But Dobbin's got this one right

Yes, Dobbin's area of expertise is writing extreme Left-wing polemics about social issues or anything else he can find to embarrass the neocons.

But he hasn't needed to be an expert in foreign affairs to write the article above. All he's had to do is research the MSM and bring together widely available commentary and analysis already reported by quite conservative authors. Even a usually gullible American public is catching on.

By now, there are few, if any, knowledgeable people who think that either Afghanistan or Iraq is about "Bringing freedom and Democracy to the people" or that either is about anything other than oil.

And the consensus is rapidly growing that neither war is winnable at any cost.

So why has Harper dragged us into Afghanistan? Write on Murray - I'm willing to listen.

More

Come to think of it, why does Harper support the Yank's also unwinnable wars against Drugs and Terrorism? Does he too have reasons that are very different than the ones he gives?

Drugs?

The Taliban quashed opium production, and this inconvenienced western economies....?

Lost me on the last line

I am so tired of politicians (lets not pretend that Mr Dobbin is anything more or less than a politician) re-writing history for their own purposes. When he demands a return to, "the traditional peacekeeping role of Canada's military" I lose a huge chunk of respect for what he said leading up to that statement. Our military has been heavily involved in peacekeeping but it is not the raison d'etre nor is it the most prominent role of Canadian forces in the historical record. By displaying such a profound misunderstanding of the historical record how are we supposed to trust his analysis of the current situation?

The author is saying nothing

The author is saying nothing new; these things and more have been reported by other news agencies in the last half a dozen years. As for the drug trade, it has been a cash-cow not only for the warlords and people in the Afghani Government but the CIA. As happened in Vietnam the CIA was heavily involved in the drug trade out of the Burma Triangle to sponser non-reported activities to Congress. They are doing exactly the same in Afghanistan. As for war itself; the warmongers don't want to have a winner or a loser, they want the war to go on for as long as possible so the military-industrial complex can make huge profits. Don't believe me, just bone-up on your history, and the real stuff, not the 'Shirley Temple' crap that is pooped out by our mass-media. A couple of years ago the BBC did an expose on Preston Bush (yes that's right, the grandfather of the present US President) and his tie-in with the German high command during WW2. Isn't it strange that article was not repeated on this side of the Atlantic.

Helping Stevie "punch above his weight"

The Harperites, and for some unaccountable reason, the Libs keep on backing the extension of this stupid conflict.

In a time of economic crisis, our money is going toward the purchase of American arms - their only viable industry at the moment. Even if the Cons get kicked out on their butts in the next election, this bloody conflict to protect a pipeline will go on for about three and a half more years (end of 2011).

How many more lives and how much more money will be wasted on this U.S. imperialist war?

The Canadian public was barely behind this war to start off with, and that was when they were being fed lies to support it. Now as more truth filters out, the resistance is growing.

In the U.S., you can withhold taxes if you don't support a war, as a Unitarian minister and his wife have been doing since the Vietnam debacle.

I wonder how many wars to support Harper's ego we would be fighting if his "base" had to pay for them all?

Right on, Murray.

Murray has it right, but he pretty much stands alone in the wind, save for a few smart profs over at Global Research Media.

When Harper's fancy schmantzy star-studded (make-me-gag-Pamela Walden) panel was called to investigate our participation in Afghanistan, I contacted a few MSM news organizations and (so-called "left wing" ones, included) journalists suggesting that now was the time to admit and make a huge media stink to the confused Canadian public that we're in Afghanistan merely to support the American's demand for oil and to help our own Daddy Warbucks companies make blood money of off armaments. To be expected, my comments were rebuffed as though I were a kooknut, or, more telling, received with dead silence.

Worse yet, I recall only 1 or 2 other fellow citizens also bothered to call and write into programs to and say the same thing. Those thoughtful and concerned callers were ignored, reviled, ridiculed. I wonder if the Canadian public will still be be laughing 5 or 8 years hence, when it will be painfully obvious as inflation soars that Afghanistan is our own, shameful little Vietnam - a useless, exorbitant, tax-wasteful affair, meant only to line the pockets of the war mongering corporations who keep pushing for it knee-dip in our manure-enriched parliament.

Truth is, Canadians are as dumb (and selfishly absorbed) as a herd of wooly headed sheep wandering in a richly-fertilized field, and as sheep are bound to do, as long as the media keeps feeding them the grassy line about what a "great" country they have and how we are "teaching little girls to read," they'll keep swallowing it without so much as a "baa."

Paul Martin "dragged" us

Paul Martin "dragged" us into Afghanistan not Harper and please let us recall that it is a NATO mission authorized by the UN.

Whatever relations that USA had with the Taliban, giving safe harbour to people who killed 2900 American put an end to that. Sometimes it is that a simple.

The pipeline canard gets trotted pretty frequently by the "say anything" anti-war crowd but if the war is going that badly then building a pipeline seems moot.

Mr Dobbin catalogues some of the risk and the bad news he doesn't touch the success stories. It is one sided article to say the least.

What success stories?

From my reading is this report, there aren't any.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/documents/Afghanistan_on_the_brink

Murray is right on - and the responsibility is Harper's not Paul Martin's.

