Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Earlier Q&A

Saunders, Freeman on Vimy, Afghanistan and Stephen Harper

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:27 PM EDT 10/04/07

Globe reporters answered your questions. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Tom Langford from Montreal, Canada writes: I would like to know what the popuation of Afghanistan is!

    I would like to know how many able bodied men are between the ages of 18 to 40 years of age?

    Then I would like to know how many of these able bodied men have volunteered to fight for their OWN country?

    I saw a Conservative M.P. on Mike Duffy live make this statement: 'We have built roads,schools and hospitals in Afghanistan!'

    I want to see a video of all these new schools,roads and hospitals. In this modern day tech world we should have no problem producing such a video FOR ALL Canadians to see.

    I just want to make sure we are not being lied to about this mission!

    SIMPLE AS THAT!
  2. Dennis Petruk from Canada writes: War is war, whether it's in France or Afghanistan. Whether we help in getting the Germans out of France, or getting the Taliban out of Afghanistan, it's all the same. Whether you agree or disagree with one, you have to have to agree or disagree with the other. This, of course justifies Mr. Harpers link to Vimy and Afghanistan. How could it not? Where is the difference. To the Tom Langford from Montreal, except for perhaps your own peace of mind, what would all the information you feel you require, have to do do with the validity with the mission? What would the population of the fighting-age men in France during the Vimy campaine, changed anything? and how is Mr. Harper's agenda any different from what Mr Martin tried to accomplish when he first sent our troops to Afghanistan? And how is the mission under the Conservatives any more aggressive than it was under the Liberals? The fact both political parties wanted to make it safe before they could begin rebuilding, just makes the goals identical. I believe Canadians of any political stripe, just want things to be better for the people of Afghanistan, the same way our brave soldiers did at Vimy Ridge for the people of France. Nothing's changed except the time in history.
  3. James Clost from chaozhou, guangdong, China writes: 'Tom Langford from Montreal, Canada writes: I would like to know how many able bodied men are between the ages of 18 to 40 years of age?

    Then I would like to know how many of these able bodied men have volunteered to fight for their OWN country? '

    you might find your answer here tom:

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061105/afghantraining061105/20061105/

    some experts say its going to take 10 years to build the afghan army up to a point where its capable of taking care of the security needs of that country on its own. some people on this forum have already laughed off that notion and that timeline, but consider that in the canadian military, you can take a raw recruit off the street and make him or her a fully trained soldier in about 6-8 months. we have all the resources available to do that - professional training system, educated and able recruits with a desire to do that job, solid infrastructure, and adequate funding. on the other hand, afghanistan is starting from scratch. they havent even had a proper standing army for years. in rebuilding this army, its 3 steps forward and two back. anyone who ever thought we could rebuild the afghan army in 2-3 years was being totally unrealistic and/or had no idea what they were talking about.
  4. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Dear Dennis Petruk: Yes war is war. Sex is also sex--but when it comes to one's daughter, one would be a bit more discriminating as to motive and method. We should be at least as discriminating when it comes to the lives of Canadians or the dimly perceived men, women and children of Afghanistan. Equating the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan with the Allied effort in WWI Europe is lame--on so many levels there is not enough space here to list them. You would be better off comparing Canada's war in Afghanistan with the Americans' war in Vietnam. In WWI, Canadians went to France partly because no one wanted to be left out of the fun (I am not being facetious), and partly because the British traditionally wanted to prevent any one mainland country from dominating and uniting Europe. Canada simply participated as part of the empire. Right up to WWI, the Brits were long-term allies of the Germans against the French. They only switched when they realized Germany was about to accomplish what the French had failed to do. A muddled sense of history is no excuse for present mistakes, to paraphrase Santayana. As to Stephen Harper's motives, I believe he is no more interested in Afghans' welfare than George Bush is interested in Iraqis' welfare--even if Canadian and U.S. troops think it's what they are fighting and sacrificing for. That is what makes so many people furious when the troops are hurt or killed. I agree that the feckless Paul Martin may have been close to Mr. Harper in his thinking (he did appoint Patton wannabee Rick Hillier), but that has nothing to do with whether or how the mission is continued. I think Jean Chretien genuinely put us in Afghanistan as an alternative to joining the Coalition against Iraq. The mission has since changed into a political game that has nothing to do with benefiting the Afghans. Our politics have been hijacked just as the Americans' were after 9/11. It doesn't matter to me who did it.
  5. Nick Wright from Canada writes: There have been two parallel Western military missions in Afghanistan: the American 'Operation Enduring Freedom' (OEF), which as part of their 'war on terror' is about hunting and killing Taliban and Al Qaeda, and has nothing to do with reconstruction or 'winning hearts and minds' in Afghanistan. The other mission is the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), whose mandate is to support the new (very new, very isolated and very weak) Afghan government in creating a democratic country in which terrorists (Al Qaeda) or militant religious fundamentalists (Taliban) would find no place. When Canada's regular forces, at Rick Hillier's urging, went on the offensive in Kandahar as a completely new and very unpopular expression of ISAF, only the British and Dutch Nato forces went with us. However, all three countries are conducting their own style of operations in their areas. The Americans supply most of the heavy air power, and it is devastating--to anyone in the vicinity. They also financed and armed the warlords after the Taliban were dispersed (not defeated). These warlords are corrupt, vicious and power-hungry, and they are totally opposed to a strong central government (the one ISAF is supposed to be supporting). So, 1) I don't know what part of the 'International Community' we are actually allied with (never mind 'coordinated with'), and 2) General Hillier pushed the mission in Kandahar and said: 'We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to kill people,' so I would say we DID 'unilaterally decide to start killing people we didnt like.' Sad to say.
  6. James Clost from chaozhou, guangdong, China writes: all i will say nick is that, until the afghan army is capable of providing security for afghans on its own, someone has to be fighting the taliban. right now thats NATO (alongside the nucleus of the new afghan army). reconstruction, development, building up the afghan army (we're talking of building an entire military force here, not simply training a bunch of recruits that we can put into units that already exist), and good governance are the aims of this mission. none of those can or will happen to the degree necessary unless the taliban is neutralized. what we can argue about is how successful its all been so far.

