Ready to quit Afghanistan, Canada PM tells Bush

[LiberalNation]

That would make things even harder for us. We don't have the troops to replace the Candians unless we take them from Iraq. 78 Canadians dead in "our" war with no help would piss anyone off. If benifits don't go wayyyy up I can see a lot of people getting out of the military when their times up if they have had to spend more time deployed then home.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/afghan_bush_dc;_ylt=ArcsH_2n9tuf9HV3NYepNCkDW7oF


OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, reinforcing an ultimatum over Afghanistan, told U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday that Ottawa would withdraw its military mission next year unless NATO sent in more troops, officials said.

Canada, which has 2,500 soldiers in the southern city of Kandahar, is fed up with the refusal of other NATO nations to send more forces to the violent region of Afghanistan. The Canadian combat mission there is due to end in February 2009.

Harper said on Monday he accepted the recommendations of an independent panel that urged Canada to end the mission unless NATO provided 1,000 extra soldiers and Ottawa obtained helicopters and aerial reconnaissance vehicles.

A spokeswoman said Harper had talked to Bush on Wednesday about the report.

"He underscored that, unless Canada was able to meet the conditions specified by the panel of additional combat troops and equipment from NATO allies, Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not be extended," she said.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush pointed out that the United States had already agreed to sent more soldiers to Afghanistan.

"The president noted the deployment of 3,200 additional U.S. Marines to Afghanistan, as well as his continued commitment to work with NATO to enhance its commitment to the Afghanistan mission," Fratto said.

It was not clear whether the additional U.S. troops would meet Canada's condition for more soldiers in Kandahar.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the addition of 2,200 U.S. Marines to southern Afghanistan would provide a lot of the combat power needed in that area.

"The addition of the MEU (marine expeditionary unit) will greatly enhance the coalition's combat capabilities in RC-South and without placing an additional burden in an area already strapped for airlift because they come with their own transportation," Morrell said.



So far, 78 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since Ottawa deployed troops there in 2002. An Ipsos-Reid poll released on Saturday said 50 percent of Canadians backed he mission and 46 percent opposed it.

[Kathianne]

That would make things even harder for us. We don't have the troops to replace the Candians unless we take them from Iraq. 78 Canadians dead in "our" war with no help would piss anyone off. If benifits don't go wayyyy up I can see a lot of people getting out of the military when their times up if they have had to spend more time deployed then home.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/afghan_bush_dc;_ylt=ArcsH_2n9tuf9HV3NYepNCkDW7oF

General Patreaus is up to assume command of NATO, I'm hoping he can help.

[LiberalNation]

That would be a good thing. I can see Canadas problem. Why should they bear so much of the brunt when the rest of the nato countries besides us of course aren't.

[Monkeybone]

ohhh...so it's NATO, not just them telling us to shove it...more like an apology.


i can't blame him, when you only get verbal help, it starts to wear thin. and when a soldiers time is up, they can stop them from leaving too. but we might get more AWOL than anything. weeee....fugitives.....

[AFbombloader]

We don't control NATO. We are a member but that is all. They have told the US in the past that they would not participate in what we are doing, why would they change that now? They are almost as bad as the EU of the UN. Canada should not count on getting any assistance from them.

AF:salute:

[Said1]

We don't control NATO. We are a member but that is all. They have told the US in the past that they would not participate in what we are doing, why would they change that now? They are almost as bad as the EU of the UN. Canada should not count on getting any assistance from them.

AF:salute:

The government said 'not participate in Iraq'.

I think his comments were peace meal for the left. Parliament just resumed session after their 'holiday' this week and some shit was stirred by the left while they were out. Doesn't look like anything's going to come of it. As for today's comments, who knows. For those who know, Commissioner Gomery is going to be under the gun, probably pushing this issue under the rug. The Liberal Party could come out looking really bad, again.

[diuretic]

This isn't that surprising. Harper is in a minority government and the largest opposition party, the Liberals, are letting him stew. Manley gave Harper a report which would have given him some bad heartburn. From what I read Candians aren't happy with how things are going in Afghanistan, every few days there's a report of another Canadian Forces member killed and whose remains are being repatriated. For what? That's the issue, why are they sacrificing their lives? Harper can't or won't explain his views. Chuck in the terrible political balls-up where the fed govt wouldn't explain what was happening with the CF handing over prisoners to the Afghan authorities and why CF had changed its doctrine. Canadians smell a rat I think.

[Said1]

This isn't that surprising. Harper is in a minority government and the largest opposition party, the Liberals, are letting him stew. Manley gave Harper a report which would have given him some bad heartburn. From what I read Candians aren't happy with how things are going in Afghanistan, every few days there's a report of another Canadian Forces member killed and whose remains are being repatriated. For what? That's the issue, why are they sacrificing their lives? Harper can't or won't explain his views. Chuck in the terrible political balls-up where the fed govt wouldn't explain what was happening with the CF handing over prisoners to the Afghan authorities and why CF had changed its doctrine. Canadians smell a rat I think.

Manley is an ass. Harper plays the press by NOT playing the press, his MO from day one.

Personally, with Manley shooting his noboy mouth off, it's got to be a liberal rat. He's been running back and forth from Chretien's office to Parliament Hill for weeks, incognito of course. I'm sure it's all innocent, just having some take out and a few larfs. Boy, I wish I worked on the hill instead of accross the street. :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Manley is an ass. Harper plays the press by NOT playing the press, his MO from day one.

Personally, with Manley shooting his noboy mouth off, it's got to be a liberal rat. He's been running back and forth from Chretien's office to Parliament Hill for weeks, incognito of course. I'm sure it's all innocent, just having some take out and a few larfs. Boy, I wish I worked on the hill instead of accross the street. :laugh2:

The subtleties naturally elude me - my analysis is about the level of - "jeez that Manley bloke looks like a real dork..." :D

But on a more serious note - Harper really cranked off the media didn't he? I think it's a bad tactic and his need for message control (which blew up a couple of weeks ago) is a sign of weakness, not strength (that's not a personal slur, I'm thinking about his minority position in parliament). If he had more seats I'm sure he would ignore public opinion on Afghanistan.

[Kathianne]

The subtleties naturally elude me - my analysis is about the level of - "jeez that Manley bloke looks like a real dork..." :D

But on a more serious note - Harper really cranked off the media didn't he? I think it's a bad tactic and his need for message control (which blew up a couple of weeks ago) is a sign of weakness, not strength (that's not a personal slur, I'm thinking about his minority position in parliament). If he had more seats I'm sure he would ignore public opinion on Afghanistan.

I wondered about this, seems Canada may be doing US a favor:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120182510813133677.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks



NATO's Afghan Failure
February 1, 2008

We feel Stephen Harper's pique. Maybe France, Germany and other so-called NATO allies will as well and heed the Canadian Prime Minister's call to share the war-fighting burden in Afghanistan.

Miracles happen. For the time being, however, the Continentals are in no apparent hurry to break a five-decade habit of enjoying a free ride on security. None seriously answered NATO's call for up to 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan. So the U.S. last month announced a "temporary" deployment of another 3,200 Marines, the second large reinforcement in a year. That brings the U.S. deployment to nearly 30,000, with about half those troops as part of the NATO force of 42,000.
[Stephen Harper]

The plight of the Canadians ought to shame other allies. Mr. Harper warned that his country wouldn't extend its 2,500-strong mission in Afghanistan's unstable southern provinces unless Europe ponies up troops and equipment. His minority party will soon put the deployment to Parliament, where the opposition wants a withdrawal. "If NATO can't come through with that help, then I think, frankly, NATO's own reputation and future will be in jeopardy," he said this week. Canadians aren't known for hyperbole....

[diuretic]

Looks like the Europeans in NATO (UK and Netherlands excepted) have worked out that there's no benefit in pumping resources into the Afghanistan effort.

[Kathianne]

Looks like the Europeans in NATO (UK and Netherlands excepted) have worked out that there's no benefit in pumping resources into the Afghanistan effort.

Rather I'd agree with the column's analysis, the Europeans have spent 50 years on a free ride, while pretending to be something they are not. Very much ala France between the wars. Now they will pay up or not, either way there will be consequences.

[diuretic]

Rather I'd agree with the column's analysis, the Europeans have spent 50 years on a free ride, while pretending to be something they are not. Very much ala France between the wars. Now they will pay up or not, either way there will be consequences.

That's not an analysis Kathianne, it's a whine by the WSJ. Seriously. The recalcitrant European members of NATO are merely acting out of self-interest and the WSJ can only whine about it. "What's in it for us?" is the guiding principle in all foreign policy matters.

[Kathianne]

That's not an analysis Kathianne, it's a whine by the WSJ. Seriously. The recalcitrant European members of NATO are merely acting out of self-interest and the WSJ can only whine about it. "What's in it for us?" is the guiding principle in all foreign policy matters.

Sure they are. Do you really think the US wouldn't rather have someone else do the paying for, fighting, equipping, etc? Time to recognize that the people of the US, you know, the ones paying for all this; might decide that it really isn't in our interests to belong to NATO, UN, etc. In fact, we know it's not.

[diuretic]

Sure they are. Do you really think the US wouldn't rather have someone else do the paying for, fighting, equipping, etc? Time to recognize that the people of the US, you know, the ones paying for all this; might decide that it really isn't in our interests to belong to NATO, UN, etc. In fact, we know it's not.

If it's not in your country's interests to adhere to any treaties already signed then I'm sure that will be recognised and proper action taken Kathianne. As I said, self-interest drives foreign policy (or it should).

[Kathianne]

We knew this would be coming:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330219,00.html


Pentagon Chief Says NATO's Very Survival is at Stake in Afghanistan Mission

Sunday , February 10, 2008

AP


MUNICH, Germany —
Survival of the NATO alliance, a cornerstone of American security policy for six decades, is at stake in the debate over how the United States and Europe should share the burden of fighting Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday.

"We must not -- we cannot -- become a two-tiered alliance of those willing to fight and those who are not," Gates told the Munich Conference on Security Policy, where Afghanistan was a central topic.

"Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would effectively destroy the alliance," he added.

Washington has had innumerable disputes with its NATO allies in the 59 years since it was founded as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union. But today's debate over the importance of the mission in Afghanistan and how to accomplish it was portrayed by Gates as among the most difficult ever.

A central theme of Gates' speech was his assertion that al-Qaida extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, pose a greater threat to Europe than many Europeans realize.

...

"In NATO, some allies ought not have the luxury of opting only for stability and civilian operations, forcing other allies to bear a disproportionate share of the fighting and the dying," Gates said.

He named no individual countries, but U.S. officials have been pressing Germany to do more.

NATO, through its International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, is in charge of the military mission in Afghanistan, although the top commander is an American, Army Gen. Daniel McNeill, and the United States is the biggest provider of troops. Of the 42,000 total ISAF troops, about 14,000 are American. The United States has another 13,000 separately hunting terrorists and training Afghan forces.

U.S. Army Gen. John Craddock, the NATO supreme commander, said in an interview shortly before Gates' appearance that the troops in Afghanistan would be making more progress if they had the resources they were promised more than a year ago. He said they are short at least three maneuver battalions, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance tools to track movements on the ground.

Referring to a "paucity of troops," Craddock said the commanders in Afghanistan are like the coach of an 11-player soccer team that is competing with two players less than a full team. He said the effect is that the commanders are unable to attack and defend as aggressively as they would like.

"Give us the resources," Craddock said in the interview with U.S. reporters traveling with Gates.

In his speech, Gates said the Bush administration had learned from mistakes made in Iraq, including the need to more closely integrate the civilian-led stabilization efforts with the military efforts. He said the United States and NATO must apply that lesson in Afghanistan to assure success.

Gates is hoping to persuade Europeans that they have a big stake in the outcome in Afghanistan.

"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," posed by radical elements in Afghanistan, he said.

The Pentagon chief, who was a career CIA officer before retiring in 1993, said his remarks on Afghanistan were meant to reach "directly to the people of Europe" in a bid to persuade them on the war's importance.

"The threat posed by violent Islamic extremism is real -- and it is not going to go away," he said, adding that Europe has seen a string of terrorist attacks -- in London, Madrid, Istanbul, Amsterdam, Paris and Glasgow, Scotland. And he ticked off a list of plots that were disrupted before they could be carried out, including a plan to use ricin and release cyanide in the London Underground and a planned chemical attack in Paris.

"It raises the question: What would happen if the false success they proclaim became real success? If they triumphed in Iraq or Afghanistan, or managed to topple the government of Pakistan? Or a major Middle Eastern government?

"Aside from the chaos that would instantly be sown in the region, success there would beget success on many other fronts as the cancer metastasized further and more rapidly than it already has," said Gates.

[diuretic]

Maybe NATO should re-think itself. The Soviet Union has gone and perhaps for a while the reason NATO exists was under question but with Putin's Russia perhaps the old reason is new again. Given that I would think that NATO (or at least he European bits) wouldn't be that interested in Afghanistan so much as watching Russia.

[Kathianne]

Maybe NATO should re-think itself. The Soviet Union has gone and perhaps for a while the reason NATO exists was under question but with Putin's Russia perhaps the old reason is new again. Given that I would think that NATO (or at least he European bits) wouldn't be that interested in Afghanistan so much as watching Russia.

Can't argue that. End NATO, Europe has the wherewithal to defend itself if it so chooses. The US has the wherewithal to defend its interests in areas it needs to.

[diuretic]

Can't argue that. End NATO, Europe has the wherewithal to defend itself if it so chooses. The US has the wherewithal to defend its interests in areas it needs to.

I can't see Russia presenting the sort of threat to the US as it did when it was in its USSR mode, I think Europe and possibly parts of Asia are under direct threat (not of a belligerent war from Russia but perhaps an economic takeover of some type) and may have to think about alliances. But then China and India are perhaps in balance with Russia. Dunno, it's hurting my brain thinking of this, I think I'll have a cup of tea. :coffee:

[Pale Rider]

That would make things even harder for us. We don't have the troops to replace the Candians unless we take them from Iraq. 78 Canadians dead in "our" war with no help would piss anyone off. If benifits don't go wayyyy up I can see a lot of people getting out of the military when their times up if they have had to spend more time deployed then home.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/afghan_bush_dc;_ylt=ArcsH_2n9tuf9HV3NYepNCkDW7oF

You say troops are going to start getting out after their hitch is up... well... when somebody joins the military, they have what's called a commitment, and that's eight years. So even if troops want to get out, the military can extend their enlistment, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. And yes the military HAS been extending people's enlistments. It pisses me off. If we're going to go around the globe war mongering and occupying and nation building, then by God we better reenact the draft, because doing what we're presently doing to our troops is BULL SHIT!

Let's see how popular all this years and years of protracted war shit is after we reenact the draft.

[Kathianne]

I can't see Russia presenting the sort of threat to the US as it did when it was in its USSR mode, I think Europe and possibly parts of Asia are under direct threat (not of a belligerent war from Russia but perhaps an economic takeover of some type) and may have to think about alliances. But then China and India are perhaps in balance with Russia. Dunno, it's hurting my brain thinking of this, I think I'll have a cup of tea. :coffee:

I've no doubt Russia could hurt us if they chose to, but Russia has never shown suicidal desires, which is why MAD worked. Europe on the other hand? So let THEM decide, we can hold our own against Russia and currently anyone else. We best get at it and let all know.

Maybe I should apply for a position at State? :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Makes the point:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDhjOTE4NWNlN2IyZGZiMzgwZmNlMjRhMjE5MDkyNGE=


Monday, February 11, 2008

NATO Epitaphs [Victor Davis Hanson]

There has been a recent series of disturbing op-eds and press conferences concerning European participation (or lack thereof) in the NATO mission in Afghanistan — the common theme being either an unwillingness or inability of our continental partners to fully engage the enemy, despite a European Union with 1.7 million men and women under arms.

What is baffling (perhaps not really given the social and demographic landscape of the last 20 years), is that a united Europe — drawing on its collective manpower and long military and scientific traditions for the last 2000 years — had been the dream of every nefarious and megalomaniac conqueror.

But now when that mad dream is finally realized, but under lawful and peaceful auspices, and the ensuing resources could be used for humanitarian purposes rather than for Caesarian, Napoleonic, or Hitlerian conquest, only stasis follows?

There is a terrible irony here: the ferocious European military tradition that was unleashed on itself from Waterloo to the Verdun could not be reformulated for something other than civil annihilation, saying removing a psychopath like Milosevic or subduing medieval killers such as the Taliban or containing the murderers in Darfur? In the end the Europeans will have to deal with their own tragic paradox: when the military will was there, too many nations used it for ill ends; and when the aims were good, there was no longer any will. I'll let others sort out the cause and effect of all that.

[diuretic]

I've no doubt Russia could hurt us if they chose to, but Russia has never shown suicidal desires, which is why MAD worked. Europe on the other hand? So let THEM decide, we can hold our own against Russia and currently anyone else. We best get at it and let all know.

Maybe I should apply for a position at State? :laugh2:

Depends on who's in the White House Kathianne but I'd say right now they could use the help :laugh2:

You're right, the MAD doctrine, although it appeared at the time to be brinkmanship, was sound. Some of the younger posters here who weren't around in 1962 would probably denounce my recollections of that time as either outright fiction or looking at the past through a glass darkly (very darkly). But I remember Kruschev's antics and the calmness and firmness of Stevenson. It was a close thing but neither side wanted to destroy the other and both knew what would happen if someone launched.