Harper has been in power way too long to use that excuse - he's there because he wants to be there, not because Paul Martin tied his hands.

You may recall this came to a vote in the House of Commons.

The Facts are There-What's the Next Step?

I generally agree with Mr. Dobbin's thesis that Mr Harper wishes a future where Canada becomes further integrated economically, militarily, politically, socially with the US. Nothing that Mr Dobbin says is new. The Harper and NATO/Afghanistan agendas have been well known. His mentors are Americans, and some Canadians from the University of Calagary's departments of history and political science who have written extensively on their neocon and pro American views. The facts are there and have been for awhile.

What is concerning is how few Canadians understand the Harper agenda or the importance of stopping it before it is irreversible.

Last week a senior UN official lamented that most influential and affluent countries are presently interested in war; they have invested heavily in arms and armies. He went on to say that none of the worlds leading countries seemed interested in peace. None, including Canada were pushing for peace. In other words the political culture of important world leaders and their political elites currently encompasses a very large dollop of militarism. Harper's desire for a more 'robust' military has, undeniably, contributed to this retrograde state of affairs.

War Economy Looming

The news over the past several months has been ominous. Multi-billion dollar purchases of helicopters, predator drones, and laser weapons designed to temporarily blind people:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/helicopters-military.html
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=677f248c-7329-4a9e-bb40-3117dda52169

Canada may not have a military industrial-complex yet, but if we proceed according to Harper's agenda, we'll need one soon...

Dear Murray Dobbin This is

Dear Murray Dobbin

This is article of yours is a little puzzling in terms of your rationale.

You state "The initial invasion was justified on the basis of destroying al-Qaeda, a loosely organized force of no more than 300 fighters. The Taliban government, as hideous and deeply reviled as it was, had nothing to do with 9-11."

I am not sure where you were at the time of the inavsion but you obviously weren't near any media sources at all because if you were those 300 fighters you speak of took on a huge army and kept them at bay for days, even weeks and only after using state-of-the-art western made weaponry, aircraft and comminication systems were they able to beat them back, and still not successfully because they have taken credit for some of the most damaging attacks in Afghanistan to this day.

There were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and they were training terrorists to attack western targets.

You said "Meanwhile, the conflict and its "war on terror" rationale are being used to justify massive increases in military spending, completely distorting the role of government and the spending priorities of Canadians."

Our Canadian military went their wearing green colored army fatigues thereby paiting bullseye's on their backs. "used to justify massive increases in military spending, completely distorting the role of government"??? They didn't even have uniforms to wear or the proper vehicles. We couldn't have fought a war with pigmies never mind rabid terrorists!!

"Right now the Canadian military are riding high, arrogant and confident that their new war-fighting role as junior partner to the U.S. empire, and their new billions in spending money".

Murray,you have not done one iota of research into our Canadian military and the fact we fell into such a horrendous state of affairs under the Liberals we couldn't even meet our basic NATO requirments. "Right now the Canadian military are riding high, arrogant and confident that their new war-fighting role" did you know we have to rent U.S, planes to ferry our equipment because we are so illequiped.

Basically what you are doing is advocating the abandonment ofour contractual
obligations with NATO while at the same time promoting the strategy of leaving terrorists alone. Do you know who would promote that strategy as well. I'll give you a hint, his name starts with the letter "Bin"..oops I mean "b".

You have plenty of mud to sling but a five year old kid can do that, because unless you can offer a system, government or strategy other than the one that is working rather well right now, you are just another crack-pot with an axe to grind. You belong with Canwest, CTV or CBC because there, with your Liberal cronies, you'll find plenty of solace.

Tradition and Conservatism

It's a sweet irony that Conservatives, who as conservatives ought to be protecting our past successes and building on them, have chosen to junk those successes and to take leaps into the dark.

The problems in Afghanistan (where today we lost our 90th Canadian) reflect a larger problem with Harper's government: A total failure to grasp the concept of foreign policy.

For these guys, Gatineau is The Mysterious East. A weekend in Las Vegas amounts to interplanetary travel. Whatever domestic failures they've accomplished, their international failures are orders of magnitude greater.

So the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon was a "measured response" even when it killed Canadian citizens and a Canadian Forces officer serving in UNIFIL.

So Canada took a moralistic position on China's human rights policy, despite China's role as provider of consumer goods and immigrants.

So Canada has just axed its pathetic little cultural-promotion program, which sent Canadian artists and writers overseas to help others understand who and what we are.

And so Canada has stupidly followed the already-discredited policies of Bush's administration, when even the Americans now consider him an embarrassment they'd rather not talk about.

Who would think that these clean-cut guys in good suits, with advanced degrees in economics and other important subjects, would turn out to be such hicks?

Afcanada

Dobbin collates the info available to anyone with eyes that can see, and wonders why on Earth are we over there.

Because our leadership is sadly lacking in foreign affairs know-how and seeks only to please George Bush (also sadly lacking in foreign affairs know-how).

We will continue to lose warriors unnecessarily in Afghanistan until Canada is prepared to spend taxes on the role which the natural evolution of Foreign Affairs has opened up for us, which is Peacekeeping.

