NationStates Jolt Archive

According to General Rick Hillier (Canada's military leader) it will take another decade to stabilize Afghanistan

Defending his position that he believes it could take at least a decade for Afghanistan to be a stable country, Gen. Hillier was at pains to make clear he had not intended to undermine the Conservative Throne Speech earlier this month that had set out a timetable of troop withdrawal for 2009, and 2011 at the latest.

So...what does everyone think about a 2017 withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071027.HILLIER27/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/)

The Canucks have never fought a counterinsurgency war, nor has anyone else done it successfully other than our chaps.

The British estimate is that it will take 30 to 40 years of concerted military and social effort or we might as well not have bothered.

Fun times ahead.

This war is definitely worth it. Afghanistan was a wholly justified war and failure there would do nothing but tarnish the reputation of the states that worked to overthrow the Taliban and defeat Al-Qaeda in the country. We need to redouble our efforts there and make sure we win, no matter how long it takes.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, the situation would be much better and we'd have the manpower to win the forgotten war in Afghanistan.

This is not our war. This is not something Canada should be at all involved. Peace keeping, yes. Yes on rebuilding a nation. War... counter-insurgency? No way. I would refuse to pay any more taxes if this war continues. Why should my tax payer money go to fund a war that our nation gains nothing from?

This is not our war. This is not something Canada should be at all involved. Peace keeping, yes. Yes on rebuilding a nation. War... counter-insurgency? No way. I would refuse to pay any more taxes if this war continues. Why should my tax payer money go to fund a war that our nation gains nothing from?
Peacekeeping is essentially COIN. Just with a slightly different name.

Afghanistan has never been a stable place and I don't know why it should start being one now

maybe we should throw money at the problem!

Why should my tax payer money go to fund a war that our nation gains nothing from?

because its the right thing to do?

Poll added......VOTE OR DIE!!!

Get out of Iraq and send them to Afganastan andwe could cut that in half.

However long is needed.

Oh, and we should adopt the Dutch model for development and reconstruction: It works, so why not use it.

This is not our war. This is not something Canada should be at all involved. Peace keeping, yes. Yes on rebuilding a nation. War... counter-insurgency? No way. I would refuse to pay any more taxes if this war continues. Why should my tax payer money go to fund a war that our nation gains nothing from?

Although I can see where you're coming from and to a point would agree with that view of things, in this specific case I'm don't think I do.

The part I bolded is what I have trouble with. You're basically grouping Canadians (in this example, although it could equally be used with other countries) as separate from Afghans, saying "We don't gain anything so why should we help?". I realise when I put it like that I may sound ridiculous, as obviously Canada is a separate country from Afghanistan, but all the citizens of both countries are people. It's like you're saying Canadians are more important than Afghans. The Taliban is trying to gain power again, and in some areas is succeeding. The majority of the Afghan population don't want them back, but they can't stop them by themselves. If all the international forces just left Afghanistan, the Taliban could probably regain control more or less overnight. Even with those forces there it is not being held back easily, barely at all in places.

Of course there comes a point where a group (such as a country) has to become selfish and take care of itself, even if that leaves another group to die (or be subjected to something else they don't want), but Canada and many of the other countries in Afghanistan are not even close to being in that situation. I'm not sure if I agreed with the invasion there being started in the first place, but I definitely think that the Taliban has been removed once, and shouldn't be allowed to regain power, for the sake of humanity. Hopefully it won't get to a point where them being in power would be more humane than continuing to fight them. It worries me that you seem more concerned with your tax money than the lives of people in Afghanistan. If that's not what you meant then I'm sorry, but that's what it sounded like.

EDIT: In response to the poll, I would say 'as long as is needed', but the option doesn't seem to be there. Seems like it makes more sense than just pulling a number of years out of the air considering how much could happen in that time.

However long is needed.

Oh, and we should adopt the Dutch model for development and reconstruction: It works, so why not use it.

Dutch Model? What would that be?

"Stability" is far too lofty a goal. This is Afghanistan, after all.

If we can get a moderate government that's strong enough to stand on it's own two feet and fight off tribal and religious idiots, that's enough. Get that, then go.