    you may not like the way general hillier is conducting our forces but he's a general and neither you nor i have the training or experience to question his skills (although i was a combat engineer in the military). further, he may have said some things that turned people off, but those are, by and large, the people who dont agree with the mission anyway. perhaps the general should have just went about his business and not said anything..... but unless the taliban can be brought back into mainstream afghan society, then our forces will kill more of them.

    by the way, i might add that noone ever thought the conflict in yugoslavia would end in the 90s, i was there and heard all the rhetoric from safe places like canada. the conflict there did end, but only once NATO moved in (and the UN moved out) after december 1995 and started launching attacks against, and killing some belligerents that didnt want peace.

    war is nasty. noone really wants it, but sometimes its necessary. if anyone disagrees with that, then i would say those are the people who feel nothing is worth fighting for. thats sad in my opinion.
  7. Laureen McMullan from Calgary, Canada writes: The propaganda machine is churning. Harper's government is trying to brainwash us into thinking war and killing is acceptable and honorable because he has more unspoken plans for our young Canadian men. Just think, we can adopt the 'American ideal' and be drafted into the army to fight in the wars the Americans provoke!
    The difference between then and now is there was a real threat then, now the aggressor is the USA. All Canadian children should be taught not to forget the Holocaust, the Vietnam war, and why these wars really happened, also what is really behind the war in Iraq, Big Oil.
  8. Robert Borden from Sharbot Lake, Canada writes: It seems to me that of Canada's wars the one most similar to Afghanistan would be the Boer War. However, there is one important difference between the two. In South Africa Canadians fought and died for King and Empire, while in Afghanistan they are fighting and dying for President and Empire.
    If A.R.M. Lower were still alive and writing at Queen's, no doubt we would see a new edition of his seminal work on Canadian history, with the updated title of 'Colony to Nation to Colony'.
  9. David W from St. John's, Canada writes: It seems entirely appropriate for Mr. Harper to link Vimy Ridge with Kandahar...both are epic wastes of money and young Canadian lives for no purpose whatsoever, except of course gain for the military industrial complex, which had been struggling under the Liberals. Soon, Canada will be able to base the bulk of its economy on manufacturing weapons, just as the US is doing!
  10. James Clost from chaozhou, guangdong, China writes: ' Laureen McMullan from Calgary, Canada writes: The propaganda machine is churning. Harper's government is trying to brainwash us into thinking war and killing is acceptable and honorable because he has more unspoken plans for our young Canadian men.'

