And on Easter as well. I mourn for those families and urge everyone to send a letter to Harper (postage if free) demanding either pull out or get the UN in.

“This morning my first reaction to this news was to get on a place, fly to Ottawa, and throw history books at General Hillier, Mr. O’Connor, and the Prime Minister.”

i’d like to donate some books to that cause… we had a lecture by a representative from a Canadian privately funded conservative think tank that explained to us there is no winning in Afghanistan at this point, its a war of retribution. His version of the good news was that we had killed more ‘insurgents’ than we had lost soldiers. Because that is apparently a measure of success, and the fact that it has done nothing to damage the insurgents will to carry on is irrelevant. It was telling that when I asked the speaker if there was any local support from Afghans for Canadian troops (i.e. any sign of popular will being for western involvement) he dodged the question like Rip Torn just aimed a wrench at him.

51 troops since 2002…that’s 51 too many. Why won’t our government wake the fuck up ???!! It makes me sick that the world news seems to revolve around what little bimbo twit is in rehab this week. What a world…what a world…

ncguitarplyr, what business is it of ours to ‘take them out’? because bush proclaimed anyone harbouring terrorists a target? then why aren’t we in Saudi Arabia right now?

and secondly, if we really had to go into afghanistan, we could’ve done it properly through the UN as Matt said, instead of acting like another arm of the rebellious American military.

We need to be building, educating and repairing at home, I agree as stated above. Maybe if we educate more, this will be avoided in the future. Terrible loss for the families as well as our Country. My familie condolences.

Thanks for the ceasefire link.

To the families of the six fallen soldiers, Biovail, General Dynamics and anyone else reaping massive profits from this and any other war wish to express their profound gratitude.

It should be noted that im a completely biased American…having visited the pentagon, pennsylvania, and the world trade center and then seeing them have planes flown into them on tv doesn’t leave one with a straight mind.

I just don’t think 9/11 was something America could let go. I think if we found someone who so much as gave Bin Laden a paperclip we would have bombed them. Sure there are other nations that harbor and support terrorists but this was something on a whole different scale. We just couldn’t let this one slide and we kinda had to make a statement as much as we had to actually get the terrorist sponsoring government out of Afganistan.

I’m of the mindset that an attack on an ally is an attack on you. I know if 9/11 had happened to Canada, America would be there. At the same time I don’t blame anyone for wanting to get out of this. Our government has mishandeled everything in front of it, not least of which are the two wars we are currently involved in. I personally drove about a hundred fellow students to the polls in the last presidential election and worked actively during the entire campaign to try and get Bush out. I hope everyone in Canada realizes that not all of us Americans are neocons. But at the same time you won’t find many people down here that disagree with the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we aren’t seeing straight but I hope we atleast got into 1 war with good reason.

nc, one problem is afghanistan was never a priority (as is evidenced by the number of troops sent there as compared to iraq), and because of this afghanistan is still in disarray. Funny how the United States tied Iraq to Al-queda with about as much evidence, perhaps even less, than the evidence linking the US to the talaban.

Sadly, 6 US soldiers also died today in Iraq. No matter what the country of origin these troops are from should not makes us any more or any less upset. Does it matter if it is an American, Canadian, or an Iraqi killed? The bottom line seems to be that
people are dying for nothing, and any senseless loss of life should be just as disheartening no matter what nationality the casuality is from. We should all be outraged for our countries being involved in these wars.

I came up with a credo earlier today. It seems that this credo holds little strength when it comes to things out of our control. Maybe I can own that down to karma. It’s a sick world and many people have been sick for a long time, though Death is not the answer when it is the result of war.

Choice Credo “By Aaron Choice”
If you can make a difference and do something good
You should stay on that path
Support, Help, Do what you can to make that difference
And Success will come your way
If you do nothing
Caught about in the entanglements of poor me, etcetera
Your karma put you right there
And you can stay and suffer where you are nothing.