As long as it takes to form a stable, peaceful, democratic Afghanistan, and to destroy the Taliban for good.

So quite a while.

Poll added......VOTE OR DIE!!!
Erm, not such a fan of your poll.

NATO need not have a hand in this, other than as a source of funds for the UKF to do the damned job good and proper, which would be the best way about it. Yeah, Canucks can join if they like. They're decent soldiers, and they've had friendly fire casualties from Yank airmen, too, so we're brethren. Plus their accent means that there's always a laugh aboot.

The French - *coughs* Algeria campaign.

Everyone else other than the US - never really done COIN, so meh. Don't bother. Expensive way to do not much.

The US - GTFO, please.

Stick to 'proper' wars, as in utterly annihilating everything in about 20 seconds, it's what you're good at. COIN and peacekeeping, absolutely not. Look at 'Nam and the Balkans for ample evidence of that. You guys have tons of resources for blowing things up, and seem to be a bit undercatious of using them.

Erm, not such a fan of your poll.

NATO need not have a hand in this, other than as a source of funds for the UKF to do the damned job good and proper, which would be the best way about it. Yeah, Canucks can join if they like. They're decent soldiers, and they've had friendly fire casualties from Yank airmen, too, so we're brethren. Plus their accent means that there's always a laugh aboot.

The French - *coughs* Algeria campaign.

Everyone else other than the US - never really done COIN, so meh. Don't bother. Expensive way to do not much.

The US - GTFO, please.

Stick to 'proper' wars, as in utterly annihilating everything in about 20 seconds, it's what you're good at. COIN and peacekeeping, absolutely not. Look at 'Nam and the Balkans for ample evidence of that. You guys have tons of resources for blowing things up, and seem to be a bit undercatious of using them.

But, the US is the reason we are there in the first place...they were attacked so NATO invaded...If they leave, everyone else leaves too...

But, the US is the reason we are there in the first place...they were attacked so NATO invaded...If they leave, everyone else leaves too...
No, they weren't attacked by the Afghanis, they were attacked by some silly Afghani guy who smacked a plane into a building, or so it's claimed *cough* explosives *cough*.

The US could easily pull out, and leave much more capable nations in there. The whole thing would get sorted so much bloody quicker.

The US could easily pull out, and leave much more capable nations in there. The whole thing would get sorted so much bloody quicker.

I approve of this outlook and suggest we get those British Indian Army troops up there!

I approve of this outlook and suggest we get those British Indian Army troops up there!
Bloody right. The Ghurkas at York are about to set off, and they look about as cheery as I've ever seen them (read : less glum).

No, they weren't attacked by the Afghanis, they were attacked by some silly Afghani guy who smacked a plane into a building, or so it's claimed *cough* explosives *cough*.

The US could easily pull out, and leave much more capable nations in there. The whole thing would get sorted so much bloody quicker.

AFAIK...We are in Afghanistan because the US was attacked and it was Canada's duty as a NATO member to aid the US after they were attacked...In this case help find "terrorists" in Afghanistan, so if the US leaves I think NATO should and probably will leave with them...

AFAIK...We are in Afghanistan because the US was attacked and it was Canada's duty as a NATO member to aid the US after they were attacked...In this case help find "terrorists" in Afghanistan, so if the US leaves I think NATO should and probably will leave with them...

Y'all could always withdraw from NATO. Then you wouldn't be obligated to be in Afghanistan.

Wheres the option/choice ......


for how ever long they are needed?? (like in all other situations where that are serving)

as in why should Afganastan not get the chance that other countries get to rebuild??

No, they weren't attacked by the Afghanis, they were attacked by some silly Afghani guy who smacked a plane into a building, or so it's claimed *cough* explosives *cough*.

The US could easily pull out, and leave much more capable nations in there. The whole thing would get sorted so much bloody quicker.

Does that tin-foil hat interfere with your wireless internet - or is it restricted only to government mind-reading frequencies?

You would do well to read this before you embarass yourself further;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

oh - and say 'hi' to Elvis next time you're onboard the secret government-sponsored alien-abduction ship.

because its the right thing to do?

