Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canada urged to double troop strength

GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:27 AM EST 23/02/08

In absence of NATO reinforcements, Canadian commander seeks brigade of 5,000 to keep Taliban at bay in Kandahar province ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Proud Canadian from Canada writes: Put Hillier and Teflon Steve on the front line for a bit. Then maybe some sensible decisions will be made. Cowtowing to the fella in the White House has to end sometime, might as well be right now.
  2. imagine there's from Canada writes: 5,000, 10,000, 15,000 Give them what they want. It won't make any difference.

    In the long run the country will go back to where it was before 2001.

    On a different but related note, it seems that the Goverments main task is transferring our middle class tax dollars to the arms industry and private corporations.

    This 'war' is a good one on us.
  3. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Just stay home, soldiers. And young people, don't sign up, is my advice.

    All the war supporters are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. They have some sort of abstract grasp of the situation. I am of course referring to their supposed support of a fledgeling democracy in a land where that is not possible. Or perhap to the fight 'em there or fight 'em here crowd. More to the point, this war is bringing big money to a few. There can certainly be support at an abstract level for that kind of goal. The people's support at this level is helpful.

    Why not try to find some concrete reasons to support this neo-colonial war? Good luck.

    What I find quite funny is that powerful people don't care much for thinking at the concrete level. Money is abstract. England was a world power for a few centuries. England went and messed up entire continents. What's worse: letting the 'natives' sort out their problems among themselves or going in and manipulating things to our benefit, then leaving at the appropriate time and of course leaving them to sort out their problems among themselves?
  4. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Canada drew a line in the sand by demanding NATO allies commit 1000 extra troops...

    Our NATO allies appear to have balked at this demand so someone is now proposing Canada do even more so the US can keep their troops involved in the occupation of Iraq...

    Diplomatic negotiations aren't really in the New Government's skill set...
  5. Robes Pierre from Canada writes:
    If we have a volunteer army to fit the bill go right ahead, seems to be lots of brave keyboard commaders who should sign up asap.
  6. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: Yup, here we go. The Manley Report recommends 1,000 troops. Now Canada is being asked for 2,500 more.

    And Harper did not know this at the time he was negotiating with Dion?

    BAD FAITH.

    We need to end this mission NOW.
  7. Andrew Perry from halifax, Canada writes: Just based on the 1 to 10 rule, with a total military strength of approx 65,000, including the Navy and Air Force, we need to commit 100% of our total operational strength! Madness.
    Think about it: After 40 years of starvation , our entire Army is to be committed to the Middle of Buttfarked Asia ; where, if things were to go sideways, we have no hope of helping them ourselves and our best ally is the Americans.
    Sign me up, but read some Kipling for everyones sake. does Harper really need his epitaph to read:

    A fool lies here,
    Who tried to bugger the East
  8. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    yes folks............ we are being mislead..............
  9. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: How touching:

    Another officer crying for more cannon fodder.

    Haven't these idiots learned anything from the US experience in Viet Nam and the Soviet experience in the same country of Afghanistan?
  10. spicydoc reconstituted from concentrate, Canada writes:

    If 2500 young Canadians VOLUNTEER to join the mission, and are eager to do so, is there a problem?

    More boots on the ground makes it safer for everybody, doesn't it?

    PS--It's starting to sound like the French partnership is a done deal, doesn't it....
  11. 4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: From the article:' Canada needs as many as 5,000 professional NATO soldiers — double its current force — to hold Kandahar's key districts, a senior commander says, suggesting that previous demands for extra troops are not enough for basic security in the province.

    Shouldn't this General on the ground shut up before the terrorists hear him or worse yet Hillier hears him? And exactly where is he going to get them? There is no NATO, there is no UN, there is just the USAmerican military and we belong to them and be very afraid because they can blow your house down like a bullet hitting a bullet!!!!! And then they'll show you what that looks like on Youtube.

    Anyone that does not support spending their hard-earned taxes on the weapons makers and for paid killers that are not working in our best interests get in touch with Conscience Canada.
  12. The Religious Left from Kingston, Canada writes:
    I don't like this war much. But if we are going to be there until 2011, we better win. If the military says they need those troop levels then that's what they should get.
  13. rick binda from Montreal, Canada writes: France and Germany must send a fighting brigade first. NATO generals must be given orders to attack the taliban fighters where they run even if they cross some border or another. ( kill them or anyone who supports them. This is war!) Only then should Canada support and continu this mission.
    This is the end of NATO and the Canadian armed forces should move on and get ready to fight for Canadians.
  14. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: I do not think we have the capacity to send another 2500 there or anywhere else for that matter the commander should know better.
  15. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Gee Spicy, do you think this done deal with France will give Harper his majority? Done weeks ago of course, with all kinds of public bleating from Hillier and this new guy, all for one purpose, of course, and we know what that is. I bet Hillier spoke with Harper's blessing. Hell, Harper was there when Hillier spoke, or close by, or ready to speak himself to that same crowd of defence people.
  16. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Finally, we have a general willing to say what's been needed to be said for at least 18 months. 500 combat troops is just NOT enough. Canada needs more combat troops (infantry) on the ground.

