Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canada's once-lofty Afghan goals downgraded, defence files show

STEVEN CHASE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 4:32 AM EST 22/07/08

Critics say government lowering expectations so that it can't be accused of failure when Canada withdraws from Kandahar in 2011 ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. JP M from Canada writes: 'the Harper government has ratcheted down ambitions for Afghanistan, lowering expectations so that it can't be accused of failure'...

    How very typical of Harper and his conservative cronies...

    It would be funny if the consequences were not so serious. Without ever admitting failure, there is little chance that the government will undertake any soft of productive post-mortem, from which valuable lessons can be learned, and future failures averted. Of course, this just wouldn't fit into Harpo's master 'power play' plan.

    nice going in demonstrating leadership again cons.....
  2. Duncan Munro from Canada writes:
    Why not declare 'victory' right now, and get the heck out of there?

    If the ANA and the Afghani people want to continue the fight, then let them go to it, if they don't why should we? After 7 years the ANA should be able to carry the fight, and if they can't, I rather doubt that 1 to 3 more years will make any difference.

    In any event, all we seem to be accomplishing is facilitating the growth of the opium/heroin trade, but at least the reasons for former CDS Hillier's departure are now abundantly clear.
  3. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: Diminished Expectations.
  4. DAVID DIVER from Comox, Canada writes: All makes sense....
  5. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: More evidence that the CF didn't have a clue what it was doing when it lobbied to go to Kandahar. To make matters worse the generals who were most involved in this have become media starts to be fawned over by journalists who write rubbish about ' combat hardened generals' etc. and who have come be seen as 'experts' when the actual truth is that they are amateurs who have squandered billions of dollars and hundreds of casualties.
  6. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:

    Afghanistan has become nothing but one deadly lie after the other by this supposedly 'open, accountable, transparent' harper government.

    since harper made his surprise snealkj visit to our troops in kandahar, 73 have been killed, and uncounted numbers wounded for life.

    it is time that harper gave open accounting to the canadian people of the afghanistan participation and pulled out of that disaster of a drug infested swamp.

    CANADA - GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
  7. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: How does Harper define 'success' in Afghanistan? It seems to be a lowering, moving 'aspiration'.
  8. Stephen Best from Penetanguishene, Canada writes: So, as was obvious to anyone who read a history book or considered the reality of politics and economics in Afghanistan, the 'coalition' lost.
  9. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: 'Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: How does Harper define 'success' in Afghanistan? It seems to be a lowering, moving 'aspiration''.

    Aspires to protect oil pipeline and successfully help US extract oil and gas for their consumption.
  10. L I from Canada writes: As I recall back in the late 90's the Taliban was getting all sorts of Global kudos for eradicating the opium crop in Afghanistan. It seems a little disingenuous for this general to say the Taliban comes an tells people to grow opium or they will chop their heads off (I'm sure it could happen here or there -but on a large scale?). At any rate the farmers have something called a 'profit motive' which will push them to produce opium - it's a cash crop.
  11. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: Supposedly the inference to be drawn here is that Prime Minister Harper declared war and invaded Afghanistan with an improperly poorly equipped and inexperienced leaderless military.

    We are now faced with the reality that we must put down arms right now, return to Canada, with our tails betweeen our legs, face the inevitable international humiliation, hold the PM and his cronies responsible for war crimes, dump the government immediately and elect the Liberal party, under the their highly respected military leader to clean up the mess that they opposed since day one.

    What could be simpler?
  12. Kublah Khan from Canada writes: 88 Canadian lives for naught!
  13. D Le5 from Canada writes: waiting to see the PM with his banner borrowed from Bush reading 'Mission Accomplished"!

    Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it..in Afghanistan..for centuries..

    no one saw this one coming
  14. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: If we'd voted for Harper earlier we'd have troops in Iraq and sucide bombings in Montreal and Toronto. Let's not forget his article in the Washington Post chiding the Liberal government for not going to Iraq with his dubya buddies.
  15. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: from what I have previusly read , the increase in opium production is linked to available credit .Only opium traders offer credit to farmers, and they insist on being repaid in poppies, not cash .The attempt by US/Nato to pretend that the Taliban are the only drug profiteers is a base lie.