We have excellent warriors in our armed forces, who punch well above our weight, and that fact alone makes us the prime choice for the more difficult task of "maintaining the right" than mere subjugation of a deemed "enemy."

Dopey

Crawford wrote:

hmmmmm....Crawford, you owe an apology to hicks everywhere....of which I am proudly one. ;-) These Calgary School Reformers ain't no conservatives...either big or small C....and sorry but since when did "a good suit" make a man good? And I think Ed Deak would tell ya that not one of the degrees these guys hold in economics could ever be seriously termed "advanced". More like seriously flawed and seriously dangerous.

...as for the neither here nor there "clean-cut" suggestion:

Tom Robbins once wrote:

Afghanistan - why are we there, again?

By supporting the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, Canada created the opportunity for the U.S. to invade Iraq. Our presence in Afghanistan is commendable, but we are keeping bad company there.

There have been several "American plans to bring democracy to the Middle East". The first in modern times put the Shah into Iran, in direct conflict with a democratically elected government.

Cowboy diplomacy belongs in Hollywood and George W. Bush belongs in The Hague, with other war criminals. Does that sound too radical? How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion? About the same number as died in Bosnia, thanks to the leadership of Milsovic and Karadic. So what is the difference?

The first Canadian casualties in Afghanistan were caused by Lt. Harry Schmidt, when he dropped a 500-lb bomb on them. The latest casualty was from more "friendly fire" by a "military contractor". We used to call them mercenaries, or soldiers of fortune. It is wonderful how the English language has been preverted by the White House, isn't it?

George Patton said that the only honourable death for a soldier such as he, would be to die from the last bullet fired in the war. he meant it to be taken figuratively, but it could equally well be applied, figuratively of course, to U.S. presidents who start wars by lying to their own people. How evil can you get, and still retain credibility and support?

lynn

Are the "Calgary School Reformers" like the Chicago Boys?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein

Afghanistan

This is the militarization of Canada.This is Harper's little experiment to see how well we can do as an aggressor in the world.This is the same bunch that sent some inuit with enfield rifles on patrol and thinks it's protecting Canadian sovereignty.Just who told these neo cons Canadians wanted to be an aggressive military power?We are propping up a corrupt and unpopular US puppet government to help protect a pipeline carrying baltic oil.It's all about oil and American Imperialism.The rest is just window dressing.Those who can't see that deserve Stephen Harper and his born again politics of religious dogma.

War of the Worlds

Most of the critics fail to understand the imperatives of national security or have worked in any national security function. They fail to understand how important it is for Canada to play a strong role in the Afghanistan campaign in order to enhance its role in international peacekeeping.

Peacekeeping is useless unless there is a peace to keep. Canada's successive generations of soft left thinking have infected our foreign policy. The misconception that being the 'nice Canadian guy' who is the 'honest broker' and oozing with moral superiority makes any real difference in the face of a global terrorism threat.

It's important that Canadians realize the strategic importance of Afghanistan and how a disruption of our oil supplies will harm our economy and society. Of course, there are many on the left who would love to see an oil disruption and welcome such chaos as a way to impose their vision of an ascetic lifestyle on the rest of us.

And practically speaking, if Canada wants to protect itself from terrorism and share intelligence with the US it has to ante up and put troops on the ground. Luckily, we have smart people in govt who work at this daily and understand how the real world of national security works.

Bobby Peru

Since you apparently understand the nuances of national security better than the rest of us, could you please explain what threat Canada is under from Afghanistan?

Which terrorists are itching to get across our borders?

What oil supplies could we possibly need given the huge quantities our provincial neighbours to the east have squirreled away in their tar sands?

What leftists are threatening to impose the habits of Trappist monks upon the Canadian populace?

Who exactly are these 'smart' people in government you are so enamored with?

Details, please, details.

Oh, and while you're at it, when was it that the 'soft' left was in power in Ottawa?

I must have missed it.

@doggone link didn't work

@doggone link didn't work for me but I reckon it was a truther site. Sorry I'd just a soon debate an evangelical about god.

Lloyd Axworthy was pretty soft left when it came to foreign policy.

Also we are and have been in a defensive alliance for 40 years. One of allies allies was attacked and 2900 were killed from people who trained in Afghanistan. That is the threat. Looks bad when you quit a deal when it comes to pay.

It isn't about oil.

So it was Afghanistan that flew the planes into the Trade Centre

Thanks for clearing that up Gray. And how long was it that Lloyd Axeworthy was our Prime Minister?

I must have missed his ‘regime’.

The debate about the genesis of the war(s) in both Iraq and Afghanistan is going on - vociferously and widely - in the United States.

Would it be unfair to suggest that a similar debate about our own involvement might be a good idea?

As for paying, we've lost another soldier in country today.

I think, when the exercise kills your countrymen and women, has had few if any signs of success and is using up bushels of assets every day, that it might be time to reconsider.

A great many Americans think exactly the same thing too.

