledgeable of our history - not the revised feel good leftist version - they know we can be proud of our military.
To think that these brave soldiers sacrificed their blood and lives so that people like you have the freedom and security to defile them and their reputation is disgusting.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-01 11:46:48 AM
The idea that Canada fights for Afghanistan solely because of US trade is easily debunked by the many UN resolutions which legitimize the mission. It's necessary and important to save Afghanistan from the terrorists. This will be one of Canada's finest hours, if only the Liebral/Dipper/Green party could see beyond their selfish drive for power.
Besides, it would be less controversial to keep them in Afghanistan than have to defend racial segregation in Toronto. In 1957, President Eisenhower deployed the US Army's elite 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce desegregation.
I imagine that under a Liebral gov't, the Canadian Army would be sent to enforce segregation there as part of the 'common good.' If it was truly for 'the common good' then the Canadian Army would fight AGAINST segregation.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-01 12:01:00 PM
The Americans continue to support the Afghan mission - in Pakistan.
"CAIRO, Egypt - A missile from a U.S. Predator drone struck a suspected terrorist safehouse in Pakistan and killed a top al-Qaida commander believed responsible for a brazen bomb attack during a visit last year by Vice President Cheney to Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Thursday.
The strike that killed Abu Laith al-Libi was conducted Monday night or early Tuesday, said the official, who would neither confirm nor deny that the U.S. carried it out. The attack was against a facility in Pakistan’s north Waziristan region, the lawless tribal area bordering Afghanistan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the strike publicly.
An estimated 12 people were killed in the strike late Monday or early Tuesday, including Arabs, Turkeman from central Asia and local Taliban members, according to an intelligence official in the area who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said the bodies of those killed were badly mangled by the force of the explosion and it was difficult to identify them."
Full story here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22935596/
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-02-01 12:14:29 PM
Marlalta: If you can, please read The Unexpected War by Stein & Lang for the details of how we ended up in Kandahar.
Alain: Why we went to Kandahar has nothing to do with the "troops" only the generals who advised the politicians. Although I admit using the "Support the Troops" bit is a fairly good way to stifle discussion of the mission and its execution. Remember whenever anyone questions the mission accuse them of dishonoring the troops.
Zebulon Pike: UN resolutions are very nice, especially after the fact while the UN tries to maintain catch up to the US which was going to Afghanistan regardless of the opinion of the UN or anyone else. I think it very important to justify our actions with positive votes from France, Vanatu, China, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba.
The army that fought in WW 2 certainly didn't crave peer recognition but the current crop of senior officers who had only been "peacekeeping" certainly did. By the way the US military fought major land battles against the Axis in December 1941 in the Philippines, August 1942 in Guadalcanal and November 1942- the invasion of North Africa, so although Canada may have officially entered the war in 1939 the US came to grips against the enemy in a serious manner much sooner. Our forces did well in WW2 but Canadians have no business criticizing the US effort. Without the US the allies would have lost. Without Canada the allies would have still won.
Posted by: Fred T Ward | 2008-02-01 5:08:38 PM
the association sounds like CANADA.
Posted by: dewp | 2008-02-01 5:30:23 PM
fred t ward: "Without Canada the allies would have still won." prove it. this is like 're-writing' history to meet your own bias.
Posted by: dewp | 2008-02-01 5:50:26 PM
Without Canada, Germany would have had greater supremacy in the Atlantic and with land forces in Europe. I think they might have decided to invade Britain before Russia if Canada was not there to support and then it would have been all over very quickly and very, very difficult to reconquer Europe from the south.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-02-01 8:15:13 PM
dewp-
You are so right. History can't be re-written. Without Canadian troops the Soviets might have captured all of Berlin, all those German rocket scientists. The balance of power would have been tipped so far east that the Soviets may very well have emerged as the only super power.
But that's only one scenario. There is an infinite number of possibilities. Just suffice to say the allies would not have won by todays standards.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-01 8:44:13 PM
Fred: The reason why we went to Afghanistan has already been established. Seeing that we had Canadians killed on 9/11, we went to War to kick ass as a member of NATO in support of our allies who actually experienced the attack on their soil. The Afghans harbored the terrorists, and so it is.
We are still there now to help the Afghans put together a responsible gov't. Whether that is possible seeing that they are a mainly Muslim nation remains to be seen. They are showing through some actions that they may never move out of the dark ages of Islam, but hey, at least we are trying.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-01 8:51:51 PM
Canada went to guard the Kandahar airfield in Feb 2002 in response to the 9/11 attacks then we left after five months. Apparently finding bin Laden wasn't really that important to us and the government didn't see any connection between the mission in Kandahar and Canadian security. The invasion of Iraq changed our position and we joined ISAF to avoid Iraq. When our time in the Kabul ISAF brigade was up we might have been able to take over the Herat PRT but didn't act quickly enough & Spain & Italy got it. We could have had the PRT in Gor but it wasn't high profile enough for DND and Hillier pushed for the Kandahar PRT and expanded the plan to include a battle group.
At no stage was "helping Afghans" a consideration in our deployments. It has always been about making the US happy while staying out of Iraq and creating opportunities for the CF. Initially there was a sense of outrage over 9/11 that wasn't strong enough to justify replacing 3 PPCLI in the summer of 2002 but all of our moves have been done first and foremost with an eye on what Washington thinks.
Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2008-02-02 8:59:44 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.