Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Afghan violence rising, top soldier concedes

BILL CURRY AND GRAEME SMITH

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:11 PM EST 21/07/08

One week after deeming increase in bloodshed 'insignificant,' Natynczyk says situation getting worse, calls for more troops ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: From 'insignificant' to 'getting worse.'

    What a difference a week makes .....to General Natynczyk's credibility. Guess the Pentagon talking points were late getting to his mailbox.
  2. Ed Op from Canada writes: Pretty disturbing that our top general has gone from 'insignificant' to 'worsening' in the span of a few weeks. There really is no excuse for it. He's clearly out of touch. I know it's just one thing, but it's a big thing. According to his own explanation for this remarkable flip-flop, he based his earlier rosy-eyed view on a few 'very, very local' minor successes and decided to tell Canadians that everything's just fine. Now, after he opens his eyes to the big picture (and gets flak from a few other countries' generals) he does a complete about-face and describes the situation as worsening. It's probably a good thing he spouted off with his first impressions of Afghanistan - so somebody could correct him before he makes too many military decisions based on a really bad read of the actual situation. A politician would get nailed as a flip-flop artist, and any other employee in any other field that requires decision-making based on fact would have some explaining to do. I know I would in my work if I went in to one meeting saying one thing and came back to the next saying the complete opposite. Any accountability here? Harper? Is this okay with you?
  3. Percy from NL from Canada writes: What's that I'm reading, confirmation that the Manley Panel's recommendations were wrong? Confirmation that the Harper government's support of those recommendations was wrong? Now, who is going to take responsibility for the resulting hardships and casualities suffered, and yet to be suffered, by our troops as a result? After all, the overwhelming opinion of military experts has always been that the Manley Panel and the Harper government got this wrong from day one. Other than a willingness to play politics with the lives of our troops, can anyone explain why Canadians were told that only 1000 additional NATO troops were needed in support of our troops in Kandahar?
  4. Tax my toilet paper, please Dion - I will use less from Canada writes: All those who (1) criticize the military and / or (2) would like to bring Khadr 'home',

    please feel free to show your superiority by helping out in Afghanistan. There's lots of places where your presence would by truly be appreciated ...
  5. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: Well, lets see here. If you say everything is just fine, do you think you'll get more troops? Not likely. So what do you do? You say things aren't fine so you can get more troops. Kind of a no brainer here people. Of course all the propagandists and cover up theororists will jump all over this with their utter stupidity. Logic dictates this move, pure and simple logic.
  6. Badges? We don't need no stinking badges from Canada writes: Nothing but hectoring and foreign military blunders in Afghanistan for over a thousand years.
  7. Ed Op from Canada writes:
    Tax my TP:

    What has your comment got to do with the story?

    And what would be wrong with taking either of those positions? I thought in a free country we're allowed to criticize things (like our military). Or do you prefer the kind of country where people are locked up for criticizing their government institutions? And why wouldn't we try to get a Canadian citizen out of Guantanamo Bay? Particularly one who committed his so-called 'crime' when he was a minor very much under his father's influence (to me, returning the fire of invading forces isn't illegal, it's self-defence - and it certainly doesn't make you a non-lawful combatant). This country, last I checked still respected human rights and still believed in 'innocent until proven guilty'. Sure, try Khadr for something if you like, but do it here. Oh, but I forgot, there's really nothing we could try him on is there, because any nation that respects the rule of law wouldn't have anything on its books for his situation. What is it do you think he did that was so illegal by the way? Curious to hear the thoughts of such an obviously deep thinker.
  8. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Our Generals ask for help for our troops from our allies.....

    Our Liberals ask for Khadr's release.....

    And the Liberals wonder why they lost the last election and why they will lose the next one...........
  9. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    SLS: If he was really thinking it through that far, don't you think he would have done that from the start instead of looking like an idiot as he does right now? Don't think what you're saying is what happened. I think he just screwed up.
  10. Jim **** from Canada writes: The Afghan presidential election isn't until 2009 and parliamentary elections in 2010. I doubt seriously that increased Taliban attacks have anything to do with the elections, despite what Natynczyk says.

    For a change, it would be nice if the military brass told things the way they were, instead of putting a spin on everything.
  11. Ed Op from Canada writes:
    Clod Hopper:

    We can still respect the rule of law and the rights of Canadian citizens while we fight in Afghanistan. In fact, I would say we must. On what grounds do you think Khadr's constitutional rights should be abrogated? And if he's done something that warrants it, shouldn't we follow due process?
  12. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Of course every commander is going to say its bad........he wants more troops..........

    Every US Afghan Commander is kissing Barack's ring right now as Obama calls for all troops being released from Iraq to be sent to Afghanistan.....

    Now as for the American GI serving in Iraq.......I think he'll vote for McCain.......
  13. Journey Man from Canada writes: Percy from NL is correct. The whole NATO/US mission is hopelessly undermanned. The Russians could control this place with 160,000 troops (plus around 200,000 Afghan army troops), yet NATO/US is trying to do the job with a quarter of this number, and most of the Europeans won't even fight.

    The leadership of our military is either lying on the behalf of its political masters or hopelessly incompetent.