    are you of the opinion that war is NEVER acceptable, under any circumstances, anywhere? by the way, this afghanistan mission has little to do with iraq and nothing to do with oil.
  11. Sam Ruisser from Richmond, Canada writes: ' Laureen McMullan from Calgary, Canada writes: The propaganda machine is churning. Harper's government is trying to brainwash us into thinking war and killing is acceptable and honorable because he has more unspoken plans for our young Canadian men.'
    Yes Lauren, he will send the military to Mars to bring green slaves to work in the oil sands in Alberta. I tought I heard it all, but again you proved me wrong.
  12. lad lladie from Canada writes: How in the world we're going to win in Afghanistan when we don't seem to know who our enemy is? The Talibans and Al Qaeda are not our primary enemies. We're fighting Pasthuns tribesmen. There are over 40 millions of them in Afghanistan. They form the biggest ethnic formation in that country. Talibans and Al Qaeda are corollaries formations of the Pasthuns. I'm no military expert but even I know Lao Tzu's first rule of war: Know your enemy. Sounds simple? It's not. As it is, we think we're fighting lost remnants of religious zealots acting like mountain bandits. We're not. We're fighting the same tribesmen that have defeated the British Imperial Army and the Soviet Union's Red Army. There is more than fundamentalist Islam motivating our enemy to fight. What could it be?
  13. Harminder Dhillon from Mississauga, Canada writes: Hello Globe Team,

    Equating Afghan mission, which neither govt. not opposition seems to know what is and when will it end or what would victory look like, to WW I battles is a dangerous game. Harper, before he became PM, wanted Canada to joing Iraw occupation as well? Would he have not equated Iraq war to WWI victories as well?

    Few months back Harper mentioned that Afghan casualities are the price Canada needs to pay to enhance its international standing, to be the world leader. Why do soldiers have to die in a foreign land so that Canada could be a world leader in Harper's mind? The very concept that Canadian soldiers' lives are a commodity that Harper could barter for a world leadership is abomnable, to say the least. Harper, and gung-ho gang would have credibility if they choose to enlist themselves and their families. Let's have mandatory military service for all and see how many Harperites are willing to fight foreign wars.

    Thanks: Harminder Dhillon
  14. Marg Macdonell from MB Canada, Canada writes: In WW1 and 11 we fought the occupier of other peoples lands and were seen as liberators.That is not the case in
    Afghanistan. The so called Taliban are Afghans and have the support of a large percentage of the people.If we look
    at the number of civilians killed by mistake by NATO Bombs
    it by far exceeds all NATO Military casualties.Hardly the way to make friends and influence people.

    As far as I can determine we have done little to raise the
    Afghans standard of living or emancipate the women.
  15. PJ Robertson from Canada writes: Denis Petruk from Canada writes: 'I believe Canadians of any political stripe just want thing to be better for the people in Afghanistan...'

    A noble sentiment, surely - except, how can we know or presume what is better for a tribal society with tribal loyalties governed immemorially according to tribal custom? Look at how our European ancestors presumed to know what was better for the Aboriginal Peoples of North America, how they proceeded to treat them, and the results we see and know today.

    Consider what it must feel like to the peoples of Afghanistan - or of any country - having soldiers from faraway pounding and trampling their villages and homes. Is that making things better for them? How would we feel in their place?

    Afghanistan 2007 and WWI are alike only in being the tragic consequences of political folly and propaganda: armchair decision-makers with vested interests sending the young to wasteful death.
  16. bill thecat from calgary, Canada writes: I am not sure if many of you remember the news reels where Bin Laden and Afghan leaders were sharing tea and having a good laugh after the 9-11 bombings. I do, I hope that we can get out of this quagmire as soon as we can. However, do any of you actually think that any U.S. politician could allow an attack on it's soil and not do anything while the politicians that sponsored this act have a good laugh on T.V. Why don't some of you point toward the incredible stupidity of doing that? And yes, as good allies, we had to go where we might not have wanted to go. The only thing that i hope for now is that our soldiers still behave with decorum and that we can salvage some good by maybe installing a democracy and providing some schools and drinking water to some villages. I am guessing that this is more than the British did in the three afghan wars and the Russians did during their doomed invasion. Having said that, we should learn from history and leave these ferocious guerilla fighters to their own devices. They are too well trained and too used to war to drive out in a 5 year mission, or even a 25 year.
  17. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: lad lladie from Canada ,