    A lot of Canada's "new mission" in Aghanistan is reminiscent of the final days of US involvement in Viet Nam, train local troops to take over their own security, or in fact , train the south VietNamese army to cover the US retreat. The US never trusted free elections there either.
  16. norm shea from port elgin, Canada writes: Take 10% of the money and manpower and put it to interupting the drug route ie ship inspections , and opium eradication (roundup weed killer) . and this problem will be solved in 3 years. and nobody gets killed.SIMPLE but true!!
  17. Jah Nee Kah Sun from Canada writes: The only Afghan goal for Canada is to keep our soldiers safe until we bail out, like every other invader, occupier, and foreign adventurer has for a thousand years.
  18. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: A-stan has been very good for the CF. After tooooooooo many years sporting a blue beret, the forces had lost touch with warfighting. Now the skills are back, the training is better than ever, the equipment was fast tracked, the logistics are focussed, and the civil service arm chair generals have had their knuckles whacked to keep their chubby little hands away from the business of warfighting. Casualties are a part of the business. Very unfortunate but a reality in everyy conflict, even in milk toast peacekeeping. The goals are more modest sure but the mission remains the same. Keep paying your taxes.
  19. Paul Jay from Canada writes: F.T. Ward from Canada writes: More evidence that the CF didn't have a clue what it was doing when it lobbied to go to Kandahar. To make matters worse the generals who were most involved in this have become media starts to be fawned over by journalists who write rubbish about ' combat hardened generals' etc. and who have come be seen as 'experts' when the actual truth is that they are amateurs who have squandered billions of dollars and hundreds of casualties.
    .............................................................................................................
    Excellent analysis!
  20. tom g from upper ottawa valley, Canada writes: I see, it's the old tired tune 'The Liberals Did It'. Get over it. The Afghanistan Mission is Harper's war, he bought it and played it to domestic audiences for all it was worth. Harper owns it, and now it appears the mission will be sold in a policy seconds factory outlet store with lowered goals and expectations. No more flak jacket and helmut photo ops in supposed combat zones for Harper and his ministers I guess.
  21. Steve M from Toronto, Canada writes: After reading the garbage comments that have been posted on this site, it sickens me to read such crap.We will win this thing.So the Taliban is on the move, big deal.Our troops are doing a heck of a job.Stand tall Canadian troops, there will be those who criticize the mission when the going gets tough.I don't pay much attention to these so called military experts who get their information from the 6 o'clock news.I have to wonder if these so called experts have been to Afghanistan.To those who criticize the mission I dare these clowns to go and live under the evil rule of the Taliban.Yes we need more troops in Afghanistan to help defeat the Taliban.Isn't it sad how some people will criticize our Prime Minister or the President of the United States, but no one speaks out against these low life, evil terrorists who murder, be-head and kidnap innocent men, women and children.
    Sadly there are those who have forgotten the murder of innocent people on Sept 11/01 in New York City.To our Prime Minister and our Canadian Troops, stand tall, us real Canadians are behind you all the way
  22. chicken grambo from Toronto, Canada writes: The Title should read:

    CANADA'S ONCE-LOFTY (LIBERAL) GOALS NOW DOWNGRADED TO REALITY,DEFENCE REPORT SHOWS
  23. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: Actually the view from Kabul (over 2-3 years) was very good and very informative. The CF leadership was well aware of the increased violence in Kandahar as compared to the relative calm of Kabul. Daily briefs on violence across the stan were done so you really do not have it right. Now get dressed and go sit in the mall with the other toadies.
  24. Wall Flower from Canada writes: Oh no no, Mr. Harper! You wanted this war. You fought to have these extensions. You attacked and accused those who opposed these extensions of being Taliban supporters.

    You therefore do not get to downgrade anything. Nothing short of a resounding victory will be acceptable at this point. Since you didn't learn your lesson on your campaign to have Canada go to Iraq, anything other than a victory in A'stan will pretty much guarantee that you will push for Canada to get into the next MidEast war.
  25. James Snow from Canada writes: When one thinks of conservative governments in general, one thinks of lowered expectations.
  26. Allan Eizinas from Simcoe, Canada writes: .
    Invade a smaller country then declare war. Do some saber rattling and denounce the local targets as planning to later invade your country. Position yourself as the savior of the world. Announce your imminent victory.

    As reality sets in, suppress the facts of what is actually happening on the ground and keep decreasing expectations. As the situation keeps getting worse then declare victory and get out quickly.

    It worked for the Soviets in Afghanistan and Chechnya, for the Israelis in Lebanon and for the USA in Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea and Somalia so why shouldn’t it work for Canada in Afghanistan?
  27. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Things are not going to get better there as US General Patreous stated a few days ago that Al Qaeda and MANY new recruits seem to be moving from Iraq to Pakistan along the A-Stan border where they can do more harm with their suicide bomb/hit and run tactics.

    Also, they will recruit more in the region and train for future Iraq incursions once US draw down starts sometime next year. Taliban controls almost 60% of A-Stan now!

    A better explanation found here: http://tinyurl.com/65y4tt

    It's also hard to believe that the usual suspects are pointing fingers and making this political. Remember, when you point one finger, three fingers are pointed back at yourself!

    I'm "AGAINST" this war-occupation, but if you want to make it political, your beloved Dion had his opportunity to vote against the extension and actually stand up for Canada. The motion would have been defeated!

    Instead, Dion actually showed up for a change and voted on something, instead of the normal Liberal wimp-out. Dion decided to side with Harper against the will of almost 60% of Canadians at that time!
    .
  28. The Real PS from Canada writes: norm shea from port elgin, Canada writes: Take 10% of the money and manpower and put it to interupting the drug route ie ship inspections , and opium eradication (roundup weed killer) . and this problem will be solved in 3 years. and nobody gets killed.SIMPLE but true!!

    So Norm, how come you're not running the country if you're so clever???

    The only thing simple about your post is the thought behind it.
  29. Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: ".....government lowering expectations so that it can't be accused of failure"

    Stay tuned for this to be an ongoing trend, as each re-draft of the goals comes up short. If Harper was a business manager who failed to meet his goals, he'd be collecting his pink slip.