    Read Eric Margolis column in the Sun chain today: http://tinyurl.com/5c7bzl

    (or read his archives at www.ericmargolis.com)
  14. jim reed from Canada writes: The article refers to Lewis Mackenzie, who poses as an expert. It says: 'It's a pretty good clarification, Mr. MacKenzie said yesterday in response to the general's comments. Mr. MacKenzie said he suspects Gen. Natynczyk was simply trying to encourage the troops with his comments in Kandahar. [He was] trying to put a positive spin on for the soldiers. Sure can't blame him for that. Wouldn't it be more honourable to tell our troops the truth?
  15. Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: This is starting to smell like one of those 'victory is just around the corner' line that we heard so much out of Washington for a few years. Is the General out of touch, or was he just following the official party line of the government?

    BTW...what does this have to do with Khadr or Obama???
  16. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Ed Op from Canada writes: We can still respect the rule of law and the rights of Canadian citizens while we fight in Afghanistan. In fact, I would say we must. On what grounds do you think Khadr's constitutional rights should be abrogated? And if he's done something that warrants it, shouldn't we follow due process? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. The due process should be that he be tried in Afghanistan in an Afghan Court since that is where he supposedly committed the crime. I think the next best alternative is a US Trial, and I think if Khadr was faced with being under an Afghan Court or a US Court he would choose the US. As for Constitutional rights, I understand Canada's legal system does not have jurisdiction in the US or Afghanistan (assuming you mean Canada's Constitutional Rights), because that's how International Law works. I'm not sure why we would attempt to extend special rights to Khadr that do not apply to thousands of others around the world who cross borders and are accused of crimes every years. That to me would be to give this individual, Khadr, some special right which to which other Canadians are not entitled. It seems many want to confer rights and sympathy upon him. I can't really see why. As far as I'm concerned, the Americans will give him a fair trial.
  17. Tax my toilet paper, please Dion - I will use less from Canada writes: Ed -

    Please feel free to criticize and/or preach as much as you like. In fact, why don't you take your holy road show out to Afghanistan and advise the troops and civilians who are there.

    Oh - don't really want to? Didn't think so.
  18. Percy from NL from Canada writes: S.L. S from Small Town, Canada, this is the lives of our men and women in uniform. Hardly a politcal chess game. Military experts already agreed several months ago that the 1000 additional NATO troops was woefully inadequate.
    This story is not news, this is simply the military doing the dirty work of a government who screwed this up badly and will likely now say that this is a new and unexpected turn of events. If they dare say that, they will be misleading the Canadian public yet again on Afghanistan.
    As I said several month ago, and several times since, the 1000 troops was easily a doable NATO number which allowed Harper to keep the Afghanistan mission going. The big bluff which was Harper's and McKay's fight at NATO meetings to secure 0.1% of total NATO troop capacity was sickening. That our national media did not challenge this issue with tough questions at that time remains a mystery to me.
    Who pays the price for Harper's political game aimed at keeping our troops in Afghanistan past 2009? ... our troops, that's who!
    Who should be held accountable for this ridiculous situation? That should be quite clear to any well-reasoned Canadian!
  19. Brian Dell from Stockholm, Sweden writes: Some US pundits are calling on Obama to listen to Canada's NDP:
    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=337748
  20. ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes: At least Natynczyk is stepping back a little from the blatant propaganda. I'm sure even the troops in Kandahar saw it as propaganda.

    As far as him pointing out that surge in military strength in Iraq had a positive effect, he should remember that just 6 months ago the Americans were also crowing about success in eastern Afghanistan, and attributing that success to the use of the same approach as in Iraq. Well, it doesn't look like that success lasted.

    January 16, 2008:

    'Both U.S. and NATO officials have expressed optimism that eastern Afghanistan, which is under the control of U.S. forces led by Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, has substantially improved in recent months.

    Rodriguez implemented a campaign that incorporated many of the same tactics being used in Iraq by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad who co-wrote the military's new counterinsurgency field manual.'

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usafghan16jan16,1,163569.story

    It remains to be seen if the current 'success' in Iraq lasts longer than the 'success' there was in eastern Afghanistan six months ago.
  21. R L from Canada writes: .

    Typical of the military, they want to sing the victory hoo-rahs (threat is 'insignificant'), while at the same time wanting more resources and troops ('situation is deteriorating/getting worse').

    The military will try to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, claiming victory but at the same time saying things are bad and wanting more military power. It's like a scene out of Orwell's 1984 with the doublespeak. The only solution is for them to stop talking, and to follow orders. Who gives those orders? Our supposedly-democratic civilian government, who has thus far completely ignored the will of the citizens of Canada on the issue of the Afghanistan 'war'.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  22. drunk wookie from TO, Canada writes: Harper and the military yes men need to go. Just last week this idiot was describing the increase in attacks as insignificant while centimeters belong there was a link to the deaths of 9 US soldiers during an incredible attack. Now its worstening and more troops are needed. It really doesn't seem like they know whats going on. How can they propose any solutions when they don't know the problem? Lets get out of there. Nothing but death and pain there. For every girl that gets to go to school there are two family members who have been maimed or killed by the liberators. What type of math is that?
  23. Brendan Caron from Canada writes: The concept of seeing the big picture and not the Canadian sector were a motivatiion to tell it like it is now. He is/was right to tell it like it is/was in our sector but now that the entire region is under the microscope then there is a different picture. Got to get the Allies out of the sky and onto the ground meeting the people they are helping. Glad he did it. Glad he's looking at the bigger picture too.
  24. The Skipper from Canada writes: C'mon dude, make up your mind !
  25. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ed Op -returning fire of 'invading forces' is self defence - perhaps in your own country but legally Afghanistan is not his country. As a Canadian what could he be tried on here - except treason for fighting against our allies. He and his family hate Canada - they should all have their citizenship revoked and be shipped back to Afghanistan. Would you want to welcome home the Canadian citizen responsible for ethnic cleansing/genocide in the Medak Pocket in the Balkans - and fighting Canadian 'peacekeepers'?

