Canada PM Harper: Allies Can't Win in Afghanistan

Canada PM Harper: Allies Can’t Win in Afghanistan

WorldMarch 2009 • Views: 2,605

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview that allied forces will never defeat the Afghan insurgency.

Remember way back in the early days of the Obama administration when the president went to Canada on his first foreign trip and as soon as Afghanistan came up in the concluding news conference, the well-briefed new U.S. leader pre-empted a key question by saying he had not asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for more Canadian troops?

Good thing.

Because, as it turns out, Prime Minister Harper thinks victory for the allies in Afghanistan is simply not going to happen. In a fascinating and surprisingly candid interview with CNN’s ever-thoughtful Fareed Zakaria on “GPS,” here’s what the leader of the United States’ closest military ally there said:

“In fact, my own judgment, Fareed, is, quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency.”

Coming just days after Obama ordered 17,000 additional U.S. combat troops into that forever-fighting land as a mere holding action, pending further study and possible additional deployments, that’s got to be a stunner to the new White House team.

Jump to bottom

164 comments

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:55:39am

Cut 'n run, baby, cut 'n run!

freedombilly Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:55:50am

He sounds like Obama talking about our economy.

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:56:31am

re: #2 freedombilly

He sounds like Obama talking about our economy.

Socialists are birds of a feather......

Desert Dog Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:57:09am

Never? Well, let's get out then, eh?

We could win tomorrow, but at what cost? If Obama listens to his Generals and people on the ground, we have a chance. If he gets all micro-manager or worries about the opinion polls and the NYT Editorial staff, we actually can't win....

karmic_inquisitor Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:58:11am

re: #2 freedombilly

He sounds like Obama talking about our economy.

Comment of the week. Updings a plenty.

midwestgak Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:00:29pm

"In fact, my own judgment, Fareed, is, quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency."

Momma said there'd be days like this, there'd be days like this, my momma said.

ThinkRight Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:01:50pm

Those damn canooks are only slightly braver than the French
They need to see Chavez's doctor and
"Shut UP"
SouthPark will be all over this
LOL

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:03:23pm

His main point is that it is the Afghans who will "defeat" the insurgency, or control it - which the LA Times sort of leaves out - to make us all have the vapors.

Hearts and Minds, strong police force, strong military.

pegcity Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:03:54pm

i hate to break it to everyone here, but unless we invade pakistan and somehow dismantle 100,000 madrasas hes right.

karmic_inquisitor Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:04:06pm

BTW - the idea that the "Allies" can't win there is probably true.

Only the US can win there.

The "Allies" don't contribute much in terms of offensive capacity.

If nothing else, the USA should be congratulated for reducing the imperial, war making capacity of Europe to a self-doubting corn meal of weakness. We just should not get silly ideas that they will actually ever be useful to us in the event of war. Similarly, we should give them very little input on our foreign policy.

That said, Obama and the Democrats are doing the opposite on the assumption they will gain "soft power". But soft power only works when you are a nation that can keep a hyper-power at bay. That is where EU soft power comes from - their ability to shame weak kneed American politicians from doing what is right and necessary when dealing with thugs. We can't get soft power unless some force against tyranny wants to step up and overtake us so that we can keep them from doing what is right and necessary.

lawhawk Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:04:52pm

The way to deal with Afghanistan means having to deal with the twin 800 pound gorillas next door - Iran and Pakistan. There are no easy answers, but giving up is NOT an option.

Kragar Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:05:14pm

So the alternative is to pull out and let the Islamists take over again?

Because that worked oh so well the first time.

Desert Dog Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:05:22pm

re: #11 lawhawk

The way to deal with Afghanistan means having to deal with the twin 800 pound gorillas next door - Iran and Pakistan. There are no easy answers, but giving up is NOT an option.

For you and me, it's not an option...for our beloved President....who knows?

Occasional Reader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:05:25pm

Good lord. I'd have expected this from Chrétien or Martin. But Harper?!

Jetpilot1101 Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:05:36pm

Coming just days after Obama ordered 17,000 additional U.S. combat troops into that forever-fighting land as a mere holding action, pending further study and possible additional deployments, that’s got to be a stunner to the new White House team.

I wonder how many more "stunners" the "White House Team" is going to have to endure before they get a clue.

Leonidas Hoplite Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:06:03pm

Now all Obama needs is the French or some other winner to tell him that Afghanistan is unwinnable and he'll pull the plug...becasue, you know, we need to listen to our allies. Leadership is out of the question - its so Bush 43. Fight by committee...there's a winning strategy!

Desert Dog Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:06:15pm

re: #15 Jetpilot1101

I wonder how many more "stunners" the "White House Team" is going to have to endure before they get a clue.

Everyday when that bell rings on Wall Street, they get a new stunner

Truck Monkey Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:06:28pm

Well that settles it than. Let's look for a way out and depart with honor. Viet Nam redux. We really are rushing headlong into the bad old 70's. I am going to start growing some Pork Chop sideburns and a Pornstar mustache.

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:06:33pm

This article is meant to provoke - and it's doing a great job...

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:06:40pm

re: #15 Jetpilot1101

I wonder how many more "stunners" the "White House Team" is going to have to endure before they get a clue.

They have shown remarkable invulnerability to actually getting a clue.

chicagodudewhotrades Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:07:19pm

So much for Dow 6800...... 6795 last and down 269

brookly red Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:07:34pm

re: #6 midwestgak

"In fact, my own judgment, Fareed, is, quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency."

/As I see it he has his own insurgency issues.

gymnast Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:07:54pm

Talk like this by Harper is just going to stir up the Eskimos and everyone knows if that happens Canada is going to be in for a severe ass kicking.

Desert Dog Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:08:02pm

re: #18 Truck Monkey

Well that settles it than. Let's look for a way out and depart with honor. Viet Nam redux. We really are rushing headlong into the bad old 70's. I am going to start growing some Pork Chop sideburns and a Pornstar mustache.

You are just using this as an excuse....we all know you've wanted that "look" and now you have your "reasons"

rumcrook Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:08:05pm

bring up the "HOLY HAAAAND GRENADE"

OOOPS NO! RUUUUN AWAAAAY!

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:08:21pm

re: #21 chicagodudewhotrades

So much for Dow 6800...... 6795 last and down 269

Since when has the markets being doing a limbo dance?

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:08:50pm

Gee, Fareed Zakaria got someone else to shoot themselves in the foot.

Hengineer Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:10:03pm

Maybe those liberals who claimed to move to Canada actually did and affected him.

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:10:09pm

Harper:

What has to happen in Afghanistan is, we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency and improving its own governance.

Opinionated Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:10:23pm

The World's theme from Afghanistan to Gaza to London, to prosecuting Geert Wilders to Obama apologizing to Islam is that Islam will be triumphant and we better make it easy on ourselves by not pissing them off further.

Maximu§ Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:10:47pm

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview that allied forces will never defeat the Afghan insurgency.

