Afghanistan

[Darth SS]

So, I ran a search and discovered that there actually aren't any threads concerning Afghanistan. Iraq is much more plentiful, but it would appear that Afghanistan hasn't really been discussed in detail. I know that it was brought up briefly when I posted that news article where Bush insulted Canada, but there has yet to be a full discussion about it.

Story 1

Long story short: Canadian troops were outside of a school they built, handing out candy to the children. A suicide bomber drove his bike into the crowd and detonated. Four canadian soldiers were killed.

Story (Sorry I couldn't get a better article)

Canada is deploying more troops and 15 tanks to Afghanistan, amid mounting protests and debate in Parliament.

Poland is in

All you need to know: Poland is stepping up and sending many troops to Afghanistan, almost meeting the whole request on their own. This is odd, given that they were originally in the Warsaw Pact and not NATO, or at least I think so.


My questions are these:

Is anything being accomplished over there?
Is this a winnable conflict?
Can NATO hope to succeed where Russia failed so many years ago?
Should we have gone in those years ago?

To Canadians (or anyone who feels like commenting)
Should Canada be in this conflict?
Is Canada a "peacekeeping nation?"
Should the CAF troops be called back?




I'll weigh in with my opinions just after I finish finding those links.

[adamark]

Is anything being accomplished over there?

Establishing a more free and stable country. Afghanistan was a nightmarish place while the Taliban were running it. Toppling the taliban and now ensuring stability as the country grows stronger will lead to long lasting prosperity, hopefully.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

This is not a flame. This is a disgruntled Canadian who is mad.

The fact that these Al-Queda bombed our own soldiers while they were giving out Candy to students shows what is wrong. I find them nothing but savagae beasts that need to be put down. And by that, I referring to the terrorists.

Is anything being accomplished over there?

Yes. Amidst the recent turn of events, We were able to topple the Taliban Government and stabilized the country for a while.

Is this a winnable conflict?

I am not too sure. Ask me in 6 months

Can NATO hope to succeed where Russia failed so many years ago?

No. If Russia couldn;t have put down the opposition back then, what hopes does NATO have.

Should we have gone in those years ago?

Again no. At the time there was no reason for deploying troops to the region. The only reason that we are there now is because the US was attacked by Al Queda.

To Canadians (or anyone who feels like commenting)

Should Canada be in this conflict?

They shouldn;t be, but I know why. It is because we are allies to the US and they wanted support when they wanted to oust the Taliban and Al Queda

Is Canada a "peacekeeping nation?"

Yes. After WWII and Korea, Canada became more of a peacekeeping country. We are supposed to be there to clean up the messes afterwards.

Should the CAF troops be called back?

As much as I would like to Call back our troops, they have a duty there. We can;t high tail it when the going gets tough.

These are just my opinions and am to tired to argue. I'll eb online tomorrow

[Solid Snake]

Poland, and most other eastern European nations recently "liberated" from the influence of the Soviet Union, is currently indulging with a love affair with the United States, much like western Europe was in love with the U.S. after World War 2. That largely explains why Poland has been sending so many troops and helping the U.S. so much with the war efforts in Afghanistan as of late. As a matter of fact, I'd largely say that eastern Europe, along with Japan, are two of virtually the only places out there in the world that isn't experiencing a gigantic influx of anti-American opinions. (I'm sure there are still anti-American sentimentalists in Poland, but by and large Poland has a phenomenally benevolent view of the states in comparison to, say, Germany or France.) Eastern Europe is still a bit too thankful for the opening of their markets after the Iron Curtain fell.

As for Canada being involved in Afghanistan; I think they should be, but I'm not a Canadian myself, and in fact as an American I probably have a stake in desiring them to stick around. Listen; I would totally understand if Canada wanted absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was our mistake and our responsibility; it was a pre-emptive conflict against an enemy that didn't even have any WMDs.

But when it comes to Afghanistan, I think as an ally of America, Canada has a responsibility to help with the fight against the Taliban. If Toronto were attacked by Al Qaeda in 9/11, I would fully expect Canada to be up in arms imploring the Americans to assist in the toppling of the Taliban regime that openly harbored Al Qaeda's top officials. NATO very clearly spells out that if any of the nations in NATO are attacked there is an obligation to assist -- and at least with Afghanistan there can be no doubt that the Taliban was closely affiliated with and directly supporting Al Qaeda.

