Canadians: Should we stay longer in Afghanistan?

Should Canada commit to the Afghanistan mission past 2009?


  • Total voters
    42

Che Guava

The Juicy Revolutionary
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
5,955
Location
Hali-town,
A personal plea to Canada to stay the course...

Karzai pleads for Canadians to stay in Afghanistan


GRAEME SMITH

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Kabul — Afghanistan risks a descent into chaos if Canadian soldiers withdraw from the country too quickly, President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday, warning of dark consequences for his country and the entire world if the foreign troops abandon the fight against the Taliban before the war is finished.

In an unprecedented move, Mr. Karzai summoned Canadian journalists to his heavily guarded palace in Kabul and spoke passionately about the need for a renewed commitment of troops after the Canadian mandate expires in February of 2009.

He evoked the worst period in his country's recent history, when civil wars killed tens of thousands in the early 1990s, saying a similar disaster could happen again if his military support falters.

"Afghanistan will fall back into anarchy," he said. "Anarchy will bring back safe havens to terrorists, among other things, and terrorists will then hurt you back there in Canada and the United States. Simple as that."

It was an unusually bleak assessment from a leader whose optimism has sometimes led to criticisms that he is too cloistered inside his Kabul fortress. But he finds himself facing a difficult campaign of persuasion in the coming months, as Canada considers the future of its 2,500 troops and Dutch parliamentarians debate the withdrawal of 2,000 soldiers whose commitment ends next year.

Even the current number of troops isn't enough to give the Afghan government the confidence it needs to fight corruption and solve problems of human rights, Mr. Karzai said, because those reforms would force confrontations with armed factions.

"We definitely need the steady, strong backing of the international community, and that has not been there," Mr. Karzai said.

"If there is a concern about corruption, or violation in instances of human rights and law and order, the international community must come forward with the requisite application of force."

Mr. Karzai also described progress in his attempts to negotiate with the Taliban. Initial investigation of the insurgents' calls for peace talks have shown that some Taliban appear to be genuinely interested in dialogue, he said, while some hard-line factions don't seem serious in their demands.

He has rejected two of the main ideas suggested by the insurgents in their public calls for talks, saying he isn't interested in any negotiations preconditioned on the withdrawal of foreign troops and he does not want a power-sharing arrangement that would rewrite the rules of Afghan democracy.

"There is a constitution, there is a way of life," he said. "Let them come and participate [in elections] and win."

But the President seemed keenly aware that his hard line on peace talks will be impossible to maintain if the Canadians and other foreign troops withdraw from the dangerous south. Towns and district centres would fall to the insurgents, he said, and the countryside would resemble the confused battlefield that existed from 1992 to 1996, when factional wars left Afghanistan divided into countless rival fiefs.

"Exactly that will happen, exactly," Mr. Karzai said. "If you leave prematurely, before we can defend ourselves in terms of our own abilities, government, institutions, and all associated factors, Afghanistan will fall back."

Mr. Karzai showed a keen awareness of Canadians' ambivalence about the Afghan mission, even offering a "merci beaucoup" for viewers in Quebec where support is weakest, and he seemed eager to contradict some ideas raised in the Canadian debate.

Canadian officials have said that Afghan forces could be ready to take over the lead role in protecting Kandahar by the time the Canadian commitment expires in 18 months, but the Afghan President bluntly disagreed with that assessment.

"The presence of Canada is needed until Afghanistan is able to defend itself, and that day is not going to be in 2009," he said.

Rather than emphasize the human cost of withdrawal, Mr. Karzai repeatedly came back to the theme of Canadian security relating to the fight against extremism in Afghanistan.

"Leaving Afghanistan alone now will bring back all the evils that were here," he said. "We know they're still around — look at the situation in Pakistan, look at the situation in Algeria, the suicide bombs there."

He continued: "You can look around. You can see the enemy is not yet finished, is not yet defeated. Therefore it's our responsibility, all of us, to continue to work to defeat terrorism. And we cannot defeat terrorism unless we secure Afghanistan. If we do not, it will become a base for them again."

Despite his sombre message, the President said he remains optimistic about Afghanistan's overall progress over the past six years. He faces elections next year, and says the country has enjoyed great achievements with the help of foreign donors.

"In comparison to the depth and width of the problems we had six years ago, it's massive, it's significant, and we should all be happy with that."

So are we pulling out too soon? Should we stay and help indefinitely? Or are we just being a crutch for a government that needs to learn to walk on its own?

There's something about Karzai's speech to Canada that doesn't sit well with me, but we'll get to that a little later...
 
The stuff about Canada's security is BS at this point. The real question has more to do with the benefit of Afghanis. The more pertinent question is whether NATO feels it should be in Afghanistan in order to help fix the country, as Canada cannot do much on its own. If NATO continues to drag its feet about taking the mission seriously, then Canada should just leave. By staying in the south and putting its proverbial fingers in the proverbial dyke, Canada is just delaying the tough decisions needed from other countries. If Canada threatens to leave, and then Germany/France/Spain/Italy/Belgium/whatever says, "wait, we can change... we promise to do our best!" then maybe we should stay. If they don't do that, Canada should just follow through with the threat to leave without flinching.
 
