Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Commentary

How we put our foot in it, in Afghanistan

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:37 PM EST 11/12/07

Canada involved itself in that volatile Afghan province based on almost entirely false premises. Now there is no easy way out ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. frank sommers from Kandahar, Canada writes: Now that we have taken a stand here -one that I believe many Canadians who have lived under totalitarian systems heartily support- we must not waver, but muster the political will to stay the course. This is a noble mission that may be the litmus test of our willingness to engage with the gathering clouds of suicidal fanaticism. The Afghans I speak with here seem to agree.
  2. Mei-Xing Xu from Canada writes: bring the soldiers home today, if politicians want war, send in the ones who voted for it , all parties. let them fight for what they believe in.
  3. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Did you even read the article Mr. Sommers? But sure, go ahead and be a cheerleader, though I suspect you'd look kind of funny with pom-poms.
  4. jack doober from brantford, Canada writes: The united states..
    -Lost the war in Korea
    -Lost the war in Vietnam
    -Is losing the war on drugs
    -Is losing the war on poverty
    -Is losing the war on terror
    -Is losing the war in Iraq
    -Is losing control of their economy

    Why should we in Canada back such a loser..
  5. stephen ottridge from vancouver, Canada writes: Jack Doober Afghanistan is a NATO mission , it is not a US led situation. There are soldiers from numerous countries, Denmark,Netherlands, Slovakia amongst others.
    There is a major attack by Afghan, British and American troops in one town in Hellmand province going on right now to free the town from Taliban control. A Taliban that has just executed a 12 year old. We should be doubling NATO's efforts in Afghanistan, not talking about pulling out.
  6. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: To be fair to the states, mr. doober, they and our country and others did not lose the Korean War. They prevented South Korea from being overrun, and that can be called a success, especially if you compare the relative state of the north and south today.
  7. Paul Bagnall from Edmonton, Canada writes: Mr Simpson,
    It seems Canada "put it's foot in it" numerous times during the reign of Jean Chretien. I'm guessing for no other reason than to spite the Americans, he chose Afghanistan over Iraq. The Kyoto negotiations were heading for a 5% reduction (against the will of most provinces) and the egomaniac signed us up for 6% without any idea how we would comply, nor did he do anything once the photo ops were done. We'll be trying to get our foot out of it for years.
  8. matthew parsons from Edmonton, Canada writes: Mei-Xing Xu, I am a Canadian soldier that wants war, can I go with the politicians? You seriously need to sum yourself up, clown!
  9. Robin Westin from Calgary, Canada writes: Jeffery Simpson is too kind when he talks about "false premises" going into Afghanistan. Ideologically driven incompetence on the part of Harper, Hillier and O'Connor is the reason we are so far in without a way out. The leaders of the West are too eager to offer up slogans and platitudes like "staying the course" (parroted by the first commenter) and so miss golden opportunities to present to the world logically coherent analyses of terrorism and what to do about it besides grovelling in the same killing pit as the terrorists. The debate has now shifted from "when do we get out" to "we can't get out because the Taliban will take over". Well, where are all the non-Taliban Afghans in all this? If the polls are correct, a majority don't want the Taliban back as Simpson has noted in his article - so why aren't they taking control of the situation? The Taliban are out-classed in every measure: less money, fewer fighters, inferior weaponry, less popular, and not in control of the levers of government...and yet after six years of pounding by bunker busting bombs, tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships, and the most modern and well equipped infantry, we are being told that the Taliban would sweep back in if we left!!! What the hell is going on here? Are we being played as suckers, doing all the fighting and security operations so the corruption in Kabul can flourish? The way out of Afghanistan is 90 days notice!
  10. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: I just started the Klein/Lang book. I was disappointed by their (too brief) summing up of the Taliban rule, from 1995 to 2001. It was shallow and pretty much a word-for-word repetition of the propaganda line used to demonize the Taliban in 2002. For instance, Taliban social strictures were quite normal for southern Afghanistan, including rules on women. The only slightly less conservative north (by Canadian standards) resented the Taliban's severity. Southern Pashtuns were fine with the Taliban's social strictures; they resented the Taliban's use of arbitrary justice instead of traditional Pashtun methods (still horrendous by Canadian standards).

    To explode another myth, the warlords who fought a murderous and destructive civil war from 1990 to 1994 began the practice of public executions in soccer stadiums; the Taliban merely continued it. However, they were demonized for the practice, while those who started it were installed in the new Afghan government by the Americans, guaranteeing profound and eternal distrust of the Karzai government among ordinary Afghans.

    I smiled at Mr. Simpson's portrayal of Canada as the paragon of virtue in Afghanistan, surrounded by a cast of dubious characters, and ONCE AGAIN being set up for betrayal, etc. by its putative allies (adding a new chapter to the popular mythology surrounding Dieppe and Hong Kong in WWII).