Although I can see where you're coming from and to a point would agree with that view of things, in this specific case I'm don't think I do.

The part I bolded is what I have trouble with. You're basically grouping Canadians (in this example, although it could equally be used with other countries) as separate from Afghans, saying "We don't gain anything so why should we help?". I realise when I put it like that I may sound ridiculous, as obviously Canada is a separate country from Afghanistan, but all the citizens of both countries are people. It's like you're saying Canadians are more important than Afghans. The Taliban is trying to gain power again, and in some areas is succeeding. The majority of the Afghan population don't want them back, but they can't stop them by themselves. If all the international forces just left Afghanistan, the Taliban could probably regain control more or less overnight. Even with those forces there it is not being held back easily, barely at all in places.

Of course there comes a point where a group (such as a country) has to become selfish and take care of itself, even if that leaves another group to die (or be subjected to something else they don't want), but Canada and many of the other countries in Afghanistan are not even close to being in that situation. I'm not sure if I agreed with the invasion there being started in the first place, but I definitely think that the Taliban has been removed once, and shouldn't be allowed to regain power, for the sake of humanity. Hopefully it won't get to a point where them being in power would be more humane than continuing to fight them. It worries me that you seem more concerned with your tax money than the lives of people in Afghanistan. If that's not what you meant then I'm sorry, but that's what it sounded like.

EDIT: In response to the poll, I would say 'as long as is needed', but the option doesn't seem to be there. Seems like it makes more sense than just pulling a number of years out of the air considering how much could happen in that time.

Let me explain something, no one gains anything from war; namely from a war where the people dying are not the soldiers or the terrorists but predominantly the innocent people who are inevitably caught in the cross fire because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

People stand to gain more from reconstruction, where the emphasis is on the people and not the military.

Further, this is more of an American war; hell, it is their war and the rest of us are picking up because they got tired of this little game. From this, no one gains anything.

Many of the NATO allies are not doing fighting. Don't tell me about protecting the Afghani people when there are others who could be helping more than giving the mere pittance that they do.

You speak as though many don't support the Taliban when there are still those who do. There are plenty who hate NATO because NATO has taken more from them in the form of collateral damage than has been repaid in the form of reconstruction.

The efforts to give these people 'freedom' falls short because it doesn't fit with their cultural framework yet it is being forced on them. How is this humane? To force someone to accept something they don't want is just as inhumane as other methods. People will resist change if they are not ready.

As for my statement, consider that there are other ways of spending it to help said people that do not include bombing the fucking shit out of them. Why should the money be used for military ends instead of civilian ends? There is a big difference between complaining about tax payer dollars being used to fund a war and asserting that one group is more equal than another.

I never said no to any money being spent on reconstruction, my objection lies with funding a futile war. Defend what you have first; make it strong. You're only as strong as your weakest link. Fortify what is in NATO's control; build up everything there then spread out to take the rest back. You cannot build a nation without a solid foundation, and war only weakens that base.

The results are continuing to show the deep divisions and the fragmentations that exist. They don't work together because there is no foundation, which means no progress, which means the war is gaining nothing. The average person is gaining nothing from it because there are no concrete results with a base to build a nation on.

I would say that NATO should stay there for the next 5-10 years ideally.

Realistically and ethically, I'd say for the next 20 years.


I supported the war in Afghanistan, and I believe we have a moral/ethical obligation to help them rebuild there country and society and to institute a Democratic system there and to protect them until such a time that they can protect themselves.

We need more Democracies and allies in the area, Israel and Lebanon are hardly enough.


I do have to say though, if we had'nt gotten ourselves into the quagmire that is Iraq, we would be having alot more success, hell if Bushy boy had'nt been a jack-ass and excepted Saddam's offer to leave Iraq and give up his power there for a few billion and knowledge on nukes, which is'nt that hard to get anyhow, than we could have hit two birds with one stone so to speak.

Let me explain something, no one gains anything from war; namely from a war where the people dying are not the soldiers or the terrorists but predominantly the innocent people who are inevitably caught in the cross fire because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

People stand to gain more from reconstruction, where the emphasis is on the people and not the military.