    I have also been saying this, that 1000 combat troops Mr Manley said were needed are 1000 combat troops plus about 2500 support troops - arty, flat heads, comms, HQ, air wing (non-Canadian) and a medical unit.

    The goal is to get a NATO brigade in there. 4 countries have the strength to pull directly from their forces - US, Britian, France and Germany. 3 others Poland, Italy and Turkey would be a strain on them. It doesn't become workable with an attempt to 'cobble' together units from other NATO nations to make it possible.

    Again, thanks to the Canadian General for stating what he needs. It's taken too long though and we've lost influence in too many areas.
  17. True North from Canada writes: Never heard of a military commander who felt they did not need more troops. However, Canadians were told that our forces are now going to go on the offensive and then suddenly we need thousands more troops to hold current positions?? We are told to trust the commanders on the ground but we need the straight talk; not one thing one day and then another the next. Double talk is the Harper goverment's role.

    The real reason NATO wants an indefinite presence in Afghanistan is for strategic reasons: to have an active military right beside China, Russia and Iran.
  18. Nathan Cool from Vancouver, Canada writes: What happened to Manley's 1000? What a bunch of lies. Just end this nonsense.
  19. D Chiu from Victoria, Canada writes: The Soviet Union had few hundred thousand troops in its Afganistan war and after the loss of 10,000 soldiers and tens of thousnds injured, it withdrew from that country. Hillier is misleading this country by saying a few thousand troops will do the job.
  20. Lyin Brian from Canada writes:
    What is this.... an auction?
  21. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: Hillier reminds me of a medieval monk.

    The monk speculated on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

    Hillier speculates on how many soldiers will die before Canada gets out of Afghanistan.
  22. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: I should add that neither had a clue.
  23. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: I was just about to go to bed when this caught my eye. It doesn't surprise me that much. The timing's a bit off though. I didn't expect the demand for more troops until AFTER the extension was approved
  24. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: This is all Ed Sullivan's fault.
  25. spicydoc reconstituted from concentrate, Canada writes:

    D B--

    You ask whether the French help will help Harper get a majority.

    Moot question. Harper already has a de facto majority. Haven't you figured that out yet?

    Yurchuk--

    The extension will be approved. The libs drafted it for pete's sake.
  26. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: Kenneth:
    In war there is never a shortage of troops, at least not until the generals get bored.
  27. jamie yavis from Canada writes: lol, and Canada is going to succeed where no other country has succeeded in the history of man ... honey get me another beer to go with my popcorn, they're sure to make a movie about this one!
  28. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: D.B.

    If Harper were on the Ed Sullivan show, what would be his shtick?
  29. ah sails from Canada writes: Why does everybody always want to save Afghanistan from itself. Not every country will be a democracy, nor does every country want it ! This is a tribal country, like many, let then take care of themself, if the Taliban run things and the others don't like it, they should take care of it...we can send troops, we can send more troops and more troops..we can extend the mission until 2011...and then to 2111...then 2211, it will still be a tribal Afghan nation...why do we believe we can convert the non-believers...why do our leaders not look at history, can they be so stupid...?
  30. siren call from Canada writes: From the article:

    'Six years ago we had only a few Taliban supporters in Khakrez,' the retired major-general said. 'Now we have a great number of them.'

    Not good, obviously. Then:

    When the provincial police chief stood in front of the assembled elders and declared they should support the 'free and independent Muslim government,' there was an uneasy rustling in the crowd, as people coughed and spit, and several men sitting near the front murmured, 'No, no, no.'

    Did anyone think to ask what the 'locals' think is the solution? They don't want Taliban, but neither do they seem to want their current government.

    G&M recently ran an article where the tribal elders around Kandahar were meeting to draft an opposition to NATO troops on their land. What's their proposal.

    My point is -- I know there's a language problem but when a journalist gets into an area like this, simply reporting on what the Canadian forces and the Afghan Karzai reps say is not giving us enough information. It's also a terribly wasted opportunity.
  31. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: should have said Johnny Mathis, not Mel Torme. Mel Torme was okay.
  32. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: On Ed Sullivan, Harpo would be the dummy sitting on Bush's knee, of course!
  33. john john from kelowna, Canada writes: Its all about the hardware. The more troops, the longer the mission, The more countries involved, the more hardware we will sell.