Perhaps Mr. Harper knows exactly WTF he's talking about...perhaps he read a few history books and see's the writing on the wall. My oldest Boy's Brigade deploys to Afghanistan in November and from my POV:

-There's no way we can win as long as the Taliban have safe haven in Pakistan.

-Our soldiers there are hostage to Pakistan's whims, because they can cut them off very easily. I read (in here I believe) that there are only (2) supply routes that supply our ground troops and both of them go through Pakistan.

Want to win in Afghanistan? Unleash the US Air Force and unleash the Ohio Class SSBN's on Northwestern Pakistan.

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:02pm

ZAKARIA: So, we are never going to defeat the insurgency. The best we can do is train Afghan forces that can take it on, and then we withdraw.
HARPER: Absolutely. Because I think, you know, a part of the calculation there is the fact that, ultimately, the source of authority in Afghanistan has to be perceived as being indigenous. If it's perceived as being foreign -- and I still think we're welcome there -- but if it's perceived as being foreign, it will always have a significant degree of opposition.

ZAKARIA: Is it your sense that Karzai's government has legitimacy and should be backed? What do your people tell you?

HARPER: There is no doubt that governance in Afghanistan has to improve, and has to improve much more quickly than what we've seen in the first -- how many years is it now -- almost eight years?"

brookly red Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:08pm

re: #9 pegcity

/ a little of the old ultra violence, huh? (love the avatar)

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:14pm

midwestgak Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:14pm

re: #28 Hengineer

Maybe those liberals who claimed to move to Canada actually did and ~~affected~~ infected him.

sorry, had to.

chicagodudewhotrades Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:30pm

re: #26 FurryOldGuyJeans

Usually round numbers like 6800 are a type of mental level for investors, was hoping when it hit that, some buying would happen. Not yet

Ringo the Gringo Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:30pm

If by "win", he means that we will never turn Afghanistan into a thriving, modern society with fine restaurants and a booming tourism industry, then he's right.

To me, "win" means preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safehaven for international terrorism.

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:49pm

Post CNN editing quote:

“In fact, my own judgment, Fareed, is, quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency.”

Original quote:

We shall go on to the end...
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend ~~our Island~~ decency, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender

jhn1 Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:11:50pm

Well, to "win" we would have to make the locals no longer support the same mullas, clerics, and imans currently preaching every Friday at the local mosques.
It would have been like leaving the Japanese warlords in charge of Japan after V-J day (or the National Socialist Party in charge of Germany after V-E day)
Without demonizing or at least denigrating the same philosophies (Islamic Supremacy) that that led to the conflict, Harper is probably right. And that is an executive decision by both Presidents involved (to make victory impossible)

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:12:11pm

Base on these politicians, I might as well just give up, grow a beard, wear a goofy hat, roll in sheep dip, and start calling myself Muckta.

Opinionated Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:12:18pm

re: #31 Maximu§

And hit Iran too while in the neighborhood.

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:12:44pm

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:12:54pm

Harper:

...part of the calculation there is the fact that, ultimately, the source of authority in Afghanistan has to be perceived as being indigenous. If it's perceived as being foreign -- and I still think we're welcome there -- but if it's perceived as being foreign, it will always have a significant degree of opposition.

Peacekeeper Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:13:07pm

Canadian warmonger

yma o hyd Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:13:08pm

re: #38 Boxy_brown

Post CNN editing quote:

Harper ain't no Churchil!

rumcrook Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:13:25pm

re: #28 Hengineer

maybe?! canada is 3/4 way to left wing socialist multi culti utopia, now all they have to do is successfully criminalize any questioning of islam and legalize sharia law so honor killings cant be scrutinized any longer and it will be a perfect society.

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:13:44pm

re: #36 chicagodudewhotrades

Usually round numbers like 6800 are a type of mental level for investors, was hoping when it hit that, some buying would happen. Not yet

Right now people want security and certainty. They are getting neither.

Hengineer Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:14:22pm

re: #35 midwestgak

sorry, had to.

lol, upding

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:14:24pm

re: #42 buzzsawmonkey

Don't forget to swap your pants for a nightgown.

They can have my furry jeans when they pry them from my cold, dead legs. ;)

brookly red Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:14:37pm

re: #47 FurryOldGuyJeans

Right now people want security and certainty. They are getting neither.

seems certain to me...

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:14:52pm

re: #25 rumcrook

bring up the "HOLY HAAAAND GRENADE"

OOOPS NO! RUUUUN AWAAAAY!

Light Grenade...

Ya gotta love a movie with Jon Lovitz!

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:14:54pm

re: #32 LSD

ZAKARIA: So, we are never going to defeat the insurgency. The best we can do is train Afghan forces that can take it on, and then we withdraw.
....
ZAKARIA: Is it your sense that Karzai's government has legitimacy and should be backed? What do your people tell you?

Leading the witness much? Well done Fareed... You were wrong on Iraq but maybe you can help in Afghanistan. Wonder what Haroon Siddiqui has to say on the subject....

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:14:57pm

re: #42 buzzsawmonkey

Don't forget to swap your pants for a nightgown.

Hey...I've got to draw the line somewhere! Don't the Afghan's wear pants?

Desert Dog Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:15:38pm

re: #37 Ringo the Gringo

If by "win", he means that we will never turn Afghanistan into a thriving, modern society with fine restaurants and a booming tourism industry, then he's right.

To me, "win" means preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safehaven for international terrorism.

That would be close enough for me too. But, as long as the bad guys can hide in Pakistan, there will be no peace in that country. They have been fighting non stop for years, they can outlast any government we may leave there. The Pakistanis have to do something about those areas, or, unfortunately, we will....IF we want to stabilize that part of the world. And, IF Obama has the spinal cordage necessary for such an endeavor. Otherwise, the Taliban will get back in there and based on the last time they had the power, we do not want that......

Hengineer Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:15:58pm

re: #46 rumcrook

maybe?! canada is 3/4 way to left wing socialist multi culti utopia, now all they have to do is successfully criminalize any questioning of islam and legalize sharia law so honor killings cant be scrutinized any longer and it will be a perfect society.

Don't you remember in 2004, all sorts of left-wingers claimed to want to move to Canada?

Opinionated Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:16:15pm

re: #47 FurryOldGuyJeans

Right now people want security and certainty. They are getting neither.

Many exchanged the possibility of security and certainty for tingles up their legs.

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:16:25pm

re: #45 yma o hyd

Harper ain't no Churchil!

No, but Fareed Zakaria ain't no Edward R Murrow...

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:16:40pm

re: #3 FurryOldGuyJeans

Socialists are birds of a feather......

Prime Minister Harper is a Conservative.

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:16:55pm

re: #49 FurryOldGuyJeans

They can have my furry jeans when they pry them from my cold, dead legs. ;)

Just had a disturbing visual on that one...

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:17:24pm

greenmamba Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:17:38pm

re: #46 rumcrook

maybe?! canada is 3/4 way to left wing socialist multi culti utopia,....