Colonial history

It's also important to recognize that Canada is a country was built on colonial violence and occupation and continues to survive through colonial violence waged against indigenous peoples in Canada. Thus, our role in Afghanistan is not so out of character.

"the Canadian way of doing things"

Canada’s Priorities
Signature projects

For the next three years, Canada will focus on a targeted set of objectives in keeping with proven Canadian strengths and consistent with Afghan objectives and the efforts of the international community.

The first four priorities focus primarily on Kandahar. Canada will help the Government of Afghanistan to:

* maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police, and supporting complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections.
* provide jobs, education, and essential services, like water.
* provide humanitarian assistance to people in need, including refugees.
* enhance the management and security of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Nationally, Canada will help:

* build Afghan institutions that are central to our Kandahar priorities and support democratic processes such as elections.
* contribute to Afghan-led political reconciliation efforts aimed at weakening the insurgency and fostering a sustainable peace.

As Canada transforms its engagement in Afghanistan, our Kandahar-focused programming will comprise more than 50 per cent of our total effort, and more and more funding will be directed toward efforts to benefit the people of that province.

Humanitarian Assistance

One of Canada’s six priorities for moving forward on Afghanistan is to help the Afghan Government provide humanitarian assistance to vulnerable residents in Kandahar province. This includes refugees and refugees who have recently returned to the country, widows, female-headed households and those displaced by violence or natural disasters. Canada will be contributing up to $111 million* over the next three years to help the Government of Afghanistan provide humanitarian assistance in Kandahar. Initiatives will include:

* Food aid for vulnerable populations in Kandahar, including: refugees, drought-affected families, civilians affected by conflict, refugees who have returned to the country, and internally displaced persons. This will be delivered through the World Food Programme;
* Non-food aid (blankets, kitchen utensils, and more) for vulnerable populations in Kandahar;
* Vaccinations (polio, measles, and tetanus) and promoting greater access to basic health services. This includes Canada’s signature polio eradication project (up to $60 million*), which is expected to immunize seven million children under the age of five and help close the gap to eliminating the disease in Afghanistan by 2009; and,
* The clearance of mines in Kandahar and the provision of education and training on landmines to local populations.

http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/priorities-priorites/index.aspx?lang=eng

Not a terribly reliable or trustworthy source

Why not look at this:
http://newsdaily.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5494

OR this:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34654

Or this:
http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/Reduce/CanadaInAfghanistan.htm

And, please, could we address the somewhat confused impression I'm getting from those critics who claim this is anti-terrorism and security issue with one side of their face while maintaining that Canada is only there to save women and educate children with the other.

G West

Even I am little surprised by your statements G West.

I by no means agree with much you say but in most cases you have something to contribute and its usually based on some facts and you say it fairly intelligently but what you said here is just plain wrong and really out there.

How could you think that by stating something so far fetched could help our nation? I just can't get my head around why someone like yourself would say something so outlandish

You said ;

"Which terrorists are itching to get across our borders?"

Under the Liberal government we saw the Canadian government open the flood gates to terrorists.

From comments made by Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) deputy director of operations Jack Hooper

"I can tell you that all of the circumstances that led to the London transit bombings, to take one example, are resident here now in Canada," he said.

"Training camps in Afghanistan produce terrorists, said Hooper, including a Canadian resident who played a key role in an earlier attack.

"The individual who trained the bombers in the August 1998 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi was a former resident of Vancouver who fought in Afghanistan," he said.

That is a good reason for Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan, he said.

Hooper, who complained about cuts in funding, says it is difficult to properly screen immigrant applicants.

"Of the roughly 20,000 from the Pakistani-Afghanistan region, Hooper said CSIS could only vet about "one-tenth."

G West, I am curious about people's conscience or lack thereof. What were the Liberal's thinking when they allowed
this to happen? How were they going to profit by this?

In 1998 the director of CSIS told a special committee of the Canadian Parrliament that members of more than 50 international terrorist groups were living here. "With perhaps the singular exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist groups active here than in any other country," testified CSIS Director Ward Elcock.

Unless you are purposely trying to stir the pot,I would tone down the support for allowing sanctuary to terrorists.

The Posse

Which terrorists are itching to come across Canada's borders?

It's a simple question, please name some.

All you've quoted above are 'political' statments from people with an apparent axe to grind.

As to the credibility of Ward Elcock, might I bring the following forward for your consideration:

http://www.maherarar.ca/the%20inquiry%20today%20more.php?id=A12_0_19_0_M

And, if you care to take the time, please refer back to the history of the CSIS investigation of the only terrorist attack that has ever happened to Canadians.

Perhaps you've forgotten Air India. As I recall that little shindig happened under the watch of, wait for it, Brian Mulroney, whose government was, if you know your history, warned time and again by the government of India that Sikh independence fighters were planning to target Air India flights.

On the other hand, I make no apologies for the Liberals who were in power when the kidnapping and rendition of Maher Arar took place.

I'm not deliberately stirring anything, I'm suggesting that a lot of people - you included apparently - don't know what they're talking about.

Over to you.

G West

You said:

"Which terrorists are itching to come across Canada's borders?

It's a simple question, please name some.

"All you've quoted above are 'political' statments from people with an apparent axe to grind."