    Stevie, most Canadians have lowered their expectations of your government. You are a failure. Time to clean out your desk.
  30. Mike M from Canada writes: Stephen Best from Penetanguishene, Canada writes: So, as was obvious to anyone who read a history book or considered the reality of politics and economics in Afghanistan, the 'coalition' lost.
    ===================================================
    I agree, remember back when the debate was raging over extending the mission, those of us who posted items from actual studies and history books on Afghanistan were referred to as Libertards, misinformed and even disloyal Canadians since we refused to jump in step with Hillier and Harper. Don't forget the lecture Rick Hillier gave Canadians regarding the mission. What goes around comes around. I feel sorry for the military personnel who are in and going to Afghanistan knowing that the exit stategy is already in place.
  31. James Snow from Canada writes: Hmm ... maybe Harper should send his towel boy Don Cherry over there. I'm sure the Taliban would head for the hills once he opened his big mouth. ;-)
  32. NWT Knifer from Yellowknife, Canada writes: We won in Afganistan!

    The current problem is being caused by Iran invading that country!

    All the taliban are trained and come from Iran

    Iran is behind the drug trade!

    Simple solution to bringing peace to Afganistan

    TAKE OUT IRAN NOW!
  33. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: Limited goals are possible to achieve. Unlimited goals are impossible to achieve. Without goals, what on earth can we expect to achieve?

    Technical details aside, we're a democratic country, and these goals should very much be a matter of public discussion.

    A lot of good can come from being there, but if we don't see Afghanistan as a democratic country who should similarly be having a public dialogue about the desired role for foreign forces, how can we expect to earn the support of the people there?

    In my mind, aside from the more immediate goals of limiting the ability of the Taliban to promote hateful anti-western extremism, our goals should be to cultivate a positive relationship with the people of Afghanistan. Since poverty breeds extremism, supporting economic opportunity and reconstruction in Afghanistan surely promotes security for Canadians at home an abroad in the long-term. Right?

    To the extent that we commit to projects in feasible chunks, we can avoid unlimited and unrealistic goals, and leave the door open to a (possibly) dignified exit. What's wrong with that?

    As an aside, I think it's kind of funny that the Firefox spell check doesn't include the words "Taliban" or "dialogue" ...
  34. James Snow from Canada writes: nitwit writes: The current problem is being caused by Iran invading that country!

    LOL! Next ...
  35. James Snow from Canada writes: LOL! NWT Knifer from Yellowknife must be one of Harper's misinformed Jesus freak backers.
  36. Hockey Fan from Canada writes: "lowering expectations".......sounds like the Cons green plan as well.
  37. James Snow from Canada writes: The current problem, my dear neo-clown, is caused by Harper's neo-con government aiding and abetting American imperialism in Central Asia.

    Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Rambo!
  38. The Real PS from Canada writes: tom g from upper ottawa valley, Canada writes: I see, it's the old tired tune 'The Liberals Did It'. Get over it. The Afghanistan Mission is Harper's war, he bought it and played it to domestic audiences for all it was worth. Harper owns it,

    Tom G, I realize it's one of those inconvenient truths but A) the Libbies did put Canada in Afghanistan and B) Dion did vote to extend Canada's involvement in Afghanistan when he could have stopped it.

    So the truth is, he either believes we should be there or he's voting on critical issues for the betterment of his party rather than the country.

    So whereas it's reasonable to debate whether our troops should be there (my view is they should), our presence in Afghanistan is as much (if not more) the libbies doing as it is the conservatives doing.

    I do get tired of you libbies always hiding your policies and actions simply because they have become unpopular with the noisy minority.
  39. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Once NATO is out of Afghanistan and the Taliban again is the ruling entity just watch for Stude Ham and the rest of sanctimonious lefties scream when school teachers are again beheaded in Kabul or Khandahar for instructing girls and women. Again it will be Harper's fault. Yes, Harper will still be prime minister in 2011. Why? Because no one believes in the lunacy of Stephane Dion. His own party knows that the "green sh!t" plan won't fly especially after the party has to pay compensation for its illegal use of the term "green shift". So while Dion looks around for some idea that will fool enough of the public to get him elected, he will not dare topple the Conservatives for the possibility that not only will he lose his seat but that he'll lose his seat before his leadership debt is paid off; which at last count was somewhere in the half million dollar range. The Liberals started this mess in Afghanistan with respect to sending ill-equipped troops into a battle quagmire that has defeated the British and the Soviet Union before and now you don't see any of these fine Liberal party of Canada supporters defending their party's decisions with respect to the Canadian Forces. Anthony B from the Maritimes: Your comment is the same old clap-trap that spews from the mouths of the ill-informed too ignorant to back any perspective but the rhetoric that comes from your lefty politicos.
  40. Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Harper had a goal of 'defeating terrorism.'
    How are we doing on that score?
  41. Nathan Weatherdon from Canada writes: Oh yeah, does reconstruction earn support, do we do reconstruction where the locals are already most supportive, or both?

    Untangle that.
  42. The Real PS from Canada writes: Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Harper had a goal of 'defeating terrorism.'
    How are we doing on that score?

    Well Catherine, I assume you're safe and are free to post your thoughts (unlike those who died on 9/11, in London etc. etc.).