I understand that America is currently unpopular because of the war in Iraq, but I do hope most Canadians are able to seperate Iraq and Afghanistan into two seperate entities and realize that the foul-ups in Iraq don't necessarily automatically invalidate the justifications for Afghanistan.

[Fifthfiend]

A pretty thorough overview of where things stand:

Better paid, better armed, better connected - Taliban rise again

Kandahar under threat, war raging in two provinces and an isolated president. So what went wrong?

Declan Walsh in Ghazni
Saturday September 16, 2006
The Guardian

In the south war has gripped Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where British and Canadian troops are stationed. In the past fortnight Nato has launched a blistering offensive, killing more than 500 Taliban, to stave off an attack on Kandahar city - a previously unthinkable notion.

Elsewhere, suicide bombers are striking with Baghdad-like brazenness. In the boldest attack yet, last week two American soldiers and 14 Afghans were shredded by a huge blast outside the US embassy in Kabul, one of the country's most tightly guarded areas.

Opium cultivation has soared. This year Afghanistan will produce more heroin than western addicts can consume. The main hub of cultivation is British-controlled Helmand. Since August 1 Britain and Canada have each lost 11 soldiers in combat, a high toll for what was originally presented as a peacekeeping mission.

...

While northern and western Afghanistan remain stable, President Hamid Karzai is isolated and unpopular. Comparisons of the southern war with Vietnam are no longer considered outlandish. And dismayed western diplomats - the architects of reconstruction - are watching their plans go up in smoke. "Nobody saw this coming. It's pretty dire," admitted one official in Kabul.

...

In the past two months the Taliban has swept across the southern half of the province with kidnappings, assassinations and gun battles. American officials believe Andar district, a few miles from their base in Ghazni town, is the Taliban hub for four surrounding provinces. This week they launched a drive in Andar, searching houses and raking buildings with helicopter gunship fire into a Taliban compound. At least 35 people died including a mother and two children.

...

Travel along the Kabul-Kandahar highway that slices through Ghazni - once a symbol of western reconstruction - has become a high-stakes game of power. The Taliban sporadically mount checkpoints, frisking Afghans for ID cards, phone numbers or any other sign of a link to the government or foreign organisations. Those caught are beaten, kidnapped or killed. Foreigners travel south by plane, passing high over the road they once boasted about.

In the surrounding villages people are frightened and angry. In Qala Bagh district bands of 20 to 30 fighters descend at night. They demand food, shelter or a son to join the fighting, said Maulvi Aladat, the new district chief. A judge, a school principal and the local director of education have been assassinated in the past two months. The two girls' schools are closed.

The government offers scant protection. Ghazni's untrained police are outnumbered and outgunned. Huddled inside poorly protected compounds with few radios or vehicles, they are little match for large Taliban squads armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The US-trained Afghan army is curiously absent. Ghazni has just 280 soldiers, according to the governor, Sher Alam Ibrahimi. Although on paper the army has 35,000 soldiers, desertion rates are believed to be high.

...

Local government is plagued by corruption and weak leadership. Ibrahimi, a former warlord, seems an unlikely candidate for governor with his grindingly slow speech and murky background that includes allegations of war crimes. Many believe Mr Karzai appointed him for his links to a more powerful warlord now in parliament.

...

In desperation, his government has doubled the number of police through the use of arbikays - untrained tribal fighters paid directly by the governor.

...

Poverty also fuels the fighting. Several elders said the Taliban was offering upwards of 20,000 rupees (£180) a month to local unemployed men. Western officials are beginning to scrutinise the source of the funds.

Mr Khan told the Guardian the militants have bigger guns and more fighters. They have powerful friends. Several times he had collared Taliban fighters only to discover days later they had been released following a call from a powerful politician or influential tribal leader. They also have surprising amounts of money.

...

This year the Taliban formed an alliance with drug kingpins, offering to protect poppy farmers and smugglers in exchange for a cut of the $3bn trade. But diplomats believe most funding comes from fundamentalist sympathisers in Pakistan and the Middle East. Some believe governments may be also involved.

