quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 remember though that its the liberals that put us in the current mission. We already committed. You dont walk away from something once that promise has been made.

let the Afghans deal with it,

NATO, at least Canada should have pulled their troops out when the Afghan gov began behaving like so..

example:

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6878

You beg for international assistance to restore order. Yet when its provided to you by Christian (volunteers), you expel them because it could undermind your countries muslim believes. Fuck that!

quote:

Originally posted by jazzyrj let the Afghans deal with it, NATO, at least Canada should have pulled their troops out when the Afghan gov began behaving like so.. example: http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6878 You beg for international assistance to restore order. Yet when its provided to you by Christian (volunteers), you expel them because it could undermind your countries muslim believes. Fuck that!

that's a good point actually. Missionaries, though a bit IN YOUR FACE sometimes, do selfless volunteer work like that, but they usually ahve their own agenda.

it reminds me when the so called "Lebanese Canadians" were bitching about the transport that our government arranged for them on such short notice to get them away from a war zone.

But that said, withdrawing our troops only taxes the Americans and British further and we're supposed to be staunch allies. If Afghanistan is left to itself, we'll end up with Taliban v.2. They're just waiting for the western armies to lose their nerve and pull out.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

To get back to the media for a moment ; I have been to China 3 times in the last few years and watched the news there a lot. The best thing about their news? It's always good. No seriously, they show 90% good news. And you know what? I actually started feeling good again watching the news. They showed all the wonderful things that were happening in their country. Very refreshing for a change. Now I'm not saying we should do exactly the same but I believe it's time that the media is forced to show balance in their broadcasts. 50% good news and 50% bad news. If you think our media is neutral and objective think again. We only get to see what these profit motivated organizations think will make money for them. Not what the best news is for us. Remember, their only priority is their bottom line. Not quality journalism with balance.

___________________
Is it Saturday yet??

Both strategically and tactically, it has been proven throughout history that it is impossible to win a war against guerillas in a landlocked Asiatic country.... especially with a foreign volunteer civilian force.

There needs to be NATO presence in war-torn Afghanistan, this I agree with. The Taliban kept tight repressive reins on that nation. But my opinion is that Canada needs to shift the mandate from aggressive military "sweep and clear" missions to primarily and exclusively those of rebuilding and feet-on-the-ground diplomatic relations.

It's impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people when there's collateral damage. The Taliban are regaining a foothold with the Afghani common people because after so many years, there hasn't been any appreciable improvement - quite the opposite, in fact. Under the Taliban regime, sure they were repressed and restricted from growing their mainstay cash crop (opium), but they were relatively out of the way from stray crossfire and unexploded cluster bombs.

Until the NATO forces, led primarily by Canada, change and adapt the military mandate, the Afghanistan occupation will remain a bleed on resources, both human and otherwise. It's just bad strategy; with the current execution of the occupation and rebuilding, the war is unwinnable and unending. You can't win a guerilla war against imbedded insurgents with a conventional military force.... especially against a people who have a history of resisting foreign occupiers since the Mongol Invasion in the thirteenth century.

I'm not saying pull out, I'm saying we need to re-examine the currently-vague mission objectives.

quote:

Originally posted by Shug Both strategically and tactically, it has been proven throughout history that it is impossible to win a war against guerillas in a landlocked Asiatic country.... especially with a foreign volunteer civilian force.

Oh really? Ask the Brits how they did it against Malay communists in the 50s.

quote:

There needs to be NATO presence in war-torn Afghanistan, this I agree with. The Taliban kept tight repressive reins on that nation. But my opinion is that Canada needs to shift the mandate from aggressive military "sweep and clear" missions to primarily and exclusively those of rebuilding and feet-on-the-ground diplomatic relations.

So who's going to do the 'aggressive military sweep and clear missions'?

Either case, there will still be IEDs, ambushes, suicide bombers no matter what role Canadians take. (BTW, Canada does have a Provincial Reconstruction Team which has a main purpose of humanitarian and reconstruction tasks w/ its own military component assigned just for security purposes and they take plenty of hit from Taliban)

quote:

It's impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people when there's collateral damage. The Taliban are regaining a foothold with the Afghani common people because after so many years, there hasn't been any appreciable improvement - quite the opposite, in fact. Under the Taliban regime, sure they were repressed and restricted from growing their mainstay cash crop (opium), but they were relatively out of the way from stray crossfire and unexploded cluster bombs.

