Author
|
Topic: Afghanistan, Still losing the War, Part VII
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 24 August 2008 10:10 AM
What Canada is fighting for:"Afghan president 'pardoned rapists' By Kate Clark in Kabul Sunday, 24 August 2008 The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has pardoned three men who had been found guilty of gang raping a woman in the northern province of Samangan. The woman, Sara, and her family found out about the pardon only when they saw the rapists back in their village. “Everyone was shocked,” said Sara’s husband, Dilawar, who like many Afghans uses only one name. “These were men who had been sentenced and found guilty by the Supreme Court, walking around freely.” Sara’s case highlights concerns about the close relationship between the Afghan president and men accused of war crimes and human rights abuses...." The Independent
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 24 August 2008 10:26 AM
Meanwhile:"Jason Burke in Maidan Shah The Observer, Sunday August 24 2008 Taliban win over locals at the gates of Kabul While clashes in remote Helmand dominate the headlines, another battle is being waged by the insurgents on Kabul's doorstep. There, the Taliban are winning support by building a parallel administration, which is more effective, more popular and more brutal than the government's..."Guardian-/Observer [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 24 August 2008 11:10 AM
That's horrible. Karzai and his stooges are doing a lousy job of what they are in control of. No justice in the colony. quote: Originally posted by A_J:
It's often popular to compare the current war in Afghanistan to the ill-fated Soviet invasion and occupation in 1979-89 . . . but people often forget that their loses numbered in the hundreds of aircraft shot-down.
I believe Ottawa is training helicopter pilots on Chinooks in the U.S. We definitely don't have helicopters and airforce jets there in the numbers the Soviets had. That would be a mistake as Russian military has advised NATO, and probably with a wink and a nod, too, from non-NATO countries in the region, like Iran and China. In other words, I think there is a good reason why NATO hasn't committed as many military aircraft to the occupation and probably has a lot to do with the proxy war results for the Soviets by 1989. Ottawa has recently leased drone reconnaissance aircraft from Israel for something like $110 million. Not a friendly country for pilots in general. It could be that in the minds of our fearless leaders, they know it's pointless, too, if it wasn't for all this money being spent on equipment leases, Can-Am military contracts, and aid money absconded and pilfered by colonial administrators in Kabul. Bring the troops home now and stop screwing around, Ottawa! [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 August 2008 11:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: That's horrible.
What's "horrible"? that the people apparently have an administration that they prefer to the one put in power by U.S. armed might? I'd say that's called democracy. At the very least, it's self-determination. Sounds like good news to me.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 03:29 PM
A successful counter-insurgency forces needs to have a proper balance of equipment and resources. Canada does not have either in this conflict.There also requires a balance of employment between equipment and resources. This is something we do not do well because of the lack of equipment in Afghanistan. Would helicopters prevented Canadian deaths? In some cases yes and in other cases no, it depends on the mission the soldiers were on when they were killed or injured. In any case a detail analysis of each incident would have to be done before any facts can be known for sure. I think the one thing that is not remembered by many people in Canada, this is a war and that soldiers get killed and injured. Mistakes are made from time to time, there are good days and bad days and sometimes the enemy is able to win an engagement. I would recommend reading David Galula's Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 03:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: So you're saying the Liberals volunteered Canadian soldiers to a wicked-deadly dangerous mission in Kandahar without any thought for these things?[ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
All political parties volunteer the military for missions without assessing what is actually required for the situation or the mission. The NDP wanted the military to go into the Sudan a few years ago because it was the flavour of the day however I doubt much thought was given for the mission requirements. Remember we are a tool for political powers.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 04:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: I'm sure the NDP means for Canada to maintain a peacekeeping role and not resemble the nuclear-powered US military. The Yanks are the best equipped military in the world getting itself into all the wrong conflicts, and our Liberals have followed Crazy George's lead.
Peacekeeping or war fighting role does not matter, the fact is, every Canadian political party makes statements or commitments without properly assessing what the Canadian military can do or can not do within the military’s current structure. This happens all the time, Sudan, Afghanistan, Bosnia. I would also recommend reading the UN Missions Lessons Learn articles for the last 60 years. (Link can be provided if required) Peacekeeping is just as expensive as war.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 24 August 2008 04:11 PM
Opposition questions PM on military spending spree quote: "It's my list: Restoring ships, Arctic ships and frigates and airplanes and trucks," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said earlier this week.The list also includes tanks, jumbo aircraft, frigate upgrades, new troop carriers, heavy-lift helicopters and new airbases. The total cost so far is more than $22 billion, which doesn't include the billions more for operations and maintenance. It's the biggest build-up since the Second World War. . . The opposition leaders agree the military needed an upgrade, but they accuse Harper of a U.S.-style defence buildup.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 05:00 PM
At the time of the report in June, 2007Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor stated "It's my list: Restoring ships, Arctic ships and frigates and airplanes and trucks.” And then Jack Layton stated this comment "This seems much more attuned to offensive warfare than Canada's role of peacekeeping." However an NDP press release from 2006 on Defence and Peacekeeping states the following: “Canadians are proud of our peacekeeping role in the world. And when a crisis hits home - from forest fires to hurricanes - our military’s there when we need it. People respect our women and men in uniform and expect them to have fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment.” “Asserting and protecting Canadian sovereignty….... including protecting our offshore resources.“ “Reorienting Canada’s defence procurement ……maintaining defence spending, and setting good pay, family support, and good basic equipment as priorities.” It would appear that Mr. Layton forgot his promises from the 2006 Election, because it is a well know fact that most equipment is over 20 years old and the safety of the equipment is questionable. The equipment needs to be replaced and once again a politician speaks without assessing the situation Also statement from the article linked by Fidel has NDP leader Jack Layton accusing Stephen Harper of breaking Canadian standard and developing an attacking force as opposed to the typical defensive , peackeeping force. Can someone in the NDP tell me what equipment in the military has been typical for a defensive , peackeeping force? NDP Policy from 2006 Edited to add Link [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 24 August 2008 05:27 PM
Well for my money "equipment" is not necessarily the term one would use to describe the issue we are talking about. It not really a fair question, since the initial statement is a complaing about purchasing equipment that will give Canada an offensive role, not that anyone is suggesting buying equipment that would be peacekeeping specific. There is no such thing. But there are way of making you force more offensive, and tanks, are among some the equipment I would characterize as offensive.But the issue is prioritizing offensive equiment, over other aspects of the military activity, such as improved search and rescue gear, and training, disaster relief training, and even in the terms of peacekeeping their could be study of international affairs, conflict resolution training, language training and the like, as opposed to buying tanks. Peacekeeping is not so much an issue of equipment, but being properly prepared psychologically for conflict resolution, and mediation of potentially incendiary situations. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 05:35 PM
Danish Tank In UNPROFOR UN Tank IN Liberia French Tank In UNIFIL
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 05:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Peacekeeping is not so much an issue of equipment, but being properly prepared psychologically for conflict resolution, and mediation of potentially incendiary situations. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tell that to the guys in the Medak Pocket
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 06:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: I have said similar things to many Yugo vetrans, and I would again. Yes, it is a sea-change in the way that Canadians think about the military, one where was have mediatore who are armed, as opposed to soldiers who are sometimes mediators. In fact, I am considering it as whole seperate echelon of specialist, whith special training and skills, and specific and detailed local knowledge.
That is a very interesting proposal; it would be very expensive, unless the military was give very strict guide lines to follow. Maybe something like a defence policy, that does not change with each passing government would allow your concept to happen.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 24 August 2008 08:13 PM
Well for one thing social crisis is actually fairly predicatble, and so it should not be such a big problem to begin studying the main issues, before the real crisis happens, and there should be people on the ground before things collapse, studying the situation, and directing program development, here not there. This way we do not end up in a situation where we have a bunch of guys operating in a country like Afghanistan, without knowing something about the cultural norms, and could be training people who operate in the armed forces, developing some very basic tools, such as a basic understanding of the language.As well, the armed forces could target specific cultural groups from among Canadian minorities to do training and also incorporate those people into operations, as advisors. These skills would prequisites for soldiers who would be allowed on the mission. Teams of people with the most experience in the local environment would be created to advise on the best means of conducting operations, with the least amount of intrusive impact, upon local customs and existing indiginous political structures. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 24 August 2008 08:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: A successful counter-insurgency forces needs to have a proper balance of equipment and resources.
Hmmm, this suggests there has been an actual "successful counter-insurgency" somewhere in the world, at some point in recent history.I found 2 examples through google, but not too recent, the Phillipines in 1899, and Malaya in 1948 (as written by the Rand Corp), would you have any other examples? Moreover, the articles do not suggest equipment and resources as being key, they suggested, in fact that winning the hearts and mind was key: quote: "It should be the earnest and paramount aim of the military administration to win the confidence, respect, and affection of the inhabitants of the Philippines ... and by proving to them that the mission of the United States is one of benevolent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule." --President William McKinley
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_1_35/ai_n15674070 quote: Canada does not have either in this conflict.
Funny that, eh, seeing as how we were not there to conduct an actual colonial expansionist war against Afghans, which we now are.Furthermore, I would suggest that people in countries that are being occupied today do not want to become slave drawing proxy states to the USA, and are more aware of what their plight would be if taken over by the USA and/or NATO. The notion that countries and their peoples can be bought and sold by their colonial masters is gone, the masters do not yet realize it though. quote: I think the one thing that is not remembered by many people in Canada, this is a war and that soldiers get killed and injured.
Pardon me? You think many Canadians do not realize we are at war against Afghans? You can't be serious. quote: Mistakes are made from time to time, there are good days and bad days and sometimes the enemy is able to win an engagement.
There is only 1 mistake being made, and that is occupying a country that we have no right to be occupying, and whose people want us gone.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 August 2008 08:41 PM
6 Canadian soldiers, 2 journalists injured by roadside bomb quote: A roadside bomb hit an armoured vehicle in Afghanistan on Sunday, injuring six Canadian soldiers and two journalists, the military said.One soldier was seriously injured in the attack in the Panjwaii district, west of Kandahar city, which occurred at about 11:30 a.m. local time on Sunday, the military said. ... The journalists are Tobi Cohen of the Canadian Press and Scott Deveau of the National Post. Both are in good condition and have returned to work, the military said.
Scott Deveau is the "fawning Canwest jingoistic sycophant" I wrote about yesterday. Go back and read his idiotic story in light of narrowly escaping getting blown to pieces. By the way, does no one find it odd that 21st century technology is totally incapable of detecting, let alone defusing, IEDs? Or is there less money to be made in such technology than in Leopard tanks??
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 08:56 PM
RemindThere have degrees of success for some conflicts… Northern Ireland and Algeria’s are examples in my view however some people would debate this. Equipment and resources can be the key to the conflict, winning the hearts and minds (I hate the term) is the primary means to win the conflict. I believe having helicopter support was a key success to Malaya conflict do to the lack of roads. It is important to remember that no two insurgencies are the same, just as with the conflict in Afghanistan, no two parts of the fighting in country are the same. I do not think a major of Canadians do not realize we are at war, if they do, there seems to be indifference to the conflict.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
Is this a serious question?
No. I'm not interested in hearing propaganda. Forget I asked it. Let's go back to the irony of the injured so-called "journalist" who just got finished filing a heroic story where he quoted this asinine Brigadier General as follows: quote: "We're showing them we can go wherever we want, whenever we want," Thompson said in an interview in the village of Namardzi, in western Zhari.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:15 PM
I thought this was interesting:"Using data from the Army Concepts Analysis Agency, Professors Rotte and Schmidt classify 625 battles according to whether they were won or lost by the attackers. They construct a statistical model, known as a probit equation, to determine which factors make victory more likely. Both objective factors, like the size of the forces, and subjective ones, like troop morale and leadership skills, are used to predict victory. Battles spanning a long sweep of history, from 1600 to 1973, are studied to allow for changes in military technology...They find that outnumbering one's opponent is a significant determinant of victory -- and that the advantage from having more troops is virtually as strong since the start of World War II as it was from 1600 to 1849, despite changes in technology." (From, The Military Production Function: V=F(L,M,T,I)) It sounds like there needs to be more troops or none. If you believe the quote above then helicopters and IED's (or any technology) are not the solution. The French resistance always found an unguarded section of railway track to place a mine.
From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind:
Suggesting that we need helicopters ...
Hey remind, helicopters can be useful in Afghanistan also: We should rush them in while there are any live missionaries left to evacuate!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
Very long term in my view, however I think what you have described is possible becuase parts of your plan are in place now.
Not really since it would require preventing attacks by the Karzai government and US forces into Taliban zones of influence. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:38 PM
RemindI disagree with you, it is all about theory, whether it is counter-insurgency or peacekeeping, it is understanding what is require for the role the government decides on. It is all about how to obtain the desired successful end state for which the government has decided. The people control the military via the government and their elected officials, and in this case the people have decided to remain in Afghanistan until 2011 for good or for bad.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:47 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: I disagree with you,
That is fine, i disagree with you. quote: it is all about theory,
No, actually it isn't it is about REAL PEOPLES lives. You can use your precious theory all you want to distance yourself from reality that innocent people are being murdered, and yes murdered, is the correct term. quote: It is all about how to obtain the desired successful end state for which the government has decided.
No actually it isn't in the real world, perhaps on War Craft. quote: The people control the military via the government and their elected officials,
No actually they don't. But you can try to keep on telling yourself that one, if it makes you sleep at might. quote: and in this case the people have decided to remain in Afghanistan until 2011 for good or for bad.
No actually, the people of Canada did not make that decision. Selfishness and the greed of politicians and economical politics made that decision.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:56 PM
I see no reason why discussing the technical aspects of losing a war do not fit in with a discussion about "Afghanistan, Still losing the War". Furthermore, it is completely evident to me that a deficit in understanding the manner and practice of war, counter-insurgency and peacekeeping, and what they are and what the entail, is precisely the reason that some people in the NDP, notably Dawn Black, seem to be perpetuating a really serious untruth, and feeding into some very common misconceptions about what it is possible and impossible and in fact reasonable to expect from the Canadian Armed Force.As Stanley points out "there needs to be more troops or none." We either fight to win to achieve "our" objectives or we don't fight at all. I happen not to accept our objectives, and so would chose just to ignore the whole thing, but Black and other in the NDP are pushing the completely unfeasible half measure, based on what I see as false objective. Fair enough if Black and other want to believe in our "civilizing" mission in Afghanistan, but if you are going to back that concept, and buy the idea that we have a right, and indeed the responsibility, to intervene we have to go all the way, or not at all. Speaking as if there is such a half way commitment to this project, is either a sign of grave ignorance, or duplicity, and this apparent naive stance, is very likely to turn as many people off as it is to encourage people. There is no "withdrawing from the counter-insurgency campaign". However much one wishes to believe that the Canadian armed forces can play some other more passive role in the conflict, and however much we want to make these definitions between peacekeeping, security and infrastructure building, and counter-insurgency, one has to accept the fact that the Afghan resistance will very likely not see it our way, at all and act according to how they see the situation. The recent killing of these aid workers in Afghanistan underscores this point remarkably well I should think. I am sure they all saw themselves as being engaged in important, and useful humanitarian work, and indeed their expression of that desire speaks of great courage and self sacrifice, and good intent. The Afghan insurgents who killed them thought otherwise, it seems. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 24 August 2008 11:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind: Furthermore, if people in Canada are indifferent it is because they realize that they do not control what our military is doing, and that it is the corporate fascists who do.
Exactly. quote: NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar told The Hill Times, "If it becomes a mission that is entirely led by the Americans, I don't think there would be an appetite for that amongst Canadians, and rightfully so."
The NDP says the likely addition of 15, 000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan sometime in 2009 would be disasterous for Afghans. Currently there are two separate missions in Afghanistan and operating in parallel, Operation Enduring Freedom and International Security Assistance Force, both led by American commanders and not running very smoothly. Interesting to note the Liberal Party defence critic Bryon Wilfert said the addition of American troops would be a "boon to Canada's mission because it would provide better security for reconstruction efforts" but then backtracked and echoed NDP MP Dewar's concern about U.S. military tactics. Really, the Liberal Party are a mirror image of the Conservatives on this and so many other important issues and have proven time and again they are an increasingly redundant political party in Ottawa. They are prolific appeasers of and rarely oppose political conservatives. And the NDP is still saying Afghanistan is the wrong mission for Canadian troops and stands on policy for removing Canada's soldiers from the U.S.-led counter-insurgency mission. In the meantime, Dewar and Black are critics in opposition roles and doing just that: criticizing this Harper-Dion coalition governments's synergistic efforts to appease and kow-tow to Crazy George Bush, and the NDP critics have used every opportunity to do so. [ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 25 August 2008 04:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Not really since it would require preventing attacks by the Karzai government and US forces into Taliban zones of influence. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I was referring to the cultural and local knowledge of your training proposal. These course are being taken by CIMIC teams. quote: Originally posted by remind: That is fine, i disagree with you.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing however I believe we should be able to discuss topic in a civilized and educated manner. quote:
No, actually it isn't it is about REAL PEOPLES lives. You can use your precious theory all you want to distance yourself from reality that innocent people are being murdered, and yes murdered, is the correct term.
Really it depends on your point of view. I highly doubt that every Afghan see the NATO/ISAF/UN as bad. Real people lives have improved in many parts of the country. quote:
No actually it isn't in the real world, perhaps on War Craft.
Is this some sort of insult or lack of communication skills? quote:
No actually they don't. But you can try to keep on telling yourself that one, if it makes you sleep at might.
Sure… if the people elected the NDP in 2006, there would be no reason to discuss this topic however a pro-Afghan mission government was elected. quote:
No actually, the people of Canada did not make that decision. Selfishness and the greed of politicians and economical politics made that decision.
Yes, the people of Canada made the decision about Afghanistan; it was made when the people elected selfishness and greed politicians in 2006 instead of a noble party like the NDP.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 25 August 2008 07:51 PM
webgear, you fail to take into account, that the Liberals have failed Canadians as opposition, because of their financial state, and their not wanting to face an election. The government of Canada is NOT representative of Canadians, and it is pure propaganda to suggest otherwise.In all your words, you appear not to be able to look at the Canadian military actions for what they are, the murdering of innocent Afghans, while being used as mercenaries for corporate fascists. You speak of "some" Afghans wanting NATO there, yes, you are correct, the ones that are in bed with NATO and the corporate fascists do. AJ, and webgear, regarding counter insurgency, 2-3 examples in 100 years does not make a solid military action. It is actually theory, and one that is used, perhaps even creaated, IMV to cover the actions of what is actually happening, the take over and occupation of a country/region to exploit the people and their resources. AJ Ya, the Greek counterinsurgency worked so well there is still UN peace keeping participants on Cyprus. Here is a link to an article on it: quote: American policies contributed little to the positive outcome of the Greek Civil War
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2538770
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 25 August 2008 09:17 PM
RemindThe Liberals always supported the mission, to write anything to disagree with this fact is a dishonest lie to everyone on this forum and to believe the NDP would remove Canada from Afghanistan is also being deceitful to yourself. You have no idea of either military actions or the feeling of Afghans. Your blank commentary statements and terms prove your lack of knowledge of the situations. Can you even name five insurgencies in the last 100 years? How many tribes in Kandahar province or even in Zhari District? How do you create solid military action without theories? David Galula's theory is seen as acceptable solid military action by many armed forces
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 26 August 2008 09:31 AM
'Tough Season' for allies in Afghanistan: McKay quote: As foreign troops faced new criticism for civilian deaths in Afghanistan on Tuesday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay wrapped up a surprise visit to Kandahar, where he said the summer battle season has been difficult for NATO and U.S.-led coalition forces.MacKay announced $16 million in Canadian funding to establish a staff and language training centre for junior officers of the Afghan National Army in Kabul. He also said the mission remains important to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming "an incubator and exporter of terror." "There's no question this has been a tough season, very difficult sledding for our forces, as well as our allies," said MacKay, who arrived in Afghanistan on Monday with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to visit with troops and meet Kandahar's new governor. When asked whether the Afghan government's plan to review the presence of foreign troops would hinder Canada's forces in the country, MacKay said Canadian troops are taking "all precautions" and following all rules of engagement while working with the Afghan government and NATO. "We make all efforts to see that the level of co-operation protects civilians," he said.
Well, better luck next year, I guess. That pennant will be ours one of these 'seasons'! We should check our stats (on-base-percentage, hits, balks, etc.) against the home team's. How're they doing, Pete? Maybe a fantasy league pool or something?
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 26 August 2008 10:48 AM
And now, for some comic relief:U.S. terrorism experts to teach Canadian troops quote: Ottawa announced that it is bypassing the normal route for contracting and awarding the job to Arlington, Va.-based Terrorism Research Center on a sole-source basis, saying it's the only firm capable of doing the job. The one-year contract has a maximum annual payout of $848,250 (U.S.), but may be extended.
Here's some expert training which will save Canadian taxpayers' money and bereavement: Get out. While your asses are still attached to the rest of your heroic bodies. No charge, Mr. Harper!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 26 August 2008 11:33 AM
What sort of training do these "terrorism experts" provide? The Globe says: quote: Topics of the training, all focused on southern Afghanistan, will include the history of Islam and "radical Islam," customs, "sensitivities" and tribal codes of honour as well as the "cultural and ideological issues that influence insurgent decision-making."
Sourcewatch tells us: quote: Total Intelligence Solutions, LLC, is an intelligence gathering and analysis company launched by Cofer Black and Robert Richer in February of 2007, which "brings the intelligence gathering methodology and analytical skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room."Black, with a 28 year career at the CIA in the Directorate of Operations ending as Director of the CIA Counterterrorist Center, along with Richer, former Associate Deputy Director for Operations at the CIA, merged The Black Group, Terrorism Research Center, Inc., and Technical Defense to "bring CIA-style intelligence services to Fortune 500" companies. "By fusing the resources of these three companies together, we can offer an established worldwide network of experts who can assess the global economic, social and political sensitivities that Fortune 500 companies need to navigate," said Richer. "With a service like this, CEOs and their security personnel will be able respond to threats quickly and confidently -- whether it's determining which city is safest to open a new plant in or working to keep employees out of harm's way after a terrorist attack," said Cofer Black in the company's February 20th, 2007 press release. Cofer Black and COO Enrique Prado both hold positions at Blackwater USA and Robert Richer recently left his position there as VP for Intelligence to run TIS.
Sounds like a private version of WHINSEC (School of the Americas).[ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 26 August 2008 11:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: Remember that aerial attack last Friday that NATO said killed "30 Taliban" but the Afghan Interior Ministry later said killed 76 civilians?
Uh oh, now even the U N is disagreeing with Canada's masters: quote:
U.N. says has evidence air strikes killed 90 AfghansSayed Salahuddin Reuters North American News Service Aug 26, 2008 06:54 EST KABUL, Aug 26 (Reuters) - The United Nations said on Tuesday it had found convincing evidence that 90 Afghan civilians, most of them children, were killed in air strikes by U.S.-led coalition forces in western Afghanistan last week.
NATO slaughterfest
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 26 August 2008 12:12 PM
The US stonewall, apparently rattled a little by the UN report, required a strategic propaganda retreat--the legitimacy of the attack now becoming a matter for the faithful: "We continue at this point to believe that this was a legitimate strike against the Taliban," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "Unfortunately there were some civilian casualties, although that figure is in dispute, I would say. But this is why it is being investigated," he said." Pentagon Winning hearts and minds--one body part at a time.
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 26 August 2008 01:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: The Liberals always supported the mission, to write anything to disagree with this fact is a dishonest lie to everyone on this forum
mmmm, do not know where you went off the rails at, but you most certainly did, must have been when you were trying to, desperately, portray me as a liar, in order to what? Silence me? Marginalize my viewpoint? But, do please note, I never once said the Liberals did not support Canadian military personnel being in Afghanistan, after all they sent them there.What I stated was, that the Liberals were NOT listening to Canadians, in any instance. Just as the CPC are not. And I also said that the Liberals might have swayed to Canadian's pressure, and voted against extending it, had they not been selfishly foolish in not bringing down the CPC, over it. And I also stated that Canadians in the majority were against it, NOT the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is NOT Canadians in the majority. Saying that canadians voted for them means nothing, in the polical system we have where, an actual true majority governs. Everything that you suggested, that I said, is your own imagination, working overtime, at best. quote: and to believe the NDP would remove Canada from Afghanistan is also being deceitful to yourself
Oh, so now I lie not only to everyone else here, I lie to myself, too, eh?! If you were not being so obvious, I would take serious exception to what you are trying to do in the pursuit of war propaganda. quote: You have no idea of either military actions or the feeling of Afghans. Your blank commentary statements and terms prove your lack of knowledge of the situations.
This commentary of yours means...actually...nothing. As I never claimed, what you are trying to say I claimed. Nor do you know the feelings of ALL Afghans, or perhaps even any, any more than I do. And whether, or not, I have any idea of any military actions has no bearing upon said discussion.How about you deal with the facts presented, regarding that there have been 2-3 alleged counterinsurgencies in the last 100 years, which may, or may not, have worked? That there is serious concerns that USA's counterinsurgency strategies are flawed, at best. And that counterinsuregency warfare is actually a theory, not a reality. Also, could you deal with the fact, that it is as I stated, our military is only the mercenary arm of corporate fascists, and please note, contrarianna's subsequent link above, about who will now be training, our military trainers, bears this out. Corporate fascists. That would be good, instead of trying to marginalize, silence, and discredit me, with 101 propaganda techniques. quote: Can you even name five insurgencies in the last 100 years?
Yep. Not that it matters one wit, to this discussion. quote: How many tribes in Kandahar province or even in Zhari District?
How many tribes are there in Canada, or in BC, do you know? Your question has as much relevency to the topic at hand, as mine. quote: How do you create solid military action without theories?
Oh, oh, here you go, admitting that counterinsurgency is a theory, just as I said.And I respond by saying; if you are out there conducting military experiments, upon real people and their lives, for colonial occupation, then you should not being do it, and doing it with a theory, that has essentially been proven wrong, or flawed, is even worse. Not that it can get much worse. quote: David Galula's theory is seen as acceptable solid military action by many armed forces
Now that is the ticket isn't it? solid military action by many armed forcesControlled by whom, and for what purpose? And just because it is seen as such, does not mean it is. In fact, one could even state that it has been proven, by its many failures, and few successes, when implimented, to be a disaster, and an unsound military action. Say nothing of its destructively inhumane colonialistic intent, and actions. ETD for clarity, formatting and spelling [ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 26 August 2008 03:11 PM
I think there's more diversity of opinions among soldiers than you are portraying, Fidel. They don't necessarily have any opportunities to demonstrate that diversity, however. They get befuddled just like civilians by the deliberate and ongoing efforts to conflate wishing the soldiers, personally, well, and wishing success for this or that mission. Furthermore, a babbler by the name of Grizzled Wolf once wrote quote: They (meaning the political leadership of the country - N.Beltov) ensure we are doing the right thing, and we ensure that we do the thing right.
This play on words and mock division of labour contradicts the efforts, noted above, to mix these things up when it is politically convenient to do so. The military tail sometimes wags the political dog ... and some political dogs smile about it because they like the arrangement. Furthermore, when a country like Canada is intertwined in military alliances (NATO, NORAD, USA in general) with other countries and when the public policy is one of interoperability of the different militaries in that alliance, then the political culture of the military is something of public concern. The extreme and dangerous version of this are the events of 9-11, 1973. [ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Victor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14683
|
posted 26 August 2008 03:28 PM
The Globe and Mail's Graeme Smith reported from Afshanistan, March 24 this year, that "Air strikes and drug eradication are feeding the insurgency in southern Afghanistan, as those actions convince some villagers that their lives and livelihoods are under attack."In a survey set up by Graeme, The Globe and Mail interviewed 42 ordinary Taliban foot soldiers in Kandahar, "and discovered 12 fighters who said their family members had died in air strikes, and 21 who said their poppy fields had been targeted for destruction by anti-drug teams." Unfortunately, a great many people do not read the Globe out of the belief that it panders to the "market crowd", and speaks only to wealth. The Taliban speak first to the Globe before going public elsewhere, because the Globe's is the most honest reportage over there. I have been waiting for a posting to draw a conclusion from that March report, if only to use in a Canadian political campaign calling for withdrawal of Canadian forces now. Somehow the debate just goes all strategic or apolitical, instead.
From: Cambridge, ON | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:11 PM
RemindYou have tried to silence many people on this forum countless times. You do not debate, you attack the person. You use pointless and non-applicable terms like corporate fascists and colonial occupation whenever you have nothing better to state. You have no interest in discussing this topic. You ask questions with no intention of never understanding the answer or accepting a reply that does not fit within your narrow scope of knowledge. You demand answers to your questions however when answers are provide you constantly avoid them. Did you even attempt to read what David Galula's work or look into other counterinsurgencies theories/military manual?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
Canadians in the military just regurgitate what they've been encouraged to understand about Canaidan politics……And the NDP might as well be the communist party for all Canadian politics matter to miltary types. They're operating on a 1950's cold war era need to know basis. And don't talk too much about it or you'll raise eyebrows. It's too bad, really.
No, I believe the communist party would be more effective and relevant in Canada than the NDP could ever be. I think your statement on the military “just on regurgitate that is provided” to them is pretty ignorant. Can you provide anymore stereotyping statements such as the soldiers are uneducated, blood thirsty, gutter trash of society?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: I may be sticking my nose where it doesn't belong - in which case I will get told that - but I really think that the deliberate efforts to mix up the missions with the soldiers themselves (as I've outlined above) contributes to an environment where soldiers are blamed for the missions they're sent on. If remind has gone over the top in this regard, I don't think this is any worse than those who insist that supporting the troops necessarily means supporting the mission in Afghanistan. Antagonism to individual soldiers is just blowback for trying to mix these things up for political reasons. Anyway, I may be off in this particular case. But I thought the idea was worth mentioning anyway.
I think it's a very sound idea. I know several people who are starting to talk about soldiers as criminals for being in Afghanistan ("They want to be there, they think it's exciting to hunt people - they request to go back!"), when I'm rather certain that most would rather be with their families. [ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:41 PM
NBeltov, I think personal responsibility in the military, is paramount to an actual humanely functioning military. Having said that, I do not lay any blame at all upon the ordinary military personnel, but upon those who say they are leading them, as they are those who know they are a corporate tools, and who feed them BS and propaganda.Moreover, I see webgear's attacking actions for what they are; a "good" offense is the best defense, when defending the undefendable. Put the person on the defensive, with misconceptions, red herrings, misinformation, attacks upon character, etc...so you do not have to defend a bad position. He is using military tactics actually, combined with basic propaganda techniques. It is a "whatever" to me. And BTW, I belong to the RCL, and not as an associate member.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:43 PM
quote: M. Spector: Whose deliberate efforts are you referring to?
I mean the political efforts to conflate support for the (well being of the) troops with "success" in the mission as defined by the political elites. quote: Do you really want to rehearse that debate again? Because if you do, I'm willing to give it another go.
Why not? Have at it!
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 27 August 2008 07:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: On top of that, they are just as pissed at the US as they are at any "enemy".
Funny, they don't seem to be shooting as much at the US forces as they are at the civilians of Afghanistan...The reason they dislike the US forces is that they have been fed the illusion that Canada's armed forces are kinder and gentler than the US ones; and that Canadian soldiers only fight in good wars, while US soldiers fight in bad ones. "We" don't commit war crimes, but "they" do. This is an illusion carefully fostered and cultivated by the CF brass as a means of instilling some kind of patriotic pride and morale among the troops. quote: And I do not think they are happy to be there, and to be fighting a war most of them know is for the US.
I'd like to know what evidence you have for that, because I have been watching very carefully for years for signs of dissent among the CF in Afghanistan (and here at home), and frankly it is not there to be found. In fact, all the evidence I have seen (media reports of interviews with soldiers, statements by the bereaved relatives of the dead ones, etc.) is that the soldiers are convinced their "mission" is a righteous one and they are glad to be there.All soldiers in all armies have criticisms of "how the war is being waged." What I want to know is whether there are soldiers who don't want to be waging the war at all. Those troops I can support. [ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058
|
posted 27 August 2008 08:43 AM
Canada in Afghanistan in this New York Times artcle about the increasingly deteriorating situation in KANDAHAR after the jailbreak:"Taliban Gain New Foothold in Afghan City" By CARLOTTA GALL Published: August 26, 2008 "[...] Superintendent McAllister defended the slow arrival of Canadian and Afghan police officers at the prison that night, saying that rushing in and getting injured would have caused more problems. “Police safety is civilian safety,” he said. But he acknowledged a more glaring omission, that of the security of the prison itself. “I would suggest it wasn’t as strong as it could have been,” he said. The Correctional Service of Canada had helped train and improve security around the prison, he said, but still there was no barrier or blast walls near the entrance, nothing to stop the bomber from parking the fuel tanker right outside the gates. The failings make people wonder what the foreign troops are really doing in Afghanistan, said Mr. Daoud, the shopkeeper. “The Canadians are here, but things are getting worse and worse.”..."
From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 27 August 2008 08:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by It's Me D:
Great statement Spector. Now can you turn this into a catchy bumper sticker-sized slogan?
Yeah, how about: Support our deserters!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 27 August 2008 09:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov:
There is also a Canadian version.