Oh I hope you're not writing from the USA where there is a certain acceleration in that direction.

FurryOldGuyJeans Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:17:38pm

re: #58 Josephine

Prime Minister Harper is a Conservative.

Sure fooled me.

lawhawk Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:17:40pm

Zakaria thinks that Karzai's government shouldn't get backing why? Because they haven't gone as far as fast as the Iraqis have done? Eight years and there is no peace? Well, which governments have fallen short on their military commitments to Afghanistan. Memo to both Harper and Zakaria; it isn't the US. It's the NATO European members who can't wait to find a way home and avoid putting their troops into harm's way because they can't afford the minor deployment of troops, let alone support and/or replacement should their equipment get damaged, destroyed, or used in military operations.

The US effort gets undermined by the Pakistanis who double deal and the Taliban who get to operate from Pakistan with impunity (but for the limited UAV airstrikes). The US could send more troops, but lacks the safe logistical corridors to send in heavy equipment and supplies to back up a larger contingent now that the Kyber pass is repeatedly threatened and the Russians play games with the Central Asian states. The Afghans still haven't figured out what they want, and they see a waning interest in their well being, which means they'll go into survival mode once again - and that means cutting deals and shifting alliances.

If the US acts as the strong and steady hand, it will provide a steadying force, but the Karzai regime needs to step up in a big way as well. But the Europeans need to do so in an even bigger way.

Afghanistan isn't at a failure point, but it can get there if the Europeans and US - including Obama - let it.

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:18:39pm

re: #58 Josephine

Prime Minister Harper is a Conservative.

The Brits and Canucks (sorry...no insult intended) have a different definition compared to us. Just like they have different Parties (Conservative and Tory).

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:19:21pm

re: #3 FurryOldGuyJeans

Stephen Harper is a solid conservative. There is absolutely nothing socialist about him.

CyanSnowHawk Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:19:35pm

re: #26 FurryOldGuyJeans

Since when has the markets being doing a limbo dance?

Pretty much since Obama started beating McCain in the polls.

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:19:40pm

re: #61 greenmamba

Oh I hope you're not writing from the USA where there is a certain acceleration in that direction.

Some of us are standing on the railroad tracks of history yelling "STOP!"

Wendya Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:19:47pm

re: #37 Ringo the Gringo

To me, "win" means preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safehaven for international terrorism.

That goal is entirely possible. Afghanistan will have to decide if it wants to be a modern country. We will decide whether or not we allow them to become a safe harbor for terrorist activity.

debutaunt Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:20:33pm

re: #36 chicagodudewhotrades

Usually round numbers like 6800 are a type of mental level for investors, was hoping when it hit that, some buying would happen. Not yet

I hesitate to invest in a Socialist-controlled economy.

Opinionated Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:21:02pm

Let's just mention here that Harper deserves some points for likely being the most [if not the only] pro- Israel Western leader currently serving.

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:21:05pm

re: #68 Wendya

That goal is entirely possible. Afghanistan will have to decide if it wants to be a modern country. We will decide whether or not we allow them to become a safe harbor for terrorist activity.

RIGHT ON

Ben Hur Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:21:20pm

Of course the irony is that the Left wants us to leave Afganistan (I know Harper is not Left) yet they blame the US for 9/11 because we left.....Afganistan.

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:22:09pm

I posted a link last night to the National Post article about this interview. I thought this was interesting:

"'We're not going to win this war just by staying . . . we are not ever going to defeat the insurgency,' Mr. Harper said in the interview, which was recorded last week during the prime minister's visit to New York. 'My reading of Afghanistan's history is that they've probably had an insurgency forever, of some kind.'"

Considering the way our media and politicians use "insurgents", try replacing that word with, say, "terrorists" or "Islamic extremists". It works.

96RoadKing Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:22:25pm

re: #68 Wendya

That goal is entirely possible. Afghanistan will have to decide if it wants to be a modern country. We will decide whether or not we allow them to become a safe harbor for terrorist activity.

Screw it. Somebody call Sonny Barger and tell him the Hells Angels get the opium concession if he'll take his buddies over there and they kick the crop out of the Taliban...or would that be too extremist?

LGoPs Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:23:01pm

Winning, or losing, all boils down to a question of will. As long as you give your enemy the ability to step across some magic line where he can't be touched you might as well pack up and go home.
This seems to bear an eery similarity to the NVA supply lines like the Ho Chi Minh Trail that were allowed to exist to resupply the Viet Cong and NVA.
It's a matter of either deciding to shut off those off limits areas or not. War can't be successfully fought by half measures.

yma o hyd Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:23:06pm

re: #63 lawhawk

Zakaria thinks that Karzai's government shouldn't get backing why? Because they haven't gone as far as fast as the Iraqis have done? Eight years and there is no peace? Well, which governments have fallen short on their military commitments to Afghanistan. Memo to both Harper and Zakaria; it isn't the US. It's the NATO European members who can't wait to find a way home and avoid putting their troops into harm's way because they can't afford the minor deployment of troops, let alone support and/or replacement should their equipment get damaged, destroyed, or used in military operations.

The US effort gets undermined by the Pakistanis who double deal and the Taliban who get to operate from Pakistan with impunity (but for the limited UAV airstrikes). The US could send more troops, but lacks the safe logistical corridors to send in heavy equipment and supplies to back up a larger contingent now that the Kyber pass is repeatedly threatened and the Russians play games with the Central Asian states. The Afghans still haven't figured out what they want, and they see a waning interest in their well being, which means they'll go into survival mode once again - and that means cutting deals and shifting alliances.

If the US acts as the strong and steady hand, it will provide a steadying force, but the Karzai regime needs to step up in a big way as well. But the Europeans need to do so in an even bigger way.

Afghanistan isn't at a failure point, but it can get there if the Europeans and US - including Obama - let it.

Its ok to blame the NATO members stationed in the North of Afghanistan.

I just want to remind you that our troops, the UK being a member of NATO, have been fighting in Helmand Province for ages, and that our troops are getting killed there.

Just sayin ....

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:24:28pm

re: #62 FurryOldGuyJeans

Sure fooled me.

Then you're not paying close enough attention.

FrogMarch Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:25:36pm

I am no expert but it seems to me all of the "stans" are poor, miserable, backwards states- where radical Islam is running amok.

It is rather hopeless. Is it worth admitting it's hopeless? I do not know. If we are going to stay the course - maybe we need to do what Lawhawk suggests - get NATO and Europe to pony up.

vagabond trader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:26:15pm

I have always questioned why after our initial attacks "W" never invested anything near what we did in Iraq.Pahkeestaan is the answer.

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:26:50pm

re: #7 ThinkRight

You're wrong.

From the National Post:

"Canada has about 2,700 soldiers serving in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan on the NATO-led mission. There have been 108 Canadian soldiers killed in the conflict since Canada's operations started in 2002."

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:27:32pm

re: #79 vagabond trader

I have always questioned why after our initial attacks "W" never invested anything near what we did in Iraq.Pahkeestaan is the answer.

