"OTTAWA — A strong majority of Afghans approve of the presence of NATO-led troops in their country, including from Canada, and want the foreign soldiers to remain to fight the Taliban and support reconstruction efforts."
I see no reason to dispute this result. We are, after all, fighting in an Afghan civil war, and I am not surprised that they, at least the ones on whose side we have chosen to serve, want us to stay until we've won that war for them.
Nevertheless, some find it "unexpected".
In an accompanying piece, "Surprising poll on an unexpected war", Gordon Smith says:
One thing Mr. Manley doubtlessly already knows is that no member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is going to come to replace Canada. Most Europeans don't regard Afghanistan as their war. I was told that at a recent two-day meeting of senior European ambassadors, the subject of Afghanistan wasn't even mentioned. So forget turning over the replacement problem to NATO — that is not on.
[...]
When they understand these facts, will Canadians want us to "declare victory" and walk away? I don't think so. Instead, I believe that the highly informative Environics poll (I was an unpaid adviser), the Stein-Lang book (which clarifies both the history and the current situation) and Mr. Manley's review of options (perhaps later in the day than would have been desirable) are going to produce a serious discussion of what to do now.
So Canada has been cheated by our NATO allies, and as a result our armed forces are doomed to get ground down slowly, but Mr. Smith is fine with that. I would dearly like to play poker with Mr. Smith. He would presumably feel duty bound to keep going even after he found out I'd rigged the deck.
I doubt the nation as a whole, however, is ready to consent to the role of Sucker.
27 comments:
Maybe CBC will do a 'cross Canada' panel on the issue, with columnists from Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, so that the rest of the country can see how they're supposed to think.
And Liberals aren't trying to appease the lefties with these 2 statements/:
'It's not fair' that Canada take on such a heavy load in Afghanistan, we were suckered!
It's only fair that Canada take on more than it's fair share re: global warming!
We must be leaders (and to hell with the economy, we have a moral obligation, we are bad)!
Wilson, that may be the stupidest thing you've written on this blog.
"So Canada has been cheated by our NATO allies, and as a result our armed forces are doomed to get ground down slowly, but Mr. Smith is fine with that."
I would imagine Mr. Smith is fine with that because he believes it is an honourable mission and that Canada is contributing to improving the future of Afghanistan. I highly doubt he is fine with being given the shaft by our NATO allies, but do you bail on a nation because things get tough?
"I doubt the nation as a whole, however, is ready to consent to the role of Sucker."
I think Dion will. He's rolled over on practically everything else.
You liberals talk a good game. You want to fit in as good world citizens by sucking up to every UN wingnut idea they come up with. You say you want to fight for human rights for everybody. You want to fight poverty and help Third World countries.
But where are you when there is another country in need? How will you actually help protect their rights? Where are you liberals when there is actual blood and sweat to be shed?
When it comes time to walk the walk, you're conspicuously absent.
When it comes time to walk the walk, you're conspicuously absent.
Whooee! Let's all walk the walk an' line up behind Hamid Karzai's warlord dominated narco-state, The Islamic Repulic of Afghanistan. Let's walk the walk behind the new Afghan constitution enshrining Sharia Law. Let's get behind the honourable mission of propping up a state that carries out mass executions as a deterrent to such heinous crimes as adultery. Let's say that unless we agree to sending our kids to die for this completely unworthy cause, we're not supporting the troops.
Armchair warriors love playin' soldier with somebody else's kid's life. Good causes exist and are worth fightin' for. The Karzai regime is not one such cause.
JB
Harper made Afghanistan HIS war and this is now all on him.
Afghanisnam has been called a war that can't be won by every general with an ounce of brains (which doesn't say much for Hillier). Canada CAN'T get out now so prepare yourselves for more dying. We now hear that Pakistan is bent on going after the Taliban and their supporters in the hinterlands and the suggestion is that all will be better once they rid the country of 'independant' thinkers. The sad fact is, even if successful, it's gonna take a long time to accomplish that task and meanwhile George is still absent so we will take an ass kicking....make that, some Canadians sons and daughters are going to die.
What's galling now though is the chickenhawk, "I love Steve", community talking about the nobility of the cause, clinging to scraps of bullshit 'accomplishments' that happen in isolated parts of the major centers as proof that the cause is noble and the success guaranteed. From what we see here though, few are volunteering to join the army.
Wilson, that may be the stupidest thing you've written on this blog.
I don't see you'd be able to rank those things, BCL, what with the sheer number of stupid things Wilson has said here and elsewhere.
Anyway, I hope the Conservatives (and their paid trolls here) keep demonising the domestic opposition to this mission. It's working really, really well.
"Let's all walk the walk an' line up behind Hamid Karzai's warlord dominated narco-state, The Islamic Repulic of Afghanistan. Let's walk the walk behind the new Afghan constitution enshrining Sharia Law. Let's get behind the honourable mission of propping up a state that carries out mass executions as a deterrent to such heinous crimes as adultery."
So somehow Afghanistan is supposed to progress from the equivalent of the Middle Ages to present day Canada in five years. At least try to be realistic about your expectations.
I don't understand the opposition to this mission. Do I want us their indefinitely? No. But I would sure like to feel comfortable that the Afghan security forces are up to the task of keeping order in the country when we leave. We went in to the country to remove an oppressive government, we may as well try to leave a better one with a chance of improvement over time when we leave.
And we're not fighting for the Karzai regime, we're fighting for the people of Afghanistan. At some point they may actually get to have a real debate about how their country is run, what rules they live by, and what kind of society they want to live in. That is a far cry from where they would be if we left.
And we're not fighting for the Karzai regime, we're fighting for the people of Afghanistan.
Keep telling yourself that. It's the only way you can justify what we are doing.
We ARE propping up the Karzai government. The West installed the Karzai government. We are there at the invitation of Karzai and that relationship has been cemented time and again, including Karzai's visit to Canada. We have a formal diplomatic relationship and we are very much fighting for Karzai. If you have some fantasy that the warlords have the Afghan people's best inmterests at heart, you could extrapolate our support for Karzai as helping the Afghan people. That's a stretch. The warlords are for the warlords. The people are their subjects.
Afghan opium production has tripled since we started modernizing the Middle Ages. Traditional tribal warlords run the Afghan parliament. Women aren't welcome in government. The central government is so corrupt that it cannot be trusted to handle the police payroll. We've fought and died over disputed territory only to have that territory fall back into Taliban hands time and again. Onme step forward, one step back. Canadian kids dead along the way. For what?
We're there to kiss American ass. The Liberals unabashedly puckered up and the Con's have fetishized stars'n'stripe-studded bum.
JB
the russians who where more numerous and more deadly could not beat the afghans, and we think we can? anyone supporting this war, has never served, or has never been in a war....
"It's only fair that Canada take on more than it's fair share re: It's only fair that Canada take on more than it's fair share re: global warming!"
You're lying.
"We ARE propping up the Karzai government. The West installed the Karzai government."
If we're propping up anything it's the Government of Afghanistan and it seems pretty popular to me given the poll response. It just happens to be lead by Karzai. Is he an ideal leader from our point of view? No. Is he better than the alternatives? Maybe, but that's for the people of Afghanistan to decide, not you or I.
As for your concerns about the poppy crop. Don't you think Afghanistan might be dealing with issues that are a bit more significant than that? The government is trying to unite a country that has been in a state of tribal warfare for as long as anyone can remember. I don't like the poppy crop stats, but if we leave is the poppy crop suddenly going to dissappear? I doubt it. And it's only a minor problem for us to deal with compared to the problems that Afghanistan is trying to resolve.
"Women aren't welcome in government."
There's 68 women MPs in their parliament. How many are in ours again?
"One step forward, one step back. Canadian kids dead along the way. For what?"
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware the Taliban were back to running the country, women weren't allowed to get educated, were segregated from society, and the people of Afghanistan generally lived in fear of their government.
Oh wait, that's not the case. Then I guess you can't really argue that we've gone nowhere can you? Your only argument is that the government has not met your rather unrealistic expectations.
"the russians who where more numerous and more deadly could not beat the afghans, and we think we can?"
Yes, because we're not there to kill everyone. We're there to provide security while the state establishes a functioning government and a functioning democracy.
Ok, that's it!! I noticed it at Red Tory's, now here. I have to ask.
What have you done with
Ti-Guy...
This impostor is just way too nice, makes spelling errors, and I haven't had to reach for my dictionary in 2 days.
One thing I do know for sure.
Our mission in Afghanistan is no Vietnam! Their sacrifices will not be forgotten.
When our brave soldiers come home after completing this mission, it will be to a hero's welcome, and PMSH, PM or not, will be in the front of the line to thank them.
This impostor is just way too nice, makes spelling errors, and I haven't had to reach for my dictionary in 2 days.
You own a dictionary?
Anon 3:31,
"If we're propping up anything it's the Government of Afghanistan and it seems pretty popular to me given the poll response. It just happens to be lead by Karzai."
No, Afgh. isn't like New Brunswick. There is nothing to these governments but for the people that make them up. There is no larger, neutral beaurocratic structure. This is of course part of the problem. You can't, for example, trust the government to pay the cops.
The Afghan government will last only as long as we are there to prop it up. It is purely parasitic upon the presence of foreign troops. So to preserve the illusion of Western style happiness, you essentially have to commit to the place ad infinitum.
Which I am not willing to do. And let me ask you: how long are you willing to put up with the situation objectively remaining crap? Five years? Ten? If you answer "until the job is done" you realize that means forever.
The CBC/Environics poll was conducted by ACSOR–Surveys, the Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research, who were founded by D3 Systems Int. whose client base include US State Department, the US Embassy in Kabul, the Afghan Reconstruction Group, Voice of America, etc
ACSOR surveys are remakable for their ability to consistantly find 80%+ approval ratings for Karzai and the war so this poll actually marks a low point for them compared to their previous ones:
2007 : 51% believe the country is going in the right direction
2006 : 80% believe the country is going in the right direction
2007 : 60% support foreign troops and Canadian soldiers
2006 : 80% support American troops
"There is no larger, neutral beaurocratic structure. This is of course part of the problem. You can't, for example, trust the government to pay the cops."
It took me like two minutes to find the bureaucratic structure of the Afghan government online. Are they loaded with partisans? Probably. But that's likely because there hasn't been a change of government in Afghanistan yet. Our public service is loaded with partisans of all stripes as well. What's your point?
As for not trusting the government to pay the cops, I seem to remember a certain Ontario government of the early 1990s that couldn't be trusted to pay people either.
Face it, your expectations and of this government and country are so unrealistic that sometimes we can barely meet them.
"And let me ask you: how long are you willing to put up with the situation objectively remaining crap? Five years? Ten?"
Until the Afghans can control their own security. I don't see it being an overly expensive, fifty year commitment and it's the least we could do since we instigated the chaos by removing the government.
If Canada wants to be a leader on the world stage then it should act responsibly, don't you think? Did Europe bail on Kyoto because North America wasn't involved? No. So why should we bail on Afghanistan just because Europe does?
And finally, you do realize that Liberals support staying in the country (and probably the exact same mission under a different name)? The current Liberal position is to stay in the country and aid in reconstruction. In reality, this will involve providing security, which will ultimately involve combatting insurgents.
It appears to me that if you're willing to vote Liberal, you're perfectly OK with our troops staying longer in Afghanistan. Otherwise, you'd vote NDP.
Anon wrote,
"It took me like two minutes to find the bureaucratic structure of the Afghan government online. Are they loaded with partisans? Probably. But that's likely because there hasn't been a change of government in Afghanistan yet. Our public service is loaded with partisans of all stripes as well. What's your point? "
Congratulations, you found a chart on a website. But I am astounded that you cannot see a difference. To stick with the police example, do we worry about our partisans pocketing so much money that the cops don't see their salaries?
Anon,
"As for not trusting the government to pay the cops, I seem to remember a certain Ontario government of the early 1990s that couldn't be trusted to pay people either."
Wow, are you ever working the whole equivalence thing. You can't see the difference between the Afghan beauracracy running off into the night with bags of money and "Rae days"?
I wrote:
"And let me ask you: how long are you willing to put up with the situation objectively remaining crap? Five years? Ten?"
Anon:
"Until the Afghans can control their own security. I don't see it being an overly expensive, fifty year commitment and it's the least we could do since we instigated the chaos by removing the government."
Big of you to commit two generations of Canadians to a guerrila war in Asia. I'm glad that YOU don't think it too much to ask.
More nonsense so lets skip to the end:
"And finally, you do realize that Liberals support staying in the country (and probably the exact same mission under a different name)? The current Liberal position is to stay in the country and aid in reconstruction. In reality, this will involve providing security, which will ultimately involve combatting insurgents."
The current Liberal position is that the mission moves from Kandahar. You not speak of what you do not understand.
.
"The current Liberal position is that the mission moves from Kandahar. You not speak of what you do not understand."
They've said they'd end the combat mission in Kandahar and would like to rotate our troops out so others can go in. Either way they seem to support the current Afghanistan mission but they've got issues with Canada going alone. Honestly, I don't see Dion forcing the issue and demanding we leave Kandahar. Not because he's a weak leader or a stupid argument like that, but because Liberals have such a wide array of views on this issue that it would cause internal problems if that's what he did.
"Big of you to commit two generations of Canadians to a guerrila war in Asia. I'm glad that YOU don't think it too much to ask."
I didn't commit us to anything of the sort. And it's not like we're in Vietnam or Iraq. There are security concerns for sure but that's what our armed forces are trained to deal with and that's why we're training the Afghan armed forces. I don't think it's going to take them two generations to get their act together but I'm prepared to give them another few years. Why is 2009 such a magical deadline?
"You can't see the difference between the Afghan beauracracy running off into the night with bags of money and "Rae days"?"
Of course I can, I was being facetious. But you can't be serious that you'd risk putting the citizens of Aghanistan back under the oppressive rule of the Taliban because governmnet officials are corrupt? Anyway, these people have just discovered democracy. At least give them a chance to try it out. They may like it.
Thanks for the discussion. I do share some of your concerns about Afghanistan but at this point I'm prepared to give them a few more years to try and sort it out. Have a good weekend.
Y05XW0 Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!
D7LKxk Nice Article.
Please write anything else!
Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Hello all!
Good job!
Post a Comment