    And I take it nobody here has ever made a mistake? The CDS is highly trained and capable - perhaps he should try to avoid having the PMOs office tell him what to say. At any rate, the troops on the ground know what the situation and don't get their knickers in a knot every time the media takes potshots - it is not worth their time and energy - they have much more important things to do.
  26. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Clod Hopper: The Canadian government used to (until the present one) help Canadians abroad and often request that they be tried in Canada for crimes elsewhere (though I think there may have to be extradition and related treaties in place). So that's why I think they should try to bring him here. Because every Canadian is innocent til proven guilty. So they shouldn't be held without trial.

    But the reality here is that the US is calling these men unlawful combatants so they can get away with not calling them prisoners of war thereby avoiding the inconveniences of the Geneva conventions. Khadr should have been declared a prisoner of war, held for that reason, treated according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    Since he is being held illegally by the Americans, I think our government should have the balls to insist he be returned to us for proper consideration.

    By the way, Khadr is the last non-Afghan national being held there. Every other government has got their people back. It's true. Look it up.
  27. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: 'No nation ever benefited from a lengthy war.' - Sun Tzu

    'All wars, if fought long enough, will eventually be reduced to farce.' - Richard Roskell
  28. Chode Mcblob from Canada writes:
    The USA is going bankrupt, in case anyone hasn't noticed. It will be forced to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, simply because of its collapsing economy. When it does, the neocon cheerleaders will switch their attention to some other do or die sitution, like maybe a renewed war on drugs, to tackle the explosive growth in the drug cartels that are destabilizing Mexico and turning our cities into shooting galleries, and whose profits fatten the wallets of the Karzai regime. After the USA leaves the corpses of our soldiers and the maimed bodies of the survivors will be all that remains of the billions of $$ flushed down the toilet on this expensive little war.

    Utimately the Afghani people, will decide, either through the ballot box or with a gun, what their future should be. It is not for us to decide.
  29. Percy from NL from Canada writes: The problem is, the picture, big or small, never did change. This offensive drive by the enemy was predicted months ago by military experts. If our PM was not willing to fight at the NATO table for the additional 5000 NATO troops which experts were saying was the minimum needed in Kandahar alone, then he had no right to ask our troops, and the families of our troops, to continue fighting. Their's was, and is, a life and death fight, Harper's was only a political fight with NATO.
    Bring the troops home in 2009. Why? Because our PM has proven himself to be spineless at the international table, and for that reason he can no longer be trusted with the lives of our troops.
  30. ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes:
    Brian Dell wrote: 'Some US pundits are calling on Obama to listen to Canada's NDP:'

    'Obama's Wrong Turn in Afghanistan'
    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=337748

    They're right. And the article's quote by Jack Layton is absolutely right too:

    'The combat role is the wrong role for Canada and it's not making life more secure for Afghans,' declared Jack Layton, the NDP's parliamentary leader.

    Here's a similar article from today from Afghanistan expert Eric Margolis:

    'Obama falls victim to propaganda'
    http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis%5FEric/2008/07/20/pf-6209056.html

    But if Obama and McCain are going to send 7-10,000 troops to Afghanistan, then that's even more reason to bring our 2,500 troops back home in February like the majority of Canadians want. The argument by the war supporters used to be that 'if we leave, who will replace us?' Well, now the Americans will be replacing us 4 times over.

    This is a US war. They invaded, they installed Karzai and warlords into power, they wanted the pipeline, they created the problem 30 years ago in the first place. We've already done more than our part for them.
  31. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Toilet paper:

    How about actually offering an opinion/argument?

    What you've contributed so far isn't worth anyone's consideration.
  32. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: If we had good life here in canada, which not , and be happy, which not,
    with are worst regime
    Afghani perhaps so...
    get out from others country no one sending invitation for you to stay there. you are not qulifiesd to be there ,
    1- stolen native land
    2- sale native land so expensive to immigrant or born canadian
    3- collecting large tax to spending on $1 billion dolor parliament renovation or curuption
    4- most of the canadian do not have any future , no corect job no medical or dental no retirnmentn nothings?
    5- Canada have largest homneless in world over 500.00 and over
    6- ask me to sed photo of are local homeless to you if you not belive this
    get out
    here in farsi
    بر مملکت تخمی خودت رو اول درست کن بعد بر افغانستان نژاد پست کثیف
  33. Mr. Speaker from Canada writes: Do the taliban even have a flag?
    If not I suggest the image of Caspers nemesis
    SPOOKY
  34. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: %0 born muslims are working for government all of the are blond hair and blue eyes
    20 times my application and resume get to garbage by city of Victoria you
    2 times my grant rejected by art council, no corect full times job, I'm living here in Victoria day by day in labour market and I am educated and as professional awarded artist, why I should all this like slaves ....if you right
    F....you get out from my brother's land ,
    what you are doing in Afghanistan ?
    you are racist and get out please .
  35. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: It's hard to see how the general's earlier optimistic remarks were meant to boost the troops - rah. . . . rah, let's . . . . go . ..... .get . . . . them. . . . boys. The troops know what is going on. And his clarification about his earlier optimistic remarks hardly stands up to any scrutiny (we are experiencing fragile success in localized areas, very very localized- to paraphrase the general's words). It seems his earlier remarks were more for 'home' consumption. For some reason, the war is a much more sensitive issue in Canada than in the US. In the US, the people must have given up all hope of an end to the war. They've got a Democratic-controlled Congress, but more war on the horizon. And Obama will not want to look like a weakling, even though the people want an end to the war. Figure that one out. Here, the whole issue is much more sensitive and the government knows it. I don't know who the good general was speaking for when he made his earlier optimistic remarks.
  36. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Ed Op from Canada writes:Clod Hopper: The Canadian government used to (until the present one) help Canadians abroad and often request that they be tried in Canada for crimes elsewhere (though I think there may have to be extradition and related treaties in place).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ed Op don't think this is true. If I remember correctly Khadr was under US custody under both the Chretien and Martin regimes. Also, I can think of no cases where Canadians were brought home to be tried for crimes abroad. I believe a few, and very few, have been brought back to serve their sentences in Canada for crimes convicted overseas.

    So, there is no law requiring that Khadr be brought back, I don't see any precedent, and the whole question seems to be at the discretion of the Canadian government whether to request such a return.

    I personally think he will get a fair trial in the US and should stay there until it is conducted.
  37. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Catherine:

    I'm not sure your test holds legal water (not that I'm a lawyer). Pretty sure there's nothing illegal about shooting back at someone who's just shot at you (I don't think you're required to check your citizenship before defending yourself either). Nor do I think you can call him a traitor. He'd have to have done something against Canada to be called that. It's not like the Taliban invaded Canada, right? We invaded them, remember? So why do you consider him a traitor?

    In any case, what I'm saying is that at the bare minimum - if a charge can be brought against him, he deserves to face it in Canada. You've apparently decided this 15 year old (at the time) is somehow guilty of treason to Canada and should be held without trial. I think he deserves to be treated according to law. Not what the US is doing.

    Pt II: I never said I've never made a mistake or that no one should make a mistake. Just that if one does commit an error, one's performance should be evaluated. What would your employer say if you walked around blurting out opinions that later were shown (by you yourself) to be totally erroneous? And, as citizens of a democratic country we are in fact General Natynczyk's employers.
  38. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: Ed Op from Canada: I see your point and I'm not saying your wrong or anything like that but the way I see this is, he doesn't want to walk into this high profile position and state gloom and doom right off the bat. Not only does that make the last guy look bad but it also doesn't give the troops a warm and fuzzy. All he said last week was that the increase was insignificant. He didn't say it didn't need to be addressed or that it needed to be addressed immediately, just that, yes, there has been an increase but the results are nothing to be concerned about. Did he down play it a bit, oh yeah. He kind of had too. He's taking over a position of much greater authority than he had, with alot more focus on him as an individual and he has to be somewhat up beat about the progress that has been made in order to keep face and not insult. The press has taken this and blown simple words out of proportion to huge extent in my opinion and many people will do the same. The increase is 'insignificant' but it is rising and more troops are needed to keep in 'insignificant'. I'm not really defending the guy, really I don't know him or very much about him, but i can understand the position he's in and I do know that 90% of the people that use these boards will read far more into it than is really there and will shoot first and ask questions later. In short, I'm saying read his words carefully and consider the position he was in last week and is in now. Of course he wants the pressure taken off his people and how is that achieved? By more men, preferably from some other country.
  39. Denis Love from Victoria BC, Canada writes: The last guys running the military kept talking about how all those young folks were lining up to join. The TV ads are a regular event. Yet we have problems raising 2500 to go to the meat grinder. Does nobody learn from previous attempts in that country? Russia was the last to finally pull out with great losses. So we are primed to believe our small contribution will fix everything. The government bough or rented a bunch of tanks and have long range guns. Even playing with drones, not to mention super expensive Transport aircraft. But where are they getting the people to run all the hard ware? Bush is about to send a few thousand people from Iraq to Afghanistan. He started this mess let him finish it and let our small band of folks get out of the place. Harper wants to appear a big shot running a war and the minister is just as bad. The General is either poorly briefed or really shouldn't have got the job. I'm not anti military as I did 22 years for Queen and Country but this war is a no win situation. The tribal system isnt about to change, the poppy crops are the best on record and troops get the chop just walking down the road. My God, I ran into some recruits awhile back. a few of them were older than I was when I retired. They needed a job. But as job prospects improve elsewhere new folks will not join up. By the way, has anyone noticed the large number of Generals our little military is supporting?
  40. charlie brown from Canada writes: Ed Op. Weird logic. We did not invade the Taliban. We were invited in by the government of Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. He is a traitor if he was fighting against the NATO forces of which Canada is a member. Bring him home and charge him with treason!!
  41. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Clod Hopper:

    I don't have the stats to debate you on whether or not Canadians have been brought back to Canada for trial. Actually, I'm sure it hasn't happened all the time (my comment about treaties above) but I do know that there have been a few recent cases where Harper has specifically said he will not try to extend the assistance of the Canadian government to those who have been charged with criminal offenses elsewhere. Was it Sandra Martin who was in Mexico charged with fraud?

    Regardless, more central to my point is that Khadr hasn't done anything illegal in the first place. And if he has, he should still be entitled to the principle of innocent til proven guilty. The Americans are not observing that, they've been holding these guys at Guantanamo for five years with no charges and no seeming intention to let them go. One of them is a Canadian. What is it you think he is being held for anyway?
  42. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Ed Op from Canada:

    Ed Op, we didn't invade Afghanistan, I believe we are there at the request of the elected Afghan government.

    The Taleban supported the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center which if I remember killed some 25 Canadians.

    The US is acting under the Law. Some may disagree with this law or challenge it, but they are acting under the Law. That seemed to be the opinion of the Martin and Chretien governments.

    I personally believe Khadr is a threat to lives of Canadians, Americans and others and should be held until trial, for his own safety as well as others. His membership in the Taleban and as a member of their Armed Forces is evidence of his threat to society. Even in Canada dangerous young offenders may be held in custody until trial.
  43. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    SLS:

    Fair enough. You're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. I read it a bit differently. Agree to disagree - slightly. :)
  44. hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: equal job for born Muslims in canada
    born muslims in canada are one of the must poorest culture here living under discrimination
    They are human same as others,
    every head office in canada run by a white man or women not Muslims ?
    stop racism, stop racism,
    Muslims are straggling in canada living under fear and discrimination.
    they are human same as any others
  45. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Op Ed writes: more central to my point is that Khadr hasn't done anything illegal in the first place. And if he has, he should still be entitled to the principle of innocent til proven guilty. The Americans are not observing that, they've been holding these guys at Guantanamo for five years with no charges and no seeming intention to let them go. One of them is a Canadian. What is it you think he is being held for anyway?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think Khadr is being held because he is accused of murdering another human being. He also participated in a regime that murdered numerous human beings.

    The presumption of innocence does not generally override a general threat to society. That is why judges normally order that hold individuals who are considered a threat be held over for trial.

    Personally, I could care less whether a threat to society is a Canadian, American or something else. He should stay where he is until he is tried under a court of law.
  46. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: Ed Op: I don't understand that logic. Why does Khadr deserve the leniancy of the Canadian judicial system if: 1. He is a POW or is considered a combatant. If he is considered a Combatant then he is a POW of the US since they were the one who captured him. Since he was not fighting for Canada, what does his place of birth have to do with it and what, exactly, is Canada's business in that situation? If you choose to fight for Russia against the Japanese and the Japanese capture you then, under your logic, you should be sent back to Canada? I don't see where that's a Canadian issue at all. 2. If he is a non combatant then the crime he is accused of is murder and should fall to the Afghanistan judicial system since the supposed crime occured in Afghanistan. If you are on vacation and kill someone in Spain and you are caught then how does your crime become a Canadian issue? If that's the case then we have ALOT of people that should be brought home and be given retrials. My question is, and this answer has been far to long in coming and there is no excuse for it, what is he classified as? A combatant or a non-combatant? Either way this is not a Canadian issue in my opinion.
  47. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: Ed Op from Canada writes:

    SLS:

    Fair enough. You're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt. I read it a bit differently. Agree to disagree - slightly. :)

    Hey, it's purely a guess on my part. Just the logic I see behind it all. I guess, in this case, how this one is viewed will depend on each individuals line of thinking and nobody will be right or wrong. Only the CDS knows the truth on this one and I doubt that will be shared with anyone other than his wife.
  48. Ed Op from Canada writes:
    Charlie Brown and Clod Hopper:

    Where've you guys been? The Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan!!!!! What are you talking about?!?!?!?

    Now I'll go back and read the rest of the posts.

    Weird logic indeed... yeah, the kind based on fact!
  49. Okanagan Man from Sunny Vernon, Canada writes: What a waste of life and money. Even if there were a half a million troops in Afghanistan then are the taliban just going to go away? Would they be defeated and then decide to get along with status quo? This is farsical...
  50. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    OK further to C. Brown:

    Maybe you're confusing the current occupation of Afghanistan with the one the Soviets did back in the 80s. The Soviets were ostensibly invited in by the government of Afghanistan at the time. NATO was not. If you remember, after 911, the US determined that bin Laden was in Afghanistan. They asked for him from the Afghan gov't (The Taliban). They said no (I read an article that pointed out that as much as we in the west liked to call that collaboration from an Afghan culture point of view you just don't give guests up to enemies under any circumstances). The Americans leaned on their allies in NATO to join them in this 'righteous' invasion. Canada joined (I wasn't in favour but most were). Bin laden hasn't been found, but lots of people have been killed, opium business is better than ever and a sort of new regime has been set up. Oh, and yes, apparently some young girls are going to school again. And we're still there (and in my opinion will be there until we give up because there's no way we'll win).

    Go read up before you post on this again.
  51. Brian Dell from Stockholm, Sweden writes: Obama may be more popular with US military people than is commonly believed. Look at this video and you'll see that he looks a lot more like them than McCain:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimTBZPYvWM
  52. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Clod Hopper: Khadr was shot in the back several times before he allegedly threw a grenade in retaliation (this was after the structure he was holed up in was assaulted by the US army and left a smoking wreck). I don't call that murder, I call it self-defense. And I believe the US military calls it neither when they call him an unlawful combatant. But still the point is that he should be entitled to a fair trial.

    You say, 'He also participated in a regime that murdered numerous human beings.' Well, sorry, but in your books is it now okay for any country to go and throw the citizens of any other country in jail because they participated in a regime that murdered people? You know, you could easily argue that the US 'regime' has murdered thousands of people every time they send a criminal to the gas chamber. Because although we look at these other countries as killing people spuriously, it's usually according to their (rather stringent) laws. Last I checked it's a country's sovereign right to enforce its laws as it sees fit even if that includes executing people.

