 |  |  |  |
Canadian occupation of Afghanistan
Submitted by Kamilla Pietrzyk on June 8, 2006 - 11:04am.
tags:
THIS FORUM THREAD IS MEANT FOR SHARING OF INFORMATION (IN CONDENSED FORM) ABOUT CANADA'S INVOLVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
Two days ago, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay announced that Canada will spend 3.5 billion by 2009 to help Afghanistan rout the Taliban and restore peace.
To date, we have spent 2.3 billion: 1.8 billion on defence and 500 million on humanitarian aid and "democratic renewal."
The extra 1.25 billion will be spent on troops and security....the other 300 million will be from CIDA.
No votes yet
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.londoncommons.net/trackback/693
Search
Upcoming events
- Compassionate Communication Workshops(Event)(Now)
- Ableton Live Advanced Workshop.(Event)(1 day)
- ZEITGEIST 2: Addendum(Event)(5 days)
- Disability Action Group - General Meeting(Event)(6 days)
- a planning meeting for a peaceful sleep-out to demand affordable housing (Sat, Feb7th)(Event)(6 days)
- The Secret in Your Eyes-iridology explained(Event)(7 days)
- Ron Leary + The CFL Sessions (was The Boy from ET)(Event)(7 days)
User login
Recent Images
Recent Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 134 guests online.
Recent comments
- Someone should post this
4 hours 34 min ago - one more item
1 day 2 hours ago - Ohhh, that sounds like a
1 day 2 hours ago - superb!
2 days 6 hours ago - 2nd annual empowerment film festival
2 days 12 hours ago - some items I've had listed for a few months
2 days 17 hours ago - sounds good.
5 days 6 hours ago - Major
5 days 14 hours ago - coolio
1 week 4 hours ago - Great Resources
1 week 4 hours ago
Random image
Poll
Who won the Leaders Debate?
Stephane Dion (Liberal Party)
0%
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois)
14%
Stephen Harper (Conservative Party)
14%
Jack Layton (New Democratic Party)
57%
Elizabeth May (Green Party)
0%
There was no clear 'winner'
14%
Total votes: 7
Heads-up! Mo'money-fo-mo'tanks
moved to http://londoncommons.net/node/1536#comment-2836
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's only until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
Hillier Video
check out this great video on general hillier and the selling off the afghan war that was posted on the LAN by david heap.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/selling_the_forces_1.html
Francisco Juarez
Moved to http://londoncommons.net/node/1536#comment-2837
-30-
Mike.
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
Provincial Reconstruction Teams
Keep hearing about the presence of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan, especially from politicians who cite them as one example of the work that's being done to rebuild Afghanistan while defending military operations in the media.
I had tried to post this last night along with a summary of the first article, but technology and fatigue conspired against me.
The first article looks at PRTs from a military perspective. I haven't had a chance to delve into the second link (it appears to be someone's thesis on the role of PRTs)
Link 1 (PDF)
-and-
Link 2
-30-
Mike.
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
The occupiers' "Provincial Reconstruction Team" tactic
Thanks for bringing up this matter of so-called "Provincial Reconstruction Teams." It is important to debunk these public relations strategies as clearly and as publicly as possible.
The use of the military tactic of "Provincial Reconstruction Teams" to "win hearts and minds" and to confuse the global public about the aims and basic character of the occupation of Afghanistan has been widely condemned by NGOs seeking to do humanitarian work in Afghanistan.
Here's one example. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders), in late July, 2004, had to cease its operations in Afghanistan, and one of the main reasons was the dangers created for aid workers by the military tactic of "Provincial Reconstruction Teams."
The press realease they issued at the time said this:
"The violence directed against humanitarian aid workers has come in a context in which the US backed coalition has consistently sought to use humanitarian aid to build support for its military and political ambitions. MSF denounces the coalition’s attempts to co-opt humanitarian aid and use it to 'win hearts and minds.' By doing so, providing aid is no longer seen as an impartial and neutral act, endangering the lives of humanitarian volunteers and jeopardizing the aid to people in need. Only recently, on May 12th 2004, MSF publicly condemned the distribution of leaflets by the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan in which the population was informed that providing information about the Taliban and al Qaeda was necessary if they wanted the delivery of aid to continue.