Out of Order Wars led by greedy humans sicken and distort it all so creeds like this don’t always come true due to the inner workings of (mis)information.

“I do agree that we as americans could not just sit back and watch our country be attacked time and time again.”

no offense, but america has no idea, as a populous, what its like to be attacked “time and time again”. i still dont buy the argument that you HAD to bomb the hell out of afghanistan, especially considering how many saudi’s were actually responsible for 9/11.

Private David Greenslade was a very good friend of mine and the news yesterday afternoon came as a great shock to all of us. I thought of David on a daily basis, but Afghanistan seems like a world away and until yesterday when the phone rang it didn’t hit home that our men are over there and in real danger.

David knew going over there that his mission would be dangerous and probably deadly, but he did look forward to going. His courage and bravery amazed me at the time and it continues to do so today. At 20 years old he showed more maturity than anyone else I have ever met. In my head I picture him as the goofy kid and teen that I knew him as and the pictures shown in the newspapers and on websites today don’t capture him as the person he really was. The pictures being shown don’t show the innocence he had. In those pictures he looks like a man I guess.

David’s family is coping as well as can be expected. They’ll be leaving for Ontario in the next couple of days and I will continue to pray for them and all the other families who find themselves in the same situation. I am dreading the funeral next week, but I’ll be brave and try not to shed many tears as David died doing what he loved and he really believed that he was helping accomplish something over there. I just hope that his death, and the deaths of others, are not in vain.

“I do agree that we as americans could not just sit back and watch our country be attacked time and time again.�

no offense, but america has no idea, as a populous, what its like to be attacked “time and time againâ€?. i still dont buy the argument that you HAD to bomb the hell out of afghanistan, especially considering how many saudi’s were actually responsible for 9/11″

No Offense taken.. and the point was not that we have been attaked time and time again it was that we cannot just let it happen. I did not agree with the decision to bomb the hell out of afghanastan either, but it was not my decision to make. I do not and have not agreed with Bush and some of decisions he has made during his presidency.

I feel for the souls of those who are bystandards in this war.

Different tactics, same pile of pooh. Each country feels vindicated in it’s actions to fight for what it believes in. The US felt the right to invade because of 911. The invaded countries feel the right to protect what’s their’s from foriegn invasion. Sure the Taliban and insurgents in Iraq may not represent the majority, but nor does all of the US agree with Bush and the war(s). But is one more right than the other?

It’s a vicious cycle which will never end. And it’s unfortunate that we in the western world see our fight as more worthy and justified. As if our lives are worth more.

The weapons should be put down on both sides and true human understanding and acceptance should lead the discussion on how to get out of this mess.

I know, I’m an idealist, and it’s frustrating.

I served three years in the Reserves until beaurocratic incompetence drove me out. I have one good friend that has gone to Afghanistan, and as we studied political science together in Uni i asked him what he thought, as a soldier on the ground. He believed, and still does as far as i know, that the Canadian presence there is making a difference. He wants to stay, and those around him feel the same. These are not journalists, or politcians, but the men getting shot at, injured, and in this case, killed. They think they are making a difference, and in the case of Afghanistan, i hope that we are.
One thing that alot of people seem to forget is that after 9/11, the US pretty much had a mandate from the ME to find Bin Laden and take him out. No one wanted to touch him with a ten foot pole, and when the Taliban refused to give him up. I don’t remember hearing alot of opposition from the ME about the west going in there. Its easy now, years later, to point and blame and say how we shouldn’t be there. I firmly believe that Afghanistan is a far different place than Iraq. Iraq has destablized the entire balance of power in the ME, and the cause the uprising of more than a few radicals. In Afghanistan, not so much. It seems to be more of despots trying to hold onto power.
Should we have gone into Afghanistan, debatable. But we are there now, we supported our ally, and i do think that Canadian armed forces are making a difference. It will take time, and yes i realize that top down democracy from another county never works, especially in the ME, where even their intellectuals (Qutb, Mawdudi) say that the division of religion and politics probably won’t happen. That being said, i think that the Canadian armed forces are taking a far better approach than the Americans and Brits in Iraq. At least from where i, and my buddy in Afghanistan, are sitting.