Easiest Terrain First.

yma o hyd Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:29:37pm

re: #78 FrogMarch

I am no expert but it seems to me all of the "stans" are poor, miserable, backwards states- where radical Islam is running amok.

It is rather hopeless. Is it worth admitting it's hopeless? I do not know. If we are going to stay the course - maybe we need to do what Lawhawk suggests - get NATO and Europe to pony up.

Great Britain has been and is 'ponying up' - from the start.
Our lads aare fighting and paying ij rdead and wounded.

Oh, and btw, since the beginning of the year the SAS is now in Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus was so impressed with their work in Iraq.

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:30:31pm

"We're not going to win this war just by staying . . . we are not ever going to defeat the insurgency,"

Cut down to: "We're not going to win this war".

Speaking to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal during the same trip to New York, Mr. Harper said he felt the success of the NATO mission in Afghanistan would be a test on the military alliance for future operations.

"NATO has taken on a United Nations mission and NATO must succeed or I do think the future of NATO as we've known it is in considerable doubt," he told the Wall Street Journal in a report published Saturday.

"We have to get our act together . . . or NATO will not be able to undertake these kinds of missions in the future. There may be some around the NATO table who don't think it should. But if that's their position, that's not what they are saying."

Canada has about 2,700 soldiers serving in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan on the NATO-led mission. There have been 108 Canadian soldiers killed in the conflict since Canada's operations started in 2002.

I agree, We are not going to win this war by not engaging the Taliban where they are hiding. That calls for more troops, American and NATO. If NATO wont send more the future of the mission and the alliance is in doubt. If Obama wont send the amount that the generals have asked for why should NATO?

Pyrocles Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:32:40pm

Hence why all my Canadian in-laws despise him like they despised Bush.

re: #65 Kenneth

Stephen Harper is a solid conservative. There is absolutely nothing socialist about him.

Diamond Bullet Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:33:14pm

Apparently a bunch of guys carrying around 30-year-old AK-47s is the greatest fighting force the world has ever assembled. Their hyper-modern logistics system of all-weather goat trails fuses with their rote Koran recitation skills to form a superb fighting unit that only rarely knows defeat when overflown by B-52s, Predator drones, attack helicopters, big prop planes with cannons sticking out of the sides, fighter jets, or when they are attacked in any manner, or when their roadside bombs are defused, or when schools open anyway, or when women don't spend their entire lives living under sacks as subhuman chattel. I for one can hardly blame Canada for blinking in the face of this juggernaut. Why risk defeat when you can surrender and guarantee it?

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:34:36pm

wiffersnapper Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:35:13pm

defeatist

looking closely Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:35:17pm

That's what "they" said about Iraq.

Afghanistan is tactically winnable, the question is if its politically winnable.

(And the answer to that is probably "no" because Obama clearly doesn't have the balls for a real or protracted war effort).

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:35:31pm

re: #80 Josephine

Canada, unlike many of our other NATO allies has done an excellent job in Afghanistan in both "nation building" and more importantly killing the bastards. It is a much under-reported story in my opinion.

They now have the longest confirmed sniper kill on record by the way.. the second longest as well.

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:36:09pm

Charles,

You have completely misquoted Stephen Harper. No where in the interview did Harper say,

"Allies Can't Win in Afghanistan"

What Harper did say is,

"We're not going to win this war just by staying. we are not ever going to defeat the insurgency. My reading of Afghanistan history, it's probably had an insurgency since forever, of some kind. What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency and improving it's own governance. A part of the calculation is that the source of authority of Afghanistan has to be perceived has indigenous."

Harper did not call for quitting, but for deciding what we can do to actually improve the situation. He also had some tough questions for Obama about what his plans are for Afghanistan.

Let's not engage in the Defeatocrat technique of taking selected quotes out of context and using them to beat up on our own team. You really should update your post to show that Harper was misquoted.

FrogMarch Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:37:25pm

re: #82 yma o hyd

Great Britain has been and is 'ponying up' - from the start.
Our lads aare fighting and paying ij rdead and wounded.

Oh, and btw, since the beginning of the year the SAS is now in Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus was so impressed with their work in Iraq.

Please don't misunderstand - I certainly wasn't knocking any troops in the field - fighting and dying.

Sharmuta Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:37:43pm

Being tough on Pokkystahn is one campaign promise I hope 0bama keeps because I feel it's in everyone's best interest for Afghanistan to not become a terrorist haven again. It's what's best for the West, best for the region, and best for Afghanis. Failure is not an option.

greenmamba Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:38:59pm

re: #67 96RoadKing

Some of us are standing on the railroad tracks of history yelling "STOP!"

Oh I know. Fact is Left Disease has overrun the civilized world and it's matter of sensible people sticking together and resisting the tendency to blame each other's countries as a whole. Some Americans haven't cottoned onto the fact that they're the new France, for the next little while at least.

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:39:30pm

re: #89 Boxy_brown

Thank you.

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:40:11pm

yma o hyd Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:42:48pm

re: #91 FrogMarch

Please don't misunderstand - I certainly wasn't knocking any troops in the field - fighting and dying.

I know - its just to point out that not all NATO members are useless wimps hiding in their corrals.

The Canucks are doing an excellent job as well.

Must be something to do with the Anglo-Saxon genes ...
:-)

Arrr Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:45:58pm

What Harper said was just a crude summation of what Petraeus has been saying for years. You don't defeat an insurgency, you bring them into the political process and then turn the locals on them. That's what Petraeus did with Iraq, and that's what he will attempt to do with Afghanistan.

You also don't "win" a War on Terror. This is not The Cold War or WWII or even Desert Storm. The definitions of win, lose, victory, etc, have completely shifted. Bush had the wisdom to admit as such, until Kerry saw an opening and jumped on him for it.

A.W. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:46:25pm

Let me explain something to Mr. Harper. making war on afghanistan was our alternative to, say, dropping a few nukes on the place and calling it a day. Seriously. It is not acceptable to say we cannot defeat them. They can only defeat us if we are not willing to do whatever it takes to win. now, out of humanitarianism, i will support a lesser strategy, but if that doesn't work, if we have to just simply wipe the country off the face of the earth, so be it. seriously, so be it.

What is the alternative? Being killed now and then by islamofascists until we give up and surrender? no, there is no alternative to victory, here.

Harper needs to set his f---ing priorities straight.

Earl Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:46:28pm

As Canuck, I am enraged that 108 Canadian soldiers have been killed in A'stan- fighting to install and protect an overtly Islamist "constitution" and regime. It is infuriating and absurd- Ontario and Quebec have recently denied categorically shari'ah even a toehold in Canada, whilst Canadian troops are dying and being maimed in A'stan to support a shari'ah state. Clearly, no one in the Canadian Cabinet or at Foreign Affairs has ever read the Afghan "constitution".

As for Harper's comments, he is quite correct, and merely echoes Rummie: "Can we kill them (the mujahideen) faster than the madrassahs can produce them?". The answer, of course, is self-evident.