    Let's be honest: The Harper government is using Afghanistan to look tough on the world stage; CDS Hillier is using it to hone and blood a fighting army; North America is fighting there for its own reasons of security. Almost no one is there to help Afghans for the sake of helping Afghans. When the Russians left in 1989, the world suddenly ignored Afghanistan and left it to be ravaged for five years by the mujahideen warlords. Then 9/11 got the attention of security officials--and those who saw opportunities in a handy little bush war--including Canadians.
  11. Rona Baird-Zundel from Arvida, Canada writes: Mr. Simpson should also have defined what "success" means. Is it driving the Taliban into negotiations and subsequent power sharing? So far, the Taliban's end game seems to be to drive out the "infidels" and regain power. We cannot overwhelm the Taliban and reduce their effectiveness until the NATO forces operate as a "common" and unified force where resources(blood and treasure) are deployed where and when they are needed and the many provisos are eliminated.As it is we have a number of understaffed countries' forces acting separately of each other. When you have the individual NATO participants squabbling amongst themselves instead of focusing on the task at hand, soldiers' lives are wasted. A tried and true recipe for failure and no light at the end of this tunnel.
  12. John Doe from Halifax, Canada writes: So the majority of Afghans do not want the Taliban to come back ?Therefore: Nato must stay and keep the bad guy out. But... doubtless the majority of people in Darfur do not want the militias there. So... Why isn't Nato in Darfur to help those people too ? And... doubtless the majority of people in Zimbabwee do not want Robert Mugabe there. So... Why isn't Nato in Zimbabwee to help those people too ? And so on, and so on. Bottom line: Canada is in Afghanistan to help the Americans, not the Afghans. Any noises to the contrary are just politics...
  13. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    The truth will come out.

    And some twit wants to name Hillier as nation builder?

    And Harper wants Canada to stay?

    Bring the troops home.
  14. Brent Beach from Victoria, Canada writes: Suckered by our own military based on their reading of US demands - which turned out to be Pentagon demands. Our military talks to their military. Any inside information they offer is purely Pentagon views. We should not mistake that for the US view as "The Unexpected War" makes clear.

    Read "House of War" to understand Pentagon priorities. We have allowed those priorities to become Canada's national priorities. Suckered by the slick talking General Hillier. He deserves the nom de guerre "thin end of the wedge" for tricking the government into a small mission then escalating beyond the army's ability to meet. Sounds better than Rick "Kill the Scum" Hillier. Rick "Thin Edge" Hiller. Nice!

    Military priorities are building a military machine. We now have an army general at the top - the army will get the largest portion of the toys over his term. The Air Force and Navy will get smaller portions than historically. Hillier wins the inter-service game this time around.

    Don't be buying any used cars from General Rick "Thin Edge" Hiller.
  15. paul gill from Canada writes: (Sigh). When I started to read the comments, and immediately saw the posting by "Frank Sommers from Kandahar, Canada" I wanted to throw up my coffee. The catch-phrases belong in 1912: "we must not waver"; "muster the political will"; "stay the course"; "a noble mission"; "the litmus test"; "the gathering clouds of suicidal fanaticism". Frank, where on earth do you get this stuff? Here's one for you: we have a better chance of winning the war on cholesterol, than we do of winning a war in that h*ll-hole called Afghanistan. Let's be clear here. Afghanistan is a land-locked country, that shares borders with Iran, India, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Afghanistan, as everybody knows, is also a major regional source of mischief: weapons, terrorists, drugs, and religious fundamentalists. Afghanistan's neighbours know that as well as we do. Therefore, nothing, repeat, NOTHING is going to be solved in that country unless Afghanistan's neighbours sign on, and grant their blessings to whatever "solution" is proposed (particularly China, India and Iran, who all for their own reasons detest the Taliban). However, NONE of those countries is involved in helping us (spin our wheels) in that place (some are in fact actively hindering us). So ask yourselves this, as you bleat on about "noble causes", and "staying the course": what do those countries know about the neighbourhood that we don't? And why is it that those countries (many of which have huge armies) don't assist in going in there to impose a military "solution"? And why is it that we are expending untold amounts of cash, resources, goodwill, and lives in that place, while the neighbours sit on their hands and watch? This is a boondoggle. NATO was created to stop the Ruskies from invading Germany, not to re-order Asia. And it will be China, India and Iran who ultimately "solve" the Afghanistan problem, to their own purposes and satisfaction. Any doubts? Then go look at a map.
  16. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: frank sommers from Kandahar, Canada writes: Now that we have taken a stand here -one that I believe many Canadians who have lived under totalitarian systems heartily support- we must not waver, but muster the political will to stay the course.

    You are obviously in the military and are brainwashed. Do you know how many homeless people are here in Canada, how many children with autism, how many extremely poor, very sick who cannot get timely healthcare and you think we should risk our young peoples' lives with billions in military hardware to protect the ROUTE for an American gas pipeline. (check it out under Google, AOL, Yahoo, etc.)

    Do you think it is moral to get up in expensive airplanes and bomb people including innocent civilians when the Afghan themselves can fight for their own country against the Taliban on THEIR LEVEL, which, in my opinion, would certainly be fairer. Who makes you God to decide which should have priority; charity begins at home, and when we have some to spare there are millions of children in other parts of the world who are starving and we wouild not need expensive military hardware to help them.
    GET REAL!
  17. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: At the risk of repeating myself once again, the mission in Afghanistan has been accomplished. Its just that many don't understand what the mission was and is. For those having trouble, the mission was and is sustained anarchy in Afghanistan that will justify the presence of foreign troops there. For the poor soul who thinks Afghanistan is a NATO mission not a US mission, who do you think tells NATO what to do and when to do it.
  18. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: frank sommers from Kandahar, Canada writes: ...

    He writes mind boggling 18th century nonsense. Not quite as flowery as Kipling, but the same nonsense.

    noble mission - There is seldom anything noble in killing.

    The boys had some fun, give them their parade, aand get them out of this silly quagmire. Maybe Darfur would be more appropiate. But that won't be necessary if the West continues to procratinate, since most will be dead.

    Durgan.

    Justice for Ian Bush and Robert Dziekanski. Killed by the RCMP.
  19. Political Junkie from Canada writes: One constant in the Afghanistan debate.

    The further from the reality of the facts on the ground, the more stridently opposed you are likely to be.

    If you have actually spent real time there, your view of our engagement is much more sympathetic. This goes for the military, NGO's and especially the the press.

    It is insulting in the extreme for people ignorant of the facts to accuse our soldiers on site who support the cause of being brainwashed warmongering lunatics. I'll take their understanding of the situation over anybody surfing the internet in Canada.
  20. Peter from Vancouver from Vancouver, Canada writes: Paul Gill you are right on, but logic has never been the stong suit of the "We'll never cut-and-run" and "You're either with us or against us" crowd. If there is a single place on the planet where the infidel is destined to repeat the mistakes of the past - not decades or centuries past but millenia past - the name of that place is Afghanistan.
  21. Ken Hunt from Canada writes: Afghanistan as probably never had democracy and never will.
    We can't expect to enforce our western standards on them .
    I have said it before on the comments.Set up surveillance so that the likes of Bin Laden can not set up shop in Afghanistan again and leave them to it.
    We are never ,never ,never ,going to bring western style democracy to this hell hole.
    The only Afghans who want us there are the one's who are going to get fat from money poured in by the West,be it pipe lines or aid
  22. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Ken Hunt. Afghanistan has had centuries of democracy. Rarely do the elders of tribes become elders through dictatorship and war mongering. They usually become elders through respect from the tribal members. Just because they don't have elections doesn't mean that the will of the people isn't being followed. How long has it been since you have seen elected members in our "Democracy" that have earned this same level of respect? Palestine had elections and the will of the people there was obvious. What is your definition of a democracy?
  23. Peter from Vancouver from Vancouver, Canada writes: I believe this thread was about how we got into the Afghanistan mess, not whether we should be exporting our brand of so-called “democracy” to Afghanistan or trying to rebuild their society on a model that is alien to them. This mess happened the same way most wars happen – powerful industrial and political interests conned the lawmakers and population into believing a lie. Even WWII – the so-called “good” war, grew directly from "The war to end all wars", the greatest con of the 20th century. One could argue that Chretien chose Afghanistan over Iraq as the lesser of two lousy options. Here are the current two lousy options: a full-scale invasion of Pakistan’s northern provinces to wipe out the Taliban in their breeding grounds, or continue with the current strategy that isn’t working but in the naive hope of a different outcome.
  24. max stelmacker from Prince George BCVancouver, Canada writes: Excellent article column and insightful comments. - - - I think Canada has been drawn into this war, not exactly suckered, for definitely more reason than one. I tend to think the most underscored and underreported corollary issue in this war is related to the opium/heroin/poppy trade. Its probably too terrible a thought to fathom for most people, to deeply consider how much death is resultant both from the export of the deadly drugs, and the ensuing deaths and casualties to control or halt production from the crops which we are told finance arms and military hardware. How a person with a needle stuck in their arm in a western country, basically self-immolating their selves, is connected to a war torn country where innocents suffer and troops sacrifice their lives is far too confusing. But if anything, probably all too most accurately encapsulates the horrors and injustices of this war along with all the vicissitudes this far away war torn country has gone through. The war sounds like hell, and if a person is going through a private hell of addiction here at home they need serious help with treatment programs which address this. The current Harper government contemplating shutting down safe injection sites doesn't make for a good equation on either side of the fence. For starters, having a safe injection site devalues the costs of illegal crops. They also reduce HIV being spread and funnel users into detox at an impressive rate. It displays compassion. Trying to fumigate crops in Columbia was a disaster which only produced an opposite effect and was a hit and miss affair. Are we collectively that stupid to repeat mistakes on that scale in Afghanistan? Where are we at when a Canadian at home dies in all ways but one and I mean physically (although this is another benefit of safe injection sites) and a Canadian soldier dies participating in trying to prevent this war madness from spreading? Without a moral compass?
  25. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: max stelmacker. I agree with the exception of one point. The poppy crop in Afghanistan is a result of the invasion instead of the invasion being a result of the poppy crop. While there was some poppy growing during the Taliban reign it has only flourished to its present magnitude since the invasion. Just one of the many life style improvements we have brought to the people of Afghanistan. It certainly makes me wonder who is making the profits from the trade and of equal concern, how all of this additional heroin is making its way to North America. Are Taliban ships allowed in North American harbours?
  26. Purple Tory from Alberta, Canada writes: The Soviet Union spent a decade in Afghanistan while NATO was arming and supporting the Taliban. It wouldn't surprise me if Russia is repaying the favour.