Shit happens. It shouldn't, but humans make mistakes. If NATO is found negligent, those responsible should be punished, but there are rigid Rules of Engagement in place to prevent and to minimize Afghan civillian casualties as much as possible.

It doesn't help that Taliban hides among local population because you're right, NATO fucking up means more support for them, so of course they'll do their best to maximize civillian casualties.

As for whether life is better than Taliban than current Karzai govt, well, time is too short to judge that right now. 5 yrs is a blink in history.

But consider the fact that Taliban wants to repress Afghans as much as possible, incl. destruction of Afghan infrastructure, execution of Afghan govt, military and police, not to mention their version of society which incl. strictest of Sharia laws.
But at least with Karzai govt which was democratically elected by the Afghan people, you have beginning of genuine women's rights, democractic representation, etc. Does Karzai come with his own baggage, of course he does. But remember that not until early 90s did South Korea became a fully democratic country. It's hard for a nation with no democratic tradition to fully realize, and enjoy democracy.

quote:

Until the NATO forces, led primarily by Canada, change and adapt the military mandate, the Afghanistan occupation will remain a bleed on resources, both human and otherwise. It's just bad strategy; with the current execution of the occupation and rebuilding, the war is unwinnable and unending. You can't win a guerilla war against imbedded insurgents with a conventional military force.... especially against a people who have a history of resisting foreign occupiers since the Mongol Invasion in the thirteenth century. I'm not saying pull out, I'm saying we need to re-examine the currently-vague mission objectives.

Oh dear. Few misinterpretation of facts here.
1. Canada is part of NATO, and currently yes, Canada is leading contributor to mission in Afghanistan, but only one of few leaders, not the primary

2. NATO is operating in Afghanistan under UN resolution and has been invited to extend its mandate in Afghanistan by democratically elected Karzai govt and approved by further UN resolution.

3. While there are sizable minority opposed to NATO and Karzai, most of Afghans either approve of NATO presence (why not? because they're building roads, wells, schools, clinics, whatever and generally making their lives a bit better) or don't care. Now you can disagree with me on this, but my sources are from first hand accounts of soldiers who currently serve, or have served in Afghanistan since 2002.

4. Operations such as Medusa while came at high Canadian cost (considering we think 1 Canadian dead is high), but in effect, Canadians and fellow NATO members kicked a lot of ass. I don't know exact figure and there are still a lot of firefights that does not get reported for whatever reason, but the ratio is quite high and no matter how many virgins you get promised for dying for Taliban cause, it's going to give any potential new recruits a pause. (And indicators suggest a lot of Taliban recruits are coming from Pakistan)
Considering if you take high casualties, you're going to lose a lot of experienced fighters, Taliban is getting weaker, even if they can somehow fill all their casualties with recruits. (You can't conjure up experience from thin air)

5. All Canadian soldiers (well, at least the combat arms troops) are well trained in the concept of Full Spectrum Warfare (or sometimes known as 3 Block War) meaning, they are capable of doing a humanitarian mission in one block, next block do a 'peacekeeping' mission and in 3rd block capable of engage in a full firefight.
The continuous evolution of warfare since the collapse of Soviet Union meant that Canadian military had to adapt and evolve to changing nature of warfare. So while Canadian military is still capable of engaging in conventional warfare, it is capable of doing its job in any other environment as well.

6. I personally love this analogy.
It is not NATO or Canada that'll be solving Afghan problems. It will be the Afghan ppl through Karzai govt or whatever form they decide they want.
Afghanistan is like a boat with lots of holes right now and Canada, NATO and the world community is helping to bail out the water that is coming in, so that the Afghans can plug in the holes. (like lack of infrastructure, Taliban, etc)
If Canada and NATO goes away from Afghanistan, then the Afghan ppl have less 'bailing buckets' to keep the water out and that means Afghanistan goes back into anarchy again.