Further, this is more of an American war; hell, it is their war and the rest of us are picking up because they got tired of this little game. From this, no one gains anything.

Many of the NATO allies are not doing fighting. Don't tell me about protecting the Afghani people when there are others who could be helping more than giving the mere pittance that they do.

You speak as though many don't support the Taliban when there are still those who do. There are plenty who hate NATO because NATO has taken more from them in the form of collateral damage than has been repaid in the form of reconstruction.

The efforts to give these people 'freedom' falls short because it doesn't fit with their cultural framework yet it is being forced on them. How is this humane? To force someone to accept something they don't want is just as inhumane as other methods. People will resist change if they are not ready.

As for my statement, consider that there are other ways of spending it to help said people that do not include bombing the fucking shit out of them. Why should the money be used for military ends instead of civilian ends? There is a big difference between complaining about tax payer dollars being used to fund a war and asserting that one group is more equal than another.

I never said no to any money being spent on reconstruction, my objection lies with funding a futile war. Defend what you have first; make it strong. You're only as strong as your weakest link. Fortify what is in NATO's control; build up everything there then spread out to take the rest back. You cannot build a nation without a solid foundation, and war only weakens that base.

The results are continuing to show the deep divisions and the fragmentations that exist. They don't work together because there is no foundation, which means no progress, which means the war is gaining nothing. The average person is gaining nothing from it because there are no concrete results with a base to build a nation on.

LOL - Riiiight. It's not like reconstruction workers were even kidnapped, killed and their corpses dragged through th streets. Not like they were decapitated or anything.

Forget about spending money on defence - we should just buy everyone puppies! Then the world would truly be a peaceful and happy place!

(starts singing - "I'd like to teach the world to sing - in perfect harmony...")

No, they weren't attacked by the Afghanis, they were attacked by some Saudi Arabian group who smacked a plane into a building, or so it's claimed *cough* explosives *cough*fixed.

as in why should Afganastan not get the chance that other countries get to rebuild??You mean the chance Iraq has?

LOL - Riiiight. It's not like reconstruction workers were even kidnapped, killed and their corpses dragged through th streets. Not like they were decapitated or anything.

Forget about spending money on defence - we should just buy everyone puppies! Then the world would truly be a peaceful and happy place!

(starts singing - "I'd like to teach the world to sing - in perfect harmony...")


Lol and its not like the some of the construction works have stole millions of the money that was meant to be used to rebuild Iraq ... if your using the old kidnapped thing then that leaves people open to say maybe the construction workers deserved it for stealing??

(and before anyone says it no im not saying the construction workers deserved to get attacked)

LOL - Riiiight. It's not like reconstruction workers were even kidnapped, killed and their corpses dragged through th streets. Not like they were decapitated or anything.

Forget about spending money on defence - we should just buy everyone puppies! Then the world would truly be a peaceful and happy place!

(starts singing - "I'd like to teach the world to sing - in perfect harmony...")

Who exactly are we "defending" against?
Afghanistan?
That country's only source of revenue is the opium trade, and its one that is overlooked by our government to allow a former ENRON employee to be its president.

Did Afghanistan attack us?
Was Bin Laden Afghani?

As for your reconstruction workers, maybe they wouldnt have been attacked if local companies were allowed to bid on projects, instead of Haliburton receiving no-bid contracts.

19 SAUDIS attacked us on 9/11, and neither afghanistan nor Iraq had any part in it, beyond sheltering a known terrorist leader, whom also happens to be Saudi.

So who exactly are we "defending against"?
Neither of those countries has, or had the capability to attack the US directly.

Are we defending against our "allies" Saudi Arabia?

Rather than going to war, Congress should have issued letters of marque and reprisal targeting the individual terrorists. Rather than expending billions of dollars and thousands of men waging war (and inadvertantly killing untold numbers of civilians in the process), we could better use our resources to go after the terrorists (and only the terrorists).

no disrespect intended to the people of afghanistan, but has it EVER been a "stable country"?

i seem to recall alexander the so called great having given it the shaft on his way to india. somewhat later one of the european nations, i don't rember if it gb or portugal or one of the others, got them into the poppy trade which was in turn used to destablize china so their tea could be ripped off cheaply, or something like that. then there was russia and the american funded talliban which has pretty much kept things messed up ever since (which may also have been the dawning place of alciada. the project of raygun's then whatever he was, rum's field.

then of course, after those 20 guys knocked down 2 1/2 buildings with 4 airplaines, sir shrubery the simple 'HAD' to send little green men over there to destroy whatever infrastructure they might otherwise have had.

(am i missing any of the major points so far?)

there was also a little incident with the tallban destroying some buddhist ruins or something, this was long after the russians were gone and before the great swindle of 2001, where brutality was rescued from the jaws of a millinium which might otherwise have been shaping up to be one of peace.

now where was i, oh yah, so the question being asked is about withdrawal of us/nato/un troops, and 'stability'.

last i heard their paralement was being kept corrupt partially with the aid of the intrests of their occupiers, but unlike other places, i don't know who or what would bennifit more by either remaining or withdrawing.

i'm no expert on the place, so i really can't say. other then it has been for a long time complicated politicly and the presence of non-afghan intrests, is, in all probability, only adding to that complexity.

i'm sure there are many instances and incidents that could be cited in which that presence has bennifited or protected someone fairly, and just as many in which it has had the opposite effect.

so in the intrest of afghanis, this presence may be a toss of the coin. in the intrest of these other nations whose forces are present there, i don't see how those are being furthered at all.

one thing, the afghan people do need, is to not be prevented from developing their own NONopium based economy and infrastructure. sorting out their political horrors, may be a monumental challange to them, but i don't quite see how any force under other then an impartial united nations directive can do other then complicate and make more intractable the issue.

=^^=
.../\...

Afghanistan has never been a stable place and I don't know why it should start being one now

It was quite a stable place until early 70s, and a moderate and progressive place too (relatively speaking) until US and USSR started meddling there to settle scores from elsewhere.

It looks bleak now because of the interference from Pakistan and the broken relationships between its major ethnic groups.

According to General Rick Hillier (Canada's military leader) it will take another decade to stabilize Afghanistan



So...what does everyone think about a 2017 withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071027.HILLIER27/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/)

What, this soon? After just destabilising the entire area further, and planning on going on that way?
I think US troops will be both in Afghanistan and Iraq well into the 2050s... they might leave in between, but be forced to return to prevent the mess they left to blow up in their faces at home.

The Canucks have never fought a counterinsurgency war, nor has anyone else done it successfully other than our chaps.

The British estimate is that it will take 30 to 40 years of concerted military and social effort or we might as well not have bothered.

Fun times ahead.

really what about Australia , i know we did good in the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation and doing good in Afghanistan for the fact they now targeting us more

LOL - Riiiight. It's not like reconstruction workers were even kidnapped, killed and their corpses dragged through th streets. Not like they were decapitated or anything.

Forget about spending money on defence - we should just buy everyone puppies! Then the world would truly be a peaceful and happy place!

(starts singing - "I'd like to teach the world to sing - in perfect harmony...")

What has increased spending got us in Afghanistan? Nothing. We are barely holding control for Karzai who can't get his shit together. Despite increased spending on military operations and equipment, the terrorists are still there and in some cases, their numbers are growing. And the answer is not to throw more money at this.

It's not cowardice to pull back a little.

There are areas that are stable. The foundation can be built there.

NATO is trying to fight on too many fronts against an enemy. By focusing efforts on one area to enhance stability, they can not only make the foundation there but show outer areas what possibilities exist. People will not resist change and will welcome NATO more readily when they see other parts of their country actually progressing with cities actually rebuilt and fewer terrorist threats.

Spreading oneself thin is a formula for failure. This is why the war will not succeed. NATO is spread thin. When spread thin, failure is one's only option because the terrorists know it's easier to strike against thinned forces.

With limited control, NATO cannot do much. Focusing on areas with moderate stability instead of forging ahead would have been better in the long run. But since our government didn't have the foresight to see this; the mission has since become something between a rock and a hard place.