The stuff about Canada's security is BS at this point. The real question has more to do with the benefit of Afghanis.

Yup, that was it!

The more pertinent question is whether NATO feels it should be in Afghanistan in order to help fix the country, as Canada cannot do much on its own. If NATO continues to drag its feet about taking the mission seriously, then Canada should just leave. By staying in the south and putting its proverbial fingers in the proverbial dyke, Canada is just delaying the tough decisions needed from other countries. If Canada threatens to leave, and then Germany/France/Spain/Italy/Belgium/whatever says, "wait, we can change... we promise to do our best!" then maybe we should stay. If they don't do that, Canada should just follow through with the threat to leave without flinching

A very good point. I think Canadians have done a fair share of work in Afghanistan, considering the size and capabilities of our military, and that other NATO nations should start pitching in more. More than anything, i would just like to see canadians out of Khandahar. If we are to stay, I think we should move operations to another province and let someone else take a crack at that one....
 
Sobieski, you're right. This isn't about western security but rather Afghan security. I think that's reason enough to stay.

It's not like if CF left, European NATO members would move south.
 
I'm still not sure. Obviously the goal of the mission is honourable, but whether or not we can make any real permanent change is still up in the air in my mind especiailly since our military resources are very strained.

What should happen is that we should swap places with countries like France and Germany, who have been sitting comfortable in the north all this time. Let them come down to the south and take on some of the burden and let our troops partol the north to ease the strain. I'm sure the Dutch would also welcome this sort of relief. `
 
Sobieski, you're right. This isn't about western security but rather Afghan security. I think that's reason enough to stay.

But is it a statement of "since it is right to try and help, Canada should stay whether it has the ability to change the situation or not", or is it a statement of, "it is a good thing for Afghanis to have their well-being improved, but Canada's decision to stay should depend on its ability to succeed in helping them"? I am inclined towards the latter statement.
 
But is it a statement of "since it is right to try and help, Canada should stay whether it has the ability to change the situation or not", or is it a statement of, "it is a good thing for Afghanis to have their well-being improved, but Canada's decision to stay should depend on its ability to succeed in helping them"? I am inclined towards the latter statement.

As am I. But until you've lost the support of the local population, I think the ability to succeed is still there. It's time to go when they ask you to leave.
 
As am I. But until you've lost the support of the local population, I think the ability to succeed is still there. It's time to go when they ask you to leave.

One could argue that bullets from the Taliban (apparently drawn from the local population) do represent a call to leave. I understand that the issue is more complex than that and there are certainly those who want Canada to stay... I am just a skeptic about it all.
 
I think we should stay and we should stay in the South. We are making progress there. It may not be as fast as some people want it but that's just the nature of that beast (IMO).

I never once really considered myself being in Afghanistan to help protect Canada. I don't even remember anyone believing that while we were there (although i'm sure there were some). I wanted to be there to help Afghanis.

I say we should stay in the South. But only if some more troops from other nations help us out there. Canadians were spread to thin IMO. I doubt the other NATO nations will step up to the plate though. They wouldn't when I was there so I doubt they would now. The only nations in force around Kandahar and surrounding provinces was the Canadians, Americans, British and the Dutch. The Dutch were a bit more North though in an area not as volatile.

I think that if we had help from other nations Canadians would be more willing to support the mission.
 
One could argue that bullets from the Taliban (apparently drawn from the local population) do represent a call to leave. I understand that the issue is more complex than that and there are certainly those who want Canada to stay... I am just a skeptic about it all.

Most the Taliban we caught when I was there were from Pakistan. They're also mostly (all?) Pushtu. They have tribal areas in Southern Afghanistan and Western Pakistan.

IMO nearly anyone who is local to Afghanistan who shoots at us is someone who is involved in the drug trade. Taliban/drug propaganda told the locals that we were there to burns their opium fields and leave them to starve. We tried to tell them differently but I think they had varying degrees of belief, depending on the person.
 
I want you guys to stay yet I am biased... you have kick ass field ovens and liquor. :mischief:
 
I saw guys breaking out bottles, ovens, that stuff you guys call bacon!

... granted, Canadians are expert hagglers and do not recognize the exchange rate when in another country ;)
 
This discussion may possibly be moot, if we end up having an election next spring -- which, considering the number of notices and bulletins I've been getting from Elections Canada and what I've been hearing on the news, is not impossible.
 
This discussion may possibly be moot, if we end up having an election next spring -- which, considering the number of notices and bulletins I've been getting from Elections Canada and what I've been hearing on the news, is not impossible.

Thank you. Canada is out of there in 2009 no matter what. I think it will be a good thing too.
 
Hmmm...thus far, Canadians seem to be split on the issue, but the rest of the world (at least here at CFC) seems to want us to stay. Anyone who voted Yes! (non-Canadian) want to tell us why?
 
Canada is doing a pretty good job in Afghanistan compare dto many other countries. I think they should stay. Remember Afghanistan war is not the same as the Iraq war.
 
I voted yes. Remain our brothers in arms against terrorism in Afghanistan. Help this third world nation fight off those that would wipe out freedom in this growing republic.

My respect for Canada only grows, the longer it stays in Afghanistan. While respect may not mean much to some, respect is very valuable to me, and rarely replaced if lost.
 
Top Bottom