    Glad you're on board Canada.

    Scotch and Cigars all around!
  34. siren call from Canada writes: Harper's skill on an Ed Sullivan show?

    Obviously, ventriloquism.

    Look how he doesn't even seem to be moving his lips when van Loan squeals, Baird barks or Prentice looks all dangerously serious about a Liberal government meaning deficits.
  35. siren call from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: On Ed Sullivan, Harpo would be the dummy sitting on Bush's knee, of course!
    ......................

    Oh sure, for the international version of the show.

    And they'd both have to sit in Cheney's lap. Blair could make an appearance ...
  36. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Mr. Harper could have played a sober Jerry Lewis. Less yucks but that's okay.

    We are all smart when we are born. Why do we have to get so dumb afterwards?
  37. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Ian Gunn:-- Had you been watching Bill Moyers (NOW) on PBS tonight, you would have watched a report considerably more chilling that what is passing as the basis for debate in Canada. The number 400,000 (troops, Afghanistan, success) was being bandied about. The current failing mission was discussed. An extra 2,500 troops is neither here nor there in the scheme of things, but it may be the price for appearing as an extra on the world stage.
  38. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: I think it would be Ed would beat the pants off Steve in a charisma showdown.
  39. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Actually, let me tell you how it is...

    Why people like you think you can berate your countries allies is really beyond me...

    Here's what your British allies are saying today about your three trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

    Enough of this foolishness!

    Time to pull the plug on the neocons...
  40. Stephen 62 from Vancouver, Canada writes: So much for the much-ballyhooed claim that an additional 1,000 soldiers is all that's needed to 'get the job done.' It won't do the job. Nor will sending in 10,000 extra soldiers. It didn't work for the Red Army in the 1980s.

    The other set of goalposts likely to be moved has to do with the end-date of the mission. First it was 2007. Then it was 2009. Now it's 2011--and counting. No matter who wins the next election, I expect there'll find a new pretext (maybe in a sequel to the Manley Report) for extending the mission to 2013 or beyond. But by that time, the futility of the occupation will be manifest to all. Getting a further extension will be a political non-starter.

    All of which raises the question: why doesn't NATO just declare victory and withdraw now?
  41. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: The 5000 troops are a low ball number as is pretty much admitted by the military in the story. Either we (NATO and/or others) make a real commitment or we get out. It does not honor the death of those soldiers who have fought here and died to send more troops in a half-committed effort to maintain the status quo. We didn't get involved to maintain the status quo. If it is status quo that is all that we can give, it's time to hand the mission over to the UN and put the efforts on diplomacy. Nonetheless, what we are being asked to support is an effort to maintain a few small areas of security (status quo) at best and a slow and eventual withdrawal after being humiliated at worst. This is not honoring the troops, this is insulting their deaths. We do more to honor their deaths by sparing others from useless deaths than we do by continuing on. So, once again either give a genuine commitment or quit wasting the lives of our soldiers and withdraw Canadian troops from Khandahar.
  42. Nom De Plume from Canada writes: When you're wounded out on Afghanistan's plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your god like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling

    This place will never be worth the blood that's been shed here over the centuries. Absent a real threat we're pissing around in nowhereland trying to bring the 15th century into fast forward. It will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and young canadian lives.
  43. Steve Not an Alberta Redneck from Calgary, Canada writes: It doesn't seem that long ago that the right wing was constantly harp(er?)ing over the fact that of the then 15 countries in NATO, we ranked ahead of only Luxembourg in per capita military spending. Now we are contributing far more than almost any of them and are expected to double our efforts. It goes to show, spending isn't nearly as important as it would seem if the committment isn't there. I suppose that unlike Canada, military spending in most is a form of job creation and in the US, a form of corporate welfare. 2009 is a good time to get out. Call their bluff. There are many places in the world where we can have a positive impact but suppoting this narco state isn't a good use of the resources we have so efficiently built up.
  44. Jim Cohoon from Canada writes: For anyone interested in some on-the-ground truth about the Afghan war, go to Bill Moyer's JOURNAL on the PBS website. There is a remarkable recent interview with an American woman named Sarah Chayes who is organizing a co-op there. It tells a story astonishingly at odds with the 'official' version of reality being told about this war.
  45. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: What's going on? From a Manley report that says someone else needs to take a turn and commit at least 1,000 troops all of a sudden we're there 'til Dec 2011 and are needing to double the cannon fodder. The Liberals cave, Hillier says don't debate. Stop this insanity, get out now.
  46. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: I would implore everyone to read that aforementioned article by former chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz article in The Times today...