As for the decapitated bit, wasn't that in Iraq? And the construction workers...?

This thread is about Afghanistan. General Hillier is the leader of the Canadian forces (and less of an asshole than any one of the Conservatives). His estimate could be right if the damn Conservatives didn't change anything and actually left this to the military. If they kept this as a military mandate, the military wouldn't be out in the middle of a volatile territory. They would have been able to stabilise the area they controlled instead of moving out with the job half finished.

The government is the reason this war is unfavourable. If they had left it to the people who know what they're doing, this war wouldn't be a fucking mess. The military would be in the best position to ensure that the success is happening. When their mission was shifted, they were unable to finish...

Anyone wonder why this war is a mess? The government munged it up!

Lol and its not like the some of the construction works have stole millions of the money that was meant to be used to rebuild Iraq ... if your using the old kidnapped thing then that leaves people open to say maybe the construction workers deserved it for stealing??

(and before anyone says it no im not saying the construction workers deserved to get attacked)

You're so ignorant you don't even know which nation is being discussed.

Go away.

fixed.
3 of them were Saudis, 1 was Afghani, squire.

And as to Australia - yeah, fine, your accents are also fairly comic, and you're kind of in the Empahr to about the same level as Canada, so go for it.

Who exactly are we "defending" against?
Afghanistan?
That country's only source of revenue is the opium trade, and its one that is overlooked by our government to allow a former ENRON employee to be its president.

Did Afghanistan attack us?
Was Bin Laden Afghani?

As for your reconstruction workers, maybe they wouldnt have been attacked if local companies were allowed to bid on projects, instead of Haliburton receiving no-bid contracts.

19 SAUDIS attacked us on 9/11, and neither afghanistan nor Iraq had any part in it, beyond sheltering a known terrorist leader, whom also happens to be Saudi.

So who exactly are we "defending against"?
Neither of those countries has, or had the capability to attack the US directly.

Are we defending against our "allies" Saudi Arabia?

What an incoherent rambling rant you have produced. Up a bit too late when you posted this?

I'll attempt to respond to what appears to be your question;

If you can recall - we recognized Afganistan's sovereignty at the beginning when we demanded they apprehend and deliver the person responsible for 9/11. They refused in every conceivable way and instead offered support to the person who attacked us. It was only then that they became an enemy. And the DID shelter and support someone who DID attack the US (which makes them just as responsible). So you see - they DID have the capacity and they DID execute upon it. The math is really not that hard.

As far as reconstruciton goes - can you even name ONE commercial Afgan construction company? Care to share the number of employees they have? How many buldozers they own? Do you also feel that any other nation which employs foreign workers has the same justification to attack them? Regardless - the funds being used to reconstruct Afganistan are not even their money - it is OURS. So no - you cannot rationalize their attacks with that - besides - even the terrorists know that argument is lame - they have never once argued that or used it as a rationalization for their attacks.

Lastly - Enron? OMFG! Everyone knows that everyone who ever worked for Enron is evil and deserves death by thumbtacks. That point is so irrelevant that I can't even fathom why you brought it up other than some form of perverse and subtle psychosis that you've never discussed with your therapist...

Rather than going to war, Congress should have issued letters of marque and reprisal targeting the individual terrorists. Rather than expending billions of dollars and thousands of men waging war (and inadvertantly killing untold numbers of civilians in the process), we could better use our resources to go after the terrorists (and only the terrorists).

Funny thing - most nations object to a large foreign military force trapseing about their territory... As Afganistan clearly did - or else the US troops would have been invited instead of resisted...

It was quite a stable place until early 70s, and a moderate and progressive place too (relatively speaking) until US and USSR started meddling there to settle scores from elsewhere.

It looks bleak now because of the interference from Pakistan and the broken relationships between its major ethnic groups.

LOL. Yes - it is all Russia and America's fault. Before then Afganistan was a utopia with butterflies and free lolipops for everyone!

What has increased spending got us in Afghanistan? Nothing. We are barely holding control for Karzai who can't get his shit together. Despite increased spending on military operations and equipment, the terrorists are still there and in some cases, their numbers are growing. And the answer is not to throw more money at this.