Humanitarian assistance is only possible when armed actors respect the safety of humanitarian workers, more than 30 of whom have been killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2003."
For another example, see the coalition of over 150 aid agencies (in the U.S.), called InterAction. They made similar criticisms of the occupiers' tactics:
http://www.interaction.org/files.cgi/1541_FINAL_PRT_POSITION_PAPER.pdf
InterAction complains that the PRT tactic is "hindering [NGOs'] work and possibly increasing risks to their security. Engagement in humanitarian and reconstruction work further blurs the lines between humanitarian workers and a combat military force and related intelligence gathering apparatus, creating increased security risks for NGOs....Moreover, their activities should be defined as something other than humanitarian assistance, as they obviously are being undertaken primarily to serve the military and political objectives of the U.S. government and of its coalition partners."
HRW report: Lessons in Terror: Attacks on Education in A'stan
Hey all!
Here's an interesting report on from Human Rights Watch:
Lessons in Terror: Attacks on Education in Afghanistan
tarek : )
"not before the job is done" (?!)
Given that Canadian troops have been (re)committed, suggesting that they not be withdrawn "until the job is done" potentially gives them (us) an indefinitely long mandate there. Considering that under U.S. leadership our troops are now in effect supporting one group of war-lords against another, whenever withdrawal happens there will likely be a power vacuum at least as bad as when we went in: staying longer doesn't necessarily improve the situation, it just costs lives (Afghan and Canadian, among others).
And as for raising average Afghans' standard of living to "acceptable levels", does anyone seriously believe this can happen under conditions of armed agression (as opposed to, for example, UN-backed peace-keeping)? War raises standards of living for arms manufacturers, not for civilians on the ground (or under it).
The first standard should be a simple one of doing no harm: clearly our continued military presence there does harm people, and for no demonstrable good.
No perfect answer, 'cause it's a mess
I think that what I was getting at, is that I have my doubts about the viability of rebuilding infrastructure and building civil society in a situation where competing armed factions are still in armed conflict (and blowing up aforementioned infrastructuren and the people trying to build it...) . By all indications, there is very little stability outside of Kabul, or any area where foreign troops are absent. That situation isn't just going to fix itself by suddenly by withdrawing foreign troops or pulling out before an able government is able to provide that stability. It seems counterproductive to rebuild, just to let the situation continue to deteriorate. I'm not saying that the process of building infrastructure and civil society shouldn't start immediately, or continue, but I think that the progress should be safeguarded in the areas where it's possible. I also think that it should be made possible in other areas where the population wants it, even if that means driving out armed factions who would try to prevent that from happening. I don't think the local warlords are going to just lay down they're guns just and talk out the situation just because Canadian troops are taking a softer approach. They'd probably see them as soft targets.
I also have doubts about switching Canadian troops to a peacekeeping role. There really isn't a peace to keep yet. Is it really a good idea to send people into harm's way with with a limited mandate and restrictive rules of engagement while there is still a shooting war going on? (historically, peace keeping occurs with the consent of the warring parties and when a ceasefire has been reached...). I think that would just result in a lot of more of our soldiers coming home hurt or dead.
So, should Canadian troops be limited to escorting NGO convoys through dangerous country where attacks and ambushes are the norm and the soldiers aren't allowed to shoot back? Should Canada pull out and put the burden on another country to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of our troops? Or will the various factions stop fighting and vying for power, letting the rebuilding begin once they hear of the shift in mission to peacekeeping? Or, is there a validity to going into the countryside to pacify armed groups that are more concerned with vying for power then the interests of the of the local populations. Do I think that the U.S. or the Coalition it leads has the interest of the of the average Afghan in the forefront of its mind? Not really. But I hope that with the involvement in this "mission", the Canadian Government will feel some pressure to do some good with the troops when the situation finally permits. Unfortunately, I think that that won't be possible without the sorts of operations the Canadian Forces are currently engaged in. Hopefully, a shift to peacekeeping will be viable in the future, but I don't think it's a realistic option yet.
