Latest on ending the mission in '09
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 1,040
Hopefully, and this is just a hope, Canadians of the honourable kind (eg: most of us), will also be disgusted with the latest "hints" of "tail tucking" and will send a loud and powerful message to Ottawa: Don't stop now!
As for Mr. Layton of the NDP. I'll say nothing: Ms. Blatchford hit the nail on the head regarding him and his "proposals".
As for Mr. Layton of the NDP. I'll say nothing: Ms. Blatchford hit the nail on the head regarding him and his "proposals".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
When reading into MacKay's comments on question period remember this. He stated that Canada would not keep the current configuration in Afghanistan without the support of Parliment. Does this mean they will up the numbers of the PRT. Or does it mean that if the Harper Government gets a majority they will continue the current numbers and manning? Remember politicians are shifty people.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Teflon,
Sorry I haven't written it yet - I will :-[
By the way David Bercuson has an opinion piece on Page A17
Also in today's globe. The upshot of it is that Dion should cool
his jets and do a responsible thing instead of what he's doing.
Link anyone?....
Like I said - I'll write - and we'll see what happens.
Sorry I haven't written it yet - I will :-[
By the way David Bercuson has an opinion piece on Page A17
Also in today's globe. The upshot of it is that Dion should cool
his jets and do a responsible thing instead of what he's doing.
Link anyone?....
Like I said - I'll write - and we'll see what happens.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Also we are already seeing a large increase in the Omelet (spelling?) Could this be signaling not a size cut in our commitment but the numbers remaining somewhat unchanged and just the main roles changing? A slow but steady decrease of pers for combat ops with a steady increase of pers training and assisting the ANA?
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
OK someone explain this to me. If we back out of the combat role and NATO can't get any country to take our place, as it looks right now may happen, what keeps the bad guys from coming in and blowing up all our good works??? 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Cobra 6,
Baden Guy,
I don't think the consequences of a pullout have been spelled out nearly strongly enough.
Last night I heard an interview Carol Off was doing with the Minister of Defence of the Netherlands.
The debate there sounds exactly like the debate here. It's starting to sound like NATO is about
to fold like a house of cards.
Should our collective spine fail and the whole thing collapses - What then?
Peace?...... Certainly not!
The Afghan National government will likely have a civil war on it's hands
for the simple reason that WE in the west don't like to hear sad news.
Lefties like to obfuscate about providing aid without military support....
In the great words of Lewis Mackenzie "Gimme a Break"
In commercial circles it's called "re-branding".
Baden Guy,
I don't think the consequences of a pullout have been spelled out nearly strongly enough.
Last night I heard an interview Carol Off was doing with the Minister of Defence of the Netherlands.
The debate there sounds exactly like the debate here. It's starting to sound like NATO is about
to fold like a house of cards.
Should our collective spine fail and the whole thing collapses - What then?
Peace?...... Certainly not!
The Afghan National government will likely have a civil war on it's hands
for the simple reason that WE in the west don't like to hear sad news.
Lefties like to obfuscate about providing aid without military support....
In the great words of Lewis Mackenzie "Gimme a Break"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The downside of "re-branding" is that the left won't be fooled for long.
If it hits the fan again and of course it will - we start the whole debate over again.
The grim truth of not doing what needs to done is what's missing from the
debate. Most people in the west think there will no substantial consequences
to removing combat elements.
My opinion anyway.
If it hits the fan again and of course it will - we start the whole debate over again.
The grim truth of not doing what needs to done is what's missing from the
debate. Most people in the west think there will no substantial consequences
to removing combat elements.
My opinion anyway.
- Reaction score
- 20,775
- Points
- 1,260
The other issue - is the concept has alway been to scale back the "combat element" and up the OMLT - the key is the timing -- one needs to keep a combat capability while the ASF is developing.
The OMLT is still and imbedded force inside the Kandaks - as such it will go into combat. However it will not be able to provide the "fire brigade" that the CF formations now are.
Its much like the morons trying to pull out of Iraq before the ISF are good to go.
Secondly if its just a rebranding - then the gov't is being cowardly and immoral.
The OMLT is still and imbedded force inside the Kandaks - as such it will go into combat. However it will not be able to provide the "fire brigade" that the CF formations now are.
Its much like the morons trying to pull out of Iraq before the ISF are good to go.
Secondly if its just a rebranding - then the gov't is being cowardly and immoral.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think the problem is that it's outside of the average Canadian's "monkey sphere" (google that... it's an interesting concept)
Basically it doesn't affect the everyday Canadian, so ultimately they don't care, or see the connection to themselves. So until something happens here, in our back yard so to speak, the average Canadian could really give 2 turds about what happens over there.
Basically it doesn't affect the everyday Canadian, so ultimately they don't care, or see the connection to themselves. So until something happens here, in our back yard so to speak, the average Canadian could really give 2 turds about what happens over there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Munxcub said:
Ive read of similiar theories before, but never with that name attached to it. Interesting...
From today's Montreal Gazette http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=b56bc839-8315-48be-b1f0-4f17cba8799b
Dion's war policy is hare-brained
The Gazette
Published: 17 hours ago
"The Prime Minister must assure Canadians that our troops, including the Royal 22nd Regiment, will end their combat role in Korea by February 1953 under any circumstances," Opposition leader George Drew demanded yesterday. Drew denounced the 'irresponsible ... ambiguity' of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent ..."