It's not cowardice to pull back a little.

There are areas that are stable. The foundation can be built there.

NATO is trying to fight on too many fronts against an enemy. By focusing efforts on one area to enhance stability, they can not only make the foundation there but show outer areas what possibilities exist. People will not resist change and will welcome NATO more readily when they see other parts of their country actually progressing with cities actually rebuilt and fewer terrorist threats.

Spreading oneself thin is a formula for failure. This is why the war will not succeed. NATO is spread thin. When spread thin, failure is one's only option because the terrorists know it's easier to strike against thinned forces.

With limited control, NATO cannot do much. Focusing on areas with moderate stability instead of forging ahead would have been better in the long run. But since our government didn't have the foresight to see this; the mission has since become something between a rock and a hard place.

As for the decapitated bit, wasn't that in Iraq? And the construction workers...?

This thread is about Afghanistan. General Hillier is the leader of the Canadian forces (and less of an asshole than any one of the Conservatives). His estimate could be right if the damn Conservatives didn't change anything and actually left this to the military. If they kept this as a military mandate, the military wouldn't be out in the middle of a volatile territory. They would have been able to stabilise the area they controlled instead of moving out with the job half finished.

The government is the reason this war is unfavourable. If they had left it to the people who know what they're doing, this war wouldn't be a fucking mess. The military would be in the best position to ensure that the success is happening. When their mission was shifted, they were unable to finish...

Anyone wonder why this war is a mess? The government munged it up!

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20071029/API/710290607

and... government munges up everything - you just figured that out?

Y'all could always withdraw from NATO. Then you wouldn't be obligated to be in Afghanistan.

I don't want Canada to leave NATO...we went to Afghanistan because the US was attacked and we were obligated to help them (they'd do the same for us)...but if the victim of the attack says "forget it, lets leave" then the US' NATO allies would and should also leave...

LOL. Yes - it is all Russia and America's fault. Before then Afganistan was a utopia with butterflies and free lolipops for everyone!

umm yeah....

Before the US and the Russians intervened Afghanistan wasn't the shithole it is now

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan#Reigns_of_Nadir_Shah_and_Zahir_Shah_.281929-1973.29)

I don't want Canada to leave NATO...we went to Afghanistan because the US was attacked and we were obligated to help them (they'd do the same for us)...but if the victim of the attack says "forget it, lets leave" then the US' NATO allies would and should also leave...

Why not? NATO is useless now anyway, and Canadians don't seem to like Afghanistan.

NATO should be dissolved. And any other US and Canadian military cooperation ended.

LOL. Yes - it is all Russia and America's fault. Before then Afganistan was a utopia with butterflies and free lolipops for everyone!

Yes. CIA even designed and printed jihadi literature in US and shipped to Afg for distribution.

Primary responsibility for fucking that nation over rests with US, FSU and Pakistan in that order.

Yes. CIA even designed and printed jihadi literature in US and shipped to Afg for distribution.

Primary responsibility for fucking that nation over rests with US, FSU and Pakistan in that order.

Sorry, but you are, in fact, quite wrong.

The US did support the popular uprising against the socialist government, providing some weapons and propaganda resources. But this was hardly much more than some cast-offs and spares - and they did it primarily to hack off the USSR, which supported the government of the time.

However, it should be remembered that the rebellion really was a popular one. The pro-Soviet government was quite unpopular with it's own people, and the tribal leaders were completely fed up with it. The US didn't manufacture anything - they didn't need to.

SOP in the big USA-USSR chess game that was the Cold War was for one side to support one faction, then the other side would up the support they were giving to the other faction. Instead, the USSR murdered the Afghan President, took the legislature under their "protection", and invaded the place with the stated intention of annexation.

Of course, the US couldn't believe their luck, and promptly gave the Mujahideen all the help they could handle.

Likewise, when they decided they couldn't tolerate the Taliban, the US didn't just go in and destroy the place. Instead, they put their resources behind the Northern Alliance, and supported an already existing force to take control.

