Canadian Death Rate in Afghanistan is Huge
Our death rate among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is considerably higher than the Americans and the British and higher than most years of WWII.
Our soldiers are operating in the most dangerous zones.
And we are, as usual, badly equipped.
There is nothing - nothing - honorable about this mission.
Canadian young men and women are dying to support a drug economy. This assignment is as useless as Bush's pathetic presence in Iraq.
I don't care how many times Stephen Harper tells us that we are doing the right thing. He is wrong. Dead wrong.
Saying, "I support the troops," is very different from saying, "I support the mission."
Of course, we champion the foot soldier.
But the generals and the politicos who run them are completely mistaken in this case.
Get out.
9 comments:
Well said David. Of course Harper is of the same ilk as George Dubya in my opinion. I often wonder why it is that the avowed Christian politicians always seem to enjoy a good "war". Ever think about that?? Bring them home - absolutely - and as well, the fiasco that is Iraq must end. Those troops are returning physically and mentally damaged - and their benefits have been cut by the worst President and administration the USA has ever seen.
June
"Get out."
David, think about that statement, get out and allow whom to run the country? The Taliban? Al Qaeda? Iran? Will the population fare better under these regimes?
I am saddened to think that you believe that there is nothing honourable about this mission. Is
the establishment of schools and an effective army nothing? Is the extensive construction of water wells nothing? Is the killing of extremists who kill children and women nothing?
Canada is a great country that thankfully still believes in helping weaker countries. Afghanistan still suffers from a minimal economy and limited resources, their future lies in brain power and stability. Japan and even to some extent China has shown that wealth can be produced in a stable, peaceful economy even after the wreckage caused by war or marxism.
Compare our combat losses to any other war and try to convince yourself that they are not minimal.
There is a great nobility in the efforts of the extraordinary people in our volunteer forces that they risk the chance of death or life altering injuries to help others.
This support the troops but undermine the mission argument is just NDP blather. If the mission is wrong then lets hear an alternative to it that will improve the lot of the Afghanis? And I don't mean taliban Jacks idiotic suggestion that we concentrate on development projects without affording the contractors security.
If the "lot" of the Afghani people is to be improved, in a lasting and meaningful way, then it's going to be the Afghani people who affect that change...
Even the most cursory study of the history of that region will illustrate, quite conclusively, that there will be no defeating the forces of radical Islam using military power.
The alternative? Make Canada a light among nations. Let others see what democracy is supposed to be. We have, relatively speaking, a wonderful wonderful country. Wonderfully imperfect. If others want what we have, then they can have it. If they need to take it by force, so be it. Our mission in Afghanistan was inspired by our outrage and sense of duty when our neighbours to the south were sucker punched. That was nearly seven years ago. Time to turn the page.
bbbbbbut (head?)
GET OUT! Yes and do it NOW!
Sadly such an operation will need very rapid action (something that the current CF has been very, very bad at) and extremely tight security on (security of the operation proceeding - information) also something that the current Zoo on the Rideau is also BAD at (a loud-mouthed lout for a CDS is a bad starting place).
"allow whom to run the country? "
I ask you:
SINCE WHEN IS IT THE JOB OF THE CANADIAN FORCES TO EFFECT 'REGIEME CHANGE'?
WHEN WAS CANADA APPOINTED BY THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT TO 'RUN THINGS' FOR THEM?
WHEN WAS IT DECIDED IN PARLIAMENT TO BECOME THE ENGINE OF OPERATIONS FOR ANOTHER PLACE ON EARTH?
You seem to think that we, of Canada, have some sort of obligation to do this in Afghanistan. I do not recall it ever being in the mission statement, nor ever even discussed in the House of Commons, nor with the general populace of Canada.
These soldiers "over there" are acting in an ambassadorial function, only they tend to talk with tank rounds and fire bombing missions more than with their mouths (this after one young Lt. -ahem- Captain, umm -oops- Major (posthumously) got handed an axe to the back of the head from some locals.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD bbbbbbut, the functioning of any other nation will no go on the way we desire - EVER.