    Just as a reminder, those people died, mostly, because the Taliban allowed terrorist training to occur unchecked in Afghanistan.

    So my take Catherine, on that score, is 'quite well thank you' and thank you to all the troops who are putting their all on the line to continue our way of life.
  43. Bilderbergers beware you've robbed your last grave from Canada writes: two more years = how many more CF Troops killed?

    And for what?
  44. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    For those who wishfully do not believe Iran is involved in Afghanistan, I'll just post a few things and if you google the ties and commercial and humanitarian efforts between Iran and Afghanistan, you may come away very surprised about the level of involvement! Interesting how the Can. MSM bury these stories

    1) Afghanistan, says Karzai, "wants to be a friend of Iran as a neighbour which shares the same language and religion."

    2) KABUL (Reuters) Afghanistan opposes U.S. use of its territory for launching a possible attack against neighbouring Iran, President Hamid Karzai said. Karzai said his government, which came to power after U.S.-led and Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001, had always tried to "keep the balance between the powers."

    3) July 17 (Bloomberg) -- The flags of Iran, Afghanistan and Tehran-based Abad Rahan Pars Road & Construction Co. fly above a railroad work camp west of the Afghan city of Herat, signaling ANOTHER commercial incursion from across the border.
    .
  45. John Doucette from manotick, Canada writes: The goal of "defeating terrorism" has been modified to "being defeated by terrorism." What's the score now, ninety dead Canadians? Nice going Stevie, you and your predecessor Pauly should give yourselves medals.
  46. L'actualite Conservative from Canada writes: It's soooo easy to have an opinion from the safety of home with a nice warm steaming cup of coffee and no more responsibility than deciding wether or not to turn up the sound on Breakfast Television.

    To the Globe and Mail; This kind of reporting is like shooting fish in a barrel if your only goal is to get the unthinking self opininated to comment. It has no redeeming social or informational value at all without even the slightest attempt to mix with context. Disappointing.
  47. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: I suspect that most Canadians who are Islamophobic deserve this wackos's dissembling: >>>>',Retired colonel Alain Pellerin of the Conference of Defence Associations said it's tough to persuade poppy farmers in Kandahar - Taliban territory - to grow alternate crops. "The drug lords and the Taliban at night would go to the farmer and say, 'Listen, either you grow opium for us or we will chop off your head.' "

    What crops are the Afghans to grow? Sugar cane? Tea? The Anglo-US occupation has been terroriizing the farmers for a decade to grow crops that the "consultants' want at a loss, burning, bombing, killing, arresting them. Then the Karzai drug lords cried 'foul' and that stopped. The Senlis Council has recommended that the poppy be grown and purchased by a pharm consortium to make legitimate opiates for medicine. But that was NOT attractive since it would reduce the price of your morphine [hydromorph-contin, Oxycontin, etc] and hence Big Pharms profits. WE, Canada, are abetting war crimes against Muslims Afghanis, meanwhile.

    Note: When the Talib were ruling they virtually halted the growing of poppy. The Karzai Northern Alliance druggies are the peddlers of much of the poppies for opium and the Resistance is selling the rest to finance their resistance to our Christian occupation. Anyway, let's ask: How many more Hillier Heroes before we hit 100? And more? Are we set to send our children and grands to keep Muslim women from burkas or to build the TAPI for the most moral nation [other than Israel], the USA?

    Please: bring our lads and lasses home and bdecome a nation of peace.

  48. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: Such vitrol coming from Con supporters. Their Plan A of attacking and slagging the views and morals of the fence sitter voters they need for a majority isn't working, so they've moved on to Plan B, louder and angrier... must be all that pent up frustration of not being able to make any progress in the polls, actually getting worse in the last few months or so, against a hapless Liberal party...of course the louder and angrier atttitude is going to change things...
  49. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: War monger L'actualite Conservative says to G & M: "Keep Quiet! Stupid Canadians may act to reduce the number of Hillier Heroes."

    L'actualite Conservative from Canada writes: ..."It's soooo easy to have an opinion from the safety of home .... To the Globe and Mail; This kind of reporting is like shooting fish in a barrel if your only goal is to get the unthinking self opininated to comment. It has no redeeming social or informational value at all without even the slightest attempt to mix with context...."

    This lout worries about "unthinking" Canadians who might think and express a contrary opinion.

    Isn't this the kind of person who should be shipped off to battle for his prejudices - in Kandahar?
  50. Dr. Winston O'Boogie from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    Sigh. Buy the opium at a fair price. Even the Manley Report suggests this as a possibility.
  51. Harry Jackson from Simcoe Ont, Canada writes: Come on Harper and American haters!, quit using these articles as an excuse to expose your hatred.

    Who cares if Harper is trying to save face as long as he gets the military out of there what difference does it make?
  52. ImaCANADIAN ! from Canada writes: If by 2011, the Harper government no longer expects significant reduction of Taliban capabilities or of narcotics cultivation and trafficking, then why are we still wasting lives and tax dollars there? We have been wasting a Canadian life every week and a half since being in Kandahar (80 since 2006). We have been wasting $3.4 million every 24 hours on these military operations ($7.5B over 6 years). And for what? More insurgents and terrorists are being created, more IED and suicide bomb makers are being trained, more opium is being produced.