    Aside from the intangible costs of these two conflicts, he estimates the direct costs of these two wars have already been THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

    The operating costs of Afghanistan are 16 Billlion a month alone!

    This is complete and total madness and it will be our children that pay for it all!
  47. Don Jenkins from Canada writes: It would be cheaper, more compassionate, and more productive to offer the citizens of Afghanistan who are not Taliban a free passage out of the country and citizenship abroad in a land of the free, while imposing major sanctions on the Taliban, keep them from moving arms in and out of the country, and starving them out, than to put more people on the ground to die in a battle we're not equipped to fight.

    That is, if our goal was to actually save the innocents from the Taliban and not build an oil pipeline.
  48. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: Wouldn't it be refreshing if Mr. Harper leveled with us in a press conference about our presence in Afghanistan? It might go something like this:

    Fellow Canadians. Oil prices are going up and they are never going to go down. Alberta has extensive resources but they are finite and in due course they will be exhausted. We Canadians and our American allies to the south are committed to the profligate and excessive use of oil to provide the way of life that we deserve.
    There are huge and untapped resources in the Caspian Basin. Unfortunately, the Caspian Basin isn't in Alberta. It's somewhere near Afghanistan. I'm not sure exactly where.
    Regrettably, there are only four ways of getting oil out of the Caspian basin and three of those ways involve sharing the wealth. In the interests of all Canadians, I have decided to agree with our American friends not to share the wealth, but rather to domesticate Afghanistan and pay them minimum wage to transport oil to western markets where it rightfully belongs.
    That is why we are in Afghanistan, fellow Canadians.
  49. Patrick Matheson from Canada writes: I say send more troops... with the support of Canadians...
  50. Lyin Brian from Canada writes:
    A US commander in Afghanistan says 400 000 troops would needed to defeat the tribal forces there. Maybe like General Shinseki he'll be retired soon.
  51. Kurtis Smith from Canada writes: Sounds feasible Brent. Unfortunately, why we are there doesn't seem to be motivating many people in Canada to take action. No great protests, little change in consumption habits, Conservatives gain in popularity. I guess most people just don't care. Keeping up with the Jones' is more important than some nameless people half way around the world.
  52. jack sprat from Canada writes: This puts the entire Manley report in the realm of BS

    This has a simple answer.....NO

    Harper obviously orchestrated Hilliers speech and now the need for more soldiers.

    THIS IS UNWINNABLE. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BUY GETTING THEM HOME.

    ABC
  53. Brent Raby from The City State of Toronto, writes: The Manley report?
    Where's the Wajid Khan report?
  54. James C from Nowheresville, British Indian Ocean Ter. writes: 'D Chiu from Victoria, Canada writes: The Soviet Union had few hundred thousand troops in its Afganistan war and after the loss of 10,000 soldiers and tens of thousnds injured, it withdrew from that country. Hillier is misleading this country by saying a few thousand troops will do the job.'

    ----------

    apples and oranges. you cant compare the two. there are too many differences between the two military structures (USSR and NATO) to make a fair comparison.
  55. R L from Canada writes: .
    1991, Fall of the U.S.S.R.

    1998, Dick Cheney, 'I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.'

    Afghanistan is strategically located in between China and the world's largest sources of cheap oil.

    The world is very quickly running out of cheap oil.

    .

    This is not about cute little girls going to school. Karzai is a puppet.
  56. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Apples and oranges, eh? The Anglo-Afghan Wars also were surely apples and oranges too then...

    It's funny that apples and oranges aren't really that different in the grand scheme of things...

    Karzai's government is corrupt, full of nepotism and Afghanistan's opium production is its chief export...

    What are we doing in Afghanistan exactly?
  57. James C from Nowheresville, British Indian Ocean Ter. writes: my point is that anyone can say 'the soviets failed, so we're going to fail.' at least a little analysis followed by some useful input by some posters before writing would make these posts a little more worth debating.
  58. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Another Major calling for more Canadian troops. Looks like a pattern.

    Now, where can they get these 5,000 troops? How many MPs have war-age offspring fit for duty? Shall Canada recruit the working poor? The unemployed? Empty jails and prisons?

    Conscription?

    Again, sounds like a Major in need of a workable plan.

    Can we get some governance over here, please?
  59. W. Mayne from Canada writes: This is starting to sound like Vietnam all over again. 'If only there were more troops in Vietnam, the problem would be solved and the US would win the war'! History showed that this was wrong. When you are in a fight that you can't win, then cut and run.
  60. James C from Nowheresville, British Indian Ocean Ter. writes: 'Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Another Major calling for more Canadian troops. Looks like a pattern. Now, where can they get these 5,000 troops? How many MPs have war-age offspring fit for duty? Shall Canada recruit the working poor? The unemployed? Empty jails and prisons?