    So what is the answer? Do we leave, abandon our allies, let the Taliban retake Afghanistan and have Osama rebuild 'training camps' to attack North America?
  18. Calev Rhyason from Canada writes: Ok for all those people who keep saying that we havent done anything for the afghan people. Have you ever been there, most likely no. I havent either but I still know that Canadians are helping from my cousin who is in the military. Also for all those people who keep saying the typical 'the war in Afghanistan is just to expand the American empire,' well the Americans have almost abondand Afghanistan. I mean I hate Bush as much as the next guy and I think that they should stay the heck out of other countries affairs, but Afghanistan is different. And finally to all those who say that Canada has to pull out of Afghanistan now, If you remember during WWII how Canada refused to allow 400 Jewish refugees in and sent them all back to Germany where all but 5 died, well that is just one of the few horriable things that Canada has done, and well I dont want the deaths of thousands of Afghans on that record becaus we decided to pull out to 'stop American imperialism' in the middle east. Do not let the 51 Canadians die in vain.
  19. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Harper and most of the media have presented the 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge as something to be proud of and if necessary repeat it again and again rather than something to be regretted and avoided at ALL cost.

    I want a monument erected right in the centre of Ottawa with all the millions of peoples names that want diplomacy, respect for human life, and peaceful negotiating for others resources. I want that kind of reminder to the feckless leaders that hyjack our foreign policy for an agenda that is so UNCANADIAN it reeks of red white and blue corporate greed.

    Harper's notion that Canada will be a great nation under him should raise red flags for anyone that finds Vimy ridge a waste of human life. Harper wanted us at war in Iraq and no one should be allowed to forget that fact.
    i A 'Great Canada' under Harper's 'NEW' government is just another colony. He's taking all that we have gained as an independent nation, part of which is 'Never Again', and smeared us with the blood of innocent people in the name of security for the USA.

    For all those that keep stating that Afghanistan is NATO run so is somehow more legitimate than Iraq really have no interest in truth. I watched the CPAC coverage of the Parliamentary meetings NATO had in Quebec last year and there was nothing but contempt for the USA's invasion of Afghanistan and the forcing of NATO to participate. The European nations were mostly disgusted with the USA and some of the British delegates had a hard time not showing outright contempt for the USA and their 'invasions'. War is always about money and the young people dying there are nothing to those that send them.

    Harper's speech stated 'our hearts are aching', not his, because without those of us that do care in this country he wouldn't have a compassionate leg to stand on.