-30-
Mike
Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.
the good stuff
so, what are "humanitarian aid and 'democratic renewal'" in this context?
or, to put that differently:
what and where exactly should Canada be putting money, troops, etc into in Afghanistan?
in an above comment Kamilla mentions "infrastucture building" and "protection of civilians", which are certainly important.
I still think that the article I've summarized in this above comment offers important suggestions regarding disarmament and reconstruction, as well as distribution of aid money.
Dallaire & peacekeeping
Doesn't Romeo Dallaire talk a lot about Canadian peacekeeping?
He has certainly been well-received, although I don't know how applicable his statements would be to positive developments in Afghanistan.
Dollaire & A-Stan, Darfur
A quick google search of "Dallaire Afghanistan" turns up this:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/05/18/1586994-cp.html
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=69089b16-7f92-4092-b40f-cc6a9a247a97&k=50241
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060615.wcampbell0615/BNStory/National
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/Dallaire_looking_darfur_seeing_rwanda_nyt_100404.htm
-30-
Mike
Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.
war in Afghanistan
I came across this article today by robert fisk, which has some great info on the trial of the 17 accused of the terror plot here, as well as some info on Canada's role in Afghanistan, which fisk is rightly calling Canada's "war".
------------------------------------
"First, let me make it very clear - poor people aren't necessarily killers" - G.W. Bush
Liberal-aire
I've scanned the articles at those links, and I'm ready to write off Dallaire as a potential source of a critical perspective about Canada in Afghanistan. He has criticized Harper's approach to the troop deployment extension, but it seems that he's not challenging much else.
Clearly Dallaire is committed to intervention in Darfur, though -- for whatever that's worth. (I haven't looked into the Darfur situation much, but it's clear to me that people take a very simple-minded approach to it)
I like Ike...
Since Dollaire was a letdown for anti-war talking points, perhaps Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech would be more useful.
I was watching the Documentary 'Why We Fight' last night, which featured this speech prominently. One major theme of the speech was a warning about the potential for the Military Industrial Complex to become a major power broker in American politics and circumventing democracy.
Here's the Speech.
-30-
Mike.
Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.
alt-press watch
I've found a number of good articles against the Afghanistan mission on Alt-press watch, under databases by title western libraries. I'll summerize when i have the oppurtunity.
-----------------------------------
"First, let me make it very clear - poor people aren't necessarily killers" - G.W. Bush
think tank report covered by CBC
"Canadian soldiers are dying while enforcing failing U.S.-led policies to stomp out the illegal opium trade in Afghanistan"
Coverage:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/28/afghanistan-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/media/200507/20050727thecurrent_sec2.ram
http://cbc.ca/asithappens/media/dailyshow/2006-06-07-aih1.ram (at about 1:20)
The coverage addresses threats to Canadian troops.
"responsibility to protect"
Here's a Wikipedia article about the "responsibility to protect":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
a concept that has been connected to Canada's role in Afghanistan.
It seems to me that the concept is inappropriate, however, as it was formed to justify invasions for the sake of (ostensibly) protecting human rights (in Darfur, for instance). But Canada initially entered Afghanistan for much different reasons (killing nasty Arabs, securing an oil pipeline, etc).
And there are major criticisms of the "responsibility to protect." The concept can easily be used to justify imperialism. If the U.S. administration weren't bogged down in the Middle East, they'd find or create reasons to protect Venezuelans from Chavez.
imperialism and anti-genocide rhetoric
Anti-genocide rhetoric has been tied to Canada's involvement in the coup in Haiti:
http://briarpatchmagazine.com/news/?p=48
http://dominionpaper.ca/accounts/2005/09/23/is_this_wh.html
This radio interview is also relevant (at about 4min. 43s.):
http://www.wakeupwithcoop.org/Oct10th-05p4.mp3
Meeting
Unfortunately i'm going to miss tonights meeting (as i'm stuck at school cataloging), i'll ask Jeff or Jeremy for an update though.. cheers,
alex
-----------------------------------
"Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?"
bits on the Afghanistan issue
Canada should recalibrate our strategy in Afghanistan away from simply following the counterinsurgency of the American forces and develop one that focuses much more on peacekeeping and the protection of civilians.