    Conscription?'

    -----------

    mrs whiggins, the good major said:

    'He listed five Kandahar districts and suggested Canada needs to double its current troop strength of 2,500 to keep the Taliban away from those important areas.'

    he was suggesting another 2500 on top of the 2500 already there. dont throw those spectacles away mrs whiggins, you can get them fixed :-)
  61. James C from Nowheresville, British Indian Ocean Ter. writes: 'Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: Another Major calling for more Canadian troops. Looks like a pattern. Now, where can they get these 5,000 troops? How many MPs have war-age offspring fit for duty? Shall Canada recruit the working poor? The unemployed? Empty jails and prisons? Conscription?'

    ----------

    i just watched 'King Arthur' the other day. we could do what the romans did. employ prisoners (slaves in their case) to fight, and once the mission is over, they're free. of course, there's no monthly salary for this, and they have to make their own way home afterwards. if they survive.
  62. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: jack sprat from Canada writes: This puts the entire Manley report in the realm of BS.

    Manley's report was complete nonsense when released. The media never trashed it as they should have, and of course the Sheeple believe anything without thinking.

    The cost of this silly, exercise 'Mission to Afghansitan' is unconsionable. To babbly about it bing a precentage of the GNP is ridiculous.

    Soldiers are to defend the country when called upon, not to play at war in some god-forsaken country to no purpose. Enough is enough.

    Our Country is being led down the garden path. This situation is getting more ridicious every day.
    Durgan
  63. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: And y'all did not see this comming, perhaps they should ask the Russians how many troops it will take........ when they cut in run they had approx 12,000 dead and thousands more wounded with only 120,000 boots on the ground. Where's the beef? Time for a draft give all high school grads a job men and women alike send them to Afghanistan, the West is in start with all those cocboy highh schools and work West and then East till the job is done...............
  64. Michael McCarthy from Toronto, writes: Just a clarification here folks. The government is not recommending the troop increase. It came from military people on the ground. I am amazed at how people feel competent and knowledgeable enough to comment on international affairs when their basic reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. And this is a NATO exercise, not a 'kowtow' to the white house. Are we in Iraq? Personally, I am not sure if being in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, but we are there, and we have committed to the Afghan people to at least try to protect them. Anybody remember what happened to the Iraqi Kurds when George Bush Sr. encouraged them to rise up against Saddam Hussein after the first gulf war. The US did not follow up and they were slaughtered. The Afghans may never develop what we call 'democracy', but put that aside for a moment and think of the majority of moderate Afghans who are looking to us, and other NATO countries to help them recover from three decades of misery, war and oppression. We have started the process and the real moral tragedy would be to withdraw before we have done everything we reasonably can to see it through to a successful conclusion. As a veteran, I know what it is like to be in a conflict situation. Volunteer armies are just that. They get paid to train for times like this. I was aware of it when I signed on the dotted line, and I am sure that every man and women currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces was aware of it too. We can oppose the war, I respect and cherish people's right to do that. But please try to do it in a way that does not undermine their moral. It is extremely important when serving oversees to know that you are supported back home, even if the cause isn't.
  65. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Honestly, I don't have the feeling that we're losing,' he said. 'All we need is a bit more cohesion at the NATO level and this problem would be solved.'

    Not so sure what this 'Honestly' means.

    Are readers to assume that earlier statements were not meant to be taken seriously because they were 'less than' HONEST?
  66. 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..They are now losing the war in Afganistan..The idea that the UN is running this war is a farce..Maybe the countries that wont fight see this and we dont at the cost of Canadian lives..
  67. Vern McPherson from writes: The soldier wants more men. The baker wants cheaper flour. The renter wants lower rent. The landlord wants more money. The fireman wants fewer fires. The cop wants less crime. The teacher wants fewer students. The manufacturer wants more production. The priest wants less sin. The salesman wants more sales. The politician wants more votes. The demigod wants more control........

    bobloblawbobloblaw ? I don't know what he wants. ................

    Canadians, ... we have a fully rotated military now with everyone getting combat experience. We have 80 or so wonderfully courageous guys and gals lost to the cause. We have the requisite quantity of psychologically abused soldiers. Let's just get the Afgans trained up in the next couple of years as best we can and let's just get the F out of there except for a few pros in diplomacy and a few more in advisory capacity. Send money, ..... that's OK. Drone the $hi! out of the countryside, burn the poppy fields and pay the growers to grow food for their people .....