You are right and I was wrong.I said;

"..in most cases you have something to contribute and its usually based on some facts and you say it fairly intelligently'

I was dead wrong.

You can read more "political" statements here

"Canada turns into terrorist haven; terrorists have been streaming into Canada because of highly permissive immigration policies and lax laws that allow them to raise money for extremist organizations"
http://tinyurl.com/68d6gl

But while you're at it

You might want to look into John Berlau's record as a credible writer and thinker a little more closely.

You might especially enjoy this title of his:
Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health

Great source of information about terrorism in Canada!

R/Man

Even there was even a shred of reality to this fantasy you've just woven, the "noble" USofA would have taken on China decades ago, instead of "venting" on Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic......

While we're at it

The Algerian man convicted of plotting to blow up the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium was sentenced Wednesday to 22 years in prison.

Ahmed Ressam got a lighter sentence than prosecutors had requested, reflecting his cooperation in telling international investigators about the workings of terror camps in Afghanistan.

Ressam was arrested in Port Angeles in December 1999 as he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of bomb-making materials.

...and, of course

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The ringleader of the infamous July 2005 London transit bombings that killed 52 Britons attended the same terrorist training camp as Momin Khawaja, the Ottawa software designer's trial has been told.

Mohammed Siddiqui Khan was identified in testimony last week as one of several British Muslims who spent time at the camp in the remote Malakand region of northern Pakistan in the summer of 2003.

G West

You brought up (and most appropriately) The Air India fiasco.

To put it bluntly, many people (and perhaps even some on this thread) don't consider it a 'terrorist' act, because the victims weren't white.

It has been speculated on many times before now, on how the RCMP investigation may have gone, had it been 331 white people killed.

Not forgetting

At the time of the arrests, he was already serving a two year sentence on weapons smuggling charges. He was caught bringing guns across the U.S. border to Canada. Border patrol agents found two loaded guns strapped to his legs. He was born in Somalia and immigrated with his mother to Canada. He was sentenced with Yasim Abdi Mohamed for gun smuggling.

RickW

Looking for shreds? Do you know your history?

Taft's outspoken isolationism and opposition to any American involvement in the European war convinced many Republican leaders that he could not win a general election, particularly as France fell to the Nazis in May 1940 and Germany threatened Britain.

wiki

What had occured to bring about this change? Its name is etched in infamy - Pearl Harbor.

Americans were now convinced that their countries future was inextricably interwoven with the rest of the world. Their nation was clearly under threat from the aggression of the Axis alliance. Even in the early stages of the war public support was high for 'some kind of international organization for peace'. By 1945 support for an embryo U.N. reached 90% [Ibid pp.20,28] WWII clearly, '- changed the physce, as well as the face, of the United States.'

© 1993-2008, Nicholas Klar, PO Box 280, Brighton SA 5048, AUSTRALIA

Nicholas Klar, 1993, "The U.S. - From Isolation to Intervention"

have you been following the discussion at all realisticman

The allegation was that there were hundreds, nay thousands of 'terrorists' threatening peace order and good government here in Canada.

The Toronto group you mention (to which I already referred and for whom most of the charges have already been stayed or thrown out) were Canadians - remember, as were the terrorists who brought down Air India.

Not a shred of evidence has been advanced to suggest that Canada is a haven for foreign terrorist plotters conspiring to sow mayhem in the countryside.

It's simply another fevered figment of the fruitive collective imagination promoted by professional haters like Mark Steyn and pee wee Rambo.

Furthermore, not a single respondent has addressed the mixed message of the Canadian programme in Afghanistan. Are we there to help the locals or kick scumbag butt?

C'mon, which is it?

Afcanada

What is happening in Afghanistan (and Iraq and the rest of the mid-east area) is definitely NOT a war of liberation whose purpose is to bring freedom to the people.

The two World Wars (and some of the others) were fought in order for people to achieve self-determination. That is not the case now. These modern wars are secretively and imaginatively sponsored, powered by blackmail, staffed by private enterprise, and have no effect on the western countries involved (no rationing, no conversion of factories to war production, little publicity, nothing to make the populace uncomfortable and eager for resolution of the dispute).

But people still die, and some by friendly fire and many others as collateral damage.

There can be no doubt that if there were no oil, no gas, no pipeline (established or planned) there would be no war.

It is a shameful resort to the tragedy of 9/11 trying to justify our government's involvement in being used as the catspaw to rake the Bush chestmuts out of the fire.

R/Man

And a US oil embargo of Japan, doesn't figure at all in this?

As for terrorist threats to Canada, well I suppose it IS better to live under a dictatorship in the naive attempt to prevent an incursion onto Canadain soil, than to live in a democracy that believes in the quaint notion of being "innocent until proven guilty".........

graffiti on a wall somewhere

.... don't remember who said it or where I read it but it went something like this:

"The best way to fight terrorism is to NOT instigate it in the first place."

Canada under Martin and

Canada under Martin and Graham as minister, asked the CAF if Canada had enough troops available to put some of them in the south but stll have enough for Dafur. Sure said the recently retired Newfie. Dafur never saw any Canadian troops and arn't about to see any.