    Bring our troops home in February 2009. Harper's second extension of almost 3 years to 2011 will probably cost another 80-100 Canadian deaths, another $3-4 billion of our tax dollars, and another 3 years of war propaganda, lies, and deceit.
  53. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: Let's not forget that that man I had admired, Dion, became a coward fearing re-election and did not stop Canada's extension of its Crusade when the Libs could. He listened to our American Ignatieff and the Lib neo-cons. He is also responsible for helping Hillier create Hillier Heroes - about 88 so far, without counting the assassins that we have had in Afghanistan from the time of the US invasion.

    Anyway, McGinty has named a particularly deadly part of the 401 highway for these dead lads and lasses. Highway of [Hillier] Heroes.

    Now, we can't say Canada is not thinking of all our our potential heroes who are trying to help remove burkas from Muslim women. Oh! And making it safe for the TAPI.
  54. Bilderbergers beware you've robbed your last grave from Canada writes: R. Carriere...

    What does Iran have to do with the increase in violence? Afghanistan has been ruled for generations by different tribes. THere has been a coexistance, however violent, between these tribes.

    Iran or more specifically Iranian businesses have every right to do business where ever they want, just like Canadian and other nations' do.

    The continual media onlsaught of how evil Iran is is hogwash. THey are a sovereign nation that has not committed any crime, not invaded any country ( in the 20-21st centuries) and yet the MSM (controlled by Zioniest sympathizers) portrays Iran as an immentnet threat to teh world...

    Sounds all to familiar...
  55. John Ishmael from Brampton ON, Canada writes: Enjoy your day. Blessings.
  56. Cuban Cigar from Canada writes: Downgraded goals for 2010:
    protect from terrorism, immediate area around Tim Hortons in Kandahar.
  57. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: The Real PS from Canada, the 9/11 terrorists trained in the US, and instructers concerned with people wanting to know how to fly planes, but not land them, reported their concerns to the FBI, which did nothing.Afghanistan is a red herring.
  58. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: It now appears that many who have called this lost cause from the start and have written here on this site with the kind permission of the editorial staff were indeed bang on. Read the history books ladies and gentlemen, no outside power has controlled Afghanistan since the beginning of time. The above statement eludes to the opium trade, but fails to mention to what extent. Prior to NATO opium production was estimated to be about 1200, tons/yr last year it was 8500, tons/yr.... to which President Karzai stated "Hands off" and Harper & Co... stated: "We will not talk about it" Why? where was the MSM on the so called War on Drugs? but I digress. Many Canadian soldiers have committed suicide (again no talk or investigation by the MSM) last count 36! plus a several hundred with PTSD and more to come, all added to long term health concerns. Having served for over 30 years in the CAF this I know, Afghanistan was not a War! it was a conflict and Canadians sent our fine brave soldiers not to do battle but to try and police a country and protect a drug trade........that ladies and gentlemen is not the job a soldier nor are they trained to do so. When any soldier goes into battle they know only one rule kill or be killed, that has never changed since dirt! but when we task our soldiers to police duties the rules of engagement change and that handcuffs each and every person on the front line....they must think first and shoot second. Of course we support each and every soldier because they stand proud and will give their life on command. What was required was for our PM to think before he pushed the envelope that sent them to front line in support of "Dubya's" wishes. And remember he did not even show up to vote that fatal night after allowing only an hour debate!
  59. Chris Halford from Ottawa, Canada writes: I guess even Harper can eventually see the writing on the wall.
  60. Rusty Waters from Canada writes: What do the the army tell parents who lose their soldier sons and daughter...... he/she died fighting for Canada,..... or the other rationalization...... fighting to improve the lives of Afghan people? Many people in the Canadain Public knew from the start that this war was likely one big lie like the Iraq war. Now every Canadian and every Canadian soldier knows this war is a big lie. Knowing now that the government realizes this is a mess and they are trying to find an acceptable reason to tell Canadians why they are pulling out, how can a soldier get up the courage to fight? The moral of the forces will likely drop to a all time low. A smart soldier would go into survival mode for the next three years. Why risk one's life fighing for nothing. The Government should pull out immediately so more Canadians lives won't be loss. How can the members of the government sleep at night knowing they are responsible for putting Canadian sons and daughters lives in danger to the point where 88 have died, and they can't explain why? If Obama can promise to pull out of Iraq in 16 months, Canadians can be out of Afghanistan in 3-6 months. 60% of Canadians knew this invasion of another country was wrong and now close to 100% know it is wrong, therefore its time for people to stand up and demand the government pull out immediately before more Canadian soldiers die. Are Canadians going to stand by and do nothing and let this war go on for another three years. Where are the Liberal and NDP voices against this war?
  61. Stan L from Canada writes: Not sure how I feel about ratcheting down the plans...kind of 50/50. But I do have a problem hearing about this in the papers...didn't the Manley report talk about the need for more open comunication with Canadians about the mission? so why does a newspaper have to find this out for me to know.....where was the open and transparent communication from the PM on this?
  62. NikolaTesla -the genius who lit the world from Calgary, Canada writes: R. Carrierre - Your first post is disingenuous, your second post is presumptuous. Dion would have lost the election with the possibility of a Harper Majority (shudder). Iran has relations with all its neighbors, why should Afghan be different; unless of course were basing our idea of Iran on the Neo-Con propaganda ?

    And just why do you despise Dion so much? Just wondering.

    Geoffrey May- The only thing i can say about the Opium production is C.I.A. They need some way of funding their Black Projects and it appears that selling drugs in very profitable.
  63. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Bilderbergers beware you've robbed your last grave from Canada writes: R. Carriere.....What does Iran have to do with the increase in violence?

    Morning: Nowhere did I claim that. I said "involved" meaning construction, money, aid, and relations. Someone above almost laughed off Iran' s influence. Just trying to point out there are many tangled webs being weaved.

    The expression used is that while Karzai nods at the US/ISAF, he winks at Iran.

    So while Canada works in Afghanistan trying to win the hearts and minds, so is Iran--the possible site of the next "confrontation."

    You have our tiny force as part of the ISAF. Then you have the US forces- 20,000 part of the ISAF and another about 13,000 under US control only doing special ops......reported close to the Iran/Afghan border. Who knows, the fight may already be on as was with Iraq BEFORE the invasion!

    Then you have Al Qaeda moving into the border areas of Pakistan (not far from Khandahar.......

    What a big bloody mess we got ourselves into.

    .
  64. mike sty - from Canada writes: Afghan goals downgraded, defence files show -------------------------- IpsosReid 14% Canadians........extend current mission 45% Canadians.......redefine mission, keep troops to train Afghan soldiers and police ---------------------- Stephen Harper is doing everything he can to help put a stop to our planet's rampant overpopulation problem. Military efforts in Afghanistan haven't gone as smoothly as planned, and Stephen Harper has called for more troops to be sent to the region. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have disagreed with the PM on this matter, but he is sticking to his guns. And I, for one, completely agree with the PM on this. That is because Harper, unlike the rest of the world, is smart enough to know that if a solution isn't working, all you need is more of the same solution. Now, if you try to solve a problem, and you keep on trying to solve that problem the exact same way for a period of four years and you still see no signs of improvement, you may be tempted to find a different solution to that problem. Either that, or just give up on solving the problem entirely. This is where Harper is superior to the rest of us. He understands that the first solution, as ineffectual as it may be, is always the best solution. Even if the problem you're addressing changes as time goes on, the solution doesn't need to. Harper won't let facts and knowledge dissuade him from doing what he knew in his heart was right. No matter what everybody said he never wavered. Harper just kept on ignoring the advice of people much smarter and more informed than him.I 'll stick what I knew was true in my heart, not by what was true on paper. His solution has thus far proven to be unsuccessful, and there's every possibility it will remain unsuccessful in the years to come, but that's no reason to give up on it or change it. If fixing it don't work, just send in more troops." Troops Out Feb 09
  65. Brian Sexsmith from Toronto, Canada writes: Whatever happened to 'wiping out the scumbags' who were 'coming at us like a ball of snakes'? Maybe we should send Gordon O'Connor to Afghanistan again to 'look people in the eye' and ascertain the situation. Or just re-hire Sandra Buckler to repeatedly deny failure, like the PMO has done with every other debaucle. Lowered expectations? No kidding.
  66. Free The West from Free the West, Canada writes: Once again, we have the words "critics say" used in a headline by the perfidious G&M to editorialize a contrived anti-Conservative slant story. You Toronto types just eat this stuff up. The G&M willl contiue to be dishonest if those are the standards you people accept.
  67. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    NikolaTesla writes:..Dion would have lost the election with the possibility of a Harper Majority (shudder). Iran has relations with all its neighbors, why should Afghan be different; unless of course were basing our idea of Iran on the Neo-Con propaganda ? And just why do you despise Dion so much? Just wondering.

    Morning NT: I believe you are being presumptuous about Dion losing an election at that time. Many things change during a campaign. During the last election campaign, there was a 9% point swing alone!

    And yet you just confirm that it is all about winning an election and not standing up for principles or what one believes is right! We have witnessed that over and over..

    As for Iran and Neo-Con propaganda, I hope you realize the majority of world community is against Iran's nuclear proliferation...the difference being this community wants sanctions and negotiations, while the few normal suspects want to Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-bomb Iran!

    I do not despise Dion the person. I believe he should have never been chosen the default leader, and his politics and far-left positions have almost destroyed the Liberal Party-a diservice to all Canadians.
    .
  68. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: i don't really care how they go about saving face as long as the troops come out.
  69. mike sty - from Canada writes: Free The West from Free the West, Canada writes: The G&M willl contiue to be dishonest ..................................................................................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conservative's guide to defending the undefendable, rule number...

    10) The Globe and Mail is a commie Liberal propaganda organ. (The paranoid defense).
  70. vince dejager from kingston, Canada writes: Yes folks, it's true....Con Government = LOWER EXPECTATIONS. Harper is nothing more than GW's poodle.... As retired reg force military, I only wish those 88 lives hadn't been wasted for nothing.
  71. True North from Canada writes: Harper's government cannot be trusted.
  72. Bilderbergers beware you've robbed your last grave from Canada writes: R. Carriere...

