Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ktsnake
Robert, that's a hell of a lot to respond to. I don't necessarily agree with some of your comparisons and characterizations of American policy. I think you oversimplify things on the U.S. side just as I have been guilty of oversimplifying things on your side of the border (i.e. Layton = coward).
As for the hearts and minds argument versus guns a'blazin', I think that's a gross mischaracterization. A fraternity brother of mine, our faculty advisor is a full colonel in a reserve unit in the U.S. Army. He's been spending about half of each year since the war began in Afghanistan helping to develop civilian infrastructure as well as communications between the local government and the coalition forces in the country.
|
Heh... when you write about something you know about and/or care about you really can type alot...
The "guns blazin'" quote is more directed to the difference in combat and operation doctrine... the US Military pursues a doctrine of Overwhelming Firepower, while for example the British prefer the War of Manoeuvre, while Canadians pursue a doctrine of Battlefield Control; all of these of course in an effort to minimize friendly casualties while achieving an objective - the subtle differences in strategy and tactics because of military doctrine are made manifest both in political and military attitudes towards combat.
So for instance the Brits with their preference for manoeuvre, invariably seek to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over their enemy by controlling key points and favourable terrain, while denying room to manoeuvre to their enemy. It's a very traditional European approach to war, one developed over centuries of conflict and further refined by the British based on surprisingly naval warfare (controlling key ports, superior training and specialists, and always getting the "wind gauge" so as to control when the attack happens).
Whereas the Canadian military favours the approach of Battlefield Control - which really is a hybrid of the British and American approaches. Essentially the Canadian doctrine calls for the careful preparation and planning before the engaging the enemy. Prior to actual full-blown combat, small Recce teams will probe the enemy positions to gather on the ground intel. Finally when combat ensues, the use of firepower and terrain to partition the enemy forces, and to prevent either retreat or the commitment of enemy reserves. In WWI & WWII this usually meant the use of artillery and airpower to "box the enemy in", while ground troops moved in on the isolated enemy.
Finally the American approach emphasizes the use of superior technology and equipment to bring overwhelming firepower to bear on the enemy. Remember "Shock & Awe"? It's not a new concept... because of the industrial, and now technological, might of America it is possible for them to commit vastly superior firepower against an enemy. Essentially this means that tactically the sheer volume of munitions that thrown at the enemy completely overwhelms their ability to fight back effectively.
Now each of these doctrine has a different final goal in mind... I know it doesn't look that way but I'll try and explain. Under the British approach the enemy is defeated once the enemy's position is untenable - the enemy can neither attack nor defend themselves effectively and the British can "mop-up" at their leisure. The Canadian approach sees victory in the seizing of the objective and holding it, which usually entails the neutralization of the enemy. Finally an American victory is the destruction of the enemy, which then allows them to take the objective.
I hope that this in some way sheds a little light on the different perspectives on how the enemy must be dealt with - for example you, and many US personnel use the term "eliminate" with all the connotations of that term; whereas the British will use the term "defeat", and Canadians "neutralize" - all mean victory over the enemy, but all mean quite different things, and all speak to the military attitudes and doctrines of the three nations... whew... glad to know some of my Military Science classes are useful for something
Quote:
|
He's not alone of course. Are you trying to suggest that the U.S. mission is limited to combat operations? I'm sure you know better than that -- and I'm sure you know better than I do what U.S. forces are up to. Let's stay away from the "us good, you bad" comparisons.
|
I'm not trying to say "us good, you bad", merely that many are unhappy with the American approach - basically they don't want Afghanistan to become another Iraq... the main complaints have to deal with a “too confrontational approach” or an “us and them” attitude when it comes to dealing with the average Afghani.
Quote:
|
I don't know much about Layton -- is he ex-military? I'm suspicious of politicians who think they know better than generals as to how to prosecute a war.
|
No Layton hasn’t served in the military, and the closest he’s come to a military campaign was probably planning a raid on a sorority
Anyways he comes from a long line of Canadian politicians… his father was a Conservative Cabinet member, his grandfather resigned from his cabinet post in protest of the Quebec government’s lack of support for the war effort during WWII… and his great-great-uncle was a Father of Confederation (equivalent to a Founding Father). He’s also a got a PhD. in Political Science and is a retired university professor, alumnus of Sigma Chi, and was seen as the most laid-back and “true” of the party leaders in the last election up here (in fact he was voted the most likely to relax with a beer before the election results ~ which he did…)
I think Layton’s beef is that there really isn’t any give and take between the generals and the politicians concerning the Afghan mission – he basically wants an over all strategy reach through honest talks between the military planners and the foreign affairs folks… instead of the reactionary approach Harper has taken (Harper shockingly didn’t expect or prepare for Foreign Policy to play a large role in his government).
Quote:
--
As to the debate, how important (or rare) is it for a minority party to have a different opinion? They're the minority party for a reason -- they do not have the country's support. Tell me -- why woudl the majority lend these guys a platform so that they could grandstand for an extended period of time? How would that serve the interests of those in power? Do you think that's realistic? I don't know enough about the Canadian government to answer that, but maybe you can.
--
|
It’s not rare at all for a minority party do have a different opinion, but neither is it usual for this to be all that important – unless public opinion is building behind them. But when you ask why a majority would lend them a platform, you come to the root of the issue: there isn’t a majority party right now – it’s a minority government, the Conservatives have to have one of the other parties support them to hold a majority vote in the House. So simply put if the NDP, the Bloc, and the Liberals put forth a motion for a debate the Conservatives can’t stop them; in fact if the Conservatives try to defeat such a motion it could lead to a non-confidence vote and the dissolution of the current government…
Quote:
I'm not sure how we could better organize the overall war effort than through the White House. It seems to me that the vast majority of the overall resources committed to the war come from the U.S. It also seems to me that sovereign nations such as Canada are allowed to decide what they will or will not do regarding their presence in Afghanistan.
Finally, you allude to popular opinion. Aries admits her own opinion is largely based in information she knows to be biased or untrue. I hope that's not representative of Canada as a whole.
|
Here is the root problem, that it is run through the White House… this is a multinational and multilateral effort supported by both the UN and NATO, yet these bodies and the participating nations (all two dozen) aren’t represented or really consulted by the White House or the Pentagon. Sure different countries are given command roles in Afghanistan under the auspices of ISAF (the UN/NATO force there), but the over all policy and planning is purely American… and the Americans exist outside of the ISAF force command structure, but they dictate operations as the head of NATO – wherein many problems arise.
As for public opinion on Afghanistan... its roughly 50/50 support for it still - unlike the Iraq War which was never supported, and was officially condemned by Canada (with approval of this around 70%). Anyways - ariesrising has pre-existing opinions of the military, which may colour her views; and to some extent I can understand them - after all we had the Somolia Affair expose an ugly side to the military here in Canada.
Anyways, the Canadian public is much less accepting of the reports of civlian deaths, abuse, murder, rape, torture, and violations of the Geneva Conventions that have come out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you consider that the torture and murder of a Somalian teen provoked enough public and political disgust and moral outrage that the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded in disgrace - you might begin to understand why the Canadian public opinion has been turning against the US Military...
Hybrid Mode
