A month ago I brought to your attention the general disatisfaction amongst Canadians with the lack of support we are getting with Nato allies in Afghanistan and our undue share of theburden
Well the shit has now hit the fan. Looks like our prime minister who was a hawk for Afghanistan is fed up with the lack of Nato support and rebuffs to his pleas for more help including another 1000 fightable troops from Gates if neccessary. We are pulling out folks, watch for the rest of the fighting Nato allies to pull out as well
So what does Gates do? Criticizes ours and British operations in Kandahar ! He can’t seem to get the Germans to pony up so he goes after us.
That’s a secret down here. We’re all too giddy with the success of the ‘surge’ in Iraq to want our news sources bringing us down with tales of woe in the actual war on terror.
Most countries in NATO refuse to allow their troops be involved in combat situations, or even do any work in dangerous areas. Canada’s one of the few countries to will work in dangerous areas, so we take the vast majority of the casualties.
One might think so, but one would apparently be wrong. No one trusts the US government to lead in this war or any other competently. This is one of the costs of our utterly disastrous foreign policy under Bush II. Shame too, as this was a war that might have been winnable, and worth fighting.
I don’t blame any NATO countries for staying out of it, nor will I be upset with Canada for getting out of it.
Hold on… I’m not following the part about Gates criticizing Canada. I’ve been under the impression that Gates and the Canadian government are on the same page in pressing other countries to drop their deployment restrictions. Can the OP point out where Gates has criticized Canada?
Canada’s superb albeit small and chronically under funded light infantry has been tasked with a mission that is on scale greater than their sum capabilities. They are unable to conduct effective counterinsurgency operations due to limited troop levels and a lack of mission critical assets. Insufficient equipment tends to make commanders risk adverse, and rightly so. Over time these on ground limitations have evolved into strong restrictions in regard to which operations their forces are authorized to undertake. Our high class buddies from the north have been gnawing on the proverbial shit sandwich since 2001. So have all other donor states. Let’s all cry.
Let me make sure I’m understanding this - Canada is involved in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the US on Sept. 11, 2001. Rather than focus on the actual terrorists responsible for these attacks, the US military machine chose to split their forces between Afghanistan, where the terrorist were, and a concocted, illegal war in Iraq. Canada refused to participate in the illegal war in Iraq. Now the US Secretary of Defense is criticizing our participation in the war in the country where the US should have also been concentrating their military might?
Good but incomplete. The British, at least, have been complaining that the Americans are contributing to losing the Afghan war by too many indiscriminate airstrikes that kill civilians. This is costing them the “hearts and minds” part of the war. I’m not sure what the Canadians have publicly said about American airstrikes, but I understand they’ve lost a number fo soldiers to “friendly” bombs.
I don’t really dwell on the legality of great moral crimes in general, especially when it comes to fuzzy international “law.” But I ask this in all honesty: what characteristics of the invasion and our continued occupation of Afghanistan make it “legal” as compared to Iraq?
I don’t know shit about international law, but I think that the whole “harbouring terrorists who launched several attacks on the United States” would make for a valid pretext for war.
It is at least arguable that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was in response to a direct attack on the United States on 9/11. The Afghani government may or may not have provided material support for the attack, but they certainly sheltered those responsible for the attack after the fact. There was widespread international support for the US response as a matter of self-defense.
I think Americans are vaguely aware that Canadians are in Afghanistan and are vaguely grateful. Also kind of scratching our heads as to why you would send your children to die for a group of men in Washington who can’t even seem to bumblefuck their way into Virginia.
Of course we wonder why we send our own kids.
I’m no pacifist by any means but we have no business in this place in 2008. None.
If your Prime Minister had his button pushed by Gates then praise the Lord and keep the heat on. Get your boys home.
For one thing, the Afghan government wants foreign troops there, and the International Security Assistance Force (the multinational force which is basically charged with getting Afghanistan put back together) is subject to annual approval by the United Nations.