We should reverse the ratio favouring military action to development that currently applies to our mission in Afghanistan. To date, we have spend 5 times more on military operations than on infrastucture building and democratic renewal.
Canada's peacekeeping role in the international community is an illusion. As Canadians, we need to re-think our engagement with an imperialist American military's war on terrorism, and return to our core values as a nation.
Afghanistan - Repost
Afghanistan: Preliminary Details
Afghanistan found in 1747 and gained independence from British control in 1919. Population is over 30 million (slightly less than the population of Canada) within a geographic area the size of Manitoba Source: CIA world Factbook
Capital is Kabul; National government has the most control over this area of the country, NATO counties currently assisting in training and strengthening national army, much of the country controlled by various warlords. Invaded by the Soviet Union in 1979 to bolster their domestic communist proxy – US CIA apparently were supporting the mujahideen prior to the SU invasion (according to some former state department officials) against the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan, that remained the main power in Afghanistan until their eventual defeat in 1992. The Taliban came to power in 1996 – s. Europa
After the 2001 invasion, mid-2002 loya jirga convened to set-up a transitional authority. In 2005 elections held cementing Hamid Karzai as the head of state (president). Citation: Afghanistan, in Europa World online. London, Routledge. University of Western Ontario. Retrieved 09 June 2006 from http://www.europaworld.com.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/entry
Claimed Objectives:
“The interests that motivated Canada’s initial engagement in Afghanistan have not changed. Our main objective is to help Afghanistan become a secure and self-sufficient democratic state that never again serves as a terrorist haven.” Can. Gov. Dept. of National defense website.
National government will not succeed without external assistance in routing out the Taliban, and building domestic military
"I don't consider this war,", "To me, war would be — well, I can start going into what war would be, I just don't consider this to be war." Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor May 31st 2006 > interview with CBC
Criticism of Role in Afghanistan:
Non-peacekeeping role does not “…properly reflect the principles and ideals of the people of Canada”. Canada has decade’s long tradition, and are recognized as a peace-keeping state by the world community. Government has tied war-making and peacekeeping/reconstruction together. S. NDP website
Largest Canadian military operation since WWII. Many critics have pointed to Canada’s role in Afghanistan as a major change in direction vis-à-vis a more aggressive Canadian foreign policy, partnered with the United States in the “war on terror” (a precedent set in aligning with chauvinistic American foreign policy).
Canada has taken a more active role in “counter-insurgency” operations within Afghanistan > the government is intentionally misleading the public about Canada’s role often referring to counter-insurgency as “peace making” and linking it directly to “peace keeping” operations> the war has been linked to peacekeeping and reconstruction operations > denials over the magnitude of Canada’s role in the war (or denying the war all together).
Canada adopting American rhetoric & alligning with destruction US foreign policies: 2005 Chief of Defence Staff General Hillier “These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.” Sounds quite a bit like Bush’s infamous explanation of the attacks of September 11th “They hate our freedoms”.
Canada’s initial and continued increase in troop deployments to Afghanistan and particularly to Kandahar is a back-door method of supporting the occupation of Iraq – freeing more American troops to be redeployed to Iraq
Canadian Casualties in Afghanistan:
Deaths:
Current total: 17(?) last May 17th
Sgt. Marc Leger, was killed in Afghanistan in April 2002 when a U.S. pilot mistook a Canadian training exercise for enemy fire.
Private Robert Costall, born in Thunder Bay, Ontario killed small arms fire by Taliban source: Dept. National defense dated: March 29, 2006.