    If the taliban sets up training camps for international terror strikes and reverts to their old ways ............. lets just nuke em....
  68. Some Guy from Canada writes: James C, it doesn't matter if it is 2500 new troops we are to send over or 5000 or 10 000. We simply don't have them. We currently have three regular infantry regiments of three battalions each and they are serving in Afghanistan at one tour on, two tours off. We would have to go to 2 on and 3 off and we are having trouble with losing personal as is. Try doubling the tour length and those will suddenly be understrength regiments.

    We have historically volunteered in huge numbers for causes in which we believe, but with a robust economy and plenty of jobs, that is not happening now. We are supporting this mission with air force and navy support personnel, because we are that badly stretched. We currently can fly half our air force or a third of our navy, but not both at the same time. In the 90's during the gulf war embargo, we needed air force and army personnel to keep the navy at sea.

    The reality is, if our allies are not willing to supply more troops, we should be pulling out, not hiding in the bunker ordering about troops which do not exist.
  69. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: 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..'?

    Hi Jack:

    Short Answer:

    WAR IS GREAT FOR BUSINESS!! NO WAR less than boom times!

    Think Oil--Tar sands oil, for example!

    Canada is on the road to becoming an Energy Super power-- thanks in no small measure to ---you guess it --and it's not PEACE!

    YES,all the big players benefit.

    So should the world resign itself to the inevitability of wars?

    Perhaps, realistically, we should stop whining and griping!
  70. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: To hell with that idea. If Europe, which is much closer to A'stan, doesn't think it is worth sending more troops, why should we?
  71. Josh Taylor from St. John's, Canada writes: People in Canada need to wake up. This is not a US war. It is sorting out a troubled part of the world. There are not people behind the scenes making millions from this.

    Give them the troops. Don't do things half assed all the time.

    If there was no Iraq war this debate would not be happening.
  72. James C from Nowheresville, British Indian Ocean Ter. writes: 'Some Guy from Canada writes: James C, it doesn't matter if it is 2500 new troops we are to send over or 5000 or 10 000. We simply don't have them. We currently have three regular infantry regiments of three battalions each and they are serving in Afghanistan at one tour on, two tours off. We would have to go to 2 on and 3 off and we are having trouble with losing personal as is. Try doubling the tour length and those will suddenly be understrength regiments.

    The reality is, if our allies are not willing to supply more troops, we should be pulling out, not hiding in the bunker ordering about troops which do not exist.'

    ----------

    thanks for the post. i agree with you for the most part.

    by the way, i was in the army and spent 18 months in yugoslavia in the 90s. i'm aware of how the rotations work.
  73. matthew parsons from Canada writes: Funny how we are willing to help people that make the effort to come to Canada, but deny help to those who can't. 'Some Guy' is wrong on his rotation numbers, and I should know as I am part of the rotations. If you have never been to Afghanistan, how can you comment on its ability to be demogratic? Or its ability to grow? Basing all your opinions on comments from G and M reporters is pretty far off. We can win this war, and build a better country for the people in the process. All it takes is resolve and determination, something lacking from the Canadian way of life these days. As for all the know it alls on these forums who blab about pipelines and the soviets and the opium, and the call for the immediatte withdraw. Do you think CAnadians are the only one who read this. Your cowardly comments are killing Canadian soldiers. Go for the soft target, kill Canadian soldiers and the people will demand pull out and start to cry. So they target Canadian soldiers. And I know you will all say I am wrong and a neo con, but I have seen it and done it. What have you doento help someone else? Resolve and determination, thats all. Is it really that hard?
  74. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I thought we didn't have enough troops for that.
  75. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Thank you (again), Graeme Smith. Why is Canada almost entirely dependent on one Globe & Mail reporter for the truth about our troop deployment in Afghanistan?

    This report explodes the false threshold, 1,000-troop 'magic number' falacy politicians have been spinning to convince us that victory is 'just this close.'

    If the Canadian commander who has 'led some of Canada's biggest operations against the Taliban over the past six months' is willing to tell a reporter that he needs 5,000 more troops--just to hold only five out of Kandahar's 17 provinces--then where on earth did the Manley Panel get its 1,000-troop requirement for Canada to continue its combat mission in Kandahar? Who did the panel talk to?

    (Note that Canada does not yet 'hold' Panjwai. In the 2006 'Operation Medusa' trumpeted by the CF and ISAF as a great victory that 'broke the back of the insurgency,' the CF tore up fields and irrigation ditches with its armour, blew up homes, and turned the residents into refugees. The Afghan police came behind them, looting everything they could and enraging the locals. Within a week, ambushes and bombings of our troops had resumed, and the district quickly reverted to insurgent control. Then the CF went back to do it again, and so on ad nauseam--at least for the villagers and our soldiers: of the 66 Canadians killed in Afghanistan as of July 2007, almost half died in Panjwai.)