Moreover such a place as Afghanistan is, has been, and will always be a "MARCH REGION". Meaning that NO-ONE will ever manage to dominate the region, unless they LIVE THERE. Read-up on how long it took Andorra to become 'stable' and no longer a 'march region'.
Hence your comments about Taliban, or Al-Queida 'running things' there is also a fallacy. Consider that the 'Taliban' had nominal control of the capitol for a total of three (3) years before they were challenged by US-Led ISI elements and the Northern Alliance of bandits.
The areas history is one of continual conflict and conquest, more than 3000 years of it!
What makes Canada or NATO so special that they will be able to solve this riddle in less than another 3000 years?!?
Your bleeding heart about the populace is wonderful, what about most of Africa? How about the Balkans? What about doing more for our own 'down and out' here in Canada? How much good could be done for the price of just shipping the tanks over there?
There is no honor among thieves and that is all that is operating in Afghanistan, all that ever has 'operated' there, from the Macedonian Greeks under Alexander to the Mongol hordes to the British Red Coats to the Soviet Red Army. The sands of the central Afghan plains have drank more blood than we can ever imagine and I predict that the rate of loss for the Canadian contingent will increase, with NO GOOD AT ALL coming from it.
JTF-2 was there for the AMERICAN IMPERIAL AIMS of 'Operation Apollo' long before they were spotted leading prisoners onto US aircraft. Since then the entire mess has been one giant mission creep.
And before you dismiss this all as nothing from a nobody, perhaps you could read about these same thoughts from a veteran of the last debacle on the central Afghan plains?
Real intelligent Murdock! feel better now?
You ask "WHEN WAS CANADA APPOINTED BY THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT TO 'RUN THINGS' FOR THEM?" then you answer your own question by pointing out that Canada was requested to go into Afghanistan by NATO. This is not about colonialism it is about helping.
Thanks also for belittling the efforts of Lieutenant Trevor Greene who was discussing issues with tribal leaders when he was attacked, do you see any similarity here with what taliban Jack is suggesting? Ignoring realities would increase casualties.
If you have an issue (I suggest you probably have many issues-but thats another subject) with the fact that Canadian Forces involvement in Afghanistan was not discussed in the Canadian parliament then you should address this to the Liberals and not be blinded by your hatred of the Conservatives who are continuing our Liberal party commitment to allies.
When you sense that your argument is full of illogical hatred and pseudo history you try the oldest leftist trick - change the subject to "what about Africa and the Balkans" One minute you are lecturing that no country can affect change in another, then you throw in this old chestnut.
Anyway life is too short to try to educate people such as yourself.
BTW you left my original question unanswered.
Mr Berner, I realise it is tedious when flame wars break out in your blog, my question was sincere and I think that it is a question that deserves adult discussion.
I hope you will let this post stand if only to encourage adult interaction.
It's only a "flame war" when the other disagrees, Butt. You have, upon close examination, said nothing. Here's an opportunity to change that:
Name three objectives that Canada can achieve, tangible results, measurable results, that would convince an average Canadian the "enemy" has been defeated.
OK bbbbbut, I shall take you at your word that you are not yourself a little troll out to try and push some buttons.
I shall refute your items, from your original post chapter and verse:
"Get out."
A simple statement, get our soldiers out of this part of the Stupid American Empire building exercise. They were sent in with the ORIGINAL MISSION:
"The deployment is currently set to last six months, but that period could be extended if the anti-terror campaign lasts longer, Chief of National Defence Staff General Ray Henault said."
~Tue. Oct. 9 2001
What then happened was PM Dithers stopped looking at this as his polling numbers were flushed down the toilet and the tottering minority government collapsed.
Then the 'bureaucrats' were in charge for a while (during the election run). Not only did we see the RCMP bite the hand that fed it (attacking the Liberals directly during the election in progress) but also the Military got to run riot! Thus when the new PM of another minority comes in he has a massive mess to look over, things like handing over prisoners for interrogations (among other things). Then a CDS with a potty mouth to match his dirty deeds in another land.