    We are making a big mistake every time we vote in people that support war as a solution to anything other than direct defence of CANADA.
  20. Jason Roy from NS, Canada writes: Harminder Dhillon from Mississauga, Canada writes: ' Let's have mandatory military service for all and see how many Harperites are willing to fight foreign wars.' Would you go if called Harminder? Marg Macdonell from MB Canada, Canada writes: 'The so called Taliban are Afghans and have the support of a large percentage of the people.If we look at the number of civilians killed by mistake by NATO Bombs it by far exceeds all NATO Military casualties.Hardly the way to make friends and influence people.' Marg, more than likely the average Afghan citizen; while not necessarily supporting Karzai or NATO; doesn't give two hoots about the Taliban either; preferring instead just to be left alone and live like he always has. The North Vietnamese/Viet Cong also counted on the average South Vietnamese civilian supporting them instead of the Saigon government during the Vietnam War; counting on a 'popular uprising' against the SVN government by the South Vietnamese populace/armed forces to carry them to victory during the Tet Offensive (1968) and the Eastertide Offensive (1972). Didn't happen. While the average South Vietnamese 'joe' certainly was apathetic towards the Saigon government, they certainly didn't support the Communists either. Even when the final offensive was taking place (1975), there WAS NO uprising by the Southern population against the Southern government.
  21. thom atherton from couldbeanywhere, Canada writes: Quite obviously the G&M censors have a problem with my opinions.
    Do carry on.
    You do the main stream media proud.
  22. Rick McNaulty from Calgary, Canada writes: Why do Canada's war dead not reflect our multi-cultural society?
  23. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: It's funny that people who are opposed to this mission use words like 'diplomacy'. That option was off the table when the Taliban themselves declared there would be no negotiations. I'm not sure how successful they would be in any event. It would be like when Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler. Chamberlain is now now known as one of history's greatest fools.
  24. Calvin harrington from FERGUS, Canada writes: I have read all the pros and cons of why or why we should or should not be in Afghanistan and I do not care. I do not care what has happen in Afghanistan 1 week ago, 1 day ago or 100 years ago. It is their problem, their History and beliefs. How they live or not is not my concern, they are only a threat to Canada as long as we are there. In short I do not give a damn about Afghanistan or it's people. I do care about Canadians dieing there, the money spend that could feed and house the home- less in Canada or even better cut my taxes. Who is benefiting from us being there? The Drug Dealers in Canada and the USA? The weapon dealers? How does it help me, or Canada? Yes I am a Liberal, but I also admired Bill Davis, Richard Stanfield, Joe Clarke wasn't a big fan of Paul Martins but first I am a Canadian who believes it is oky to disagree but please cut out the hate mail between us.
  25. Dwayne Allan from Canada writes: Where were all the war supporters before 911?I do mean the ones who are suggesting that NATO is there to free the Afghans.The whole purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama,not to free Afghanistan.Now the original mission has changed and the costs are fatally high.Not just with Canadian personnel but with Afghan civilians.Is this worth it to them?Do they want to give up their lives or the lives of their loved ones for a mission by uninvited forces? Some say we lost 24 Canadians in the 911 attacks and this mission is to take action for their deaths.We have now lost 51 more Canadians trying to do such and what has been accomplished? It took 12 suicide radicals to cause the 911 devastations.Does one truly believe that fighting in Afghanistan will really prevent something like that from happening again?Common sense should tell people that radicals could come from anywhere on the globe.Timothy McVey was an American,born and raised,and look at the devastation he caused in Oklahoma.This same act could be done by anyone willing to act on behalf of the 'cause'.They don't have to come from Afghanistan. Fighting in Afghanistan does not nor will not make any region of the world safer.The fact that fighting a war in Afghanistan has proven to be a losing battle to anyone but Afghan warriors should be telling our 'wise' PM that we should be pulling out and focussing on protecting our borders from within. When our troops first went to Afghanistan they had a viable mission.To find Osama and to bring him to justice.That mission has ended without reaching it's goal.Liberating Afghanistan is also destined to be a failure so why do the military chiefs(who before going to Afghanistan,advised against it)and this government continue promoting a losing battle and allowing soldiers to die for a lost cause?
  26. garlick toast from mill village, Canada writes: why won't harper talk to the press?
  27. Colin Fernandes from Canada, Canada writes: VIMY RIDGE! This is one of the most defining elements in Canada's history and basically put us on the map as a force to be reckoned with internationally. Yet those brave men and woman who gave their lives and freedom for us to enjoy the way of life we now know it adn only given a token (in my opinion) of appreciation in a statue and other formal events. This honourable day should be a historic day in Canada and should be a statutory day with a military honor and parade through ottawa as a reminder of what happened that day and why we are lucky to be Canadian.....and I mean LUCKY! We should be proud of what was accomplished that day by a group that had no business being there and on top of that doing what few could accomplish! WE SHOULD SHOW how much we appreciate it and not lumping it in with Rememberance day! Show some home grown pride for a change.
  28. pik scott from Canada writes: Lets look at it in a different view. We leave afghanistan to the taliban. (say goodbye to the women and children rights,but it seems here ,canadians don't care) So we have a taliban country which in turn help theri taliban brothers in pakistan. So here we are with 2 taliban run countries,one with nuclear weapons. Does that not sound scary?