100

vagabond trader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:47:26pm

A friend has a kid there.According to him the troops in the field have been given official permission to shoot first, ask questions later. Repeat as necessary.

101

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:47:36pm

re: #97 Arrr

One thousand updings to you.

Harper was misquoted by the leftist media. I am rather disappointed Charles ran with the misquote in his headline. I expect better fact checking at LGF.

102

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:48:08pm

re: #100 vagabond trader

A friend has a kid there.According to him the troops in the field have been given official permission to shoot first, ask questions later. Repeat as necessary.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6.

103

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:49:22pm

re: #92 Sharmuta

A couple of weeks ago, a group of Pashtun-Canadians held a rally in Toronto to protest against the Taliban's increasing power in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They were begging for Western intervention. (I attended and took some video. It's on YouTube.)

104

Judith Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:50:10pm

I sure wish people would not read articles put out by the Arab Propaganda group and Al Reuters and assume they are actually reporting what the Prime Minister said. Come on lizardoids you KNOW better that.

"Success will be measured by the ability to eventually hand over enforcement duties to a relaible Afghan force." Stephen Harper

If that's cut and run I welcome it.

Again those of you who assume that articles put out by the Arab Propaganda group and Al Reuters are accurate are obviously newly hatched and ignorant lizards.

105

vagabond trader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:50:27pm

re: #99 Earl

I also find it distasteful for our soldiers to die for people who have absolutely nothing in common with a free society.

106

kansas Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:50:35pm

It's Obamanomics. Make the U.S. bleed some more.

107

vagabond trader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:51:16pm

re: #103 Josephine

Why are they here instead of fighting the good fight at home?

108

Judith Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:51:44pm

and that goes double for you Charles

109

[deleted] Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:52:39pm

110

Judith Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:52:49pm

re: #103 Josephine

THANK YOU Josephine! I'll bet no one saw THAt reproted in any articles put out by the Arab Propaganda group and Al Reuters either.

111

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:53:52pm

re: #101 Kenneth

Harper was misquoted by the leftist media. I am rather disappointed Charles ran with the misquote in his headline.

Everyone went with that headline. To be fair to Charles; Harper gave that little douche-nozzle Fareed Zakaria (OK, full disclosure: I can''t stand the little creep.) everything he needed to screw him. The moral of he story is to stay the hell away from obvious propagandists.

112

Clubsec Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:53:59pm

Well, well, well ... can't we all just get along? Can't we all (allies that is) just speak with one voice or use the same 'talking points'? Cooperation!
Hopenchange has stepped in it again and he'll get another and another and another pass from the FMSM. I believe Limbaugh was exactly on target with his claim that everything ObamUH says has 'an expiration date'. And the FMSM will just go along so that they can get those invites to the White House parties. What the hey? Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
ObamUH, the superior in-depth thinker and strategist (as compared to Bush as one WAPO writer claims) wouldn't know the difference between a battalion and a brigade. We're fu*ked. Man, I wish I had relatives in New Zealand or even Canada to get my exchequer out of the reach of this SOB and his cronies.

113

Rancher Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:54:19pm

It won't be easy but we can win. There will always be Jihadists, even we have them, but a stable democratic Afghanistan and Pakistan is achievable. Here's how: Planning Victory in Afghanistan

114

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:55:05pm

re: #105 vagabond trader

I also find it distasteful for our soldiers to die for people who have absolutely nothing in common with a free society.

They are dying to keep us safe. Usually in spite of ourselves.

115

the_flying_pig Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:55:48pm

I hate to borrow a phrase from the Obama campaign: YES, WE CAN defeat the insurgency. See our success in Iraq for example.

116

Rexatosis Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:56:26pm

PM Harper is correct in his understanding of Afghanistan's history and probable future. Afghanistan is really a medaeval state with its (war)lords in constant conflict with an extremely weak central authority (as weak if not weaker than Louis VI, ie the Fat, of France c. the 12th Century). As such victory over "insurgency" is not realistic since Afghanistan is in a constant state of "insurgency." The goal of the Allies is to prevent the Taliban from reestablishing enough of a territorial presence to provide a safe haven for Al-Q, from which Al-Q and others can attack the West. Pres. Obama's pie in the sky proclamations aside, the English-Speaking Democracies (which have taken a disproportionate share of burden of protecting the West and Western Values) need to evaluate what level of cost they are willing to bear in this unending campaign of "whack-a-mole" against the Taliban and other Islamic Extremists in Afghanistan.

117

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:00:44pm

re: #107 vagabond trader

Why are they here instead of fighting the good fight at home?

After the rally, I had a long conversation with an intelligent, well-educated man from Afghanistan. He feels guilty for being here but he and his wife are getting older and their health is getting worse. He has a lot of experience dealing with the various groups (mullahs, etc.) and feels he should be there helping his people. In the past, he ran a children's hospital and he also opened six girls' schools while the Taliban was in power (in private homes; the schools are still operating).

Before he and his family came to Canada, this man was shot, his brother was murdered and one of his sons was kidnapped (fate unknown), all by the Taliban.

118

hazzyday Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:01:23pm

Maybe he senses Pres Obama's weak knees in foreign affairs and doesn't perceive a solid foundation anymore overseas.

119

calvin coolidge Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:01:29pm

In related news, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida was quoted as saying, "In fact, my own judgment, is, quite frankly, we are not going to ever keep the Canadians out of Florida.”

120

kansas Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:01:39pm

OT Great News. Market Closed!

6,762.90
-300.03 (-4.25%)

121

vagabond trader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:02:31pm

re: #117 Josephine

Sure hope there are more like him in A'stan.

122

Da Coyote Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:03:52pm

Is Harper Liberal? (I honestly don't know, but assume so since Canada appears to have the liberal disease...which is highly "progressive") - badda bing!

If he is, who gives an Obama what he "thinks"?

Def:
"Obama" - a name given to nitwits who write autobiographies even though they've never done anything. It now substitues for the noun "s**t".

123

the_flying_pig Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:04:00pm

re: #109 MikeySDCA

Not this "empire" known as America. Think John McClane as America in "Die Hard" movies. Yippee-ki-yay, motherf**ker.

124

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:06:27pm

re: #110 Judith

THANK YOU Josephine! I'll bet no one saw THAt reproted in any articles put out by the Arab Propaganda group and Al Reuters either.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post a link to my videos. If you do a search on Pashtun-Canadians (on YouTube), they'll probably come up.

I kept turning off the recording by mistake (my thumb was sitting in the wrong place) so I didn't get it all. I'm still a newbie with the video camera.

Some people had signs asking where the CBC, etc., were. One or two TV cameramen showed up and I saw a report in the Toronto Star. Other than that, I'm not sure about coverage.

I wanted to go because I'm against the Taliban, too, and I'm very worried about what is happening in that region.

125

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:08:07pm

re: #116 Rexatosis

Well said.