David, think about that statement, get out and allow whom to run the country? The Taliban? Al Qaeda? Iran? Will the population fare better under these regimes?
Once again, this is where my questions from earlier come from.
What gives us, in Canada, the right to effect 'regieme change'?
Until you can answer this, then your argument about how other places behave cannot be answered, nor would I ever expect David to do so.
I am saddened to think that you believe that there is nothing honourable about this mission. Is
the establishment of schools and an effective army nothing? Is the extensive construction of water wells nothing? Is the killing of extremists who kill children and women nothing?
There is NOTHING honorable about this mission AT ALL.
1- launched after the 9-11 attack (within a few days by the B52's), the entire 9-11 events are starting to come under greater and greater scrutiny and looking more and more like a 'false flag' event. If you do not believe me, consider this:
"Two planes hit, three buildings fell down = you do the math."
2- Canada went into the mission as a partner with the USA, not NATO - the entire NATO actions came well after the US started the actions. Canada was used as a bird dog to sucker in more NATO partners. Now it would appear that Canadian troops are going to do another Dieppe and bleed lots so that their deaths will need to be 'avenged' or 'justified'.
3- building stuff, please check into the money, YES FOLLOW THE MONEY. More than $200 is spent on military action for every $1 spent on reconstruction. I point to the fact, yes the FACT that MSF left the country, after being in there for the years of SOVIET occupation. MSF (Doctors Without Borders) has a world leading record of providing real assistance in the most difficult of circumstances. They LEFT after the PRT's got started and cited what the US and their allies (UK-Canada) were doing with the PRT's as the reason for departure.
4- think, no really think about your statement:
"Is the killing of extremists who kill children and women nothing?
What kind of a merchant of death are you?
Canada is a great country that thankfully still believes in helping weaker countries. Afghanistan still suffers from a minimal economy and limited resources, their future lies in brain power and stability. Japan and even to some extent China has shown that wealth can be produced in a stable, peaceful economy even after the wreckage caused by war or marxism.
This must be some kind of fantasy land you are in.
Japan and China have been bigger economic powers than Canada for the past 30 years. What planet are you on?
Compare our combat losses to any other war and try to convince yourself that they are not minimal.
There is a great nobility in the efforts of the extraordinary people in our volunteer forces that they risk the chance of death or life altering injuries to help others.
Comparing the death toll is exactly what David DID at the outset of his article:
Our death rate among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is considerably higher than the Americans and the British and higher than most years of WWII.
There was great nobility and bravery shown by the MSF volunteers (not paid at all) whom went into that war ravaged land during the SOVIET occupation. What we are doing is strictly MERCENARY, our soldiers are now accepting pay to do the dirty work of others.
Whom is calling the shots for the troops on the ground?
Consider that a combat patrol has to have an 'interpreter' with them or they could not hope to communicate with any of the locals (unless bbbbbut you are about to tell me that the CF has sufficent interpreters of the local dialects to send them out with every patrol?). That interpreter, more often than not, is a person with more allegiance to the Northern Alliance criminal gangs (yes they are, most of them are still operating their own gulags, separate from the Karzei Government), that means that the interpreter, not the soldiers, know what is going on. This means that when the combat patrol comes across some village or other, that may have 2-3 opposition combattants in it firing small arms at them and the 'interpreter' figures that the village is of little or no value to the Northern Alliance, he says to the Canadian troops that this is a Taliban or A-Q village and tells them to liquidate it. Boom, the tanks start firing or an airstrike is called for. They may get the 2-3 enemy (or not) but the do de-house 30-60 villagers and their families and make a new set of enemies and a new group of recruits for the other side.
Whom will our troops shooting help?
Taliban?
Karzei?
Canada?
I say that we are not even on that list. All the more reason for Canada to leave NOW.
