Afghanistan

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by RACooper

...but to mainly to “reign in overly gung-ho Americans” (

Rob, I'm very sorry about your personal loss, but that comment is uncalled for in this situation.

You know that I'm an admirer of your country and it's defense forces, but under the present circumstances, I'd say that the US Military has a lot more on the line and more exposure in that part of the world than Canada does and your comments aren't appreciated in the same post with the loss of brave Canadians.

We've lost some brave people there, too, and I'm personally offended by the characterization of anyone of our troops as "overly gung-ho."

Think what you want personally, but your gratutious shot at our country cheapens your comments on your country's loss.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Rob, I'm very sorry about your personal loss, but that comment is uncalled for in this situation.

You know that I'm an admirer of your country and it's defense forces, but under the present circumstances, I'd say that the US Military has a lot more on the line and more exposure in that part of the world than Canada does and your comments aren't appreciated in the same post with the loss of brave Canadians.

We've lost some brave people there, too, and I'm personally offended by the characterization of anyone of our troops as "overly gung-ho."

Think what you want personally, but your gratutious shot at our country cheapens your comments on your country's loss.

I'm sorry DA but I didn't mean it as a shot, but simply a statement/belief that is common in the military... a repeating of a common statement one here's when shooting the sh*t in the Mess or bar.

Soldiers being soldiers its common to complain about or bemoan the tactics of allies, just as I'm sure many US troops lament Canada's "soft-touch" when it comes to military operations in Afghanistan... such as the warning the populace of a region a week ahead of time, that they are going to use full military force against the Taliban in a particular province (like in the current operation).

It's almost a tradition in the Canadian military to lament or worry about a "shoot first ask questions later" that is seen as the primary approach of the US military - while not really a right view, nor is it untruthful given the doctrinal reliance on overwhelming firepower.

*** and this just in another Canadian has been killed by a friendly fire incident involving a US A-10 strafing NATO forces ***

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by RACooper

It's almost a tradition in the Canadian military to lament or worry about a "shoot first ask questions later" that is seen as the primary approach of the US military - while not really a right view, nor is it untruthful given the doctrinal reliance on overwhelming firepower.

The US military follows strict rules of engagement, which does not include "shoot first, ask questions later".

[KillarneyRose]

Rob, I am so sorry to hear about your friends. It's not something one ever gets used to

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

The US military follows strict rules of engagement, which does not include "shoot first, ask questions later".

While this is true, there is obviously a difference in attitude or standards when it comes to the setting of the ROE or it's enforcement - afterall when was the last time you heard of the British, Australian, or Canadian military being the instigator of "friendly fire" or for accidently shooting up a wedding party?

There was a wonderful study done on the mental indoctination and preperation for combat done by the US military that I read for me Force & Statecraft course ~ basically covering the training practices that reduce a battlefield to only "red and blue" forces, excluding allies, neutrals, or non-combatants; and how this is a problem when it comes to reality - if I can find the study again I'll link it.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's all.

And yours are unfounded and stupid much like someone that stereotypes black people. If we're stereotyping, then wherever your from has a lot of morons.

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's all.

And some of us happen to think your stated opinons are horribly unfair generalizations, and that's all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I have my opinions, you have yours, and that's all.

I'm not going to conclude anything from this except that you're now running away from having to defend your positions. You have admitted your opinion is largely based on unreasonable sources. How can you live with these "opinions" of yours which are based on sources which you admit are biased?

[AGDee]

We can make an analogy to the Greek system here. If one young woman gets raped at a fraternity house, the media publicity gives everybody a bad name, even though only one or two brothers of ONE fraternity were involved. People will generalize and stereotype, even though it's wrong to do so. We don't want people to generalize when it's our organization, so we should try not to generalize when it's something like the actions of a handful of military personnel.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

1 -- What do you think about this? Do Canadians not have a stake in the War on Terror? Do Canadians feel like Americans should do all of the killing and dieing? I personally feel like we're in this together. Bin Ladin is a serious threat to the Western world, and he must be dealt with. I would find it unconscionable that one of my country's leaders would even suggest that we talk about terms of surrender.

To some extent I think this is a good idea, afterall the provinces that the Canadians were operating in before were relatively stable and peaceful; and most importantly they had the respect and cooperation of the people (ie. they general got excellent intelligence and accurate warning of most attacks). The shift in operational roles was driven more by politics than military need.

I think it comes down to a difference of style and perspective, as well as doctrinal differences. Now the difference in style or perspective is much the same in differece as when it comes to US vs Canadian law enforcement - Canada favours a more preventative approach, as opposed to the punative approach. This coupled with a military doctrine that places less emphasis on firepower and more on "softpower" (hearts & minds as it were) and battlefield control is esentially the way in which Canada approaches most UN missions and past wars since WWI.

This isn't to say that the Canadian Forces won't "throw down", but they don't see it as the first response to go in with guns blazing looking for the enemy and a fight. It's just that in a low-grade war (which insurgencies are classified as) military doctrine calls for the isolation and identification of the primary threat, then a quick and surgical strike to neutralize it, followed by the usual post-battle considerations (treated of the wounded, processing of prisoners, rendering aid to the populace).

Now the major difference in opinion I think between Canadians and Americans, public and military, is that we don't view the "enemy" as a monolithic entity to be defeated only through military force. Yes Bin Laden is a threat that must be dealt with, but that doesn't mean that every combatant in Afghanistan is "evil" or a terrorist that must be killed. For example it is recognized that some are going to be fighting for mercenary reasons, some to protect the drug trade, others because of tribal duty, some for nationalistic reasons, or others because of a vendetta... it's a nebulus enemy that must be confronted with carefully considered tactics for each situation.

Layton isn't saying anything like "surrender", only that in the long term some of the more moderate elements must be included not excluded or eliminated ~ or at the very least given a chance. Now I'm sure someone will say: would Canada have negotiated with the Nazis during WWII? Well the answer to that is actually yes; the Canadian military negotiated temporary ceasefires with the Nazis and even SS in Italy, Normandy, and most spectactularly in the Netherlands - all in an effort to relieve the suffering of the people, allow civilians out of the combat area, and allow for the gathering of wounded (even if it meant the Canadians treated them all). Were some of these Germans and SS unrepentaly evil and certain to fight on no matter what? Yes. However it did allow the "enemy" to see that the Canadians weren't "evil" themselves, and respected them at the very least as humans.

2 -- As to debate, what is this going to accomplish? It can be conducted in Parliament, or it can be conducted in the public square. If the floor of Parliament is anything like the floor of the American House/Senate, then it's all calculated grandstanding with no actual dialogue. If there's any dialogue, it happens behind closed doors and with lots of strings attached. Layton, from the looks of it (and this is just my initial reaction) simply wants a forum where he can make some nice sound bites while having a backdrop which gives him some sort of authority.

What would a full blown debate accomplish? (which yes has grandstanding, but not to the extent of the US House). A full debate would not be the one up political photo op that the 6 hour "debate" that Harper arranged when he first took office. A full debate would last at least a week, and would consist of points and rebutals repeatedly going back and forth (much like in real debating), and in theory would allow any member to make a point, or any member to be challenged on a point. In theory the Governor General or even the Queen could get involved... but really only in theory.

I think the real reason that Layton wants the debate, other than for defining the Canadian role in Afghanistan, is that a debate could be fatal to the Conservatives now. After the Conservatives unilateral military decisions (including the disastorous banning of the media from repatriation ceremonies for slain soldiers, which was eventually withdrawn because of complaints from the public, veterans, the media, and the military), as well as most recently the whole hearted support for Israel's assault on Lebanon... they have lost much of their support from the Bloc Quebecois and the more hawkish Liberals. In fact a debate may lead to a non-confedence vote that could unseat the government, or at least some members of the PM Cabinent (O'Connor the Defense Minister would be in the most danger of being unseated).

As it stands for Layton wanting a back-drop that gives him some authority... well being the leader of a party gives him some, and given that his party has no small amount of support in Canada for its social iniatives, he already has a fair amount of support. It's not like he's just a member of the House (like say Murtha) but rather that he leads a party with 30 or so seats (about 10% of the House)... and given that the Liberals are leaderless right now, some of the more left leaning ones would probibly side with him in a debate bringing him a dozen or so more on side. Finally, he has been spending alot of time in Quebec, and he and his part are much more friendly to Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois than the Conservatives, it is concievable that the Bloc might cross the floor to the opposition in the debate.

The real fun part of a full-on debate is that the party Whip tends to be overwhelmed trying to keep all the party members on message; and it is during the large debates that major changes in party affiliation happen in a Parliamentary system... after all it was a debate in the British Parliament that cause the MP Churchill to switch from the Tories to the Labour party...

I don't know Canadian politics, but to me, we all have a role to play. To even suggest that "moderate" elements of a regime which in the past supported even some of the things the Taliban supported is unconscionable to me. These elements need to be exterminated, not bargained with.

I agree that we all have a role to play in the War on Terror... it's just that the vast majority of Canadians don't want to see (as they percieve) that role being dictated to them from the White House. Many Canadians according to the polls and such believe that the Bush Administration has made the War on Terror (and the world for that matter) more dangerous with their strategies and way of pursuing the terrorists...

Basically Canada (and most Canadians - well except Alberta also known as Busch Lite ) has been committed to a multilateral approach to world issues since WWII. With this in mind it is easy to understand why many are uncomfortable with the US policies in the War on Terror - there was alot of support going in to Afghanistan to "set things right" (heck even before 9/11 Canada was pushing the UN to do something about Afghanistan... but met with resistance from ironically the US). However when the US invaded Iraq, Canadian support for American strategy more or less died... a death only supported by the debacle the Iraq has become. So when it comes to Afghanistan, the Canadian public would much rather see concerns greater than US domestic politics (or Canadian Conservative politics) come into consideration when setting an over all strategy for rebuilding Afghanistan.

Finally I know this may be hard to believe, but ariesrising does represent a sizable segement of Canadian society that is morally disgusted by the US military's conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan; Canadians that are outraged by the seemingly monthly reports of abuses or atrocities, or by the anti-Arab/Muslim retohric you get on US tv or radio (especially radio). So bear in mind that while in the US the news of abuse and such has been realtively weathered, in Canada it has only turned more against US policy.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Because I don't really care in the long run.

What does that mean? That you care in the short term to post? That makes no sense.

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Rudey

What does that mean? That you care in the short term to post? That makes no sense.

-Rudey

It means you come in, make a comment that offends and angers those who have friends and relatives in the military, and then leave as if nothing happened.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

I would think that US soldiers raping a woman after killing her family would be thought of as "overly gung-ho". But that's just me.

Okay that's completely uncalled for - the actions of a extreme criminal minority should not be a reflection on the US military.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Yet they are in the US military, and were serving in the country as the US military, so it does reflect on them, does it not?

It should reflect no more on the whole of the US forces any more than this did/does on the Canadian Armed Forces:


Do you think this is reflective of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces? I sure as hell don't think so. Just as the CAF don't make it habit to torture and beat to death teenagers, the US military doesn't make it habit to rape & murder. It is the sick and the criminal wearing the uniform that commit these horrible acts, not the uniform or what it represents.

Personally I think it's too bad that those soldiers in Iraq weren't under Canadian or British command, because then they'd be facing the firing squad: murder, rape, drunkness on guard duty in a combat zone, and abandoning your post in a combat zone; are all still punishable by death under the QR&R (the only other two are treason and collaborating with the enemy). Further I think it's also too bad that these "men" didn't take Matchee's route when their crimes came to light...

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Yet they are in the US military, and were serving in the country as the US military, so it does reflect on them, does it not?

No. It doesn't. A single incident by one or two people doesn't reflect on the entire US Military.