That policy remains: all Canadian Forces out next year. Yet in August 2009 the Liberal, very left, Toronto Star editorialized:
…
Subject to Parliament’s approval, Canadian troops and police might still play a useful role mentoring their Afghan counterparts, with a view to working themselves out of a job. We can protect aid projects. And perhaps provide transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as surveillance drones, to assist our allies…
Over the last few months the Liberals have indicated a willingness to consider a post-2011 role in Afstan for the CF (e.g. a non-combat mission training the Afghan National Security Forces). So why the Conservatives’ so obdurate insistence on “troops out” next year?
Perhaps because, against all hopes, they are a little party, a silly party (scroll down here to “T.E. Lawrence: So long as…”; ignore for current purposes the “barbarous, and cruel”). Are the Conservatives now a party mainly interested in (and overly accustomed to) the accoutrements of political power rather than one actually trying to achieve concrete, changing, things domestically? For example, health care. And a party utterly averse to taking real risks to achieve something serious elsewhere?
Continuing the good fight abroad, at home, even a little bit? Hah! Rather cutters and runners when the going gets tough and the kitchen gets hot. All hat, no helmet. And no skillet neither.
Update: The post is in the National Post’s “Full Comment“:
Upperdate: Also in the Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:
…
Canadian Commentary
…Mark Collins — National Post
When the going gets tough – More
…
Mark
Ottawa
“why the Conservatives ….insistence on “troops out”…?
The left is being made to lie in a bed THEY made.
THEY insisted on removing the troops. Now they are being removed.
Canadians are too ball-less to continue the war so they are being given what they want.
For 10 years we have been hearing this “Bush’s war”, Taliban cheerleading crap.
NOW!? They are having second thoughts? Tough SH%T!
What is the government supposed to do? Wait until they have THIRD thoughts? Fourth? Fifth?
Perhaps simply make a public case for some sort of continuing CF role? The British government does it for their forces, as do the Australian and Danish (gasp, and the Danes’ per capita troop commitment and deaths are higher than ours).
Which the government has not made the slightest attempt to do. Trimmers for political benefit, and without any obvious principle or thought, to be kind.
From Reform, to limited power, to placeholders.
Fie again.
Mark
Ottawa
Much as I support the troops I look at the situation as more like since we don’t want to fight the real war lets not pretend by fighting a phony war. The war is against Islam but we won’t admit that so we go fight the ‘insurgent taliban’ which just so happens to be native to the region as a result of a backward culture ruled by Islam. Unless and until we are willing to fight Islam we are simply wasting our troops and money trying to build a nation out of Islamists.
How many years do you think Canadians should die for people who hate us?
When the President of the USA gave a date and time for departure the role for Canada ended. This is a 50 year commitment and anything less is going to end badly. Canada can not do it alone and since no NATO countries were giving Canada a hand there really isn’t a choice for the Conservative Government. The Army is broken, we are exhausted and need time to consolidate and to rebuild. We must go, to stay is not a good prospect for the CF.
Talk to the troops who have served there. The ANA is corrupt and as bad as it is, it is 100 times better than the ANP. The Taliban are heavily infiltrated into the ANA and the Government is completely corrupt.
Warlords run the country. The best hope is to support the least of the evil warlords and keep the Taliban from consolidating power.
If we cannot occupy the country with force then the alternative is to play a Machiavellian game of power politics. Canada is not going to play in this war. The Americans will leave and the Afghan people will do what they have always done. Exist and no more.
Canadians should fight under suitable rules of engagement or should get out. We should not spend a moment in the country being set-up as a target.
Much as I love the troops, and admire the CF, I will be hugely relieved when this mission is over.
The past decade has demonstrated that there is not a lot worth dying for in Afghanistan. The main reason not to leave is to not have to admit that going there was a mistake.
Huge respect to the troops who went and fought, as they were ordered, but it was a mistake. Saying this does not diminish the bravery of those who went there, died there, or were wounded there.