Of course there are improvements required in Canada and NATO presence in Afghanistan.
But I still think this is something worth putting in resources and Canadian lives at risk.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Orbitus To get back to the media for a moment ; I have been to China 3 times in the last few years and watched the news there a lot. The best thing about their news? It's always good. No seriously, they show 90% good news. And you know what? I actually started feeling good again watching the news. They showed all the wonderful things that were happening in their country. Very refreshing for a change. Now I'm not saying we should do exactly the same but I believe it's time that the media is forced to show balance in their broadcasts. 50% good news and 50% bad news. If you think our media is neutral and objective think again. We only get to see what these profit motivated organizations think will make money for them. Not what the best news is for us. Remember, their only priority is their bottom line. Not quality journalism with balance.

its called communist propeganda and looks like it works LOL

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Oh really? Ask the Brits how they did it against Malay communists in the 50s.

Here you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_emergency

quote:

Although the conflicts in Malaya and Vietnam differed on many points in so far as the details of their wars, it has been asked time and again by historians as to how a British force of 35,000 succeeded where over a half million soldiers of the U.S. and others failed. One of the main points that differentiated the two was that the MRLA never had a dependable ally close at hand like the Viet Cong did with the North Vietnamese Army. Another key point was the effectiveness of the Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerilla movement.[3] . The MRLA was also, as mentioned above, a political movement almost entirely limited to ethnic Chinese; support among Muslim Malayans and smaller tribes was scattered if existent at all. The British war effort never suffered from anything approaching the criticism that hammered the U.S. in Vietnam, and the USSR and China were too involved in Korea to give serious aid to the MRLA. Also, many Malayans had fought side by side with the British against the Japanese occupation in World War II, including Chin Peng. This is in contrast to Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) where French colonial officials often operated as proxies and collaborators to the Japanese. This factor of trust between the locals and the colonials was what gave the British an advantage over the French and later, the Americans in Vietnam; Commonwealth troops saw ordinary civilians as allies, not enemies.

For each of the points above, think about how similar (or maybe not so similar) the current situation is.

Now draw your conclusions on when the current "insurgency" will end.

___________________
If I had to move to a deserted island, I would take only one CD with me: Cygnus X - Superstring! Yes, recorded 20 times in a row!

EvilTree, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm wondering if that misinterpretation was actually innocent, or instead a concerted attempt to set up a straw man argument.

In any case, I'm not arguing for the the moral differences between Talibani vs. Kurzai rule. Nor for the withdrawl of NATO or Canadian forces (as I explicitly stated). Nor against the validity of current humanitarian efforts by Canadian et al forces.

I'm saying that the current mandate and focus on aggressive clearing (before you disagree, note that there's a heavy imbalance between humanitarian vs. military spending... something like 1:10 or 1:20 - :source:) is strategically a poor move, given precedent in military history.... aside from the Malay Emergency. Although that seems too far removed to be considered a direct parallel. When engaging an embedded insurgency (or more generally, any weaker force), it's important to win decisively and completely, as quickly as possible. The longer a conflict of this type lasts on a timeline, the chances of the foreign success dramatically decreases. And the Afghan situation is five years old, with NATO now actually losing ground in the South - one step forward, two steps back.

Yes, Taliban is bad. Yes, giving power back to the Afghan is good. Yes, NATO and Canada belong there. I never disagreed with any of those points. I'm saying that given historical precedent, with the current direction taken with missions like Medusa, the conflict is doomed to be long, expensive, and bloody... with very little measurable returns and few quantitative milestones.

To carry your anology, instead of bailing out water, why doesn't NATO help the Afghans plug the holes with boat-cement, to fix it ASAP?

But, time will tell, won't it? :P

Last edited by Shug on Nov-01-2006 at 19:55

quote:

Originally posted by Shug EvilTree, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm wondering if that misinterpretation was actually innocent, or instead a concerted attempt to set up a straw man argument. In any case, I'm not arguing for the the moral differences between Talibani vs. Kurzai rule. Nor for the withdrawl of NATO or Canadian forces (as I explicitly stated). Nor against the validity of current humanitarian efforts by Canadian et al forces. I'm saying that the current mandate and focus on aggressive clearing (before you disagree, note that there's a heavy imbalance between humanitarian vs. military spending... something like 1:10 or 1:20 - :source:) is strategically a poor move, given precedent in military history.... aside from the Malay Emergency. Although that seems too far removed to be considered a direct parallel. When engaging an embedded insurgency (or more generally, any weaker force), it's important to win decisively and completely, as quickly as possible. The longer a conflict of this type lasts on a timeline, the chances of the foreign success dramatically decreases. And the Afghan situation is five years old, with NATO now actually losing ground in the South - one step forward, two steps back. Yes, Taliban is bad. Yes, giving power back to the Afghan is good. Yes, NATO and Canada belong there. I never disagreed with any of those points. I'm saying that given historical precedent, with the current direction taken with missions like Medusa, the conflict is doomed to be long, expensive, and bloody... with very little measurable returns and few quantitative milestones. To carry your anology, instead of bailing out water, why doesn't NATO help the Afghans plug the holes with boat-cement, to fix it ASAP? But, time will tell, won't it? :P

The thing about Taliban is that they are still active and IMO the pressure needs to be kept up so that they don't regroup and be strong again as they have been this year.
IMO this happened because of shift of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq by Bush administration and other major US allies shifted focus accordingly and left fighting the Taliban effort shorthanded, giving them time to regroup and refocus, and they've gotten stronger.

Without a major effort to finish off the Taliban, any humanitarian effort will be target of Taliban attacks and it just means wasted money.

If Taliban wants to get into a pitched battle with NATO, it just makes the job easier.

NATO is helping the Afghans to plug the holes in the boat, but like I said, it's got to be an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. Means Afghans will have to find a way to create a workable and responsible govt with working civil and social infrastructure. We're just along the ride to give them a hand as they need, train them, so that they have the tools to create their own society.

We do not want to create an Afghan society that will continuously require Western aid in order to survive. We want them to slowly get off the Western aid and be functional on their own.

Afghanistan is not a short term project, but a long term project.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

Haha, I just realized from your sig that you're into WH40k. All your points are rendered moot. :P Jokes.

I think we're running circles around our mutually agreed points; where we disagree is at the methods of execution. I don't think that the situation is 'winnable' in any quantitative measure in its current incarnation, whereas you do. I don't think this is an enemy that can be beaten with military might alone, whereas you do. I think that the war on the Taliban is an expensive and unending war, whereas you see an end - however far away and costly you concede it to be.

It all comes down to opinion, since no matter how much stats and sources we throw at each other, neither of us can predict the outcome. It's just too bad that I can't specifically choose what parts of the government spending my taxes go.... but then again, too much democracy isn't a good thing.

quote:

.... but then again, too much democracy isn't a good thing.

My point exactly with my 'media post earlier'.

1)'Media says : 105 soldiers die in worst month'. I say: This is war. And what you're really telling me is more people die in car accidents here in a week.
2) These wars are winnable. But we're not fighting a real or traditional war here. We're policing. If it was a real all out war it could be done in a few days if the U.S. really wanted too....
3) But then there's 'media' and the following (media tainted) public outcry.(Our own form of propaganda due to lack of balance and direction of the media)
4) The radicals in this world know how to exploit our democracy and media to great effect. They know how weak and directionless they can be. (Too much democracy?)
5)Hopefully people will learn to respect each others beliefs and let them practice them freely. (As long as they don't harm others.)

___________________
Is it Saturday yet??

quote:

Originally posted by Shug Haha, I just realized from your sig that you're into WH40k. All your points are rendered moot. :P Jokes.

You must be a Chaos heretic

quote:

I don't think this is an enemy that can be beaten with military might alone, whereas you do. I think that the war on the Taliban is an expensive and unending war, whereas you see an end - however far away and costly you concede it to be.

Actually, I don't think you can beat the Taliban on military might alone. You're right. Humanitarian efforts (aka 'hearts and minds') in the end will be the decisive factor in defeating Taliban by turning the general Afghan population away from them.
The Afghan ppl and its govt will be the decisive factor in defeating the Taliban.

But, I also believe that you gotta stop the Taliban and put a cork on them to the point that where humanitarian efforts can succeed, without Taliban coming back to destroying them.
We just differ on what should come first.

If you think Canada has very little to gain from being in Afghanistan, then why do you agree that Canada should be there still?

(Nothing personal, just having a debate)

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded