FriendshipGarden

GardenTalker

I tend to agree with this, also this issue could force a general election in Canada this spring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/wafg207.xml

Afghan failure 'will bring terror to the West'

By Stephen Adams and Matthew Moore
Last Updated: 9:27am GMT 07/02/2008

The Nato secretary-general today warned that failure to bring peace to Afghanistan would result in further terror attacks on Western cities, as

Speaking ahead of a Nato meeting in Lithuania, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer urged member states to pledge more resources to help train the Afghan army.

"This is the front-line in the fight against terrorism, and what is happening in the Hindu Kush matters, because if terrorism is not dealt with in Afghanistan, the consequences will be felt not just in Afghanistan and the region, but also in London, Brussels, and Amsterdam," he told the BBC.

There is real frustration in London and Washington at the unwillingness of countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain to deploy troops in the battle-torn south, where forces face a resurgent Taliban. cont...

comments:
_________________
see our backup forum here and register
http://gardentalk.proboards91.com/

GardenTalker · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: Canadian pettiness is showing

Interesting piece from the Toronto Star of all papers....

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/301568
Canadian pettiness is showing

The "deploy more NATO soldiers to Kandahar or we quit in 2009" threat contained in the Manley report strikes me as a sad reflection on current Canadian attitudes. It isn't that more troops would not be desirable. But what if no NATO country sends us a military "partner"?

According to the report, in spite of the ongoing violence, the Afghan economy has been growing, millions of refugees have returned, more children (of both genders) are in school, child mortality rates are improving and infrastructure is being built.

Are we so small-time and penny ante in our world view as to dismiss the progress made? Do we tell the unprepared Afghan forces and population, "Sorry, you're on your own"? Do we allow Afghanistan to again become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, again a threat to us and others?

I hope not, because another thing we would lose in the process is our reputation. I would argue that it has improved internationally due to our involvement in Afghanistan.

Far from the myth that most of the world used to view us as benign peacekeepers and now view us as pawns of the Great Satan, it is more likely that most of the world either never thought twice about us, or simply viewed us as an extension of the United States.

Now we are included in adult discussions and asked, in return, to behave like adults, responsibly and with integrity.

Instead we – not our soldiers, but citizens and leaders – behave like accountants with calculators in hand, tallying up every percentage, dollar, headline, slight or snub (real or imagined) and counting every sacrifice as a cause for indignation and (more) anti-Americanism, rather than as, well, a sacrifice.

Canadians like to believe they are broad-minded global citizens. But the pettiness on display when we complain about the "disproportionately" large load we are carrying in Afghanistan shows us to be self-absorbed, miserly and ignorant of history.

Venturing into the debate over "disproportionate" contributions is dangerous. A small number of countries (including Canada) carried a disproportionately great burden in defeating Nazism, fascism and the Soviet empire. Should those countries have not done so, crying foul instead? cont...
_________________
see our backup forum here and register
http://gardentalk.proboards91.com/

Durgan · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:29 am Post subject:

Harper had better explain how 1000 more troops are going to win-whatever the undefined win is- defies description. This issue makes no sense whatsoever. Harper is not being informed properly or he is deliberately mis-leading the Canadian public. Almost all the world reports are pessimistic to say the least.

Little hope for Afghans in 2008
By David Loyn
BBC News, Kabul
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7156338.stm

In the south, mainly British and Canadian forces have sustained far more casualties during this period than earlier, as they have fought for control of the Pashtun heartland

It is hard to win the hearts and minds of people whose fields and homes are constantly fought over.

The Taleban have increasingly been called on to settle local disputes.

Opium in the main growing area of Helmand the increases have far outstripped reductions elsewhere.

Attempts to introduce democracy further down to district level have so far failed, and instead the international community is trying better to understand how traditional power networks operate - sitting down with tribal elders instead of insisting that they face elections.

The idea that democracy can provide a solution on its own - the dogma of 2001 - has been abandoned.

The former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown going as far as saying, "We have lost and success is unlikely".
Looks like a tough year. Next.
_________________
Durgan
http://olool.notlong.com

Durgan · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:34 am Post subject:

Canada has a head to tail ratio of about 10 to 1 in uniform. This is not counting the large number of civilians also involved. This translates into about 6000 field troops. Considering the minor involvement in Aghanistan, by simple math this means the Canadian forces are stretched to the limit due to the rotation necessities.

If Canada wants to play a leading roll on the international scene, then the military must be expanded twofold or
threefold. This means a larger increase in the defence budget. Do Canadians want this? Are they willing to pay the upkeep for a large standing Military?

Every nation has self interests. Ask, are Canada's interests being served by aping our big brother to the South?

It was apparent that the Military was deficient during the first Gulf War. I might add this was the last time we were officially at War. (We are not at War in Afghansitan in spite of the term being used in the media.) The Small Air contingent posted to the Gulf War had to be kept out of the battle zone, since the more advanced US planes were likely to run into the slow poorly equipped air contingent. If I remember our air contingent was involved in two aborted sorties.

Instead of haggling over the Afghansitan piecemeal situation, We, Canada, need a White Paper, delineating what we want out Military to be. This debate is long overdue, particularly since the world is now aflame due to the policies of the USA's- hysterical reaction to the 9/11 event. Whether we like it or not, we will be strongly influenced by US actions, and have to decide how we as a nation will react. Australia is similar, and has wholeheardly associated her policies withthe USA, but they don't live next door. Also this policy is changing due to a new governmnet in Australia.

Food for thought.
_________________
Durgan
http://olool.notlong.com

Durgan · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:38 am Post subject:

This type of information is not reported in Canada. It probably doesn't fit into the official dogma.

http://eixox.notlong.com

Kandahar's cemetery of 'miracles'
Dawood Azami
BBC Pashto service

Most visitors to the cemetery are sick people

At Kandahar's Arab cemetery, victims of the US "war on terror" are revered by many as shaheed (martyrs) and their graves are believed to possess miraculous powers.
_________________
Durgan
http://olool.notlong.com

Durgan · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:43 am Post subject:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,518937,00.html

In war-torn Afghanistan, the Taliban is gaining ground again as it continues its insurgency. A report released Wednesday by the Senlis Council, an international security and development policy think tank, concludes that more than half the entire country is now under Taliban control.
_________________
Durgan
http://olool.notlong.com

Durgan

The Afghan Wars 1839-42 and 1878-80

http://lealu.notlong.com The Afghan Wars 1839-42 and 1878-80

The present inhabitants of Afghanistan are the Grandchildren of the people the British had conflict with during the nineteenth century.

My thrust is the people of Afghanistan have not changed in attitude greatly, since that time. A perusal of these conflicts, even though it is only presented from the side of one protagonist is and should be of interest regarding the present situation in Afghansitan.

I seriously doubt our Political People and Military have read these accounts, judging from the stories and reports emanating from the media.

Anyway, I found these accounts revealing and interesting. From where I sit the events today in Afghanistan area case of deju Vu.
_________________
Durgan
http://olool.notlong.com

GardenTalker · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject:

I'm sure that the leaders are well aware of Afghan's history, but also let us not forget who put Canada there in a combat role in the first place. (Liberals)
Dion's rationale doesn't make much sense, you cannot rebuild when the Taliban is at war with the rest of the country. To leave the Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban would be a slap in the face to those who have died giving the people more freedom, especially the women.

Somebody remind me...where Jack Layton wanted to send all the Canadian troops? Oopsie - that would be Darfur

"-- GENEVA -- Up to 12,000 “terrified” refugees from Sudan's Darfur region have fled across the border to neighbouring Chad after the latest air strikes by the Sudanese military and thousands more may be on their way, the U.N. refugee agency said Sunday."

To get them out of harms way... right Jack ?
_________________
see our backup forum here and register
http://gardentalk.proboards91.com/