    What nuclear proliferation???

    And what community..the security council. China and Russia have abstained from any sanctions.

    Once agin, youare being mislead be MSM
  73. Anna Elizabeth from As you like it., Canada writes: Harper may have lowered his expectations, but look what it has cost us...multi billions, and more billions to be paid.
  74. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: That is what our previous government was doing prior to Harper's arrival and prior to all the body bags coming home. A goal that may have been completed by now.
  75. Bill Thompson from Calgary, Canada writes: So the G & M says we have downgraded our objectives quoting an old directive as a start point. Let us ignore the fact that the circumstances in theatre have changed and just who is the G & M to pass judgement anyway. And also why is this a bad thing…to adjust to new realities; is it better to stick with an obsolete plan regardless of consequences. >>>>This article is clearly intended to ignore everything positive about the mission and its accomplishments such as the return of over 7 million Afghans to their homes, and encourage the likes of Ishmael to spew his poison and the 30 year man to spout absolute nonsense about it not being a soldiers role to occupy, assist the civil power, teach, or otherwise be involved in reconstruction of a failed state. >>>>>>>>> I find it amusing that the authors of this article can be so out of touch with reality as to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Talk about encouraging the defeatists. Is the mission hard, yep 88 dead and counting. Suicide rates by the way are not significantly different from the Canadian normal rate, treatment for the stress of the engagement, yep, when they come home we treat them just as we do any of our wounded. So what; this is the price we pay for helping a state get back on its feet. It has been democratically decided we would do this. My only quibble is that Canada has not committed near enough soldiers to engage the enemy. We could have done more, a lot more, but because we chose to only go in half way to appease the idiots posting here, we have prolonged the engagement and increased our casualties as a direct result. The defeatists posting here can all ……….. for all I care.
  76. Richard Soley from writes: The real question is : what is it that negative commentators, mostly Liberal supporters but very much left wing get out of unproductive, personal attacks, unfounded accusations? is it in the hope that some day they will be able to say "I told you so" or is it because they have not made any kind of meaningful contribution to life that they feel a personal kind of justification in critizing those who do? If the remarks made in these columns were in a social setting those speaking these remarks would be asked to leave, in a educational enviroment it would be "bullying". Certainly folks like Stude Hamn are strident in thier opinions without ever saying what the alternative is. Perhaps if the weak left wingers succeded (which I doubt) and the problem of greater amounts of drugs, violence, terrorism comes to your country, or neighbourhood you will feel differently? Will you then cry for the Military or the Police to come and protect you? or will you convert to the doctrine of the day and lean with the wind? I suspect the later as it takes courage to go against the vocal assinations made by many but fortunatley for this country and for the vast majority of the "west" We have courageous people who take daily life threatening risks to help lessen the dangers faced by really ordinary people in great need. The Richard Roskells and the Stude Hamns are unproductive, vocal ahd hurtful, thank god for the EMS workers, AID workers, Police, Military, and thank the Canadian troops in Afghanistan for taking the fight to the enemy and helping to prevent having to face terror on a daily basis here in Canada. I have Yellow ribbons on every vehicle I own. THanks Guys! Stay safe!
  77. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Bilderbergers beware you've robbed your last grave from Canada writes: R. Carriere...What nuclear proliferation???
    ----
    So your belief is that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons? That is your choice and right to do so. While you mention Russia-China abstention, that is purely political for this new and growing axis, similiar as does the US almost always abstain or vote against sanctions concerning a small specific Middle East country. You also disregarded the EU in your rebuttal.
    .
    .
  78. Molly L from Canada writes: It's a tough call.

    On the one hand, the public probably is wary of any further extentions of the Afghan mission: money, deaths, priorities have simply shifted 7 years post 911. On the other hand, to withdraw without properly training the ANA to defend the nation is irresponsible. You start what you finish or you don't start at all (Ă  la US Army and Vietnam).
  79. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: The only problem with this article is that it completely ignores the fact that we've never had a definition for success in Afghanistan.

    Certainly the government promised to rout out the Taleban, but what did that really mean? Did it mean killing every Afghan person who ever offered the slightest support for the Taleban? Probably not. Sure, we were going to make sure every little girl got an education, but to what level? Grade six, twelve, university? And we were going to rebuild (a dubious use of the word at best) the country. To what level? Would every major city resemble Toronto? Would every small town be the backdrop for picture postcards?

    Afghanistan has always been handled on an ad hoc, whatever sounds good basis. To suggest these new aspirations are any different is to suggest a nobility that was never there.
  80. Is there anybody out there? from Canary Islands, Canada writes: Another CON job by the Conservatives. Manipulated truth.
  81. Is there anybody out there? from Canary Islands, Canada writes: Harper doesn't deal with reality he recreates reality.
  82. Erik D. from Ottawa, Canada writes: We had a set of goals in Afghanistan, we , in conjunction with NATO, seriously underestimated the man power and cost of really doing that job (why, well no real political will to do the job right), when that finally got thru to the politico's thick heads they applied a band aid of 1000 more troops driven partly via a hastly pulled together report, complied once again by politico's (and rest assured they got paid well for their efforts)... instead of getting the folks who understand what it would take to do the job to make the report, and who were even at that time saying 1000 was way to small of a "surge". Why didn't Harper listen to them, well, it was political dynamite to do a large troop increase of Canadaians, and the other NATO countries also had the same political problem. The root cause, politicians, of all stripes, deciding what to do based on their interests, the second root cause is that we the public, let them get away with it, as well, we are too lazy to actually spend the time and effort it takes to revamp our now deply ingrained corrupt political system. We would rather just whine away on blogs about how the other party is the root cause of the issue of the day ...
  83. Billy Talon from Toronto, Canada writes: Like I've said before, partisan politics is for children.