  29. Beaverton Bob from Beaverton, Canada writes: Mr. Harper is a willing person as in the coalition of. Not a Dickensian Barkis!
    Our foreign policy is now tied to NATO and it looks like the good old days have returned, familiar Russian enemy and the old rule books come out. My MP is a Barry Devolin, Haliburton, Kawartha Lakes,Brock and I have sent him lots of emails, you guys may be good referees if my questions to him about foreign policy are fair and if I deserve answers. We should all be familiar with AIPAC and its influence in American politics. Is there a lobby group equivalent in the Canadian Parliament? (There sure are a pile of military think tanks in Alberta that are charitable organizations.) Do they help to support his election campaigns?
    I believe the miserable condition of 4 generations of Palestinians is a rallying point for Muslims against the US. (Should Canada be on BinLadin's target list?) Canada could well be able to take in these people and help Israelis to have more ethnically clean place to occupy. Looks like a no lose position!
    Israel is not a NATO country, do you guys think that Canada would be in a hot NATO war if Israel was attacked. Is there something about Israel that's similiar to an Archdukes assassination in Sarajevo that would lead Canada to War. There seems to be absolute silence about Russian experience in Afghanistan that would inform the efforts of our Canadian forces there. For sure they are proximate and may be burdened with refugees from mistakes we may be making, as well being a trade route for opium tar.
    To be cynical, there are big bucks supporting our re-militarization, I wish I could find the text of Hillier's presentation to the Canadian Club recently, they might shed some light on military contracts.
    Lt. Col.JohnMcCrae: I may not be sleeping. The LAV's may not be effective in holding high the torch.
    Support our troops, bring them home.
  30. Ethan Train from Buffalo, United States writes: Canada participates in Afghanistan because they are part of NATO, and because NATO is fulfilling a UN mandate. War is never pretty, nor is it glorious, but it is a duty and an obligation if you belong to a community that deems it necessary. Most sane people would prefer that wars never occur, but most sane people realize that sometimes they are an unfortunate necessity. That is why countries have armed forces. Canada can pull out of Afghanistan, drop out of NATO, ignore UN mandates and hope somebody else fills the gap they leave- or they can stay the course. The days of wearing blue helmets and hoping to get off easy as peacekeepers are over, today's world, unfortunately, demands peacemakers. Linking Vimy to Afghanistan is merely linking duties. It is not glorifying war but it is recognizing that individuals have died, often in vast numbers, doing what they saw as their duty. A volunteer army, such as Canada's, brings highly committed individuals to the fore, individuals who generally place duty to their fellow man above all else. If the majority of Canadians don't like where their troops are engaged, then they should elect a government that will never allow a member of the armed forces to leave the country.
  31. Barrie Hebb from Edmonton, Canada writes: Iraq had democratic trends into the 1950s when a foreign superpower decided to support the Baath regime. Afghanistan also had trends until that same super power decided to support the Taliban. Of course, any power who wants to invade another country and take control of key resources is not going to tell its people - who pay the price in terms of tax dollars and their loved ones who sacrifice their lives, they are instead going to sell the idea of conflict with some other notion of patriotism. If you look back to the discovery of the New World - and the vast wealth it represented to a resource hungry Europe - Kings made plenty of excuses to justify the behavior of the mighty European powers on a weaker native population in the New World - they conquered and it was not pretty. When we look back at the actions of a pwer hungry set of nations and how they justified their actions in pursuit of gold, do we think what they did was right? How many people died? How many cultures lost? The New World posed no threat on the old world. Now, substitute oil for gold. I feel bad for those who feel 'duty' or 'sacrifice' are appropriate words to describe what we are up to in Afghanistan and what we would have been upto in Iraq had Harper had his way and we were there too. Those who are risking their lives in Afghanistan are not laying down their lives for democracy. I wish it were true, but we can rule that out as a logical reason for the war there and the devastation it has inflicted on millions of innocent people (Afghanistan has 24 million people). On the other hand, adults are adults and there is also a serious amount of personal responsibilty for one's actions if you go there for a false cause. killing Canadians is not legal in Canada. Killing Afghans in Canada is not legal. Why is it okay to committ this in another country? Sure, people can make up myths like, 'people over there do not respect life' to try to deal with what we are really upto. But what are we up to?
  32. jason davidson from Victoria, Canada writes: It is a specious argument that Afghanistan is analogous to Vimy. I don't think the French wanted the Germans to take them over in WW I. In Afghanistan, what you have is a collection of mountain tribesmen who just can't get along and never could. The Taliban were not loved perhaps by most Afghans perhaps but they do share the same religion - unlike ourselves. We are seen as crusaders trying to impose our alien Christian/liberal values on these people - consequently - we will never win. So - this explains why even barbarians like the Taliban are favoured over ourselves. The lesson of Vimy is that we must learn and remember our history. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan, history has been quickly forgotten by the warmongers such as Harper & Co. Clearly, they haven't read the account of the failed 19th Century British invasion of Afghanistan called 'The Fierce Pawns' which I highly recommend.
  33. Sivaram Velauthapillai from Toronto, Canada writes: Calev Rhyason from Canada writes: '''Ok for all those people who keep saying that we havent done anything for the afghan people...I havent either but I still know that Canadians are helping from my cousin who is in the military.'''