    Jumping up a bit, the Taliban didn't support 911 beyond thinking after the fact, 'Wow, wish we would have thought of that'.

    The US is not acting under the law.

    Perhaps Khadr should be held for trial in Canada at least. Maybe even offered bail conditions.

    Look, to me, Paul Bernardo is a far more heinous criminal than Omar Khadr (a misguided youth), yet Bernardo was granted full rights under the Canadian justice system. Are you saying Khadr is worse than Bernardo?
  53. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    Clod Hopper:

    Your 'threat to society argument':

    So you really believe that this young man who was in Afghanistan with his father, minding his own business, being a good little Taliban (which, again, did not include any attacks or plots against North Americans) is a persistent and present threat to anyone in North America? Why? What do you think he is suddenly going to do that he didn't do before? Remember, he used to live in Canada. If you wanted to harm Canadians or Americans, isn't Afghanistan pretty much the last place you would go? Not very many infidels to slay over there eh?

    As for your last comment: every last criminal in Canada is entitled to due process under law. Paul Bernardo got it. Pickton got it. We extend this protection because it's essential to the fairness of our legal system. If we start imprisoning people without any reviewable reason then we live in a dictatorship. By the way, as you pointed out, judges do hold people without bail. The point is, that decision takes place publicly and is made by judges in a court of law. Not by fiat in an extraterritorial facility (ever wonder why the US is keeping them all outside US territory?)
  54. Ed Op from Canada writes:

    SLS:

    Your last post hits all the points but doesn't draw the full conclusion (IMHO).

    The point is, the US is calling all the guys they're holding at Guantanamo Bay 'unlawful combatants' instead of 'prisoners of war'. But think about it, how can you be an enemy combatant when you're the one being attacked? You're basically defending yourself at that point. The US has done this because they don't want to have to follow the Geneva Conventions - it prevents them from doing torture-type stuff to them. There has been a worldwide outcry to have them labelled as prisoners of war but the US has resisted.

    Anyway, as I can see you would agree, he shouldn't be being held by the US. As you said, either face justice in Afghanistan (though I'm not sure what the charge would be) or in Canada (still not sure what the charge is).

    Here's the thing: he's brought to Afghanistan by his father to be a good Salafi muslim or whatever. He is given a gun and put to work in some complex or facility in Afghanistan. NATO invades and attacks the place he's at. Everyone gets killed except him pretty much. He gets shot in the back several times when US forces move in to clear the place out and chucks a grenade in retaliation. I don't really think his politics or religion should come into it. What did he do wrong?! I would do the same if an army stormed the place I was in. If I thought I was going to be killed, I'd fight back too!
  55. Cy Clops from One-eye, Canada writes: Average Afghan income - less than $300
    Average Afghan wedding - bombed by loitering F18s
    The negligent 'west' no better than the Taliban than they purport to despise.
    Priceless
  56. John Brown from Maritimes, Canada writes: Not sure where he will get them, not from Canada anyway. The Canadian military is stretched super thin right now and in the next year will be even worse; in Jun next year our military will lose approximately 4000 members when Rick Hilliers' 'weed them out' plan comes into effect and that number is generous on the low side. They are releasing members who for some reason of a medical nature are no longer deployable but are still employable instead of utilising these people in positions of training and support while gutting the rank and file to of healthy troops to fill these positions. In addition to that is the recruitment process, they are not getting the big numbers coming into the military as we have been lead to believe because nobody wants to go to war. What they are recruiting are a lot of older members from the mid forties on up, one lady 52 years old; no offense but by the time she is fully trained it will be time for her to draw old age pension. The CDS needs to look at making changes fast or soon Canada won't have a military.
  57. Paul Wallnutz from Canada writes: Journey Man, from Canada writes: 'The whole NATO/US mission is hopelessly undermanned. The Russians could'nt control this place with 160,000 troops (plus around 200,000 Afghan army troops), yet NATO/US is trying to do the job with a quarter of this number, and most of the Europeans won't even fight.'

    How true:

    Afghanistan:
    Population ~31 million;
    Area ~650,000 sq. km (mountainous)
    NATO/US troops ~40,000 (many non-combatants)

    Iraq:
    Population ~29 million;
    Area ~440,000 sq. km (mostly flat)
    US/Brit Troops ~160,000 (as of Dec. 2007)
  58. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:
    can we get any leader on this a'stan file who has any shred of credibility?

    no.. the a'stan file is entirely in the hands of highly incompetent glory seekers and highly competent world class narco-traders.

    there is no debate possible on the a'stan file.