    Pakistan is a big part of the problem in Afghanistan. Taliban militants find a safe haven in Pakistan's Tribal Area, and Islamist militants threaten to topple Perez Musharref's government and replace it with one based on radical Islam. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Canadian soldiers would be on the front lines if a larger war breaks out.

    We were told that we needed to invade Afghanistan as revenge for 9/11. Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a US ally. After the US decided to invade Iraq, citing WMDs, the excuse for war in Afghanistan has shifted to such dubious reasons as "helping the women of Afghanistan". What about the women of Saudi Arabia?

    There is no end in sight to the occupation of Afghanistan. Will we withdraw after a decade, like the USSR did? Or will we find a way to get our troops out without allowing the Taliban to prevail? Only time will tell.
  27. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Political Junkie from Canada writes: "One constant in the Afghanistan debate.
    The further from the reality of the facts on the ground, the more stridently opposed you are likely to be. If you have actually spent real time there, your view of our engagement is much more sympathetic. This goes for the military, NGO's and especially the the press. It is insulting in the extreme for people ignorant of the facts to accuse our soldiers on site who support the cause of being brainwashed warmongering lunatics. I'll take their understanding of the situation over anybody surfing the internet in Canada."

    Well said - a good post!

    I am fed up with the nattering nabobs of negativism who infest this site with their ignorance.
  28. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: "Maybe Darfur would be more appropriate. But that won't be necessary if the West continues to procratinate, since most will be dead."

    If you think that Afghanistan is a so-called "quagmire" (not), then you're really going to enjoy Darfur. Perhaps you should something about this, prior to posting again.
  29. Mervin Hollingsworth from Saskatoon, Sk., Canada writes: As usual a well written article which states the obvious that it's easier to get into a war than to get out. We all know that so there is nothing eye popping in J.S. column.
    However, the question is what do we do after 2009. Harper has asked John Manley and his panel for advice. The opposition parties will bray at the moon and the Liberals will once again show themselves to be hypocrites. It was they who sent our troops to Afghanistan and then moved them from the safety of Kabul to Kandahar province. Now they will argue the Conservatives changed the mission. Prove it Liberals!
    However, it does not matter about Canada's obligation to Nato, our international reputation, the fact that other Nato countries are extending their missions until 2010 and our committment to the Afghan people, the opposition parties led by that feckless Liberal leader will ensure that Canada ignores all of its obligations and its reputation by withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan. I could be surprised but with the likes of Dion and Layton I don't think so.
  30. Doris Wrench Eisler from St. Albert. AB, Canada writes: This summary makes it seem like the Americans simply stumbled into Iraq on a whim with no idea of the horrible consequences. The facts dispute this position. Twelve years of killing sanctions, almost daily bombing over many years in "no-fly zones" by the Brits and Americans and subsequent destruction of anti-aircraft installations do not speak of spontaneity.
    There is plenty of evidence that immediately after 9/11, although the focus was ostensibly on Afghanistan, the real target was always Iraq.
    Who says the US lost in Iraq? - quite disputable considering their Baghdad embassy is the largest in the world in the world along with at least four full bases. The Iraq, Afghanistan adventures are part of a larger plan as outlined in early '90s policy papers like Defense Planning Guidance, Policy for a New American Century etc. This all may quickly turn on the Bush administration, but so far it has gone according to plan.
  31. Doris Wrench Eisler from St. Albert. AB, Canada writes: That should have been Project for a New American Century, and I agree with the poster who believes Afghanistan is basically a destabilizing mission - divide and conquer Arabs and various Muslim sects. Remember
    this has been referred to as a generational war - just what the military hardware companies want and need. Naivete, false ideas of nobility and sacrifice works for them.
  32. Earth is the insane asylum for the universe from Canada writes: Purple Tory from Alberta, Canada writes;