What do you think that horses ass Mark Holland would be saying when the first Canadian dies after a switch to a non-combat role? There is no way to separate training or infrastructure protection from combat in a war zone. The Liberals know this. They’re new found suggestions are just an attempt to inflict damage on the Conservatives and have nothing to do with a desire to progress the mission or support the troops.
I get a kick out of the crying and nashing of teeth by the opposition Coalition over the fact that we are withdrawing…..”But we should stay” they cry….forgetting that a mere two years ago they were crying “GET OUT, GET OUT”!
Does anyone in the media not see the hypocrasy of how they suddenly changed their “point of view” after Stephen Harper made them vote to come home.
Does anyone in the media have the balls to call them on their change of heart.
This is typical of the Coalition’s “whatever Stephen Harper does, we will demand the opposite so that we can show that the Coaltion has the power”
Too bad some people are putting this decision on the CPC and not where it belongs.
You know better that that, Mark. Were the government to suggest a role similar to that which the editorial proposes, the Grits and their allies would be scampering off in all directions, seeking much less rigourous roles in country. What the government has done for the past three years is require a substantive offer of support, and a realistic plan of action in Afghanistan from the opposition. To date, and your quote demonstrates, that has not occurred.
Cheers
What about the non-combat training option in the Kabul area, to which the Liberals appear at least somewhat open?
http://unambig.com/afstan-two-cheers-for-bob-raeiraq-clearly-not-vietnam/
And even MND MacKay has mused about a possible extension:
http://unambig.com/afstan-flash-one-and-half-cheers-for-peter-mackay/
http://unambig.com/so-staying-in-afstans-about-the-canadian-brand-eh/
And check this Star editorial from this August:
http://unambig.com/afstan-even-the-toronto-star-seems-open-to-keeping-some-canadian-troops/
Harper himself seems to be the PM who can only say “No!”.
Myself, I don’t see why keeping most of the Air Wing at KAF seems completely off the table. Guess it’s just that it’s at Kandahar
Mark
Ottawa
I can only second the sentiment that given the Obama administration is no longer committed to winning this thing, no more Canadians should die in a cause that we cannot continue on our own. Also, I’d rather we not have this kind of non-combatant role — leave that to wuss Europeans, I don’t want our nation further dishonored by what can only be characterized as a dishonest attempt to cover the shame of our abandonment of the true mission: defeating Islamism.
I hardly think Obama can be criticized over Harper. The former twice increased US troop strength very substantially, has taken a risky gamble militarily and politically, and has merely said some troops would start to withdraw next summer.
Meanwhile the latter has only said “Out! Out! Out!” for almost a year and, as far as I can see, abandoned any commitment to winning well before that.
A non-combat role would be no disgrace and would be welcomed by our allies (and what about that Air Wing at KAF?). The sad thing is that the Canadian Army has been worn out by keeping a fighting force of just around 1,000 combat soldiers in the field for only some four and a half years.
That is the best a country of 33 million can do? Pathetic.
Mark
Ottawa
[...] How has the Canadian government’s Afghan policy come to this? “All hat, no helmet. And n… [...]
I am no liberal and I do support the troops, but not their political masters who have little at stake themselves.
Any young man or woman who joins the armed forces either here or in the USA with a chance that they their lives will be wasted in that $hithole, Afghanistan, fighting primates in a most politically-correct, gentile, polite, multi-culti fashion is INSANE.
You cannot save people from themselves, especially, and get this …. if they don’t want to be saved!
OUT NOW!
Are you a Liberal plant dude? Just asking.
Ask a Liberal:
http://unambig.com/does-canada-deserve-mickey-i-bobbitys-smooth-move/
http://unambig.com/mickey-i-keeps-on-dragon-upsucking/
Mark
Ottawa
[...] of several hundred soldiers to train the Afghan forces [more here, no help to be expected from our government] supposed to replace them and Nato officials have been trying to persuade alliance members to stop [...]
[...] whilst our government holds firm on the CF’s leaving, not even a non-combat training mission: Dutch open to Afghan [...]