Piece by piece.

Quoting Matthew Good:

I’ve gotta comment on this. The whole comparing Iraq to Afghanistan thing is really getting under my skin because it’s not the same thing. There’s a very real enemy over there that Canada faces and we shouldn’t dismiss it.

US Central Command governs operations in both threatres. The allocation of US military resources since the invasion of Iraq has been extremely imbalanced between the two, leaving NATO forces acting as little more than US proxies. This places NATO forces in greater danger because not only must NATO commanders ultimately adhere to CENTCOM operational governance, but the allocation of US military resources does not exist on a level significant enough to seriously effect the situation.

No comparison was made between the wars themselves, simply the use of NATO as a proxy to help offset US military deployments in Iraq.

Quoting Matthew Good:

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that Iraq wasn’t broken before the U.S. invaded it. Afghanistan was already badly broken when NATO moved in to deal with it. The U.N. certainly wasn’t doing anything about the problem. I don’t see how a U.N. mandate now will be any better.

Afghanistan has been in a perpetual state of conflict in some form or another for centuries. The Taliban is simply one in a series of governments that has attracted the disapproval of foreign powers. In the 80’s Kabul was home to a Soviet backed government and the United States funded both Mujahideen and the Northern Alliance efforts to remove them. They did this in some cases directly, and in other cases through intermediaries such as the Saudis and the Pakistanis. None the less, the defeat of the Soviets is what created the power vacuum in Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to eventually seize control of portions of the country.

That said, how was the regime in Afghanistan any better than the current Saudi regime? The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, just as the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis. But we’re not permitted to talk of Saudi Arabia in a disparaging way. In fact, following 9/11 not only was the Saudi ambassador to the United States given enormous amounts of airtime to defuse Saudi involvement, but the Saudis were also allowed to launch a massive PR campaign promoting their relationship with the United States as allies.

Quoting Matthew Good:

For starters, section 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, a treaty of which Canada is a founding party, obligates us to be there. Forces sent from Afghanistan attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. They may have been crazy undercover terrorist forces, but they are still an enemy, and they attacked one of our allies.

When was Section 5 of the treaty ratified last? October 4th of 2001. The reason? Because US foreign policy was going to veer dramatically post 9/11 towards a preemptive, unilateralist outlook and it was surely expected that ‘nation building’ within the UN was going to be a problem because of it. The day after 9/11 one of the issues discussed at the Pentagon was the possibility of striking Iraq, even though no link between Iraq and 9/11 existed or had even been investigated. This fact is one of the earliest indications that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was being adopted as official policy and that steps would have to be taken to ensure that the United States would not have to act entirely alone. It should also be noted that the government of Afghanistan did not attack the United States, and it has been argued by international legal experts that the invasion of that country indeed constituted an illegal act.

In essence, NATO has been little more than a grandiose gun running operation since the end of the Cold War. It inducts new Eastern European members who are then approached with arms initiatives. In this case, member states are being used as proxies to offset a vastly over-stretched US military, one whose political superiors knew would be abandoning Afghan operations for the eventual invasion of Iraq. So we come to their aid and then find ourselves in the role of a mop up crew.

Quoting Matthew Good:

I suppose we could have declared the Taliban militarily beaten and went home, but instead we decided to stay and really, thoroughly clean the place out. If we don’t rid Afghanistan of the terrorists they are just going to keep on causing trouble and destroying things. Ultimately, this work will have to be done in every state which harbours them.

Now this is the sort of ambiguous statement that frightens me.

Who has bolstered the Taliban’s numbers? Men that adhere to its zealotry, or, for example, Pashtun refugees that would rather be ruled by a bad government than one imposed by a foreign power? The Taliban has been bolstered in many cases by common Afghans who view foreign military occupiers as a threat, not a solution. And they will most likely continue to do so because, as Gandhi once said, a people will always favour their own bad government to the good government of a foreign power, be it occupational or supplanted.