    Right on the Saudis'...What has become interesting since the CIA destroyed those torture tapes is not the torture but what was said.
    And why 4 Prince's from Saudi Arabia and one head of the Pakistan Air Force died so quickly and under some interesting circumstances.
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/7/183319/766/707/419308

    Meanwhile unless the west is prepared to go inside Pakistan aftet the Taliban.Then the rest is useless.
  33. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: What happens to the poor people of Khandahar if we leave and another "NATO" country doesn't take over? Don't panic the US will assign a battalion task force of about 1000 troops and a PRT of 100 to take over. The US will need far fewer troops because they won't need to replace the Canadian command and logistics elements and a US PRT is smaller. The US will have these troops available because of draw downs in Iraq. And don't forget that by the time we leave there should be another 2-3 Afghan soldiers for every Canadian in the province. It's that simple. There will be no crisis if Latvia or Italy won't take over. ........................The upcoming panic is being stirred up by people in DND and Foreign Affairs who want to continue the combat mission and want the Canadian public to believe our leaving would leave our Afghan "friends" (who reportedly greatly outnumber the Islamists but somehow need our continued help fighting them) at the mercy of the Taliban.
  34. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Doris Wrench Eisler,

    "almost daily bombing over many years in "no-fly zones" by the Brits and Americans and subsequent destruction of anti-aircraft installations do not speak of spontaneity."

    Strange - I've got hundreds of hours of air time enforcing the no fly zones and we never dropped a bomb on anyone. And anti-aircraft installations were never engaged unless they actually by their actions threated coalition aircraft ie fire control radar locking on to aeroplanes.

    Cheers

    Mikey
  35. frank sommers from Kandahar, Canada writes: Working now in Kandahar (and speaking with afghanis and treating our wounded) may I suggest folks view the video OSAMA and read Fifeteen Days by Christie Blatchford. Then let's discuss the R2P Canadian Policy Initiative, hopefully without rancour.
  36. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Frank Sommers: That's "Afghans" for the people; "Afghani" is the currency. But of course you know that, since as you say you are there on the front lines.
  37. Posted 09/12/07 at 12:51 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
  • Paul Thompson from Canada writes: Nice choice of words there Fender "nattering nabobs of negativism", first spoken as far as I know by the late and unlamented Spiro Agnew, or perhaps his speechwriter. I hope he isn't one of your heroes.
  • Tony Sailor from Victoria, Canada writes: It is never easy to accept we have made an error . It's usually more difficult to correct it.

    That is no reason to do the right moral thing: GET OUT now.

    Why should we be spending billions to kill people when in some parts of our country we lack the millions needed for our hospitals, schools and poors????
  • Terry Maurice from Guelph, Canada writes: Who are we to be telling other countries what kind of government and law systems they should have in place? What ever happened to the right of self determination? Afghanistan is a nation with a right to choose its form of rule and brand of religion. That we in the west do not agree with what kind of government or religion is irrelevant and misguided. So what if the force is a NATO-based force, it is still largely Western powers, with western "ideals" trying to impose their will on a sovereign nation. If the Taliban regain control and put in place a repressive regime that is Afghanistan's business not ours.

    Who are we to be taking the "moral high ground" when so much of what we have in the West has been gained at the expense of poorer nations in the world. Where were all the self-righteous sorts when the US toppled so many democratically elected governments, had the CIA assassinate other government heads in South and Central America, the Middle East and then install repressive regimes that cooperated with the US business interests. The global economy and free trade are just propaganda for Western (aka US) global domination. Just keep in mind which part and who in the "military-industrial complex" are the real beneficiaries of this and all other wars. Lets not be too self delusional about the true nature of these wars are all about.
  • incognito k from Canada writes: Fact, war is never pretty. Leaving Afghanistan and going to Darfur would just be a change of war zones. If Canada and it's Nato allies leave, the Taliban would be quite happy to force their way back in thus filling the power vacuum. That would not be so bad for the rest of the world until one remembers that they quite happily hosted Al Qaeda terrorists who bragged about what they had done in New York. I also dream of peace but the reality is that it takes two sides for love or war.
  • Ron MacGillivray from Flatbush, ab, writes: BTW does anybody know if the Afghan parliament back in business? Apparently half of them walked out a couple weeks ago in protest. It has to do with the bombing last month where a number of Afghan MP's died as well as a large number of children. There are allegations that Afghan military police, went around executing victims after the blast as they lay wounded on the ground. If these allegations are true then it would suggest we are wasting our time there. You have to be delusional to believe that our support for the Afghan gov't, or what passes for the Afghan gov't, is going to bring anything resembling democracy or law and order. Here's a link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7113738.stm
  • Robin Adams from Ottawa, Canada writes: I love how you use the word "we" repeatedly in your article Jeffrey. Who is this "we" you keep talking about?? You and me perhaps? Well let me tell ya buddy "we" have as much say in the decision making processes of this country... that is nil. "We" did not decide anything.... "THEY" made the decisions for us... that would be Liberal and Conservative governemtns. THEY decided to spend our treasury, lives and good name to become a mercenary state in the service of another's empire. This hopelessly unrepresentative and corrupt system we all live them allows them to do that.

    My second favorite comment is how you say "we can't easily leave". BS Jeffrey!! Ask this "we" and my answer to Bush is so simply easy it would make your little mind spin.

    oo0o

    Like so many Canadians this "we" could care less about the Bush Administration's hurt feelings. I might add also that since Brits and Spaniards managed to withdraw from Iraq, we can too from Afghanistan. Since our current crop of pols are so spineless maybe "we" should put in a new party which isn't as spineless as the previous two. One that might actually represent the interests of Canadians.
  • Richard Soley from Cochrane, writes: Let's keep in mind that this article is an opinion by the authors and is open to dispute from several sources. The authors make the sound of a fighting army sound distasteful but what in heaven's name is an army for if not to defend our country. As to Afganistan and the opinion that we are a thin red line, history records worse case senario's and to simply put the negative forwared as fact is wrong. Without the assistance of NATO and by association Canada there is no possibility that this war torn land restores itself to independence. As each encounter occurs it becomes more and more diffficult for the mercenaries and terrorists to site their propaganda but without a postive plan to go forward these people will remain a source of trouble for the world. Finally think about the alternative, failure is not an option unless of course the Liberals and heartthrobs wish to embrace a suicide attack on downtown Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal ot Calgary. Opions by non participants are exactlly that Opinions.
  • big picture from BC from Victoria, Canada writes: IMHO, we should hand Afghanistan back to George and let him figure it out. We've done more than our share already, as NATO has acknowledged. Besides, if the Bush administration has to deal with Afghanistan as well as Iraq, they might decide not to bomb Iran after all. (Because you can bet they're still thinking about it.)
  • S. Ives from Ottawa, Canada writes: Frankly, I find the article to be an unusually lazy effort by Mr. Simpson.

    My sympathies are in the minority here. With respect to currency, the Afghani is signified as 'AFN', not 'AFA' so Frank Sommers should be cut a little slack. Even the CIA World Book still has it wrong.

    As for whether 'we' should have an opinion on the type of government and law another country should have in place, well, yes we should. Even in Troll-land.

    Political opinions of all stripes should be welcome, and to avoid discussion of those we agree or disagree with would encourage state-sponsored terrorism to function in a vacuum of opinion. Insert your country of preference here, but I would feel far more comfortable making this statement in Canada than I would anywhere in the Middle East.

    Certainly the WTC money came from Saudi Arabia, the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was certainly Saudi (and disowned by them), but as Archimedes noted 'Give him a place and he will move the world'. And the Taliban did exactly that.
  • varun xm from toronto, Canada writes: The Afghanistan involvement is an obligation for being a NATO country. I would rather us carry the full load in Afghanistan and strive to do the right thing rather than be ineffectual tinkerers at arms' length. This begs the question, why are we part of the NATO? Our concerns are, in my opinion - the threat of terrorism from a stateless enemy, the threat of an economic implosion in the world's most powerful military-state, global warming, and the economic disparities amogn the global population. How does the NATO help except engage in global pissing contests?
  • Interested Observer from Canada writes: Facts are facts.

    Canadians kill inoccent Afghans at the behest of her master the US of A. We are their lap dog at a cost to Canadian taxpayers of over $100,000,000. per MONTH!!!

    $100 million dollars per month. $3.3 million per day.

    120 DEAD little boys and girls EVERY month

    How long are wait times for at rick Canadian children at Canadian hospitals?

    How is that 'war on poverty' going? As good as the 'war on drugs'??

    Cananda has adopted the US Refugee program (send them home). Canada has adopted the US 'drug laws' and our incarceration rates will soon escalate accordingly.

    Warmongering military industrial complex needs to be fed - and hell with personal freedoms and the rights of individuals. War means profits.

    How is Hakiburton, Exxon and the suppliers of war doing - very well indead - in fact if economuics were the only guage - Iraq and Afghanistan are resounding successes.

    If personal rights/freedoms and human costs are the be evaluated - then - not so much.
  • Interested Observer from Canada writes: It should be obvious that NATO is led by the U.S. military. With its current role involved with the powers of the American empire in unilateral pre-emptive actions that generally work against international law, yes, NATO is nothing but an extension of that empire, a tool of the corporate-military structure that is part and parcel of the American government. NATO as it currently stands has a dual command structure, SACT and SACEUR. SACT is the acronym for the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, the transformation being that of making NATO forces into a U.S. styled rapid deployment force anywhere in the world. SACT will be dual-hatted (meaning the same guy has both positions) as Commander, US Joint Forces Command. This one person is U.S. Air Force Gen. Lance L. Smith, who is headquartered in Norfolk Virginia. SACEUR is the acronym for Supreme Allied Command Europe and is be dual-hatted as Commander, US European Command, General John Craddock, United States Army who is appointed by the US President. His headquarters are in Mons, Belgium. Canada’s role, as an occupying force under international law, contains other concerns along with the above: the treatment of prisoners of war; the destruction of civilian structures (they’ve built some roads, but what about the farms and houses that have been destroyed?); the ‘rendition’ or transfer of prisoners to the Afghan forces (this issue came to light recently but was quickly dropped by the media once they were reassured that Canada had access to “its” prisoners); and the care and safety of the occupied population. The arguments for democracy, for making the world a safer place, for protecting Canada, for trying to prevent a civil war, for countering terrorism, for rebuilding Afghanistan, or for honouring those who have already died by not cutting and running, do not stand up to common sense and moral scrutiny any more than they do international legalities.
  • Robert Billyard from Mission, Canada writes: Simpson is right, this is a must-read book for every Canadian.

    Two of the most important quotes in it come from CIA officials Henry Crompton and David Kilcullen:

    Crompton: It is really important ... we define the enemy in narrow terms. The thing we should not do is let our fears grown and then inflate the threat.

    Kilcullen: You don't play to the enemies global information strategy of making it all one fight...You've got to define the enemy as narrowly as you can get away with.

    We have let our fears grow, inflated the threat and failed to define the enemy as narrowly as possible and this goes to the source of our problems and the quagmire.

    And of course we needn't name names as to the politicians who misstated the war on terror to suit their nefarious agenda and the spineless sycophants who went along with it.
  • Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Richard Soley: If most Canadians really believed for one minute that Canadians fighting in Afghanistan would prevent a terrorist bomb going off in a Canadian city (heaven and earth forbid), the CF would be inundated with volunteers. However, most people are intelligent enough to know that fighting the Taliban will never prevent international terror attacks; indeed, many people fear that our aggressive behaviour in Afghanistan makes terror attacks in Canada more likely, not less. Tonly Blair sealed his fate when he claimed that the terror bombings of "Coallition of the Willing" capitals London and Madrid were only done because the bombers "hate our freedoms," not because they had invaded Muslim countries.

    S. Ives: There is no evidence to suggest that the Taliban leadership had any foreknowledge of 9/11. And look what it cost them. I imagine they were not at all pleased with Mr. bin Laden in the months following. My guess is that if they ever re-acquire partial or complete political power in Afghanistan, Mr. bin Laden is the last person their leadership will want to see on their doorstep, because they know that the moment his presence is known, they will never be able to sleep in the same house two nights running. Even their craziest members (there are also moderates) know that cruise missiles, stealth fighters and special forces would be regular visitors.