    I don't think anyone is denying that nothing is being done there. The real question, especially to a liberal-libertarian like me, is whether it is our 'job' to go into other countries and help. With your line of reasoning, Canada should be in the thick of battles in at least 50 countries at any given time. Do you want Canada partaking in perpetual wars on multiple fronts FOREVER? Isn't that the goal of war profiteers and hawks?

    '''I mean I hate Bush as much as the next guy and I think that they should stay the heck out of other countries affairs, but Afghanistan is different. '''

    What's so different about Afghanistan? There are wars and atrocities being committed all over the world (Sudan is the most popular example right now). But how about 'democratic' Canadian 'allies' who torture, kill, and rape on a regular basis? Canadian 'allies' probably kill more of their citizens than these 'rogue states'. The next time a Canadian Prime Minister throws money at some leader from Central Asia or central Africa, look into what those guys do on a regular basis.

    '''And finally to all those who say that Canada has to pull out of Afghanistan now, If you remember during WWII how Canada refused to allow 400 Jewish refugees in and sent them all back to Germany where all but 5 died, well that is just one of the few horriable things that Canada has done, and well I dont want the deaths of thousands of Afghans on that record becaus we decided to pull out to 'stop American imperialism' in the middle east.'''

    Oh Come on... do you seriously think the present situation has any semblance whatsoever to WWII--or even WWI? ... Referring to WWII (or the Nazi argument) is nothing more than desperation...
  34. garlick toast from mill village, Canada writes: harper,who won't speak to the press,wants to play in the big leagues.the u.s.a. is ten times our size and has 3200 deaths so far.so when we get to 320 deaths in afganistan will we be in the 'bigs'?
  35. Happy Happy from Canada writes: I find Harper's linking of Vimy and Afghanistan repugnant. Rather than Vimy representing Canada's 'creation story' I believe Canada's greatest achievements are those which overcome challenges through negotiation and creative thinking: peacekeeping, multiculturalism, the movement from colony to country without the firing of a single shot. Harper's statements is an insult to our important history and worse, he is doing what I never wanted to see happen in Canada: politicizing history.
  36. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: Thanks Harminder, Crying Outlound, Calvin and Dwayne for your indignation at what our government is allowing to happen to our military and the people in Afghanistan that are affected by this war. He is not the kind of lPrime Minister this country needs. To the comments by James Clost about the US plans in that country not being connected to oil and Iraq. Of course there's a connection to Iraq, the US needs all the help they can get by pressuring allies to get involved because they are bogged down in an unwinnable war. There are also connections to oil as the US has been wanting build a pipeline to access Caspian oil and Karzai was a consultant for UNOCAL the American oil company before he was promoted.
  37. boris moris from vancouver, Canada writes: It is painfully obvious from reading the views of posters here that those who support the war are either short on intellect or very selective in their reading. The 'war' in Afghanistan is an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. The current 'government' is a puppet of imperial America and our soldiers are aiding and abetting war criminals of the lowest order. It would appear a history lesson is in order: 'It is important to revisit the original relationship between the US and the Taliban and the US invasion. The US poured millions into Taliban coffers until, says Eric Margolis (Toronto Sun), about four months before 9/11. It was only cut off when the regime refused to sign a contract with US oil giant Unocal to build a pipeline south from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan. It is also surely relevant that the Taliban knew nothing of the plan to attack the US. (The plot was hatched in Germany.) Much was made of the fact that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US. But Bin Laden was a national hero wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle -- which the US financed. When the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal upon seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11, the US refused. And then invaded. This was by any international legal standard a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan threatened the US. It is also an illegal occupation. This is the 'mission' that Stephen Harper, Yankee sycophant and budding warmonger, has 'extended.' The mission is not intended to ever end because its purpose was and is to ensure the US permanent access to Mideast oil and Afghani land for pipelines. But end it will -- just as every other colonial occupation of Afghanistan has ended -- when the occupiers tire of bleeding. Too bad dozens of Canadian soldiers, who should be peacemakers, will have to die to teach us an old lesson.' Murray Dobbin http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan/
  38. Steve Riddle from Ontario, writes: One aspect of WWI that I have not heard raised in the last week is that ALL it accomplished was to establish the preconditions for Hitler's rise to power. One wonders how this Afghani war will be seen in 50-100 years.
  39. PJ Robertson from Canada writes: A tip of the hat to my fellow posters for, on balance, the most thought ful set of posts I have seen on the G&M website.
  40. john douglas from greedville, Canada writes: Why do right-wing war-mongers always bleat the 'noble' war bugle when it is almost NEVER their kids who make the ultimate sacrifice? And for what?
    A lie enabling them and their corporate puppet-masters(i.e. haliburton, the carlyle group) to profit from war and destruction?
    Are they really that evil?
    harper has no shame and no soul.
  41. Cup of Tea from National, Canada writes:
    Thank you for the clear headed and clear-eyed review of the situation.