Read "the Unexpected Wae" and see how Canada started pumping more equipment into the country. How the ex CAF didn't want tanks, then wanted tanks, huge transport aircraft, larger artilery and now after so mnay Canadians have died walking or driving along roads, a number of leased Russian helicopters and some gunships fom somewhere. all to destroy some guys driving around in small trucks, no aircraft, no heavy guns, no aircraft, but ready to fight for assorted reasons. Its tribal, there is money to be made in Opium with the biggest crops ever. Why is the military still there? It has nothing much to do with rebuilding the country or making friends with the locals, which is pretty hard to do from inside a tank. Get rid of the present minority government and see the removal of out very small forces, which even counting the helicoper guys, the Herc guys and the P3 maritime guys, almost forgot the navy guys offshore. My gosh we have almost as many generals as we have NCO's in the area. Without the reserve folks and private companies guarding some places our limited forces couldn't move outside the wire fences of the compound. As body bag numbers get bigger one would hope resistance to the war will increase. The voters will decide.

There's a recent study by the Rand Corporation

There's a recent study by the Rand Corporation entitled:
HOW TERRORIST GROUPS END

Suffice to say that it isn't military action that proves effective.

I'll just quote a few of their conclusions:

Following an examination of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, (Rand) found that a transition to the political process is the most common way in which terrorist groups ended (43 percent).

The possibility of a political solution is inversely linked to the breadth of terrorist goals. Most terrorist groups that end because of politics seek narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals of a terrorist organization, the more likely it can achieve them without violent
action—and the more likely the government and terrorist group may be able to reach a negotiated settlement.

Against terrorist groups that cannot or will not make a transition to nonviolence, policing is likely to be the most effective strategy(40 percent).

Police and intelligence services have better training and information to penetrate and disrupt terrorist organizations than do such institutions as the military.

(Police and intelligence services)are the primary arm of government focused on internal security matters. Local police and intelligence agencies usually have a permanent presence in cities, towns,
and villages; a better understanding of the threat environment in these areas; and better human intelligence.

Other reasons are less common. For example, in 10 percent of the cases, terrorist groups ended because their goals were achieved, and military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of the
cases.

Against most terrorist groups, however, military force is usually too blunt an instrument. Military tools have increased in precision and lethality, especially with
the growing use of precision standoff weapons and imagery to monitor
terrorist movement.

But even precision weapons have been of limited use against terrorist groups. The use of substantial U.S. military power
against terrorist groups also runs a significant risk of turning the local
population against the government by killing civilians.

bolding is mine.

More depressing conclusions

The next two years will likely be decisive. If major conflict continues at the present rate, there is a very real risk that the local population will become increasingly frustrated by the lack of security (engendering various negative responses), and that some allies will head home. (Gordon Smith of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria)

We should get out now before another Canadian life is squandered needlessly on the altar of pee wee Rambo's ego.

How invasions and occupations end...

No country can invade and occupy another indefinitely. We here in Canada would like to think that our troops behave impeccably in other countries. Somalia disproved that unequivocally. It only takes one or two deaths of innocent victims to wipe out years of the "winning of hearts and minds". That phrase was used extensively in Vietnam by the way. It makes me shudder to hear it being used again in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The issue no one wants to talk about in Afghanistan is the opium industry; with no other alternative, the Afghans are shackled to it and we are aiding and abetting them. The one good thing the Taliban did accomplish was to reduce the opium crop. How are we doing in that regard?

The real price Canadians are paying is the psychological damage to our troops, many of whom are coming home in a state of shock. If we really want to do something different, let's start taking care of them for once. Let's really "Support The Troops" instead of just mouthing the words. Canadians are probably the best payers of lip-service in the world. We ought to make it an Olympic sport in time for the 2010 games; we would win hands-down.

Afghanistan: Why Canada

Afghanistan: Why Canada Should Stay
By Seth G. Jones
Toronto Star on May 7, 2007.

There is a growing movement in Canada to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, illustrated by such newspaper headlines as: "Is it time to go?" and "Canada must leave Afghanistan." Such a move would be a tragic mistake. Withdrawing would be a severe blow to NATO's efforts in Afghanistan and would ultimately undermine Canada's own security.

There are at least three myths in the Canadian media that need to be dispelled.

The first myth is that Canada has no significant national security interests in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pakistan-Afghanistan front is the headquarters of Al Qaeda, which is a more competent international terrorist organization than it was on Sept. 11, 2001. It has close links with the Taliban and is led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, who have been pivotal in the rise of suicide attacks against NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda possesses a robust strategic, logistics and public relations network in Pakistan, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This infrastructure has enabled it to play an important role in orchestrating international terrorist attacks. Canadian cities are also threatened. As an October 2006 Al Qaeda statement warned, Canada faces "an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah."

Al Qaeda has been involved in an average of six major global attacks per year since 2002, up from one attack per year from 1995 to 2001. These attacks have spanned multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. It is also involved in hundreds of smaller attacks each year in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Al Qaeda's modus operandi has evolved and now includes a repertoire of more sophisticated improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks. Its organizational structure has also evolved, making it a more dangerous enemy. This includes a "bottom up" approach (encouraging independent thought and action from low-level operatives) and a "top down" one (issuing orders and co-ordinating a global terrorist enterprise with both highly synchronized and autonomous moving parts).