    This report also renders moot the political 'debate' that CDS Hillier is so worried about: Clearly, the terms of the debate, and its underlying information, are false, so it will provide no useful information to the insurgents. Perhaps now it won't provide false hope to Canadians and our troops either, as it was being carefully crafted by Ottawa to do.

    Stay safe, Mr. Smith, you are treading on some powerful toes.
  76. A B from Calgary Area, Canada writes: So, what is our CON-BORG Dictator, King Stevie, up to with this machination?

    Canada... we CANNOT Trust this guy.

    Glug, Glug, Glug.... The Good Ship HMCS 'StevieHarplerLiedAboutIncomeTrusts' is tendering salvage opportunities.
  77. Tim Cares from Canada writes: If we don't have enough troops to do the job, why were they sent there in the first place?
    Just to make everyone think Hillier was a man's man or something?
    Get this American asset out of his position.
  78. Percy from NL from Canada writes: Well, well, well ... I won't say I told you so but ... I TOLD YOU SO!
    I am simply amazed at how so many Canadians actually seemed to believe the 1000 additional troops proposed by Manley was adequate. And the fact that this number went unchallenged by the media and the Liberals is ridiculous. A game is being played here with Canadians and Canadian troops.
    First when I saw Manley's report I said the 1000 troops was the number NATO told Manley to ask for. And he did NATO's dirty work by doing just that. It never was an adequate number to do the job and protect the work being done by our soldiers in Kandahar.
    So now the pressure increases more on Canadians. Now we're being told that our democratic debate, not NATO's weakness, may be causing suicide bombing against our soldiers.
    Being from a military family, I've supported our troops and always well. I've also supported the Afghan mission from day one. But with these political games being played and the Liberals also being stupid enough not to challenge NATO on this, I'd say it's time to consider getting out ... before these international spineless yahoos really get us in too deep.
  79. forty sum from Canada writes: But the military has so far refused to give statistics for all types of insurgent activity, including ambushes, and has kept the numbers for the entire province a secret.

    'The number of incidents has doubled, if not more, in Kandahar,' he told The Globe and Mail, suggesting that this estimate applies to the period since September of 2006.

    Yes, were winning, what a bunch of liars, in fact they just want to put more Canadian lives on the line. Harper knows Nato is not going to come up with more troops, the other countries leaders are smarter than our war mongering leaders. Looking more like Canada's Vietnam everyday.
  80. MJ Patchouli from Regina, Canada writes: Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
    David Pugliese , Canwest News Service
    Published: Friday, February 22, 2008

    Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

    Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas. ..

    canada.com top news story today...
  81. forty sum from Canada writes: Makes you wonder if those rose coloured glasses Harper gave Manley and Pamela Wallin had a best before warranty, what a bunch of lap dogs.
  82. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    As General Westmoreland meets Secretary of War Robert McNamara.....ooops wrong war, meant to say Hillier to McKay. President Lyndon Johnson and the citizens want to know.......oops, wrong war again. Ah those Freudian Vietnam slips about escalation...

    When the UN/NATO want to get serious and either send 400,000 more troops to the REGION (as a good and honest American General said last week-speaking his mind as Hillier did this week) or get out, then this mission/war talks can become serious.

    What was once a mission to find Bin Laden and destroy the terrorist training camps in 2002, has now become one of regime change, occupation, nation building, fighting the Taliban, fighting Al Qaeda, fighting the Taliban in Pakistan, 'collateral damage,' watching record poppy growth slide through Iran, supporting a corrupt puppet government that includes war lords, gang members, people wanted for war crimes, with a Constitution that has Sharia law embedded into it.

    Will 1000 troops or 5000 troops make a difference? Where is the proof?

    Call me what you wish, but there is a huge regional hot blachkhole we are getting sucked into. Maybe my friend VERNIE has it right..
  83. Auroran Bear from Montreal, Canada writes: People should watch Bill Moyers Journal from Friday Feb 22 to see a very revealing report on Afghanistan. You'll get a beter idea of why other nations aren't chomping at the bit to put boots on the ground there.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02222008/watch2.html
  84. Mikey from the GWN ___ from Canada writes: Tim Cares from Canada,

    'If we don't have enough troops to do the job, why were they sent there in the first place?'

    Ask Cretien and Martin - that's who sent them!

    And as for this being about oil, even Fidel Castro doesn't believe that. As he said - would be far easier to find Chavez guilty of drug smuggling and promote regime change there.