    Harper is on a slippery slope to jingoism, intentionally.

    We must avoid this while remaining vigilant.

    Excellent work G&M.
  42. Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: There were no war supporters before 911. NATO didn't want to go to war because Afghanistan posed no threat to any of the NATO countries. After the attacks, this was proved wrong, and the alliance went to war as it was designed to.

    Dwayne Allan your arguement doesn't make sense. You said that we should forget about searching for terrorists because they can come from anywhere, which would be okay, but then you said that finding Osama was a 'viable mission'. Since Osama is one of those terrorists, you completely contradict yourself.

    When we went to Afghanistan, almost everyone supported it. Now, since people are dying, and Canadians are also killing, its not supported. What did you expect when we went into Afghanistan? Did the Liberals expect that we could leave before 2009? I doubt it. If they did they are too stupid to be governing and if they didn't why do they think they can make a fuss about staying there?
  43. Jack Mitchell from Worcester, United States writes: I think it's interesting how Canadians ape the American anti-war movement: they are basically against the war in Iraq (American war), which is the only one they know anything about, and bring that to the table when they think about Afghanistan (NATO war).

    And of course the PM now talks like Bush, uses the same rhetoric, etc. So in that sense you can't blame the public!

    Last time I checked, the basic NATO mission there was to prevent a Taliban resurgence so that they wouldn't just invite al-Qaeda back to rebuild their training camps in southern Afghanistan. If only the Taliban weren't backed so heavily by Pakistan, we might succeed. But given that 2/3rds of the Pushtun people live in Pakistan, and it's the Pushtuns that we're fighting (=Taliban, essentially), it does resemble free-range trench warfare. Oh well, at least our army is getting lots of practice!
  44. Jim Cohoon from Chilliwack, Canada writes: The 'right wing' (in the broadest sense) has always attempted to politically hijack 'patriotism' in every country from the beginning of warfare. There would be nothing remarkable about Mr. Harper's inclusion in that long tradition. I have come, however, to be more alarmed about far-right hijacking in a far broader context. In the US we have seen how the far-right (using the White House as but one tool) has attempted to hijack not only patriotism for militaristic political purposes, but have also been, in effect, hijacking conservative Christianity (through a politicized evangelical movement) so as to conflate Christianity, patriotism and militarism all into one ideological super-allegiance. Their time may have passed in this decade, but Mr. Harper's close ties to the American far-right must be closely watched. That said, let us pray that Mr. Harper will steer his own course and genuinely support patriotism and praise sacrifice as something more than political ploys.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top