126

Wilderstad Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:09:21pm

re: #122 Da Coyote

Harper is a Conservative.
If you really want to know why Canada has the liberal disease use Wikipedia for synopsis on Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin and note the term they were in power.

127

LSD Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:14:12pm

People who went off on Harper obviously FAILED to read the transcript or watch the video....jeeesh!

128

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:26:06pm

re: #122 Da Coyote

No he isn't.

129

Sounder Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:28:32pm

This is not a left / right nor liberal / conservative issue. It's just plain fact. Harper is correct. He has his reality hat on. Insurgency - terrorism will never be defeated, only managed at best. Look at A'stan's history. Truth is inconvenient at times isn't it?

130

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:30:31pm

re: #111 Boxy_brown

What Harper was really saying was, "simple staying in Afghanistan isn't enough to win. We need to decide what we want to do and then work towards that goal."

So far there has been a lack of consensus on what NATO is actually trying to achieve let alone working together toward it. The problem of Pakistan is paramount.

131

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:32:50pm

re: #111 Boxy_brown

Everyone went with that headline.

And yet Harper did not say those words. So where did the headline come from? From the Leftist media spin. That's why I'm disappointed to see it repeated here. I thought LGF was smarter than that.

132

redseeped Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:33:29pm

re: #129 Sounder

This is not a left / right nor liberal / conservative issue. It's just plain fact. Harper is correct. He has his reality hat on. Insurgency - terrorism will never be defeated, only managed at best. Look at A'stan's history. Truth is inconvenient at times isn't it?

Well, I guess since the U.S. has committed to this mess we might just as well go in with a positive attitude...

133

freeus Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:37:07pm

#31 Maximus and #63 lawhawk nailed this and are very correct. Other than the Brits we are SOL in this mess. Many a British soldier has died in Afghanistan and Lord only knows how much longer even they will be allowed to stay. In Iraq you were dealing with an established society that could function and an infrastructure. There is no such thing in Afghanistan, and Harper as well as others here have history on their side to bear out the logic of why we could fail in Afghanistan.

Others who have stated that we must be there to maintain the semblance of stability regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan are also correct. We cannot leave Afghanistan because Pakistan will surely fall. Both countries are in extreme chaos and there is little hope anything other than the Air Force letting loose will change that. I think it might be a good idea to decrease the height of some of those mountains! This is nothing like anything we saw in WWII for our soldiers and factor in the problem with supply routes and you have a mixture of severe excrement. The Russians are a major fly in the ointment here!

NATO is not going to do a thing. Look, each country in the world is facing some severe issues. We are not the only ones with economic woes. Some countries are experiencing radical militia uprisings. I give you Mexico for example of a country in chaos. So what is the answer other than turing Afghanistan into one sheet of glass and rock? The only thing that comes to me is time and not a Commander in Chief whose last name is "Obama", who has yet to indicate he will listen to General Petraeus. Sending 17,000 is not going to cut it.

God Bless those there and serving and their families!

134

NY Nana Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:37:46pm

re: #131 Kenneth

/Shocka! PM Harper has been misquoted.

He is a mensch, and also a realist. I wish he could adopt us, at least those of us in the States who are Conservatives. Somehow even the remote prospect of Iggy becoming PM scares me.....a lot.

When is the election? And you do better with your wooden boxes and paper ballot than we do, as you have seen. ;)

135

Kenneth Mon, Mar 2, 2009 1:41:59pm

re: #134 NY Nana

We just had an election in October and Harper's Conservatives won a fairly strong minority gov't. The other 3 parties together outvote them, but Iggy so far has chosen not to have his Liberals do so. And he's smart, because if they did bring down the gov't today, the liberals would loose the subsequent election & the Conservatives would win a majority. The last minority gov't ran for 3 years before an election was called. How long this one runs depends upon Harper's shrewdness & Iggy's ambition.

136

BirdFLU Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:07:56pm

I think Obama's plan is to make Afghanistan another Vietnam for us, thus making another two or three generations of Americans hesitant to use the military for anything. He'll micro-manage it to death, make it look like it's hopeless for us, and pull the troops out. Watch and see.

137

J.S. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:09:30pm

And that's the "conservative" in Canada speaking...(can anyone imagine what the Liberals say, or worse yet, the ultra-leftwingers? yeah, it goes from bad, to worse, to worst...) (also heard that there are all sorts of "Canadian" connectins in the Obama administration...)

138

Boxy_brown Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:10:41pm

re: #131 Kenneth

"And yet Harper did not say those words."

He did say ""We're not going to win this war"... If you divorce it from the context of what he was speaking about it is enough for "news" entities like the Toronto Star or CNN to basically paint him as a defeatist. Looking at the context it is clear that what he was after was some focus to the mission objectives and more help without caveats from the rest of NATO. However, since the bulk of the media has given up on it's mission of informing for one of persuading politicians have to be aware that they might be giving people like that sawed off, half-closeted islamist demon with an overbite from CNN the little nugget they need to claim that up is in fact down.
Look, I am grateful for the contribution that Canada has made to the fight in Afghanistan. The word back from the Marines I have spoken with (I occasionally work with the Navy/Marine relief) is that they have really stood out in their professionalism and capabilities in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was a bit shocking to some how good they were. (I write that not to chest thump, but to let you know that it got peoples attention.) There are people here who have noticed and there is gratitude and respect.

That said, Harper should have down what was coming when he sat down with this prick.

And yes, I would gleefully trade Obama for Harper.

139

J.S. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:11:21pm

re: #134 NY Nana

there are no fixed election dates in Canada (no fixed "terms" of office...it all depends...)

140

dave aaa Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:33:19pm

We've lost 107 soldiers and a diplomat out of an army 1/30 the size of the United States. For a nation that hadn't been at war since Korea, that's a lot. Many Canadians, quite frankly, can't see why we need to be there. We weren't attacked on 9/11. Most of Parliament would prefer we left. Harper, however, has increased our efforts in this war and tried to ensure our troops get what they need to fight it. That parliamentary pressure is why when our current commitment is done in 2011, we're ending combat operations. We'll still be there training, building, and helping ordinary Afghans to live normal lives. This means we'll still have hundreds of troops there and will still have Ramp Ceremonies and still have brave men and women taking final trips down the Highway of Heroes.

[Link: tinyurl.com...]

141

J.S. Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:37:40pm

re: #117 Josephine

Hi, Josephine. I've missed your posts...(I'll have to look up your links for that Pashtun Rally...back in Feb. I also provided an info link here at lgf about the anti-Taliban rally in Toronto...)

142

NY Nana Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:44:07pm

re: #135 Kenneth

Aaaarrrgghh! My bad! Forgot! With what we were and are going through with The One, I was and am so upset that I can't remember breakfast, or was it lunch? Seriously, the election here was and remains to be the very worst in my lifetime. I still can't believe he was elected, and it seems to be getting worse each day as he destroys the economy, among other things. At least you have the best banking record in the world, while Carter the Jew hater and Bubba threw our world into the garbage.

I see more and more on Bourque re Iggy, and he gives me the creeps.