Quoting Matthew Good:

On 9/11 the terrorists proved that they were able to strike out at targets beyond the Middle East. Many Canadians have deluded themselves into thinking that Canada is somehow safe from the same thing. We are not. What’s it going to take to wake people up, I wonder? Airplane crashing into the CN Tower? Gas attack on the Toronto subway? Dirty bomb in the middle of the Rogers Centre? When I hear people going on about about how Canada shouldn’t get involved, I shake my head. We may be small, but we were on the jihadist hit list long before 9/11. Groups like the Taliban don’t give a damn that we traditionally go in for peacekeeping. We are infidels and we must submit to their way or be destroyed.

Again, while the Taliban regime was one which was religiously extreme, it did not carry out the attacks of 9/11. In fact, not one Afghan was involved in the attacks.

It should also be made very clear that in no way does the Qur’an actually promote Jihad, nor does it promote the use of violence. I suggest you actually read it.

Quoting Matthew Good:

Those soldiers you want back home so desperately are fighting a battle in a long term war for the survival of your civilization in its present state and you should feel lucky they are willing to stick their necks out for you. Exaggaeration? I’ll bet you’ve been hearing more about Islam on the news these days. Won’t happen here? Care to bet your way of life on that? Groups like Al-Qaeda don’t have to beat you militarily to attack you at home.

Fighting for the survival of my civilization? First, lets make sure you’re using the proper term, because the last time I read the definition of civilization it was the stage of human development that is considered the most advanced. Now, if you want to put that into terms of power, then is that something worth fighting for? Is the ability to liquefy 53 million people with a single Ohio Trident Class submarine something to be proud of? Is that civilized? Was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan civilized even though that entire summer they were trying to surrender? Was the invasion of Iraq civilized – and don’t kid yourself into thinking that we’re not there because there is evidence that JTF2 certainly has been. What exactly about our society is more civilized than any other? That we use human rights as pretext to overthrow despots that we once financed? That we use covert means to overthrow governments and replace them with ones that are easier to coerce and exploit for our own profit, just as we did in Haiti? Is it civilized to steal an entire continent and subjugate its people and then refuse to even offer them an official apology?

We are not civilized whatsoever. We are just living under that pretense because it justifies our incivility. Like it or not, at the end

First, that was a rhetorical statement. It was not to infer that even more zealots have flooded their numbers but regular Afghans and Pashtun refugees, which is, in fact, the case.

Beyond that, having read your entire comment, I wanted to primarily focus on this statement…

Quoting Matthew Good:

“You would think Middle Eastern types would love the U.S. what with all the oil they consume. The U.S. is like the Middle East’s best customer. But yet they hate them, and us too, just because we’re close.”

Here’s a little primer for you about how things work…

Quoting Matthew Good:

“The Gulf Cooperation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain), Iran, and Iraq jointly possess 64% of the world’s proven oil reserves. The most important among Gulf states is Saudi Arabia, which alone controls 27% of the world’s oil supplies. Saudi Arabia’s light crude is particularly sought after in the market by U.S. industries for sophisticated uses such as production of airplane fuels. Furthermore, money generated from Saudi oil sales to the U.S. often translates into Saudi arms purchases from U.S. weapons dealers.

Oil represents the backbone of the Saudi economy. But despite its small population and its oil revenues reaching $45 billion, in the 1990-93 period Saudi foreign and domestic debt climbed to $70 billion. Most of this was the result of arms purchases, largely from the United States. Riyadh allocates 35% to 45% of its budget for military spending. The rise of opposition forces within Saudi Arabia is linked to this pattern of arms spending as well as the corrupt practices of the monarchy. To the opposition, U.S. imports of Saudi oil and Washington’s role as guarantor of Saudi oil for Europe and Japan reflect U.S. support for the practices of the regime, including suppression of dissent, human rights abuses, and the exclusion of the population from political participation. In this sense, the clandestine Saudi opposition sees the U.S. as a partner to the regime and thus regards U.S. installations as legitimate targets for resistance.

For the last decade or so, Gulf monarchies have invested higher percentages of oil profits in land, hotels, real estate, factories, and other enterprises in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. As a result, increasing income of the oil-exporting states is linked to profits from unrelated businesses in oil-importing states rather than from the sale of oil itself. This gives the Gulf oil states some stake in keeping oil prices relatively moderate, since they share financial interests in the oil-importing countries. This diversification also provides the Gulf states additional leverage to manipulate oil prices and production. The result is that the monarchies can manipulate the world oil markets while remaining relatively protected.

The U.S. does not take into account its allies’ human rights violations, arms spending, or political repression.

Before the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the two legs of U.S. policy in the oil-rich Gulf region were Iran and Saudi Arabia. With the victory of the Islamic Revolution, reliance on Iran ended, and U.S. policy has still not regained its balance. Foremost among the problems with current U.S. oil policy is that the cost of protecting Gulf oil, with the U.S. insisting on a unilateral defense strategy, is too high.

Despite their high dependence on Gulf oil, neither Japan nor Europe plays a major role in strategic defense of the region, and as long as its partners ante up cash for major operations like Desert Storm, the U.S. is prepared to continue to keep strategic command. Even without a crisis of Desert Storm proportions, oil from the Gulf ends up costing more than its per-barrel price because of billions in defense costs.

The U.S. became painfully aware of the need for a new oil policy after the oil shocks of 1973-75 and 1978-80. In 1973, the per-barrel price of Saudi light crude was $2.41. With the Arab oil embargo it quickly rose to $10.73. Then, beginning in 1978, the price of a barrel of crude shot up from $13.34 to $32.81. Since then the U.S. has been publicly committed to reducing dependence on foreign oil. However, despite repeated promises by both Democratic and Republican presidents, the U.S. has actually increased that dependence.

Instead of trying to wean the country from Gulf oil, Washington has focused on military-strategic efforts to ensure dominance in the oil region. However, its major approach, dual containment, is fundamentally flawed. Its stated purpose is to protect the flow of reasonably priced oil, yet it was imposed when oil prices were plummeting and the oil states were frustrated because of a glut on the market. In this sense, the large U.S. military presence in the Gulf, supposedly preventing Iran and Iraq from threatening oil supplies, is unnecessary. Furthermore, the current U.S. military presence has negative political consequences for the stability of the oil regimes, as seen in the latest attacks on the U.S. military installation in Saudi Arabia.”

First and foremost, how would you feel if you lived in country that was being exploited by a foreign power for the sake of natural resources? Because the truth is, not all Middle Eastern countries are filled with multi-millionaires by the truck load. It should also not be forgotten that Osama Bin Landen’s primary gripe was with the House of Saud for their allowance of a US military presence in Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, and let’s not forget that up until that occurred he was asset of the United States, Bin Laden’s first course of action was to approach the Saudi government and tell them that those he had fought with in Afghanistan against the Soviets could handle the Iraqis without involving others. Instead, because of their ties to the West, the House of Saud chose to go the other way, resulting in US military bases in Saudi Arabia that remained until 2003. That was Osama Bin Laden’s primary problem. He knew the exploitative nature of the situation and had witnessed first hand during his time in Afghanistan how the United States operated with regards to the support of whomever served their policies best – which would be why they were able to fund help fund the MAK in Afghanistan in the 80’s while at the same time supporting the secularist regime of Saddam Hussein – whom Bin Laden disliked. That would be one of the reasons why money from the US was largely funneled through intermediaries such as the Pakistani ISI and the Saudis. But don’t think it beyond him to realize that that connection existed. US personnel were active in Afghanistan during that period, it was no mystery.

There is also the situation and US support for Israel with regards to the occupation of Palestine to consider as well, not to mention meddling in the affairs of others in the region over the decades. All of these things are pretext when it comes to the transformation of MAK to al-Qaeda and their dislike for US policies. I am, by no means, defending the man or the actions undertaken by his organization, or in its name for that matter, which is a more likely reality in some cases. While the events of 9/11 shocked the world, it must not be overlooked that the base of that shock was the fact that such a power could be struck with such force. In that, it must also not be overlooked that most could not place the reasons for such an attack in proper context. You cannot dance with devils and expect them to continually whisper sweet nothings in your ear. That is the true reality of 9/11, one that has been overlooked since it took place.

That said, Iraq now having been occupied, who do you think is being awarded the oil contracts? Foreign trans-corporations. In 1953, when the democratically elected President of Iran attempted to nationalize Iranian oil, he was removed from power by a joint CIA-MI6 operation called Operation Ajax. His overthrow meant that Western oil companies could continue to exploit Iranian oil while bringing the Shah back to power who ruled for almost three decades and whose regime was responsible for human rights abuses. Cause and effect eventually led to the revolution in that country and an open disdain for the United States and others.

One only need look at what is happening right now in Latin America, and the covert funding of right wing parties through the likes of the NED and USAID, to realize that, for example, Hugo Chavez’s partial nationalization of Venezuelan oil is considered a threat to US interests. Venezuela is the 6th largest exporter of oil to the United States, and because Chavez is seen as a threat in that regard, a massive propaganda campaign has been initiated against him and other like-minded Latin American leaders. The same was true of Castro, who, before leading the revolution that overthrew a wholly corrupt and US backed government, attempted to evoke change in Cuba through democratic means by supporting Eduardo Chibás, who would shoot himself during a radio interview during a second attempt while running for President. Castro then turned to other political doctrines that focused more on social equalities, being that Cuba was gripped by foreign exploitation and rife with extreme poverty. After the revolution, the United States backed a force that attempted to recapture the country which, as we all know, failed. They also funded anti-Castro militants responsible for attacks on agricultural and industrial elements within the country. Following the failed invasion he turned to the Soviets, whom he saw as the only solution to thwarting continued US attempts to reclaim Cuba, the primary concern being an all out US invasion of the country. Thus, the Cuban missile crisis occurred, which found Castro in the middle of two world super powers embroiled in a global game that had found Cuba’s shores. And from that time forward remained allied with them primarily because the relationship provided a security buffer and also because his own ideology, and that of the revolution itself, was more akin to that of the Soviet Union. But one has to wonder, were he not forced into a corner and allowed to open his country to foreign markets, would Cuba have remained as isolated? Would he have had to take extreme measures, many of which I immensely disagree with on a human rights basis, to safeguard what he had started? Were democratic elections to be held next year in Cuba, do you think that the likes of Canada and the United States wouldn’t be funding one of the candidates and that they would go to extreme lengths to ensure that they were successful? Of course they would.

Why have I brought this up you might be asking. Because it is a counter point. It demonstrates a different form of terrorism – economic terrorism and the ability to use both the threat of military action and economic sanctions to imprison a country.

For every ten people in Cuba there is a physician. In fact, it produces some of the world’s best physicians that are sent by the Cuban government of their own accord to respond to disasters around the world. After the massive earthquake in central asia, Cuban doctors were there. After the Tsunami, the same thing. In fact, following hurricane Katrina, Castro even offered to send Cuban medical teams to Louisiana to help. The offer was, of course, declined.

In the case of men like Hugo Chavez, why are the people overwhelmingly electing them, even after attempts to remove them have been initiated by American backed political parties? When all is said and done, will the Iraqi people, having suffered what they have, benefit from their oil resources, or will the West? And if Iraq’s government, when the day comes that it is finally stabilized, decides that part of the reconstruction effort to aid its people should be the partial or full nationalization of Iraqi oil, what do you think the response will be?

By the way, you do realize that at Fort Benning, Georgia, there has existed a school for quit some time called the School Of The Americas where the United States has trained some of the worst thugs in Latin American history, among them long time CIA asset Manuel Noriega (not to mention para-militaries galore who have been used for decades to destabilize movements that the US considers threats to their economic stranglehold on the region).

Thus, we come full circle to Osama Bin Laden, a man that like many before him is using a religious basis for the application of his own warped ideology, though it should not be overlooked that that ideology has some basis because of the foreign policy history of the United States in the Middle East. Of course, the actions of those who follow him cannot be excused, nor can his own command of those actions. He is a murderer, plain and simple. That said, how are we to view men like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld?

Ultimately, as an ordinary citizen, how would you feel if there were a Saudi military presence in Canada because of our oil simply to protect their interests - which would be, in no small part, the affordable availability of fuel so people can drive massive pick-up trucks and sit in wall to wall traffic? How would you feel about that if, for example, you lived in the slums of a city in a country whose natural resources were being carted away by Western oil companies and none of it trickled down to you? Probably rather pissed off I’d assume, being that people in this country get pissed off when taxes are raised and they don’t even realize they live in a country that has socialized systems that require public tax funding to succeed.

You’re right, the people who died on 9/11 didn’t deserve it. Then again, the 3,000 Panamanians that died because of errant US bombs during their invasion of Panama didn’t deserve it. The 600,000 Iraqis that have died since 2003 haven’t deserved it. The thousands of Afghans that have been killed by errant bombing and accidental shootings haven’t deserved it. Come to think of it, anyone who has been killed by a despotic regime backed by the United States or any other Western power for the last half century hasn’t deserved it. So what gives you the right to put a greater onus on the worth of their lives? What about the CIA backed death squads in El Salvador, or Pinochet’s regime, or Suharto’s?

Ultimately we are talking about the anger over an attack on power, a highly successful one at that. It is a power that uses others when it must and disregards them when they no longer matter. Look only at events in Somalia as proof positive of the utter hypocrisy prevalent in that mindset. The same warlords that were once the target of a US led UN mission are now being backed by them and aided by the Ethiopian military which is also being backed by the US. Some will argue that elements with the ICU had ties to al-Qaeda, or more realistically, radical views that could be aligned to theirs. Then again, they were the first group to successfully bring peace to most of that nation in years, be it through the implementation of Sharia law or not. Ironically, the US is willing to aid in their removal but hasn’t done anything about the government in Khartoum which is responsible for supporting Islamic extremists that are committing genocide in Darfur.

A good friend of mine, a retired Captain in the CF once said to me - if someone can tell me what the desired end state is in about a dozen words they’re worth entering into some sort of discussion on the subject. If it takes them more than that then I say that that is not an end state, because an end state is clearly defined.

So what is the end state? A mirror democracy that is influenced by the West? The destruction of the Taliban? If that’s the case then what about the Northern Alliance? Is it the removal of them both? Is it the destruction of the poppy fields which are the only source of actual income for people of the world’s poorest nation? Is it to revive their economy with a magic wand so that they’re driving SUV’s and living in condos in Kabul in 10 years time? Is the end state a democracy with Western values that maintains close economic ties to the West or that enters into trade agreements that allow it to be exploited in return for security and military training and arms sales? Or is it to allow the Afghan people to decide for themselves what’s to become of their country after the impossible task of eliminating every person in it that has the potential to view the West with the same eyes as the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden? Is it to rid it of Islamic extremism, and if that’s the case, wouldn’t the invasion of parts of Pakistan also be required, primarily Waziristan? Would an end state see the cooperation of Afghan tribes that have long clashed, or the division of the country into new nations? Would an end state include permanent military bases? Does it include decades of economic assistance in the tens of billions?

Ultimately, would the destruction of the Taliban, or the death of Osama Bin Laden weaken the radical Islamic cause or embolden it? And if the latter is the case, then what sort of end state would that produce?

The truth is that there is no clearly defined end state, only an ambiguous war in perpetuity. So again, how many more Canadian lives will be lost by this time next year, and what will it ultimately be for?