    CANADA -GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
  59. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: Hate to say it but I have posted here many times that Afghanistan will be worst than Iraq..........here's a hint why. Invaders of Afghanistan Many foreign forces have attempted to conquer Afghanistan and its predecessor states. Few have succeeded. Here are some examples of those who tried. Darius the Great: In the late sixth century BC, much of the country was absorbed into the Persian empire of Darius the Great. However, plagued by constant uprisings, the Persians never established effective control. Alexander the Great: In the third century BC, Alexander the Great invaded. The harsh, mountainous terrain and brutal weather were only part of the challenge. The Afghans themselves were no less formidable. Constant revolts undermined whatever glory he could claim. Genghis Khan: In 1220, the Islamic lands of Central Asia were overrun by the armies of this Mongol invader. But even Genghis Khan failed to destroy the strength of Islam there. By the end of the 13th century, his descendants were themselves Muslims. Britain: There were three major interventions by the British Army between 1838 and 1919. Each one ultimately failed. Soviet Union: In 1979, the Soviets rolled in about 115,000 troops. The Afghans responded with an extended guerrilla war, and in 1989 the Soviets withdrew. If we fail to learn from history we are bound to repeat it! JFK. Now wearing Red on Friday, l the Harper Raw Raw and a few billion inf non tenderd contracts is going to change History ? I don't think so, do you?
  60. First Name: Last Name: from the middle of, Canada writes: .
    This guy sure has lost my vote of confidence. What was it he said.......
    .
  61. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Will there be an amnesty and cease fire for the elections , so that the Taliban can run candidates ? Or will nominees be restricted to pro US/Nato warlords ?Who are the political parties, who is the loyal opposition ? Or is the US using the elections to install a new puppet ?
  62. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Time to bring in the draft. 3 years compulsory service for all Canadians starting at age 19. A side benefit would be to teach them personal, civil, AND corporate responsibility, something they sure don't learn either at home or at school these days!.
  63. Bilderbergers beware you've robbed your last grave from Canada writes: What an A&%hole..At least Hillier would have been blunt from the get go...

    Get our troops home. WE are at 88 KIA and who kows how many severly injured. The battle is lost.

    The British and the Soviets found out the hard way. History is just repeating itself. Lets cut our losses and get the hell out!
  64. Hugh Albert from Canada writes: From a good number of comments people obviously take Canada's role in providing and taking some accountability for self protection for granted. You will let the US take the risks on our behalf & berate them at the same time. Self righteous centred people don't respect moral responsibility.
  65. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: and then winter will come and it will be quiet again.......and then summer weill come and here we go again.....statistics wil show this trend then that trend then....
  66. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: Don Adams, I suspect that you have no children to sacrifice for the TAPI, and to kill the Muslims of Afghanistan. [[ Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff has acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse and more troops are required.]] You want to conscript Canadians?

    Corporate responsibility? Canadian blood for the corporations? Get you butt in Afghanistan and vie to become a Hillier Hero.

    The rest of us don't want to send our kids and grands to ensure that women don't wear veils, if that is the cover story for our Crusade.
  67. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes:

    Hugh Albert - The US does not need Canada's help to bomb and salughter Muslim Afghan civilians. Morality? Ask the Red Cross or Amnesty what they think of the US activities. Whereever that country goes they kill and maim [especially in Muslim countries or if the civilians are Black and not necessarily Muslim].

    [[Hugh Albert said:' You will let the US take the risks on our behalf & berate them at the same time. Self righteous centred people don't respect moral responsibility.']]

    Guess you are one of the gullible who believe that the robed, bearded 'Taliban' armed with RPG's are canoeing their way out of their landlocked country to invade Canada? If so join the Canadian NeoCons of the Cons and the Libs. And get yourself to Afghanistan to kill more civilians.
  68. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: Enjoy the day.
  69. Hugh Albert from Canada writes: John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: 'Guess you are one of the gullible who believe'

    You must be right because you said so.
  70. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: hossein hajiagha from Victoria, Canada writes: %0 born muslims are working for government all of the are blond hair and blue eyes
    20 times my application and resume get to garbage by city of Victoria you
    2 times my grant rejected by art council, no corect full times job, I'm living here in Victoria day by day in labour market and I am educated and as professional awarded artist, why I should all this like slaves ....if you right
    F....you get out from my brother's land ,
    what you are doing in Afghanistan ?
    you are racist and get out please .

    ***

    Thank you for injecting a bit of comedy into this otherwise serious debate.

    Oh wait, are you being serious?

    Sorry.
  71. muriel z from Toronto, Canada writes: The way this war on terrorism is being fought is un-winable

    We should be training and equipping Afghan troops to fight. They know the enemy and they have the incentive to oppose tyrany terrorism and persecution.

    In 1940 Great Britain was at war, totally unprepared and mostly unarmed.
    The enemy was 26 miles away across the English Channel.
    Our home army was mostly equipped with broom handles, there were very few guns.

    We fought this war with the help of Comonwealth troops, Canadian, Australian ete: and troops from the occupied countries who had managed to escape to England, and with equipment and arms sent by President Roosevelt.

    The Americans didn't enter the war until December 1941 after Pearl Harbour.

    Regardless, we didn't just sit back and let 'Jack' do it, our freedom was at stake.