    Read R. Carriere posts. Well thought out, without the petty partisan garbage.

    Dion could have made a stand but in reality he is an ineffective leader - like our current crop of leaders we have in politics today.

    How did we go from trying to find Bin Laden to helping little girls go to school?
  84. The Real PS from Canada writes: Geoffrey May from Canada writes: The Real PS from Canada, the 9/11 terrorists trained in the US, and instructers concerned with people wanting to know how to fly planes, but not land them, reported their concerns to the FBI, which did nothing.Afghanistan is a red herring.

    Geoffrey, are you suggesting there was no terrorist training going on in Afghanistan? That the leadership was not established there? It's true that the terrorist learned how to point a plane in the USA but there was way more to the plan that that and you know it.

    I suggest you stop using little bits of truth to try to prove a whole story, it's not doing your cause any good as you just look to be bending the truth or uninformed.
  85. jim kennely from Canada writes: we've been dealing with contrary reports since the very beginning. just from what i'm able to gather from a variety of news sources in afghanistan the canadian contingent have shown a regard for human life and are generally well thought of.
    but there is little to show for all its efforts. we have to be reminded that our guys aren't over there as a construction battalion.
    i don't think we'll ever see the "end" in guerilla warfare.
    let's just get our guys home.
  86. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Experts never cease to amaze me, especially soft discipline experts dealing with data. 'Incidents are up' in Kandahar. Could be that the Taliban is on the move; could also be that the coalition is, and that much that wasn't been seen before is being intercepted now. Want 0% reported crime rate? Disband the police force. Want 0% casualties? Keep the troops in Petawawa.

    Consult Bernard Fall on Vietnam. In an insurgency, districts reporting nothing are your problem, not those that do. 'No problems' = a police force and administration on the take (i.e. that's already decided who will win), and a military that's avoiding engagement.

    Only rational set of aims will arrive by default. We 'win' when the legally constituted government can carry on without direct NATO intervention.
  87. Not the Alliance from In my opinion, The Harper Gov't is totally Incompetent, but excel at whining that it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault. Did I mention they lie constantly too?, Canada writes: A realistic assessment is long overdue. The irony is that this assessment might have been done and released long ago, but Harper & his cronies chose to label anybody who questioned our goals and tactics in Afghanistan as "Taliban loving". The polarized atmosphere in Ottawa that this type of slogan loving thinking creates is hurting our country. We need adults in power, not this group of maladjusted brats that currently fill the seats.
  88. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I remember being for this mission post 9/11 when the specific goals were to find Bin Laden and destroy the training camps.

    And as we see today almost 7 years later, much has changed and so did the objectives, whether they are what we are being told.....or something very different such as a possible staging area for the next PNAC move to Iran.

    I guess it comes down to this: Go Big or Go Home:

    Tuesday, 3 June 2008: The outgoing American general in charge of Nato forces in Afghanistan for the past 15 months says the war against the Taleban is "under-resourced."

    "This is an under-resourced war and it needs more manoeuvre units, it needs more flying machines, it needs more intelligence, surveillance and recognisance apparatus," Gen McNeill said.

    "I'm not just focused on the US sector, I'm talking about across the country."

    He suggested that if counter-insurgency guidelines were strictly followed, 400,000 troops would be needed in Afghanistan.

    400,000! That means ISAF along with the independent US forces are about 350,000 troops short! Yes, that 1000 extra we are begging for will make the difference..

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7432700.stm
    .
  89. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: And here we see why Canadian politicians never, ever admit to being wrong. If they do, their partisan opponents are all over them like plaid on Don Cherry. For the love of all that is good, people! A realistic reassessment of what is possible and practical is a whole heck of a lot better than head-in-the-sand "we can win this thing" knee-jerk response from many posting here. We MIGHT have been able to win IF there had been more soldiers from the outset, if the U.S. had not shifted its focus onto a totally bogus war in Iraq, if honest efforts to establish dialogue had been made when the Taliban were on the run. None of those things happened. Why doesn't matter right now. We are between a rock and a hard place. To win we need to make a concerted effort that, as a nation we just aren't willing to make. Given the obvious benefits of "winning" such an effort is probably not worth the cost. I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to change their mind and admit error. We all make mistakes. I am encouraged by a government that is realistic enough to recognize that more of the same won't get the job done. I agree with those who say this experience has been good for our Armed Forces. Weaknesses have been exposed and corrected. Lessons have been learned. Moreover our reputation has risen in the corridors of power around the world. It has been an expensive experience for us. We went to Afghanistan with the best of intentions. We stayed trying to achieve what, in hindsight, was not achievable. It is time to acknowledge that error and gracefully