    As to opinions, we can opine all we want; the only ones that finally count are Afghans'-- that is unless we think we can FORCE them to adopt our opinions. We have been trying to do just that for the past six years; however, it seems to have only resulted in the quagmire Mr. Simpson describes (can't win, can't leave). Next opinion, please.
  • Michael's Rebellion from Scarborough, Canada writes: frank sommers is just another example of Israeli manipulation of Christian societies through the ridiculous use of silly cliches and media highlighted by Paul Gill, thank you for pointing that out. This nonsence about caring about afgani 12 year olds or any of their freedoms is sanctimonious and stinks like the American jewish effort to constantly compell the west to fight any threat to Israel. They are to blame for our media pushing the false premises on us, and now that we know they were false, are trying to come up with new false premises. Like Iran's Nuclear weapons program. Ask any reporter, they all seem to have to make a choice between employment and truth and keep falsely going on about Iran as if it's some kind of threat, despite reason. Or that future possible threats are ligimate reasons to use military force. Outrageous. The logic of using force to prevent Fact is, Canadians don't care enough about anyone anywhere to use military force to change things to the way we see it or the way it should be according to us. The first day that we realized there is no reason or goal in using force, should be the last day our boys venture outside our borders. Nato and victory obsession has become a trap for us. There is no face to save, we became defeated with our own colonial attitude that got us in there and made it worse when we realized there is no realistic military solution and ketp going with it.
  • High on legal drugs from gooftown, Canada writes: Kill the tallyban support the trupz kill the scumbagz were winning eeeiieeeeeaaaayyyy!!!
  • A bit buzzed on illegal drugs from Niceville, Canada writes: Peace man, stop the war. Get my frikken tax$$$ out of affghannyfingstan.
  • D K from Canada writes: I see the Can't-adians are out in full force.
  • matthew parsons from Edmonton, Canada writes: Interested Observer, how many civilians are killed by the Taliban each week, month, year? Oh, you don't have those numbers, typical. You insinuate that canadian soldiers kill children, but have no proof. The problem is, you are an observer, and nothing more. You have no facts to back up your statements, and your obvious dislike for anything wioth a chain of command is evident. You go on about Halliburton and the such, but at the end of the day you just blather about nothing. The mission in Afghanistan is not a combat mission, and it is not a reconstruction mission. It is just a MISSION. Nothing more. people like you labelled it a combat mission because the troops were firing back. Guess what, they fired back in every so-called peacekeeping mission as well. Cyprus, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all icluded shots fired. More Canadians have been killed peacekeeping than there have been killed in Afghanistan. I don't care if you are against the mission. I don't care if you support the troops. Just get your facts right before you spout off about false facts that attempt to portray your self wished intellegince.
  • frank sommers from Kandahar, Canada writes: 12 year old Ali say hello and thanks canadians for the good care he is getting in our canadian run hospital here. The Taliban closed his school 2 years ago. He says "I hate the Taliban".
  • Logan Fields from United Kingdom writes: I suspect the west will need to find somebody in Afghanistan who has sufficient local clout that, with sufficient western propping, can make for viable rule following a withdrawal. This may well not be an entirely desirable person and his or her (let's face it, his) connections that support his local clout will no doubt include some undesirable elements. It will also cost money and no doubt involve turning over weaponry to potential future enemies. It's either that or indefinitely keep Afghanistan as a mecca for those who dream of nothing other than a chance at taking pot shots at western troops. Western ideals aren't hard currency in a country like Afghanistan, I'm afraid.
  • L Harder from Canada writes: What I find odd about the situation is that a dedicated taliban funded locally (local as opposed to western sourced funding), is not matched by an equally dedicated locally funded Afghan group(s). Funny how there isn't a name for the opposition. In this situation, western gains should be consolidated and held by this nameless opposition instead of being overrun by Taliban after western forces withdraw.

    The currrent situation makes me very doubtful of polls indicating Afghan support for the NATO presence. The lack of good information makes me doubtful of what's going on there. Most "news" coming out smells like propaganda speak, or is so close to the action that it lacks the broader big picture relevancy.
  • Doris Wrench Eisler from St. Albert. AB, Canada writes: Mikey from GWN - perhaps as with the CIA, the right hand of the air force knows not what the left hand is doing. Check the web for "bombing in Iraq no-fly zones" and you will come up with a very different picture from the one you claim to see. The UK Ministry of Defence has admitted (since Dec 1998) dropping 780 tonnes of bombs on a country with which Britain was not at war. Jonathan Power pointed out in an article 6 July, 2000,
    "the Pentagon says more than 280,000 sorties have been flown in the near decade since no-flight zones were imposed...in the north and south
    of the country (Iraq)". Do you really think Iraq would have been attacked had there been the slightest chance of military retaliation?
    that's not how the US operates.
    As for Afghanistan, when the rationale changes like a turntable, you may be fairly sure something is not quite on the level. As with Iraq, millions of dollars have gone missing and what little construction under- taken has not used Afghan labor, the cheapest and best. Meanwhile
    Karzai hints darkly of our having to fight Taliban on our own soil. He obvioulsly takes us for idiots. As has been pointed out, the Taliban were
    ready to hand over Bin Laden if the evidence warranted it. Apparently, it didn't. We are doing no good there, simply advancing the US hegemonic agenda.
  • Beaverton Bob from Beaverton ON, Canada writes: I recently asked my MP Barry Devolin if he had ever been offered campaign support from anyone in the arms industry. I don't know if has ignored my requestl inasmuch as he has never given me an answer. Thanks to Hillier, Canada is busy buying arms for an updated military, the need to match the hitech of the US.
    The budgets of arms dealers I think would dwarf anything that Schreiber had access to as a he lobbied Canadian politicans.
    Canada's voters should be looking carefully whether their voting power is not subverted by an arms lobby. How should we question our MPs about who they talk to?
    Some how Harper has replaced Tony Blair, as lapdog of the Bush administration. This Harper would have Canadians hang their heads in shame for not supporting an invasion of Iraq supported by a pack of lies.
    Harper is not much of a Canadian.

    • 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.