    -
  72. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Make up your mind Sir. General?
  73. Lie Detector from Parry Sound, Canada writes: Our general was called to order by his pals in Washington who prefer to paint a grimmer picture of the situation to generate support for more troops for Afghanistan when the operations of the US army in Iraq will start winding down. Our general still has a few things to learn when it comes to manipulating the public opinion. Maybe he should spend a little bit more time at the Pentagon.
  74. Harry Jackson from Simcoe Ont, Canada writes: From many comments in this Newspaper over time, it is obvious that most Canadians hate Harper and the Americans. So they blame all the problems on those two entities. I for one did not support sending what is left of our military that successive Liberal Governments have devastated beginning with Trudeau, to this God forsaken place to fight a war which is unwinnable under our rules of engagement. I might have agreed with many comments that have been made here if we engaged in the invasion on our own. However, the last time as I recall, the invasion of Afghanistan was and is a NATO operation. We committed ourselves to NATO, which of course means that, we are obligated to support our allies. Many of course blamed the evil Americans, the great Satan for our troops going there. Our former Prime Minister was fulfilling his obligations to NATO. To suggest that it was to please the Americans was not the case. He showed his independence by not sending our military to Iraq. Over the time frame that we have been there, most other member nations have not supported this operation with troops. Proof of which is what member Nations have been doing the fighting and dying over there and which ones are not? The troops should be recalled ASAP and let the other guys fight this unwinnable war, and deal with the people we are fighting and dying for, the majority of which dont even want us there. NATO is becoming as big a joke as the UN. This war has made me think, and I hate to admit it, that Saint Pierre Trudeau was maybe right, when he wanted to take us out of NATO over 40 years ago.
  75. Is there anybody out there? from Canary Islands, Canada writes: The first casualty of war is the truth.
  76. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: To Ed Op at 10:29; what does TPs comments have to do with the story; why quite a lot actually. Far too many postings reflect nothing more than a bunch of whiners with little or no information or experience to back up their insignificant musings, second-guessing people who have spent their lives in their profession and are experts in their area of responsibility. And as these same said professionals try to build on something, there are hordes of posters ready to tear them apart for not other reason than their success. Ah but this is so Canadian of us, to tear down those that try to get ahead for the good of all; too many like you Ed choose to sit on your hands and criticize when in fact you should be getting off your butt and doing something constructivelike serving this country. >> . As for Kadar, I cant believe that you, who say TP is not a deep thinker, would swallow the defences BS about this poor innocent child who is about to face justice in the American system. Is it perfect justice, perhaps not but it is certainly more than Pearl received or any of the other countless other captives of the enemy. >>>>>>A minor child-soldier my rear end; just ask the countless thousands of underage soldiers that served in both world wars. Or how about all those thousands of Hitler Youth we had to kill off in Europe in WW II; they were fanatics and would not give up and were younger than our dear friend Kadar. The only reason that his lawyer is going to the court of public opinion is because of the fact that the evidence is going to prove conclusively that young Kadar is most likely blood thirsty terrorist and murderer no different from his colleagues.Continued
  77. Clod Hopper from Canada writes: Ed Op from Canada:

    Been away for a while but read your posts.

    To me and clearly to the US Court, there is enough evidence to hold Khadr for trial, and a trial I believe is scheduled this fall.

    As for the 'facts' you describe, these are not clear, which is why you have a trial.

    But in all honesty it appears to me that you just want Khadr released and don't care in the least if he did anything. You also equate the US with the Taleban. I don't. In fact, I think that is the giveaway. Like a lot of posters here, you just want to see some kind of US defeat.

    So stop hiding behind legal talk, the Canadian flag,and Omer is just a little boy stuff.

    My guess is there will be a trial, and he will be convicted. The US have not be holding a saint for the last 5 years.

  78. Older'n Dirt from Belleville, Canada writes: 'Additionally, in 2006, 1,993 people in Toronto were victims of a violent gun-related crime, about one-quarter of the national total.[86] 84 murders were committed in 2007, nearly eclipsing the record of 89, and roughly half of them involved guns. Gang-related incidents have also been on the rise; between the years of 1997 and 2005, over 300 gang-related murders have occurred.' source wikepedia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Wow! as many murders in Toronto in 2007 as soldiers killed (mostly by IEDs) in 7 years in a war zone. And the pinko left are whining to get the soldiers out. Make more sense to get people out of NDP/Lib controlled Toronto than disengaging the military from Afghanistan. Even a soldier wouldn't want tocome back to that!
  79. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    Another 20 or so non-combatant Afghanistan civilians killed either as 'collateral damage' or 'accident'.

    Another NATO 'victory' and another 60 Afghanistan family members joining the Taliban in order to avenge the deaths of their innocent sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers.

    The Taliban Hydra grows.

    Meanwhile, our top general tells us that things are not looking good in this war.

    Madness!
  80. L.B. MURRAY from !! from Canada writes: Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Time to bring in the draft. 3 years compulsory service for all Canadians starting at age 19. A side benefit would be to teach them personal, civil, AND corporate responsibility, something they sure don't learn either at home or at school these days!.
    _________________________________________

    Yes, perhaps some military service would be beneficial, especially with the now majority of kids who spend too much time indoors with their war video games. In boot camp, they would lose weight, have no choice but to get physically fit, learn discipline and of course, the obvious military ''Yes, Sir''...

    -
  81. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: Hello John Ishmael: Good to see you in fine form this morning. How are things in Quetta? Not too hot I hope. I must say you do go on. I for one am delighted to see your postings; they have a tone of desperation about them that warms the cockles of my heart; and you know very well why you are sounding pinched and whiny; you and your buds are losing the war. Over seven million Afghan citizens have returned home in the past 24 months; hundreds of your junior and senior leaders have been assassinated; we are heading right into your lairs to lay our own IEDs and ambush your recruits; the Afghan army and police are getting better, faster than expected under Canadian tutelage instead of German; Pakistan is hunting you down; Saudi Arabia and Iran are cutting off your money and arms; the geo-political situation is stabilizing; your colleagues lash out with more frequent assaults but these are getting weaker as time goes on and none pose a threat to over-turning the present, democratically elected government that is up for re-election. My friend Ishmael, you and your buds are toast and I love stoking the fires that will see you burn in hell for what you have done.
  82. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    As for Khadr - find him guilty, sentence him to 25 years.

    Under the American sentence determination, his time already served is the equivalent so send him back to Canada and close up Gitmo, that abomination of democratic justice.

    This may minimize the amount that we will ha