- From The Gazette,
Sept. 2, 1951
Hard to imagine, isn't it? No wonder - it's fiction, made up to demonstrate a point. When soldiers are in combat, announcing they will knock off at a given time no matter what the state of the fight, like so many blue collars at the end of their shift, is absurd. It's a clear signal to the other side that mere persistence, and perhaps a little more killing, will guarantee victory.
Yet this hare-brained approach, we note with considerable dismay, has been adopted by the leader of the official opposition in Parliament, Stéphane Dion. He wants an ironclad guarantee that Canada's combat role will end by February 2009, he says, and with it he wants formal notice to our allies that we're outta there. If he doesn't get it, he claims, he might be prepared to defeat the government over the issue.
Is this merely a shoddy ploy to bolster Liberal chances in the Outremont by-election this month? Or is it serious Liberal policy? Either way, it's not worthy of Dion, a man we endorsed for his party leadership on the basis of his intellectual rigour and clarity.
This is not a question of "supporting our troops," that arch-banality of modern wartime. Nor is it about patriotism. Dion has proved his devotion to Canada far more clearly than most Canadians, and certainly everyone is entitled to be unhappy about the way our soldiers are being used at any particular time.
But this is not the way to express such concern. "Wars begin when you will," Machiavelli said, "but they do not end when you choose."
So what would be the impact of setting a rigid arbitrary deadline, as the Liberals propose? Is Dion merely hoping to pressure other NATO countries into making more of an effort? Does he even care what happens to Afghanistan?
Whatever he's trying to do, his posturing reminds us not of Machiavelli but of another strategist almost 2,000 years earlier. Sun Tzu said that in war, "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." Canada's resistance to the Taliban's ruthless fanaticism seems, to judge by the Liberal position, to be at the breaking point.
No doubt the Taliban and their allies are aware NATO's biggest countries, except for the United States and Britain, have shown no stomach for sending troops to fight in Afghanistan. No doubt they're aware of the controversy and bitterness within NATO, not least in Canada. No doubt they're aware Canadians split 50-50 on the Afghan mission.
And no doubt they're hoping Dion gets the government locked into a rigid bail-out date. But we're hoping he fails.
Dion's war policy is hare-brained
The Gazette
Published: 17 hours ago
"The Prime Minister must assure Canadians that our troops, including the Royal 22nd Regiment, will end their combat role in Korea by February 1953 under any circumstances," Opposition leader George Drew demanded yesterday. Drew denounced the 'irresponsible ... ambiguity' of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent ..."
- From The Gazette,
Sept. 2, 1951
Hard to imagine, isn't it? No wonder - it's fiction, made up to demonstrate a point. When soldiers are in combat, announcing they will knock off at a given time no matter what the state of the fight, like so many blue collars at the end of their shift, is absurd. It's a clear signal to the other side that mere persistence, and perhaps a little more killing, will guarantee victory.
Yet this hare-brained approach, we note with considerable dismay, has been adopted by the leader of the official opposition in Parliament, Stéphane Dion. He wants an ironclad guarantee that Canada's combat role will end by February 2009, he says, and with it he wants formal notice to our allies that we're outta there. If he doesn't get it, he claims, he might be prepared to defeat the government over the issue.
Is this merely a shoddy ploy to bolster Liberal chances in the Outremont by-election this month? Or is it serious Liberal policy? Either way, it's not worthy of Dion, a man we endorsed for his party leadership on the basis of his intellectual rigour and clarity.
This is not a question of "supporting our troops," that arch-banality of modern wartime. Nor is it about patriotism. Dion has proved his devotion to Canada far more clearly than most Canadians, and certainly everyone is entitled to be unhappy about the way our soldiers are being used at any particular time.
But this is not the way to express such concern. "Wars begin when you will," Machiavelli said, "but they do not end when you choose."
So what would be the impact of setting a rigid arbitrary deadline, as the Liberals propose? Is Dion merely hoping to pressure other NATO countries into making more of an effort? Does he even care what happens to Afghanistan?
Whatever he's trying to do, his posturing reminds us not of Machiavelli but of another strategist almost 2,000 years earlier. Sun Tzu said that in war, "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." Canada's resistance to the Taliban's ruthless fanaticism seems, to judge by the Liberal position, to be at the breaking point.
No doubt the Taliban and their allies are aware NATO's biggest countries, except for the United States and Britain, have shown no stomach for sending troops to fight in Afghanistan. No doubt they're aware of the controversy and bitterness within NATO, not least in Canada. No doubt they're aware Canadians split 50-50 on the Afghan mission.
And no doubt they're hoping Dion gets the government locked into a rigid bail-out date. But we're hoping he fails.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The whole reason, in my opinion, for the recent jump in recruitment is because of the Afghan mission. The recruits want to go overseas and do something. Most people don't sign up for a minimum of 3 years to sit on their butts back home in Canada to fill sandbags for flooding rivers, and clean up streets after eastern ice storms. If the combat mission ends in 2009, that supply of interested recruits will dry up faster than a glass of water in the desert, and a whole lot that are enlisting right now, or in the recent past will take their leave as soon as their contract is up.
