|
Preparing for a Black Hawk Down moment (Canadian style)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
I hope, that Liberal (the Canadian party, not 'liberal') spinelessness doesn't stimulant the global terrorism that's currently down, but not out.
We can't afford to go through this process again should it be allowed to fester and once again strike horror in this world...
| quote: |
Preparing for a Black Hawk Down moment
Jonathan Kay
National Post
Monday, March 20, 2006
In one three-day trip to Afghanistan, Stephen Harper exhibited more leadership and moral clarity than the Liberals did in 13 years.
The Prime Minister went to Afghanistan because he understands what's at stake: If the country falls back into Taliban hands, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar will have proven to the world -- including everyone in Iraq -- that jihadis can rout a modern Western army and transform a nascent democracy into a medieval theocracy.
The PM's main problem is that the Taliban are the enemies of not just ordinary Afghans, but of America as well. And so Canada's Left, reflexively sympathetic to anyone warring against George W. Bush, is already singing the chorus of cut-and-run.
But even the Left is divided on Afghanistan -- because our mission there has a strong humanitarian component. Across a range of human-development indicators, Afghanistan resembles a sub-Saharan nation. Linda McQuaig and Rick Salutin may believe we should let ordinary Afghans suffer because helping them would indirectly help Bush. But few Canadians are inclined to agree.
And yet, support for our Afghanistan mission could still be one major firefight away from collapsing. The problem with both the strategic and humanitarian rationales for our mission is that they suffer from what economists call the "free rider" problem. Yes, Canada's strategic interest in Afghanistan -- fighting militant Islam -- is compelling. But it is a shared interest diffused over the entire civilized world. Why should it be Canada leading the Kandahar charge as opposed to, say, New Zealand, or France? Better yet, why not just follow the usual Canadian practice and let the Americans do it?
Humanitarian arguments, too, will fall to the wayside if the body count spikes. While democracies have a high tolerance for casualties in wars of self-interest, the same is not true of humanitarian interventions -- which explains why Kosovo was bombed from 15,000 feet, and why no Western nation is willing to sacrifice a single solider to save Darfur. If the Taliban are able to stage a particularly spectacular attack, Harper will feel the same heavy pressure to evacuate as Bill Clinton did when Somali gunmen killed 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu 13 years ago.
An Afghan Mogadishu would threaten not only our presence in Afghanistan, but also this precious moment in Canadian history.
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien spoke often about Canadian values, and congratulated themselves at great length about our country's Beatles-era peacekeeping tradition. But they did little to fight terrorism and rogue power in the modern world. Even when the Liberals eventually did the right thing in Afghanistan, they kept mum on the subject -- as if it were something to be embarrassed about.
Harper is of another breed. Good on him for visiting Afghanistan and saying the right things. But in the end, our deployment is an act of conscience aimed at fulfilling our moral obligation to the rest of the free world. This motivation may be laudable, but it is also highly abstract. And it is questionable whether it will survive if Canada is faced with the concrete violence produced by a Black Hawk Down moment.
Harper should be laying the necessary groundwork before such a moment arrives. As others have noted on these pages, Canadian NGOs and government agencies are modest to a fault about the good work we're doing in Afghanistan. That must change. Canadians will be more willing to endure casualties if our deployment is seen not as an isolated expeditionary force but as what it is -- the security arm of a broader relief effort.
Second, Harper should reverse course by agreeing to a full Parliamentary debate and free vote on Afghanistan. Even if the biggest push for this is coming from the NDP, which may use the occasion for pacifistic posturing, it's still a good idea.
For years, foreign policy in this country has been based on the leader's personal whim: Our non-roles in missile defence and Iraq were both decided by the PMO on the basis of superficial political optics. Afghanistan should be different. It should be clear that our presence there is nothing less than a fundamental expression of our national will, as articulated by democratically elected lawmakers.
I expect that an overwhelming majority of MPS would support our mission. And I hope they would continue doing so even when we face the casualties that are a tragic but unavoidable part of any serious military deployment.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| swilly |
Hey I have an idea why didint we just leave the socialist government that was there in the 1970s and 1980s alone in the first place and we would not of had this problem.
We can talk about humantarinism and wanting to help etc... but if that was actually the concern then the US along with the west would of helped the socialist government in the 1970s create a stable state. Women were allowed into universities there was a national healthcare and education system plan and the country was actually relativly stable throughout most of the nation. There were isolated pockets of resistance from the warring factions in the state at that time but there was progress being made.
Or there was at least, until the US decided to sponser the fundemantalists to fight against international communism and that socialist government in afghanistan
Honestly, that Canada is in there helping clean up the US's up is beyond stupid.
But then again so is the national post which is where you got this article from
sigh and you are from toronto as well even
swilly san |
|
|
| swilly |
I think a great analogy would be this. We have a nieghbour who is very right wing and does not like the nieghbours several blocks away because they are lefties. They make the argument that they are a danger to our community. Our nieghbhour decides that he does not want that person into this community and so he pays some bikers to go in there and try to move into thier house.
Eventually the bikers win and move in there and they take over the house and then they start to hassle other people in the community and even begin to attack our nieghbour.
Now our nieghbour is asking for help and money in getting rid of the bikers because he wants to create a safe community.
I would tell him to off because the people that were originally in the house were not bothering anyone and were infact doing good for thier own land.
So ya I got an idea why dont we help the US clean up thier mess as we always do
swilly |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| :haha: you're cute. |
|
|
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
:haha: you're cute. |
I try
swilly;) |
|
|
| tamk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I hope, that Liberal (the Canadian party, not 'liberal') spinelessness doesn't stimulant the global terrorism that's currently down, but not out.
We can't afford to go through this process again should it be allowed to fester and once again strike horror in this world...
>>Source<< |
bull!
candian soldiers are dying in afghanistan protecting kabul and propping up karzai and his northern alliance warlords.
please get over the naiive idea that the NA and taliban are any different they belive the same backward bull.
american and pakistani forces are actually fighting the taliban the canadian forces patrol the street of kabul, propping up this fake ass government, solidyfying control of the tribal warlords.
look at the people in power in afghanistan, ismail khan, dostum, rabbani, fahim they are EXACTLY like the taliban.
you know how they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend, in this case if your enemy is the cultural ethnic religious extremism that was horror that you speak of the NA and this afghan govt are not your friends. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by tamk
bull!
candian soldiers are dying in afghanistan protecting kabul and propping up karzai and his northern alliance warlords.
please get over the naiive idea that the NA and taliban are any different they belive the same backward bull.
american and pakistani forces are actually fighting the taliban the canadian forces patrol the street of kabul, propping up this fake ass government, solidyfying control of the tribal warlords.
look at the people in power in afghanistan, ismail khan, dostum, rabbani, fahim they are EXACTLY like the taliban.
you know how they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend, in this case if your enemy is the cultural ethnic religious extremism that was horror that you speak of the NA and this afghan govt are not your friends. |
Yea, I hear yea, it's a touchy subject.
Especially with the recent case of Abdul Rahman, the Christian convert.
I like how Mark Stern puts it into perspective:
| quote: |
The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.
|
>Will we stick our necks out for his faith?<
While Afganistan is a much worthier cause than say, Iraq, it still makes you wonder... |
|
|
|
|
