afransen
Senior Member
$80k is a bad salary, now? Although as an engineer, I'd expect you could make more.
After 7 long years the Taliban is as powerful as ever.
Our military presence has not stemmed the tide of their religious zealotry.
Why would you find it odd that I am critical of a strategy that is not working to end the religious oppession there?
The people are still living under the taliban rule while we waste lives and treasure.
I am advocating for not more of the same tactics that aren't working. That is exactly why I am critical of the mission.
You are correct that a police force is a far better way to help people than an outside military force the people lost trust in. Thanks for sharing that effort. I forgot about it. I do find it sad that they are just in training after all these years.
$80k is a bad salary, now? Although as an engineer, I'd expect you could make more.
If you recall the huge cash infusion after WW2, money certainly has helped even damaged societies in the past.
I am going to give you the same response I have said all along. After 7 long years the Taliban is as powerful as ever. Our military presence has not stemmed the tide of their religious zealotry. Why would you find it odd that I am critical of a strategy that is not working to end the religious oppession there? The people are still living under the taliban rule while we waste lives and treasure. I am advocating for not more of the same tactics that aren't working. That is exactly why I am critical of the mission.
You are correct that a police force is a far better way to help people than an outside military force the people lost trust in. Thanks for sharing that effort. I forgot about it. I do find it sad that they are just in training after all these years.
Why would I confuse power hungry chieftans as humanitarian? I've said nothing in that regard.
The Taliban is not nearly as powerful in Afghanistan as they were before 2001. .
What source are you using to make this statement. I would like to read it. I am using mainstream media and articles like Urbandreamer provided to determine they are just as powerful. Now it seems they are back in Kabul, which was our strong hold.
How about reading the article you yourself posted a few pages back? You are mischaracterizing the situation.
Mot, I don't disagree with the spirit of some of what you say. I think the Afghani people are looking for stabilization, who wouldn't be? Where we differ however is that I believe the people would firmly prefer stabilization without the Taliban than with them. Again, who wouldn't? The issue then is that of 'our' resolve. Are we going to commit the resources necessary in lives and money to make this happen or are we going to turn our back on any gains made - and there have been gains made no matter how tenuous they are being held - and simply pull out? That is the choice. It's not about civilian deaths or collateral damage or humanitarian issues or any of those distracting lines of argument. From our perspective in Canada and the West we must also consider what is 'best' for us and our long term objectives and not just Afghanistan, which is why we got into this conflict in the first place. Committing to change means sacrifice and loss and hardship but we cannot realistically expect otherwise.
Canada, allies will never defeat Taliban, PM says
But Harper doesn't rule out sending more troops or extending the Canadian combat commitment beyond 2011 deadline
PAUL KORING
March 2, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Canadian and other foreign armies can't defeat the Taliban, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview broadcast yesterday.
"Frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency," Mr. Harper said, more than seven years after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban regime. Canadian troops have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan since 2002, but this is the first time the Prime Minister has explicitly said defeating the Islamic extremists can't be done.
Mr. Harper, in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, said that despite sending thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan and suffering more than 100 troop deaths, the "success has been modest" and any gains made could be lost.
"We're not going to win this war just by staying," Mr. Harper said, and pointed to the long history of Afghan insurgencies successfully driving out foreign invaders - including the Soviet army in the 1980s and the British a century earlier.
"[From] my reading of Afghanistan history, it's probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind," Mr. Harper said.
But Mr. Harper didn't rule out sending more troops or extending the Canadian combat commitment beyond the current 2011 deadline.
Despite unambiguous and repeated assertions - as recently as last week by Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon - that Canada won't extend its combat role in Afghanistan, Mr. Harper seemed to leave a little wiggle room yesterday.
Asked if he would reject such a request from America's new president, Barack Obama, who has just ordered more than 17,000 additional U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan and has vowed to defeat the insurgency, Mr. Harper ducked the question, responding instead by saying: "If President Obama were to ask me that question, I would have a question back for him. And that question would be: 'What is your plan to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.' " Mr. Harper said the paramount issue for Canadians was not "whether we stay or whether we go," but rather "are we being successful?" He suggested that after more than three years of deploying the biggest battle group Canada has sent overseas since the Korean War, "we have made gains. Those gains are not irreversible, so the success has been modest."
Although Mr. Obama has made clear that he regards military success as only one dimension of eventual success in Afghanistan, he has never suggested defeating the insurgency can't be done.
Rather, he has exhorted allies to do more militarily.
"We must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said during his major foreign-policy speech in Berlin during the election campaign. "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops, our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda."
And just before his trip to Ottawa and the announcement he was sending 17,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan, Mr. Obama said the war in "Afghanistan is still winnable," although he made clear that solving "the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism" cannot be accomplished "solely through military means."
However, with a NATO summit next month and Mr. Obama keen to secure more military commitments from increasingly reluctant European allies, Mr. Harper's assessment that defeating the insurgency is impossible may reinforce the split in the alliance.
Canada is one of the very few allies so far willing to send soldiers to southern Afghanistan, heartland of the Taliban where the insurgency has been growing. For Ottawa to be taking the position that foreign troops can't deliver victory may make Mr. Obama's task harder.
Mr. Harper said he welcomed the President's decision to send U.S. troops to relieve the embattled Canadian contingent. "We're delighted to have them, especially in Kandahar," he said. But, he added, he wants to know Mr. Obama's strategy "for success and for an eventual departure."
source
stephen harper was on TV yesterday and he basically said that the war in afghanistan is a war that can't be won. i kinda agree with him since this war basically involves religious ideology mixed with politics which is harder to change VS political ideology alone.
I think Harper sees the writing on the political wall. I am actually proud of him for stating the reality and that there really is no plan to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans. Obama would be eviscerated in the US by the right and the media for making a similar statement.
What source are you using to make this statement. I would like to read it. I am using mainstream media and articles like Urbandreamer provided to determine they are just as powerful. Now it seems they are back in Kabul, which was our strong hold.