Al Qaeda poses a threat to Canada, which will not decrease if Canada withdraws. Canada's values are ultimately at odds with a terrorist organization that is committed to the restoration of the Caliphate in the Middle East and the establishment of a radical version of Islam. Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, not appeased.

cont.

cont.

cont...

But this is not a reason to withdraw. It brings Canada into a small group of countries that speak with their actions. For better or worse, coalition operations always include a wide variation in the competence and commitment of participating countries.

Canadian soldiers have demonstrated in Afghanistan that they are among the most competent in the world. I have travelled to Afghanistan regularly for the past four years and have seen Canadian operations from the front lines.

During Operation Medusa in 2006, for example, Canadian military forces prevented the Taliban from overrunning the strategically important city of Kandahar, home of Taliban leader Mullah Omar. The Canadians faced an embattled Taliban force that dug trenches and engaged Canadian forces with recoilless rifles, mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns. Taliban losses were staggering. Withdrawing Canada's battle-hardened forces from Afghanistan would be a huge blow to NATO.

The third myth is that Afghanistan is largely hopeless. To be fair, NATO operations in Afghanistan have been mixed. The Taliban and other groups have engineered a competent insurgency from bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The insurgency will ultimately be won or lost in the rural areas of Afghanistan, not in the cities. NATO countries have struggled to secure and rebuild rural areas in the south and east. Part of the reason has been too few international forces and poor Afghan governance. The ability of insurgent groups to establish a sanctuary in Pashtun areas of Pakistan has also been critical to their survival.

But there are clear successes. The security situation in western, central and northern Afghanistan is relatively benign. Afghans overwhelmingly support the NATO military presence.

It would be a mistake to sugarcoat NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. But the failure to eliminate Al Qaeda and other groups should not be viewed as a reason to pull out. A RAND Corporation study I conducted of all counter-insurgencies since 1945 indicates that it takes an average of 14 years for governments to defeat insurgents. Greater patience and resolve are required.

Canada's role in Afghanistan is critical to defeating Al Qaeda and radical Islam more broadly. Success will take time and sufficient resources. It would be a tragedy if the naysayers in Canada succeeded in reducing their country's commitment.

Seth G. Jones is a political scientist at the RAND Corporation and adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

For the interested scholar

http://www.rand.org/hot_topics/afghanistan.html

What a pockmarked and nebbishy piece o'work...

is this essay. And its author, the poor old dray horse. If Dobbin were a medieval king, his nickname wouldn't be "the Unready" or "the Bastard" nor, heaven forbid, "the Conqueror"; he'd be "King Murray the Easily Refuted."

Some idle questions.

1. Where was the secular constitution of 1964 when Allah's Scholars ruled Afghanistan?

2. Canadian peacekeeping, generously defined, debuted the same year as Elvis Presley and sputtered out uselessly in Kigali 37 years later.

Canadian warmaking began, arguably, in 1812, and continued at least until the Talibs shot MCpl. Erin Doyle to death in Panjwai last week.

Peacekeeping. Warmaking. My leading question: Which of these *was* a pointless fad, please? And which *is* a national tradition?

3. Hamid Karzai's tainted but non-totalitarian Islamic Republic proclaims as "sacred" the religion shared by 99% of Afghanis.

The old Islamic Emirate of the horrorshow Schoolboy mullahs agreed: Mohammed and Allah are huge deals, y'all!

But the Taliban went further. Went total, in fact. "Sacred" to them meant, *and means*, that every house must blacken its windows, so women can't be seen from outside.

These are different responses to the fact that Afghanistan is just chock full o'Moslems. But they are comparable, and represent the available choices.

My question is not whether Karzai's Republic is superior to a restored Talib Emirate. No, my question is, when Dobbin makes the feeble pretense that the 'Stan would be Sweden if the West would just quit *interfering*, doesn't it sound to anyone else like the braying of that old grey boy Eeyore?

4. If the Taliban had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda during the years bin Laden and his best 300 pals bunked with 'em in Kabul, then why the turndown service, huh, Murray?

5. Anyone else hear braying again when Dobbin describes this Ladenist/Talib co-op as "300 fighters", like they were some schmucky militia in sandals, as opposed to being the wealthy, sophisticated, state-sheltered gang of international spy-zealots that carried out 9/11 -- and would again, with an organizational prowess completely baffling to the NDP and other Leftesque antiwar remnants, that herd of empty horses?

Ummm! Might I suggest something a little more current

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG741-1.pdf

And something which actually addresses the obvious failures of the 'war' against terrorism.

Bring the women and children all of you are so worried about to Canada, set them up with jobs and homes and education for a 10th of what Pee Wee and Elmer's little boy are wasting in materiel and save the lives of the next 90 Canadian troops who will be sacrificed to the failed wet dream of George Bush's Vice President of extended American colonial hegemony over the Middle East.