...

Military officers and diplomats also say Pakistan's tribal belt is the engine room of the insurgency. From its remote mountain sanctuaries along the border the Taliban has re-emerged from the shadows as a potent force. Two shuras, or tribal councils, coordinate the attacks - one in the western city of Quetta, the other in South Waziristan, a lawless tribal area that is also a crucible of al-Qaida terrorism.

...

Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, said that after being driven into Pakistan's tribal areas in late 2001 the Taliban "reconstituted their command structure, recruitment networks, and support bases ... while Afghans waited in vain for the major reconstruction effort they expected to build their state and improve their lives".

...

Western officials are also divided about the sincerity of Pakistan's military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, in combating the Taliban. In Kabul last week he offered his help in defeating the Taliban, later describing them as a "bigger threat than al-Qaida". But that was undermined by a deal with tribal militants in Waziristan. In return for Pakistan soldiers withdrawing to base, the pro-Taliban militants undertook to stop harbouring foreign fighters and to halt cross-border infiltration. Within hours of the deal being inked, some tribal leaders claimed there had never been any foreigners in their area.

...

Shutting down the Pakistani sanctuaries would not necessarily end the insurgency. This year the Taliban's strength has been nourished by a new source: heroin. After spurning the opium trade as un-Islamic and immoral, this year the Taliban leadership reversed its position and allied with drug smugglers. The 59% surge in opium production to an unprecedented 6,100 tonnes will swell the Taliban war chest.

...

Dismay about the drugs epidemic has given way to arguments about how to tackle it. US and European military commanders, particularly the British, insist their troops should not get directly involved in fighting the trade. This week the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, called on them to wade in. "Counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts must reinforce each other so as to stop the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorists and terrorists protecting drug traffickers," he said, calling on Nato to destroy heroin labs, disband drug bazaars, attack convoys and arrest smugglers.

The speed and scale of this summer's violence has disoriented both Afghans and foreigners. In the south outlandish theories that the US is covertly supporting the Taliban, or that British troops have come to avenge colonial-era defeats, are common.

The underlying factors - cross-border sanctuaries, corrupt governance and drugs - have been in place for years. But what changed is the aggressive Nato deployment. After a difficult start, Nato has scored some successes. With more than 500 Taliban killed in Panjwayi, the Taliban stronghold west of Kandahar, soon the area will be cleared of insurgents, said the British commander, Lieutenant General David Richards. With luck, Nato hopes it will soon revert to its original goal, facilitating aid projects and strengthening the Karzai government.

But others question whether an insurgency can be defeated by death tolls alone. The only durable solution is to talk to the Taliban, said Wadir Safi of the University of Kabul. "Without negotiation this could go on for decades. The government must accept the Taliban as partners in these areas. You can't simply kill them all."

Afghans have a long history of ejecting foreign armies. The good news for Nato is that most still believe the military visitors are a force for good. "People are tired of fighting. Nobody wants to go back to that," said one official in Ghazni, who requested anonymity. "But if the people are disappointed much more, they could unite against the foreign forces. History could repeat itself."

[Darth SS]

And now DSS wades into the fray...

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No. If Russia couldn;t have put down the opposition back then, what hopes does NATO have.

Well, I think there are a few key differences. First of all, the Mujahadeen had the greatest superpower on the planet giving them guns and money. The Taliban does not. Second, Russia went in there with a conquering attitude. They wanted complete and utter control of Afghanistan. NATO, right now at least, went in and said "We want Al-Qaeda. Got them. While we're here, let's rebuild this place."

Again no. At the time there was no reason for deploying troops to the region. The only reason that we are there now is because the US was attacked by Al Queda.

Check your timeline. It had been established that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on the US. NATO went over there and said, "Where is he?" The Taliban gave NATO the finger and then said, "Fuck you. We're gonna' protect him." In response, NATO levelled their country.

They shouldn;t be, but I know why. It is because we are allies to the US and they wanted support when they wanted to oust the Taliban and Al Queda

Sir, I do not agree with a word you say. But I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Yes. After WWII and Korea, Canada became more of a peacekeeping country. We are supposed to be there to clean up the messes afterwards.

I call bullshit. I mean, there are just so many things wrong with this statement....

First, peacekeeping as you're thinking of it isn't what Lester B Pearson originally suggested. Nay, modern peacekeeping is a bastard step-child of Pearson's idea. Its existence was used specifically to calm the rest of the world during the Suez Crisis, and the UN cared too much about kissing Egypt’s ass to even give them a mandate to let them do anything. To date, there have been VERY few peacekeeping operations that have accomplished anything. And, these are completely overshadowed by such astounding failures as Rwanda, the Congo, Bosnia, and Somalia. If you think the role of the Canadian army is to wave it’s hand and say “Stop it,” like a gay bouncer, then that’s your opinion. But, it shall indeed be a terrifying world when that is the majority.

If you want Canada to do only peacekeeping and not any actual conflicts for fear that our boys will come home in coffins, I say this to you: Coward. If the free world doesn’t stop fascist theocracies, then people are going to die. Simple as that. They are going to be killed because they don’t conform to someone’s interpretation of a prophet’s words. If you are willing to let innocent people die so that a few of our soldiers are spared, then I don’t think you’re any better than the people who pull the trigger.

And, cleaning up the mess? That’s exactly what Canada is doing right now. Afghanistan is in shambles. The entire mission there right now is reconstruction. That’s why so many Combat Engineers are going their. To set up water, electricity, build schools. Medics are helping to establish hospitals. You can’t have successful reconstruction without getting rid of insurgency; ergo they’re going after the Taliban.

Finally, historically, Canada is not a peacekeeping country. As much as we like to brag that we’ve participated in every peacekeeping operation ever, we’re contributing less and less. No, historically, Canada is the little guy that answers the call to arms and punches WAY above its weight class. Canada has a very proud military history, and I personally think that saying that Canadian troops should be glorified “please stop” signs is an insult to those men and women.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Well I appear to be in the wrong in my history of these evenets but I blame the education system in my area and my own ignorance.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

To date, there have been VERY few peacekeeping operations that have accomplished anything.

East Timor comes to mind almost immediately.

It's a very recent example of U.N. peacekeeping forces actually doing a pretty darn good job. (At least as of 2004, when I had to write a thirty-page term paper on the subject. If it's gone to hell since then, I guess I wouldn't be terribly aware, because the media doesn't give a damn about East Timor and no news from there is ever reported.)

Hell, a hundred people could die in some freak accident in East Timor and we'd still instead hear about a half dozen deaths in a carbombing in the Middle East instead. East Timor just ain't news in the eyes of most.

Otherwise Darth SS, I pretty much agree 100% with you, as my previous post would seem to indicate.

[BitVyper]

But when it comes to Afghanistan, I think as an ally of America, Canada has a responsibility to help with the fight against the Taliban. If Toronto were attacked by Al Qaeda in 9/11...

I feel it's worth mentioning that (as I recall) somewhere around 22% of Canadians don't even believe America's official story about 9/11. That's nearly a quarter of the country that's not even sure the attack came from Afghanistan.

Personally, I'm not into the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing, but I do find the official story at least somewhat suspect. I can at least say that I don't necessarily file the 9/11 conspiracy people into the same category I put Apollo hoax people.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

I feel it's worth mentioning that (as I recall) somewhere around 22% of Canadians don't even believe America's official story about 9/11. That's nearly a quarter of the country that's not even sure the attack came from Afghanistan.

Personally, I'm not into the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing, but I do find the official story at least somewhat suspect. I can at least say that I don't necessarily file the 9/11 conspiracy people into the same category I put Apollo hoax people.

The 22% statistic is unfortunate. It suggests that 22% of Canadians prefer ideology and anti-American rhetoric over logic; because a bit of common sense would seem to strike down any feasibility of a conspiracy.

The only element of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I find even slightly questionable involved the attack on the Pentagon; but since the attacks on the WTC towers alone were more than enough to justify American retaliation, why would anyone in the U.S. want or need to stage a plane hitting the Pentagon and waste money in the process? It seems utterly unnecessary.