Cpl. Matthew Dinning roadside bomb source ctv website
Bombardier Myles Mansell roadside bomb s: ctv
Lieut. William Turner roadside bomb s. CTV
Cpl. Randy Payne. Roadside bomb. S CTV
Pte. Robert Costall (march 29, 2006 Canada’s first combat death) small arms fire.
Capt. Nichola Goddard
Canada’s Role in Afghanistan
Canada’s mission underwent a change in the fall of 2005, as troops are shifted from the relatively safety of the capital of Kabul to direct engagement with largely Taliban forces around the region of Kandahar
Canada has approximately 2,300 hundred troops in Afghanistan and plans to increase deployment. Source CTV MAY 25, 2005.
The Future of Canada in Afghanistan
Canada to triple number of soldiers deployed in Afghanistan Globe and Mail June 5 2006: "We will triple the number of soldiers we have here this summer, compared to last summer," said Brigadier-General David Fraser, the Canadian who is commanding multinational forces in southern Afghanistan.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the Canadian government's exit strategy from the war-torn country involves staying put until 2009 and then reviewing its options. – Canadian Press, May 25th
Based on Parliaments recent vote Canada will go to NATO to declare intention to stay in Afghanistan until Feb. 2009. Parliament vote was 149 – 145 to extend to extend the mission in Afghanistan until 2009.
-----------------------------------
"First, let me make it very clear - poor people aren't necessarily killers" - G.W. Bush
constructive
I recommend this article:
http://dominionpaper.ca/foreign_policy/2006/04/13/canadas_de.html
It focuses on relatively positive approaches to the Afghanistan situation, and it takes into account the views of Afghanis.
Sonali Kolhatkar, co-director of the US-based Afghan Women's Mission, calls for:
"In Afghanistan, Canada's annual military budget is roughly four times as large as its aid budget", and most or all of the money goes to either warlords or Western firms and NGOs.
Americans so full of shit
Methods. An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 15,459 US military personnel deployed to Southwest Asia during 2003 to 2004.
Results. Overall, diarrhea was commonly reported (76.8% in Iraq and 54.4% in Afghanistan) and was frequently, severe (more than six stools/d) (20.8% in Iraq and 14.0% in Afghanistan) or associated with fever (25.8%), vomiting (18% with diarrhea and 16.5% without), persistent symptoms (>14d, 9.8%), or chronic symptoms (>30 d, 3.3%). Diarrhea was associated with time spent off military compounds and eating local food. Over 80% of respondents sought care for their symptoms, usually at the lowest echelon of care (field medic), and were most often treated with either loperamide or all antibiotic. Self-treatment with loperamide or Pepto-Bismol was also common and successful with only 9% of self-treated individuals reporting seeking further medical care.
Conclusions. Infectious diarrhea is a common problem for US military personnel, and associated fevers and vomiting are more common than in past conflicts in the region. As with past studies, time spent off base and local food consumption, both more common in Iraq than Afghanistan, continue to be the most important risk factors for acquiring diarrhea. The majority of soldiers reported seeking care for diarrhea, but appropriate treatment, including self-treatment with over-the-counter medicines, was generally successful. Further Studies should be conducted to evaluate appropriate treatment algorithms, including the use of self-treatment, for deployed military personnel.
KeyWords Plus: PERSISTENT DIARRHEA; TRAVELERS DIARRHEA; RETURNED TRAVELER; EPIDEMIOLOGY; DISEASE; INFECTION; PERSONNEL; ILLNESS Addresses: Putnam SD (reprint author), US Embassy Jakarta, Naval Med Res Unit 2, NAMRU2, FPO, AP 96520 USAUS Embassy Jakarta, Naval Med Res Unit 2, FPO, AP 96520 USA
Naval Med Res Unit 3, Cairo, Egypt
Naval Med Res Ctr, Silver Spring, MD USA Publisher: B C DECKER INC, 20 HUGHSON ST SOUTH, PO BOX 620, L C D 1, HAMILTON, ONTARIO L8N 3K7, CANADA Subject Category: MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL IDS Number: 025HA
ISSN: 1195-1982 ------------------------------------
"Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?"