BTW, between the time I have spent in the UK and Canada over the years, I am familiar with the Parliamentary system, and find it far easier to understand now than I did years ago.

I have a video that you might be interested in. My nic is blue in case you want me to send it to you.

NY Grampa is giving me 'the look'...could it possibly be because I haven't started making dinner yet? Hmmm. I wonder. ;)

BBL....

143

Joan Not of Arc Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:51:18pm

How unusually defeatist of him.
It is true that the Afghan people must be the ones to handle the scourge that is the Taliban. However, to be exceptionally blunt doesn't inspire confidence in future endeavours or the men who lost their lives in all of this.
As someone said before, raze the ground. That might solve the problem.

144

Wilderstad Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:03:05pm

[Link: torydrroy.blogspot.com...]

A great piece on HM PM in the WSJ ( Wall Street Journal). The writer is very impressed with HM PM.

Since establishing a minority government in January 2006, this prime minister and his Conservative Party have restored Canada's international prestige by increasing military funding and tenaciously supporting Canada's dangerous NATO mission in the Afghan province of Kandahar. No NATO ally has put more on the line against the Taliban, and Mr. Harper seems to sense not just the opportunity but the need for Canada to capitalize on it. There is a vacuum in conservative leadership in North America and on the world stage, and Mr. Harper is stepping into it. His objective would appear to be the restoration of liberal-democratic resolve against tyranny.

Afghanistan is on the PM's mind. Even the most patient electorate tends to wear down through long wars, and Canadian troops have been slugging it out in this one since 2002. "When we went into Kandahar province in late 2005, before I took office, I think very few Canadians were aware of the implications that would have on our level of involvement. Since that time we have tripled our troop commitment. I don't even want to calculate how many times our budget has increased as a consequence."

145

Osama Bin Asshat Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:12:40pm

Obama is far more socialist than Harper. As well, Canadian troops are dying at a disproportionate rate in Afghanistan and are the second largest force there outside of the Yanks. Canada also entered both World Wars before the USA. Canada is a warring nation if it needs to be, don't listen to the lefties.

146

ducktrapper Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:29:15pm

I'm going to support the Prime Minister and say at least read the whole interview. I think he's right. It will take a stronger central government in Kabul to win and make Afghanistan safe for democracy if it ever does become safe for democracy. However, if all we are doing is making Afghanistan safe for Islamic law and the eventual return of the Taliban, what's the point? I'm sort of for taking the 'Mote in God's Eye' approach to the whole region. Ring it with predators and kill anything that moves outside of it.

147

Clubsec Mon, Mar 2, 2009 3:45:09pm

From Robt. D Kaplan's "Imperial Grunts" (re: Lt. Col. Wilhelm):
In 1985 he was sent to the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College at Kingston, Ontario, a bastion of British colonial tradition where you wore a tie after six and were given your own napkin ring at mess. "There was a lot of esprit. Everything was deliberate, meticulous, with a fierce sense of a warrior ethic, despite the lack of opportunities Canada had to prove it. I never worked harder writing op orders. The Canadians didn't blink; they just demanded more detail. I get angry whenever someone belittles the Canadian military."

AND elsewhere in Imperial Grunts the remark about 'Princess Patricia's (Light) Infantry Regiment' ... "They are some real ass-kickers."

Oh, and you'll recall they did some sort of land assault from the sea at a place ... June 6th, 1944 on a defended portion of the French coast called Normandy. Real ass-kickers indeed.

Also, the CAF has in it's ranks the only pilots and ground crews to place in the top categories in the annual air-to-air and air-to-ground competitions (use to be called 'Red Flag') with the USAF and USN aircrews. No other air force rates a mention in these competitions.

148

Olderthandirt Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:30:55pm

The bravery of the Canadian forces is not in question, they have fought well wherever they've served in recent times. However, with President Obama perhaps the Canadian PM is realizing that unless Obama steps up to the Afghanistan challenge , that operation will come a cropper.

Obama is playing at being CinC much more so than Bubba Clinton did and Clinton was a pretend piker compared to Obama.

I'm just hoping that there's no need for an American Kipling to write a poem about a soldier on the fields of Afghanistan, but do fear that the need will be there thanks to Obama.

149

So? Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:33:25pm

Prime Minister Harper is absolutely right. It's a total waste of human life. Money and whatever else. Bring the boys HOME NOW!

150

So? Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:35:24pm

re: #37 Ringo the Gringo

If by "win", he means that we will never turn Afghanistan into a thriving, modern society with fine restaurants and a booming tourism industry, then he's right.

To me, "win" means preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safehaven for international terrorism.

And so what if the terrorist are there? Better there than here. At least we can keep an eye on them by satellite. The war is bullshit.

151

holycrusader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:50:29pm

re: #90 Kenneth
Exactly! This is totally spun around to fit a liberal agenda.

152

holycrusader Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:54:08pm

Have a look at this WSJ article

"What would seem to set Mr. Harper apart from numerous other NATO leaders is that he cares deeply about achieving results. But he is no Pollyanna. "We are not going to 'defeat' the insurgency. The best we can do is train the Afghans so that they are able to manage the insurgency themselves and create, not a Western liberal democracy, because Afghanistan is not going to look like that any time soon, but at least a government that has some democratic and rule-of-law norms that is moving in a positive direction."

What will it take? For starters, he says it needs a return of U.S. focus which has been lost because of Iraq. He is encouraged by President Obama's decision to increase troop numbers in Kandahar. But he also believes the U.S. strategy needs rethinking. "I would encourage the [Obama] administration to really assess what its objectives are and to make sure they are realistic and achievable."

The implications of failure there would be large. "Afghanistan is a serious test for NATO," he warns. "NATO has taken on a United Nations mission and NATO must succeed or I do think the future of NATO as we've known it is in considerable doubt."

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

That place is a c rap hole. NATO needs to get it's act together in order to win.

153

funky chicken Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:58:07pm

re: #31 Maximu§

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an interview that allied forces will never defeat the Afghan insurgency.

Perhaps Mr. Harper knows exactly WTF he's talking about...perhaps he read a few history books and see's the writing on the wall. My oldest Boy's Brigade deploys to Afghanistan in November and from my POV:

-There's no way we can win as long as the Taliban have safe haven in Pakistan.

-Our soldiers there are hostage to Pakistan's whims, because they can cut them off very easily. I read (in here I believe) that there are only (2) supply routes that supply our ground troops and both of them go through Pakistan.

Want to win in Afghanistan? Unleash the US Air Force and unleash the Ohio Class SSBN's on Northwestern Pakistan.

Yep. Harper's right. My husband is currently in Afghanistan, and frankly, there's no reason for our people to risk their lives in that hellhole any longer. You guys can crow like tough guys all you want, but that doesn't change the situation over there.

