Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"Afghanistan: a volatile situation"

A useful round-up of media coverage, and more (including the Liberals' submission to the Manley panel), from the Conference of Defence Associations. Some reaction to the Liberals' submission is here.

Meanwhile, a letter of mine sent to the Toronto Star Jan. 8 and so far not published:
In her column about the US presidential race Linda McQuaig writes that "while Canadians like to think of Afghanistan as a very different war than the one in Iraq, the Republicans clearly see the two wars as simply twin parts in America's battle with radical Islam."

She also notes that the Democratic "candidates shied away from seriously critiquing the ideas behind Bush's 'war on terror'"

In fact, with regard to Afghanistan, the leading Democratic candidates--Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton--are more hawkish than our government, not to mention the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

Mr Obama wants the US to send more troops "to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations" and also wants European members of NATO to eliminate the caveats that prevent their forces from fighting.

Ms. Clinton has written that "our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them."

Just like the Republicans neither of them is shying away from the "War on Terror" in Afghanistan; indeed they want to go at it more vigourously. Should a Democrat become president Canada will still be a "junior partner" in that war. Not a bad thing I would say.'

References:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p30/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13974/
Update: In any event others will try and do the job that far too many Canadians do not want to--Semper Fidelis:
US to send 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan
Update: More here.

Upperdate: Looks like the Marines will be going to Helmand province:
The Marine air-ground task force will go to Helmand, where its mission will be "to beat back another spring offensive," [Pentagon spokesman] Morrell said. Fighting in Afghanistan tends to be seasonal, with a lull in winter when the weather makes travel difficult. British forces now lead the NATO command in southern Afghanistan, including Helmand...

2 Comments:

Blogger Gilles said...

An interesting comment by General Pellerin:

"In the collapse of public support for the Afghan mission there is material to ponder. If Canadians refuse to allow their soldiers to fight alongside the Americans, under what circumstances will they ever be allowed to deploy on operations again? It’s a rare international mission in which the Americans do not play a leading role."

This comment infers that the Americans do us a favour by letting us deploy with them. Is it not the other way around? Are we there to help them, or are they honouring us by letting us join their party? And he further states that the Americans do not play a leading role in Afghanistan? They have between 25 and 30,000 troops over there, several times more than any other foreign country, in fact more than all the other countries put together. The also have most of the Air Power. How is it they do not play a leading role? Because its called "NATO" or "ISAF"?

4:33 p.m., January 09, 2008  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

a taxpayer: Actually M. Pellerin is a Colonel (ret'd).

The facts, man.

Mark
Ottawa

8:41 p.m., January 09, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home