UN
Statistics from the Polaris Institute:
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/pdf/bootsonground.pdf
The document seems to compare military expenses with contributions to UN peacekeeping.
Selections regarding Canada and the UN:
There are a lot of dollar figures regarding expenses on Afghanistan operations. But maybe the figures offered by Kamilla are sufficient. Regardless, it would be worthwhile to compare these expenses with other more neglected but more constructive programs (e.g. foreign aid?)
security council resolutions
What are peoples feelings about Canada participation within the capital kabul? do people agree that Canada should be out of Afghanistan entirely, (aid and troops), or is the opposition to the extended role in particular actively fighting the Taliban in Kandahar?
Just playing devils advocate as there are numerous security council resolutions supporting said actions in particular 1386,1444, 1453, 1413 among others, these specifically recognize the current government as the sole legitimate authority, affirm an international responsibilty to provide assistance, (militarily, financially etc) to the present government (which explicitly supports actions against the Taliban etc). And argues that Afghanistan remains an international "threat" to security therefore endorsing military presence. I still need to look at the GA resolutions. the link is below:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
*edit* criticism of US aerial bombardment of Afghanistan > finds that more than 3,700 civilian deaths within an eight week period.
see "A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United State' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting"
------------------------------------
"Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?"
Afghanistan president perspective
according to Thomas Walkom ...
(http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout /Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1148681733057&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907626796)
Afghanistan president Karzai "has been consistently critical of the way in which U.S. and other foreign troops operate in his country.
A year ago, in his first visit to Washington after being elected president, Karzai pleaded with U.S. President George W. Bush to at least consult with the Afghan government before ordering air strikes on civilian targets."
"In September, Karzai tried again. This time, he challenged the American-led coalition's entire approach to the war.
'I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore' "
Afghanistan
(couldn't delete it because that would also delete all the replies to it)
in IE
Hey Alex,
You might have fixed this already, but your post was full of a bunch of extra garbage characters and tags when viewed from Internet Explorer. I got home and it looks fine in Firefox... did you perhaps copy and paste this from a word processor? Word processors sometimes add a bunch of extra stuff.
Jeremy
IE
I did copy from MS word, must have added the extra crap then. I had no idea as it displays well in firefox. I'll take another look, thanks.
*Edit*
well i can see what you're talking about here, stupid IE. Strangly, i don't have the option of editing the post, the option is not available for some reason. Can you just delete the post? i'll repost it afterwards.
-----------------------------------
"Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?"
Afghanistan
Here's the federal MP vote tally regarding extending the deployment of troops in Afghanistan to (I believe) 2009: http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/han025_2220-E.htm
Mathyssen, Fontana and Barnes all voted "nay"
Here's a progressive Afghan group --
the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Association_of_the_Women_of_Afghanistan
http://www.rawa.org/
And here are a couple of collections of relevant lefty articles:
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/category/afghan-istan/
http://www.zmag.org/terrorwar/znet_afghanistan.cfm
in my e-mail
I had this link sent to me a couple of days ago...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/audio/smith4.html
Probably a different perspective then we'll usually see here. I thought I'd share it.
I'm an "Army Brat" as some of you probably already know, so my views on these sorts of things usually aren't in line with views generally held on the left.
I guess my views on Canadian involvement in A-stan can be summed up by saying that I do not believe the Canadian Government made a sound decision in sending Canadian troops into Afghanistan in the midst of the hysteria immediately following 9/11. I don't believe that our close ties with the U.S. and the idea of 'Standing together' with them as they retaliated for 9/11 is a justification for sending our troops into combat. But the reality is that Canadian troops were sent. Now I believe that the Canadian Government has a responsibility to Afghanistan to 'leave it better then they found it' so to say. I believe that Canadian troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, but not before they're job is done. (i.e, when leaving wouldn' t create a power vacuum, and when the standards of living for the average Afghani has been brought up to an expectable level...)
Oh, CIDA stands for Canadian International Development Agency...
-30-
Mike
Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.