    CHeers

    Mikey
  85. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Thsi article makes a clear mockery of Harpers Afghan motion , which was a fairly obvious farce anyway .

    THe FACT is that Nato doesn't have enough combat troops in Afghanistan to maintain Karzai's government ( if that is possible), and Nato countries WON'T EVER send enough.

    THEREFORE , Canada's investment will never pay off , the Canadian soldiers who have died in Aghanistan have died in vain .Keeping Canadian troops there is a cynical waste of money and lives .

    What part of that do the supporters of the mission not get ?
  86. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: So we move out of Afghanastan and come home as per the liberal/ NDP wishes and not complete that mission. Now, does anyone think that the Taliban are going to stop there? I doubt it! They WILL WANT TO EXPAND!!! It's that simple and they'll go to any country in the world. If the truth were known, they are among us as we speak, so figure it out for yourself, Wilf
  87. Rob Pike from Canada writes: Allan Simonson : first comment. Dumb. More troops means less of a need to aim. Throw more numbers on a keno card and you're bound to hit more. Did anyone notice the article says 'keep them at bay' and not something like 'defend them more quickly and increase the odds of defending them'? Millions of people and how are you going to weed out all the bad ones? 'God' tells them what to do, one second someone is good and the next they have a bomb underneath their clothes. Unless you're planning on bombing everyone you aren't going to win. They continue with gutless roadbombs and use suicide bombers. More troops will add to the confusion. I'll bet you'll see more deaths rather than less.
  88. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: So we move out of Afghanastan and come home as per the liberal/ NDP wishes and not complete that mission. Now, does anyone think that the Taliban are going to stop there? I doubt it! They WILL WANT TO EXPAND!!! It's that simple and they'll go to any country in the world. If the truth were known, they are among us as we speak, so figure it out for yourself, Wilf.

    Morning Wilf: Did you mean the Taliban or Al Qaeda? Anyhow, can you enlighten me from your position, how to 'WIN' this mission-war over THERE?

    You state,'If the truth were known, they are among us as we speak, so figure it out for yourself.'

    Well, my figuring is that if these characters are here, and they are with tens of thousands of visiting immigrants from suspect countries unaccounted for, perhaps our troops over THERE can come back HERE and help protect the homeland and snuff out those same characters.

    We cannot save the world! I would much prefer we take care of our own country first and make sure it is secure, before we go running around the world making even more enemies-which we have done!

    .
  89. garlick toast from Canada writes: staying with the gameplan,next up,secret bombings of cambodia,oops pakistan.give harper a majority,he'll give us the draft.
  90. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Auroran Bear
    Thanks for PBS link, well worth watching , esp , US Gen MacNeil , saying Afghanistan needs 400,000 soldiers ( currently 50,000 , Manley recommends 51,000, Major Moffat 52,500 .)
    Hillier claims mission needs to be militarily viable , it obviously isn't
  91. Dave T from Toronto, Canada writes: If other NATO countries are not willing to contribute their fair share of troops, Canada should not be in Afghanistan.

    The Afghan problem is too large for Canada to solve by itself, given our limited resources.
  92. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Mikey from the GWN wrote: 'Tim Cares from Canada:

    'If we don't have enough troops to do the job, why were they sent there in the first place?'

    'Ask Cretien and Martin - that's who sent them!'

    True, up to a point, but as an answer to the question it is misleading.

    The original, limited mission started by Chretien was supposed to be short-term ('early in, early out') and to show support for the Americans after 9-11 by helping to overthrow the Taliban regime and chase down Al Qaeda. It in no way resembled the current deployment, either in design or intent.

    The mission under Paul Martin was to send a 220-strong PRT to then mostly pacified Kandahar to help with reconstruction, not engage in search and destroy missions. CDS Hillier came up with an alternative plan to send a 1,000-troop task force to Kandahar--at least partly to impress his good friends in the Pentagon--and pushed it hard in Ottawa. The Martin government were impressed by the general and agreed to his plan, sending the troops for a one-year assignment.

    However, forty-five Canadian troops died within months of the deployment to Kandahar, when the Taliban came back in force. CDS Hillier said he was 'surprised' by the strength and ferocity of the Taliban attacks--a huge indictment of his generalship, in my view.

    So the mission has evolved and changed since it began. In the absence of real political direction or strategic wisdom in Ottawa since Jean Chretien was overthrown by the Martinites, an ambitious, forceful general has pretty much determined Canada's policy, strategy and tactics in Afghanistan. But of course, he is not responsible.
  93. Watercooler Pundit from Regina, Canada writes: WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.