America and Canada are largely undemocratic themselves; to suggest that Karzai's little band of miscreants is a democratic regime is about the funniest thing I've heard for a year. Please, let's hear some more about how responsible these guys are. Let's especially hear about the security they provide for Afghan prisons; and when you'rd done with that, could we hear about their humane prisoner treatment protocols.

The West can't stop Russia from running roughshod over Georgia - and I thought George Bush had looked into Putin's eyes and seen his soul.

Pretty amusing, because the only thing he would see there is the reflection of his own clueless visage.

Perhaps you've forgotten:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1392791.stm

Memories are short

As early as 2002, the Americans were acknowledging that: "Classified investigations of the Qaeda threat now under way at the F.B.I. and C.I.A. have concluded that the war in Afghanistan failed to diminish the threat to the United States, the officials said. Instead, the war might have complicated counterterrorism efforts by dispersing potential attackers across a wider geographic area.

New York Times - June 16, 2002 by DAVID JOHNSTON, DON VAN NATTA JR. AND JUDITH MILLER.

As to the size of the hard core Al-Qaeda threat at the time, Dobbin is exactly correct:

"According to a secret government report revealed last week
by the New York Times, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan not only
"failed to diminish the threat to the United States," but actually
complicated the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign by dispersing its
radical foes across the Muslim world.

The small, tightly-knit leadership of Osama bin Laden´s al-Qaida has
been succeeded by a group of younger militants who have formed ad hoc
alliances with other anti-U.S. groups from Morocco to Indonesia.
These groups now pose the most serious danger to the United States
and will remain a potent threat for years to come.

This dismaying report confirms what this writer has been saying in
columns and on CNN since 9/11. A full-scale military invasion of
Afghanistan would prove futile; the correct response was intelligence
and police work, not brute force.

Al-Qaida´s numbers were grossly exaggerated by the Bush
administration and U.S. media. Hardcore al-Qaida members never
numbered more than 200-300. Claims that there were 5,000-20,000
al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan were nonsense. These wild
exaggerations came from lumping Taliban tribal warriors with some
5,000 Islamic resistance fighters from Kashmir, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, the Philippines and Chinese-ruled Eastern Turkistan, none
of whom were part of al-Qaida.

The reason 12,000 U.S., British and Canadian troops operating in
Afghanistan can´t find al-Qaida - a campaign that has so far cost
over US$10 billion - is that there were few to begin with; by now,
most have slipped away through Pakistan. Instead, the U.S. is getting
mired in Afghan tribal politics by trying to maintain a regime in
Kabul that will take orders from Washington."
(Eric Margolis, Toronto Star, June 23, 2002)

Next Question?

Excerpt from Letter from "The Front"

This summer we didn't burn their opium crops. Last year we did and all those farmers who lost their season's crop took up arms and joined the Taliban. This summer the Taliban were supporting farmers by attacking the Afghan National Police(ANP) who were still burning crops. On foot patrols we'd talk to men working the opium fields through our interpreters and were told at least once very straight up that as long as we didn't destroy our crops we were their friends but if they lost their seasonal income, they'd pick up arms and join the Taliban or shoot at us as we leave their villages. Hah, that did happen a few times but their random rifle fire was never anywhere near effective enough for us to worry about it. Throughout the summer, the poor Afghan security forces really got the worst of it. The Taliban kept attacking them while we were right there a few km away. On our main route we'd dodge wrecked and twisted ANP trucks and IED craters just a few hours after they were blown up. Before I left for three weeks leave in June, the opium crop had been harvested and the marijuana crop was flourishing. Marijuana will grow as a weed here but the cultivated crops were HUGE. In the FOB, there was a weed plant growing out of the HESCO bastion that I'd spit toothpaste on each day as I brushed my teeth and in the checkpoints they were flourishing wild in our backyard along with pomegranate trees.

Three aid workers were

Three aid workers were killed in Afghanistan - hard to rebuild and do development work when foreign aid workers are being murdered by terrorists.

The 9/11 bombers trained and were given sanctuary by the Taliban. Thus the casus belli. If you do not accept that then we are talking about entirely different fact situations.

Axworthy led the ban on mines ( not that the Taliban follow that) a pretty soft left policy. He had plenty of influence in Chretien administration.

I think Bush is yucky too for what that is worth.

Like I said Gray

It's a failed exercise. Bring the women and children to Canada if they want to come - get our soldiers out before any more of them are killed. This is hopeless and it's more about pee wee's reputation than anything else.

If you know about the aid workers who were killed yesterday, you also know the group they're with has been in Afghanistan for 20 years.

Doesn't bode well for the direction things are going, does it?

If we want to pacify the country and turn it into a democracy of any kind, there's only one way to do it.

Institute a draft, send 100,000 soldiers there and be prepared to sink a billion dollars a year, God knows how many lives and the next 15 to 20 years into the project.

If you're prepared to go that route then have the courage to say so and campaign on the program. Otherwise, in my view, lives and treasure are being wasted and burned up like leaves in the fall.

As it is, we're not even willing to take the heroin and refine it for medical use so the farmers there can earn a living.