You can keep blaming the USA if you want to. It's the popular thing to do, after all. Or you can actually look at what happened.

Five years sounds reasonable.

What, this soon? After just destabilising the entire area further, and planning on going on that way?
I think US troops will be both in Afghanistan and Iraq well into the 2050s... they might leave in between, but be forced to return to prevent the mess they left to blow up in their faces at home.
US troops have been in Germany and Japan for 62 years now, you know. Doesn't seem unrealistic to me.

But stationed there as part of our overseas force, not engaging in combat.

The US did support the popular uprising against the socialist government, providing some weapons and propaganda resources. But this was hardly much more than some cast-offs and spares -

LOL. Several BILLION dollars were given to Pakistanis to run the jihad. And I am sure all those stinger missiles just came out of nowhere...lol.

Read Ghost Wars.

and they did it primarily to hack off the USSR, which supported the government of the time.

that's why I am blaming the FSU too...Former Soviet Union/ USSR.



However, it should be remembered that the rebellion really was a popular one. The pro-Soviet government was quite unpopular with it's own people, and the tribal leaders were completely fed up with it. The US didn't manufacture anything - they didn't need to.

The USSR was lured into a trap set by US. Revenge for Vietnam.

Of course, the US couldn't believe their luck, and promptly gave the Mujahideen all the help they could handle.

Errrrrr...that's why I am saying US and USSR fucked that place. You seem to argue against that in the beginning and in the end you are agreeing with me.

You can keep blaming the USA if you want to. It's the popular thing to do, after all. Or you can actually look at what happened.

Stop being silly. I quite like the USA. That's why I migrated here. But that doesn't mean everything that US did or is doing is the greatest thing beyond criticism.

LOL. Several BILLION dollars were given to Pakistanis to run the jihad. And I am sure all those stinger missiles just came out of nowhere...lol.

Read Ghost Wars.


that's why I am blaming the FSU too...Former Soviet Union/ USSR.




The USSR was lured into a trap set by US. Revenge for Vietnam.


Errrrrr...that's why I am saying US and USSR fucked that place. You seem to argue against that in the beginning and in the end you are agreeing with me.



Stop being silly. I quite like the USA. That's why I migrated here. But that doesn't mean everything that US did or is doing is the greatest thing beyond criticism.

Nor do I believe it is. The US has done some seriously fucked up stuff, and some seriously stupid stuff too. The support for the overthrow of the Allende regime comes to mind, and the failure to support Ho Chi Minh.

But to blame the US for fucking up Afghanistan is simply inaccurate. I have read Ghost Wars, as it happens - and then checked up on it's assertions. To be frank, it's timeline is seriously skewed. The US spent less than five million dollars on Afghanistan in the year before the Soviet invasion - the "billions of dollars" you speak of did not start until the Soviets made their annexation attempt. Heck, it wasn't until the third year of the conflict that the CIA started supplying Stingers - before that they were supplying British-made Blowpipe Missiles, a significantly inferior weapon they eventually abandoned altogether.

Did the US HOPE the Soviets would invade Aghanistan? Sure. But they didn't make it happen, and if the Soviets had stuck to SOP, they wouldn't have had any sort of problem.

Ultimately, all the US did was supply a local force with the ability to resist a much larger aggressor. To me, that's just the opposite of fucking over a country.

The support for the overthrow of the Allende regime comes to mind, and the failure to support Ho Chi Minh.
I still refuse to accept Ho Chi Minh City as an acceptable substitute for Saigon.

I place the vast majority of the blame for Afghanistan's situation on the shoulders of the Former Soviet Union.

As for a permanent US presence in Afghanistan... if this presence is more analagous to the US bases in Germany, it might actually be a good idea. Remember that Afghanistan is in a rather strategic position in Central Asia. It's been fought over for centuries. Perhaps Kabul could become the headquarters for the US West Asia Command.

I still refuse to accept Ho Chi Minh City as an acceptable substitute for Saigon.

From what I've heard, most people who live there still call it Saigon. Only the official name has changed.

Sooner or later things always return to their proper names. Look at St.Petersburg.