That's actually a U.S. billboard from a U.S. website which unfortunately has not been updated since the end of 2007. The NDP picked up on this slogan briefly after their September 2006 convention, but it disappeared from its website within a very few weeks, never to return. As for dissent within the forces themselves, I have seen no evidence of it, though obviously it must exist. The occasional family member who speaks out is shut up by the brass. Past examples available on request.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 27 August 2008 10:18 AM
quote: Originally posted by It's Me D:
I like it. BTW has anyone heard of any Canadian Forces deserting over the war the way a couple American soldiers have had the guts to do (with no support from our government)?
More than a couple. From March 2003 (the start of the Iraq war) to December 2004 alone, the Pentagon complained that more than 5,500 soldiers had deserted. Source.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 30 August 2008 01:45 PM
quote: BTW has anyone heard of any Canadian Forces deserting over the war
Why should they, when they get a Shiny new bauble! That's right kids! Sign up now, and be eligible for a chunk of metal to pin on your chest to go with the chunk of shrapnel in you head! Who says the Canadian Army is too Americanized? It used to be a point of pride with the Canadian army that the didn't give out medals like they gave out condoms. Now, if America does it, we do it too. Sickening. I guess the rule is the number of medals given out in inversely proportional to the value of the mission. If Canadian soldiers had any honour, instead of desperately aping the US military, they would refuse this condescending, patronizing symbol of misplaced priorities. quote: The replacement award was praised by retired general Lewis Mackenzie as being "more visible" and involving "more ceremony."
I wish Lewis Mackenzie would just shut the fuck up.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 30 August 2008 01:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jingles:
It used to be a point of pride with the Canadian army that the didn't give out medals like they gave out condoms. Now, if America does it, we do it too. Sickening.
I agree with you, there is no need for this medal or the rumoured Combat Badge.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 30 August 2008 02:21 PM
quote: As one of the Arab world's most prominent commentators put it to me this week, "Biden's being set up to protect Israel while Obama looks after the transportation system in Chicago." It was a cruel remark with just enough bitter reality to make it bite.Not that we'll pay attention. And why should we when the Canadian department of national defence - in an effort to staunch the flow of Canadian blood in the sands of Afghanistan (93 servicemen and women "fallen" so far in their hopeless Nato war against the Taliban) - has brought in a Virginia-based US company called the Terrorism Research Centre to help. According to the DND, these "terrorism experts" are going, among other subjects, to teach Canadian troops - DO NOT LAUGH, READERS, I BEG YOU DO NOT LAUGH - "the history of Islam"! And yes, these "anti-terrorism" heroes are also going to lecture the lads on "radical (sic) Islam", "sensitivities" and "cultural and ideological issues that influence insurgent decision-making". It is a mystery to me why the Canadian brass should turn to the US for assistance - at a cost of almost a million dollars, I should add - when America is currently losing two huge wars in the Muslim world.
Why Do We Keep Letting the Politicians Get Away With Lies?by Robert Fisk
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865
|
posted 31 August 2008 12:30 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: RemindI disagree with you, it is all about theory, whether it is counter-insurgency or peacekeeping, it is understanding what is require for the role the government decides on. It is all about how to obtain the desired successful end state for which the government has decided. The people control the military via the government and their elected officials, and in this case the people have decided to remain in Afghanistan until 2011 for good or for bad.
The people control the military via the government and their elected officials, and in this case the people have decided to remain in Afghanistan until 2011 for good or for bad. Webgear, do you honestly believe that last sentence from your quote??
From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 03 September 2008 06:14 PM
Democrats have endorsed the Big Lie quote: The 9/11 Cover-up The Democrats have endorsed the "Big Lie". Bin Laden is upheld as the "outside enemy" who threatens the American Homeland. The fact that bin Laden is a US sponsored intelligence asset, created and sustained by the CIA, is never mentioned. The Obama campaign galvanizes public support for the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). . . It is by no means coincidental that the prominent "Leftist" scholars and intellectuals, who failed to address the use of the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to wage war, have expressed their support for Barack Obama. The Nation Magazine and Progressive Democrats for America are indelibly behind the Obama-Biden ticket. The Obama-Biden campaign has endorsed the 9/11 cover-up. Without a shred of evidence, Afghanistan, a nation of 34 million people (the size of Canada), is portrayed as the State sponsor of the 9/11 attacks. This basic premise is accepted by the Democrats. Obama indelibly upholds 9/11 as an act of war and aggression directed against America, thereby justifying a war of retribution directed against "Islamic terrorists" and their state sponsors
“John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of HELL but he won't even follow him to the cave he lives in" Obama August 28TH, 2008 And our two old line party stoogeocrats endorse that country's two old line party coverups and lies always. Iraqgate, Osamagate, 9-11gate, it's been one long-running coverup and pack of lies for the sake of multi-hundred billion dollar Keynesian-militarism. Fear of world peace and loss of government welfare cheques in the mail is their personal terror [ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|