This support the troops but undermine the mission argument is just NDP blather. If the mission is wrong then lets hear an alternative to it that will improve the lot of the Afghanis? And I don't mean taliban Jacks idiotic suggestion that we concentrate on development projects without affording the contractors security.
NDP blather?
Not.
I detest the NDP and all that they have stood for.
The 'support the troops' crap is what an Imperial power commands from its subjugated populace.
I KNOW that you did not read this piece by Nikolai Lanine, so I will now present the last two paragraphs from this Russian survivor of the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan.
Like the Soviet-Afghan war, this one is fought in the name of state-security, a peaceful Afghanistan, and women’s rights. Canadians fight the same people the Soviets fought between1979-1989: “terrorists, extremists, insurgents, and bandits”. This should make sense, except that, in the 1980’s, today’s Taliban were supported by the West as “freedom fighters”.
So how do we stop the cycle? I kept asking myself this question after Andrew’s funeral. The Soviet people did not vote to send troops to Afghanistan. Neither did we in Canada. It was “unpatriotic” to criticize the Soviet role in Afghanistan. Questioning Canada’s mission now means being unsupportive of our soldiers. The Soviet slogan “Support our troops!” that I heard in the 1980s has become a Canadian one. Many Canadians choose not to educate themselves on this issue, and some still believe that our soldiers are peacekeepers in a country, in which many Afghans see us as a part of a US occupation and our soldiers die in active combat. If, in wilful or blind ignorance, we do not challenge our government to change the role of our troops from aggression to genuine peacekeeping and reconstruction, we are all responsible for the Afghan and Canadian lives about to be lost.
So I will duel words with you and anyone else that thinks we, of Canada, should stay in Afghanistan.
David,
This may seem like too much more, however there is another discussion about US troops going into Pakistan, on The Real News
The US is starting to look more and more like it will use military might to make right.
I predict that were this to be done the resulting explosion of hatred and reprisal will make getting out of the Afghanistan situation impossible.
As it stands now getting out is very hard.
1) We have committed to the NATO allies our presence to the end of 2008. Breaking this is a bad thing to do. However it was put in place by two MINORITY goverments, and I say that it was not even done by the Government, it was done within military circles by appointed diplomats and military officers. Such an act cannot be a part of a democracy, thus providing more proof, to me at least, that we do not have any democracy left in Canada.
2) Transport and Heavy Airlift. Until last year Canada had no Heavy Airlift capacity, meaning that we would need to contract it from somewhere.
Who?
US = Nope. They want us there on their flank and rear.
Russia = after they pick themselves up off the floor from laughing themselves purple they might just quote a number larger than their national debt for the use of their aircraft.
Germany = Not likely, they like their planes intact and without lots of holes shot in them by Stinger-3's. If they did agree it would come with a similar price tag as the Russians (only to cover the east German part of their debt).
China = again no. Why should they?
India = maybe, but only if it embarasses Pakistan by stopping them from killing all of us.
any other ways out?
Well go north to the 'stans', will be a long walk and you can count on the opposition coming out from every rock and hillside to snipe. So need lots of air cover.
West? Iran = you do the math.
East? China = perhaps, but the Himalayas are just so peachy in the summertime.
South? Pakistan is starting to look more and more like an inhospitable place for anyone not in an ISI approved uniform. Just ask the Senate Committee that interrogated and chastised some soldiers on December 24, 2007 in Ottawa! Check it out David, I'm certain that your journalist contacts may be able to find out more about that little meeting done on Christmas Eve, so that no eyes would be watching...
You make very good sense murdock.
"The US is starting to look more and more like it will use military might to make right."
Have you ever read PNAC (Project For A New American Century)? That is where it all began - and Canada needs to distance itself from US policies and get out of Pakistan. GW and those who pull his strings are salivating in anticipation of going into Iran as well. I speak with many Americans who are totally disgusted and even frightened with what the present administration has done and how it has affected their country and the world. Harper is of the same ilk and I personally want him gone - before (heaven forbid) he has the power to show his true colours and how similar in thinking he is to GW.
Thanks for your comments.
June
Post a Comment