154

realwest Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:11:36pm

While I regret that I'm so late to this thread, a few realities need to be faced.
Number one is that Harper is saying NATO can't win in Afghanistan and he's probably right about that; NATO member states, almost to every single one of them, have forgotten how to make or fight WAR, because, except for Great Britain, the U.S. has had the responsibility to defend the West.
The US did not take the "easy areas first" as someone upthread mentioned; Tora Bora was and is as hairy a place to wage infantry warfare as any place on earth. But we prevailed. We kicked the crap out of over 1,000 Al-Q "fighters" and many more than that of the Taliban - of course, we used B-52 bombers and shock and awe (we weren't playing nice then). And we probably killed Osama bin Laden in the Process.
But to think that WE, the USA, should NOT prevail in a nation which knowingly hid out bin Laden and Al-Q, gave them training and recruiting bases so that they could pull off 9/11 is totally and completely unacceptable.
Can't "find" a land route in, MAKE ONE. Until then, throw 50,000 or so of the US troops no longer needed in Iraq into Afghanistan, use many more drones on the frontier with Pakistan and endeavor to KILL every Taliban and Al-Q fighter within one-half mile of his entry into Afghanistan. Yes the war can and MUST be won to thoroughly avenge 9/11. OUR military can do it IF we have the political will to do so.
Regrettably the American People elected Obama so we will probably shame ourselves as a nation - as we did in Vietnam - and pull out before we achieve victory.

155

CanuckInMI Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:22:07pm

I don't think Stephen Harper was saying what CNN seems to have put in his mouth. I read a Wall Street Journal article on the weekend in which he said

"We are not going to 'defeat' the insurgency. The best we can do is train the Afghans so that they are able to manage the insurgency themselves and create, not a Western liberal democracy, because Afghanistan is not going to look like that any time soon, but at least a government that has some democratic and rule-of-law norms that is moving in a positive direction."

Seems like a reasonable assessment to me. I would like to remind all you other lizards that although Canada has fewer resources to commit to Afghanistan, they've put their troops in harm's way consistently since the Harper took power in '06. Some other 'allies' are keeping their troops in Kabul where they have less chance of being harmed.

Read the rest of the article at the wall street journal.

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

156

Dark_Falcon Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:41:37pm

Normally I don't post on old threads, but I have to agree with pegcity and Maximus on this one: The Taliban cannot be defeated unless their safe areas in Pakistan are eliminated. Unless that happens, we cannot gain a decisive victory.

157

Josephine Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:34:44pm

re: #141 J.S.

Hi, Josephine. I've missed your posts...(I'll have to look up your links for that Pashtun Rally...back in Feb. I also provided an info link here at lgf about the anti-Taliban rally in Toronto...)

Hi, J.S., thanks so much for your kind words!

I heard about the rally at a luncheon the week before. Tarek Fatah and Salim Mansur were giving a talk on Accommodation vs. Intimidation (or something like that - my memory is so bad). In the Q & A session afterwards, an acquaintance of mine asked why Muslims weren't doing more to protest against terrorists and Tarek Fatah mentioned the rally and said they were having a hard time getting any media interest. (I personally think it's because there was no anti-Israel bias to be exploited by the media.) Tarek Fatah was in the crowd at the rally; he was not one of their speakers.

158

Basho Mon, Mar 2, 2009 7:45:17pm

I remember Ed Koch pointing out that Afghanistan is nothing but tribes, and that there is basically no way it can become anything like what we would consider a country.

So even without the safe areas in Pakistan, and even if the current government weren't as corrupt as I've been hearing, the situation is still pretty bad.

Afghanistan is a complicated mess. Which is sad considering the amazing heroics the US special forces have done there.

159

dak Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:18:44pm

LSD

Thank you for putting those words in context. Often the media will misquote to tar Conservatives, or quote out of context. Shame on some of you lizards. After 8 years of Bush, haven't you learn how the media will distort and misquote? How many times have they put word into Condoleeza's mouth, found memos warning of 9/11, accused McCain or racism, etc etc?

Context. Read the whole thing.

We bought C-17s for that mission. We're getting C-130Js. We just formed a helo Wing out there, with Griffins and CH147Ds. Heard we also bought some pretty good howitzers a couple of years back. The boys are doing a great job. Where' putting up.

But a change in strategy is needed, as noted above. The Afghans have to win this one for themselves too.

Myself, I think it was nice to try to reconstruct the country, etc etc. But armies are not NGOs. My type of solution involves what we did to the Germans and Japanese. Notice how nice they behave today.

160

day734380 Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:55:02pm

I actually viewed that VIDEO segment of Obama's most recent visit to meet with Harper... In that visit, Obama gave a "practiced and polished" speech about the huge sacrifices that Canada has made in this region...

He went on and on...

Until it was time for Harper to speak....
Harper made it clear that the mission of his troops in Afghanistan, is to train Afghan forces...
(Followed by a few more of 'Harper words' and a NEWS cut)

SO:
It is my belief that the Leftist Media is setting Obama up for turning down war... And further proof will be the complete negotiation by terror groups, and Democratic/Sharia Law Islamification of the region...

By full consent...
Obama will then be free from a mission which supposedly no longer has an enemy. But just as downsizing the military (under the guise of increasing it by 4%) has been tried... Hit and (sometimes) miss attacks ensure.

Chicago economy, and Chicago war....
Eventual costs always out-weigh an easy out...

161

SpiritOf1683 Tue, Mar 3, 2009 6:01:11am

To win you've got to wipe out everything that's hostile, and if that means wiping out everything, then so be it.

Of course, with the PC multiculti West we have been living in for the past 45 years, that is never likely to happen.

162

Yashmak Tue, Mar 3, 2009 7:15:10am

re: #31 Maximu§

Perhaps Mr. Harper knows exactly WTF he's talking about...perhaps he read a few history books and see's the writing on the wall.

The Russians would probably agree with him as well. They wrote quite a few books on the subject. As long as operations are restricted to Afghanistan, leaving the insurgents with over-the-border safe havens, we can't defeat them. We can (and will) beat them in every battle fought in Afghanistan proper, but their leadership will still be intact, on the other side of the border, whipping up new support amongst the poor tribes to send across the border later.

With Pakistan an ever-larger question mark, it may be a good idea to at least start THINKING of alternatives.

163

Ty85719 Tue, Mar 3, 2009 9:33:25am

Everyone should have seen this in the cards - the rhetoric used in regard to Iraq is now being applied to Afghanistan. Our foreign "allies" are nothing but poison.

164

Millie Woods Wed, Mar 4, 2009 7:28:38am

Amerucan posters read Afghanistan's history. The country has always been a can of worms. In the 19th century the British forces in India were fighting on the northwest frontier trying to subdue the Afghan hordes - without success. Stephen Harper was only pointing out a perennial lose/lose situation for involvement in Afghanistan. And frankly who needs this idiotic place. Americans naive belief that they can bring the benefits of democratic government to assorted hellholes worldwide should be abandoned once and for all. The rest of the ungrateful world is not worth the sacrifice of one decent American life.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Canada PM Harper: Allies Can’t Win in Afghanistan

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud