Neither Chris K. nor I did explicitely talk about a “canadian mission”. So please don’t ask of people to sort of second-sight what you are explicitely aiming at when asking a very very plurivalent question like “What is the mission in Afghanistan again?” This question can OF COURSE be answered in the way I did, without being explicitely false - otherwise one should at least be allowed to ask for some profound argumentation against the stated points.
Your answer being “nope that’s not it”. It actually took me a great deal of self-discipline to enter into a further discussion considering these preconditions. I don’t know if you even realize how little you let other perspectives and views live next to your own.
What you are ranting about me not having an idea about the meaning of the word “fact” simply displays a simple minded thinking in categories like friend and foe, black and white, me and you, good and bad. You don’t have the slightest interest of getting to know about how I come to what I said about fact and opinion. Why should you, hey? It is far more pleasent to figuratively call other people idiots, making clear, that you are the one that’s just so incredibly well informed about all and everything.
You can’t tell the developpment of a profound and equal debate from aggressive exchange of blows and I am not used to permanently being attacked or people aggressively defineing how the discussion is going to look like. I will no longer take part in that since I think that there really is no need for me to wear myself down talking to a stone wall.

Maybe you should start to realize that this is a multilayer blog, full of nice, peaceful and considerate people (exceptions proving the rule), not Afghanistan or Iraq, full of enemies that are to be defeated.

“Fact” is what DND has stated as it’s mandate, “facts” are the results to achieve it thus far.

You think opinions create facts? And opinions are in many cases, created out of thin air.

“by fact based on broad consenus among many historians and scientists such as Peter Scholl-Latour, Noam Chomsky or Manfred Steger to name only a few.”

So broad consensus and fact and appealing to an authorities creates fact according to you? I disagree.

Here’s an opinion, I have the opinion, that you don’t know what the word “fact” means.

In fact, once again, and this has happened between you and I in the past - you seem to place an emotional stake in the outcome of your arguments and completely ignore what another side is saying. You then enter into a very circular type of reasoning: “I am right because I am right.”

You remind me a fair bit of some of the very far leaning right winged trolls that visit this site.

I asked a question to make a point, to draw attention to an obersvation of a social phenomenom, plain and simple.

That is: while many disagree with the mission and are for some form of change, many of the same are unaware of the mission as it is stated right now.

“What about the goal of maintaining or even improving Canada’s position within the globalized world system? You think, your country has no interest in that? And helping out the USA, the most powerful nation in the world, couldn’t be any helpful to that?”

Tuuli this says to me that you clearly have not a shred of understanding of the history of Canada’s involvement in this operation, or what it is going on there now as it relates to Canada. Your arguments are one sided, poorly worded and not critically thought out on this subject.

I’m talking about change.

If you think that by suggesting to Canadian policy makers that inferring Canada’s position in Afghanistan is so closely linked to parallels of the US in Iraq, you’d be quickly dismissed. And right or wrong, if it doesn’t help what’s the point?

Go read some of the speakers scripts from debates in parliament and actually research the dialogue that lead to what process Canada took to get to where it was in Afghanistan in 01-02, 03, and 04-present.

You were asking what the mission in Afghanistan was about, I answered. How can I draw away from a point you didn’t actually make clear in your question?

[quote comment="64677"]I have a lot of time for fact and reason and very little time for opinion.[/quote]

What is “fact” and what is “reason” if not subject to subjective valuation and thus deriving from opinion? Opinion isn’t necessarily made up out of thin air, it can be well backed up through research and thus creates fact.

[quote comment="64677"]You think your opinion and my opinion matter [/quote]

In an emancipatory way, yea.

[quote comment="64677"]When I asked what was the mission in Afghan it was to draw home the point that few Canadians could recite what it is Canadians are supposed to be doing in Afghanistan[/quote]

Why didn’t you just write that down exactly so? You were reacting to my statement, mind you.

[quote comment="64677"] It was not to enter into the discussion of how it was an opportunity for many a country to fall in line with American foreign policy or system maintenance.[/quote]

Fine, but perhaps the statement of mine you were reacting to was about that?

[quote comment="64677"]” “system maintenance”…. It was referred to US-american strategic interests in the region which can by implication be abstracted to be fitting the interests of a great deal of the western nations too.”
That is your opinion and not a fact - and be it true and accurate or not - to challenge policy makers on this platform achieves nothing.[/quote]

It is an opinion that is backed up by fact based on broad consenus among many historians and scientists such as Peter Scholl-Latour, Noam Chomsky or Manfred Steger to name only a few. I highly recommend Manfred Stegers “The rise of the global imaginary: Political ideologies from the French Revolution to the Global War on Terror”.

[quote comment="64677"]I say again, even if you are correct and accurate, which you may very well be, it is moot.
In fact, it makes changing foreign policy even harder, because then anyone who stands against it the CANADIAN operation in Afghanistan gets grouped into the same category of being hard line left and anti-American as opposed to pro best interests of Canada and Canadian foreign policy.[/quote]

Yea, I remember that being a strong problem in the Republic of Weimar as well, the result being the almost unhindered uprise of the Nazis. No one really dared to oppose since opposition was linked to being a leftist, a communist, liberal.
I ask you something: how do you hope to change something if you don’t criticise or at least try to make the people pay some attention to what is going on? Substantiated criticism is indispensable in a system that has since turned into what scientist call “illiberal democracy” to see its policy through.

[quote comment="64677"]If Canadian foreign policy is to be challenged and improved it must be taken to task on its stated intents - not on gray men in parliament making deals for the greater good of the United States.[/quote]

Neither do I know the original officially stated intent of Canada for that mission, nor do I regarding the current intents, that, following your statements, seem to have undergone some amendments in the past.
But there WAS an original reason for Canada to join the war. This is what’s relevant to suggest system maintainence or goal attainment as a main motivation - also for Canada. That’s a matter of logic, not opinion.

[quote comment="64677"]If the current stated endstate is a stable and secure Afghanistan what bloody good does it do to say, Canada is helping achieve American system maintenance?[/quote]

What about the goal of maintaining or even improving Canada’s position within the globalized world system? You think, your country has no interest in that? And helping out the USA, the most powerful nation in the world, couldn’t be any helpful to that?

What I think is, that if you refuse to hold all the political incidents going on in this world against the background of this world being a system of nations and their strategic interests, then you are going to change exactly nothing. Making some change in the first requires some understanding of the various systems and their individual characteristics.

If a country joins a country in its war against another country, that hasn’t done anything to the first, then there must be reasons for it, that go beyond the classical idea of defense or humanitarian aid. And that is why the mission - also for Canada - is definately NOT primarily about destroying the Taliban for the sake of the afghan people, but about to stabilize Afghanistan for the benefit of western interests to conform the middle east to western interests of gaining control over the oil regions. You just have to turn your eyes to Iraq, to see what I mean. The goal is, to install a US-friendly government of puppets, to get opposing regimes out of the way. Destroying the Taliban isn’t more than a secondary goal, a positive side effect that would of course benefit the afghan people but which is being blown up to an “official mission” that would find the backing of a majority of the people in western countries as well as in the war areas.

There is a difference between what the single soldier is told what he is putting his life at risk for (and I don’t doubt the honorable motives of many soldiers in Afghanistan for a second) and what are the reasons for the decision makers of a country, to actually send forces into a souvereign country. And asked, what being of higher relevance for me to analyze the political nature of that war, I’d enthusiastically vote for the latter.

I rejected quick but not vehemently - I was making a point, you answered in a fashion that drew away from it.

I have a lot of time for fact and reason and very little time for opinion. You think your opinion and my opinion matter - I don’t. But then that’s why there is chocolate and vanilla.

When I asked what was the mission in Afghan it was to draw home the point that few Canadians could recite what it is Canadians are supposed to be doing in Afghanistan - as stated by their current government. It was not to enter into the discussion of how it was an opportunity for many a country to fall in line with American foreign policy or system maintenance.

” “system maintenance”…. It was referred to US-american strategic interests in the region which can by implication be abstracted to be fitting the interests of a great deal of the western nations too.”

That is your opinion and not a fact - and be it true and accurate or not - to challenge policy makers on this platform achieves nothing.

I say again, even if you are correct and accurate, which you may very well be, it is moot.

In fact, it makes changing foreign policy even harder, because then anyone who stands against it the CANADIAN operation in Afghanistan gets grouped into the same category of being hard line left and anti-American as opposed to pro best interests of Canada and Canadian foreign policy.

If Canadian foreign policy is to be challenged and improved it must be taken to task on its stated intents - not on gray men in parliament making deals for the greater good of the United States.

If the average Canadian is unaware of what the mission or endstate is in Afghanistan, how can they challenge their government on it? They leave those that they would disagree with to set the course of those they would put in harm’s way.

If the current stated endstate is a stable and secure Afghanistan what bloody good does it do to say, Canada is helping achieve American system maintenance? None. Loggerheads.

If the current mission and endstate as stated is accepted, then it is much easier to challenge on the premise that if the situation is constantly becoming less stable and less secure then the current mission must be abandoned and re-examined.

It’s been nearly 7 years and 97 dead soldiers since Canada joined in the fray and served under both American and NATO command in that region. Liberals and Conservatives alike are well aware that there is a significant number of Canadians that believe the Canadian presence in Afghanistan is closely tied to the global interests of the States.

To that I ask, SO WHAT? Knowing that has any party responded to that criticism? Has any party made drastic amendments to the mission? No.

If those opposed to the current operation are serious about pulling Canadian men and women from harms way in Afghanistan it will have to be done on a different platform.

But as long as Canadians remain ignorant of their own foreign policy, which they are unsure of in spirit and likely also of in execution, their is little hope of that.

I simply asked him where he was getting his opinion of such things and then whenever a conversation like that arises I usually put a quick end to it by asking if people know what the stated mission is.

If a company had a stated goal as NDHQ does and had these results it had had thus far the board of directors would’ve been taken over, the management stream dissolved and everything would be starting over.

What I think is irrelevant because people make decisions based on fact and reason, so that is what must be presented - not because what I think is right or wrong.

While the US involvement cannot be ignored as the birth and catalyst for the operations in Afghanistan, the formation of ISAF and the evolution of other countries’ roles there (of which Canada is one) are what KEEPS other nations there - which as far as future lives are concerned is more important.[/quote]

As for the US involvement that “cannot be ignored as the birth and catalyst for the operations in Afghanistan”, that was what I was talking about when stating that the mission was about “system maintainance”. That considered, I think you were a bit quick in rejecting that so vehemently. It was referred to US-american strategic interests in the region which can by implication be abstracted to be fitting the interests of a great deal of the western nations too.

I simply asked him where he was getting his opinion of such things and then whenever a conversation like that arises I usually put a quick end to it by asking if people know what the stated mission is.

If a company had a stated goal as NDHQ does and had these results it had had thus far the board of directors would’ve been taken over, the management stream dissolved and everything would be starting over.

What I think is irrelevant because people make decisions based on fact and reason, so that is what must be presented - not because what I think is right or wrong.

While the US involvement cannot be ignored as the birth and catalyst for the operations in Afghanistan, the formation of ISAF and the evolution of other countries’ roles there (of which Canada is one) are what KEEPS other nations there - which as far as future lives are concerned is more important.

[quote comment="64604"]What I think is irrelevant. [/quote]

I don’t think so. I think much more difficult situations could be nipped in the bud if people would be more self-confident in that point (or should I say self-dependent?).

[quote comment="64604"I'm well aware of the ties of the States' origins in this operation, and Canada's involvement and evolution of the mission since. I was there for the beginning and followed closely the Land Force transformation therein after. I consider myself an expert on the subject.[/quote]

Let me try to put more clear, what I was about to express. For every war a country wages or joins in, there is
1. a particular *reason* (that’s the term I was using in my reply to Chris K.) and then there’s
2. some sort of *mission* that is set up to sort of headline the military acts that would be following.
As for the reasons to wage or join a war, they are mostly of strategic political or economic nature or base on ideological issues. Such political reasons to *join* a war might very well be “second hand”, meaning that a country sort of takes over the reasons of the actual war starter in a case of collective self-defense (NATO). And this is exactly what participating nations such as my own rely on to justify their participation in Afghanistan. But I doubt that to be their primary reason.
So in the case of Afghanistan I think one has to differentiate between the reasons of the United States to wage war over that country and the case of collective self-defense that officially prompted NATO-allies to join the US.
Now, I am well aware of the fact that there is actually much controversy to wether Afghanistan was or was not a case of collective self-defense. Personally, I tend to doubt that such a case is evident.
Let’s assume that it was no case of collective self-defense. What are Canada or Germany doing there then? What interests might drive them to join a war against a country that didn’t do anything to them? Let alone that a direct link between Bin Laden and the Taliban has never since been proven and only that would have been a justified basis to declare a collective case of self-defense in the meaning of Art. 5 NATO treaty against the souvereign country of afghanistan.

[quote comment="64604"]And given the full spectrum operations being conducted I am reluctant to refer to it as a war in the traditional sense of the word. [/quote]

I agree. The war-term itsself is actually under a constant process of revision given the fast process of change in technique and global preconditions.

[quote comment="64604"]However, and I suspect you’ll consider it semantics, but the article doesn’t go into much detail about the evolution of ISAF and Canada’s part in it. So it’s relevance to my comment wrt the above post is lost on me. [/quote]

I see that. But I think we just missed each other in what everyone was referring to. I was referring to Chris K. talking more generally about the Afghanistan war. You however were focused only on the canadian role in it. I think both is tolerable.

[quote comment="64604"]In fact neither the formation of ISAF nor NATO’s presence is mentioned once in the article. And yes I do separate that command from the distinct US command in theater. [/quote]

Ok, I can’t dispute that since this is going beyond the scope of my knowledge. But you are aware of the canadian command being of executive not legislative function in that mission, are you?
In the beginning you said the following: “What I think is irrelevant”. Don’t you think that - compared to those who are to make decisions of high controversy in your country - military commanders are in exact that position that reduces them down to simply follow orders that come from above? And it is that “above” and the interests which it finally transforms into concrete precise action, the military is only carrying out, that is of high interest to me, especially regarding the genesis of violent conflicts.

The mission, Canada’s, is stated right on dnd.ca. Again, I’m not convinced that it will meet that stated mandate given the means being used, the results thus far support this suspicion.

I’m well aware of the ties of the States’ origins in this operation, and Canada’s involvement and evolution of the mission since. I was there for the beginning and followed closely the Land Force transformation therein after. I consider myself an expert on the subject.

And given the full spectrum operations being conducted I am reluctant to refer to it as a war in the traditional sense of the word.

You are likely correct in suggesting Canada would not have “started a war on its own”.

However, and I suspect you’ll consider it semantics, but the article doesn’t go into much detail about the evolution of ISAF and Canada’s part in it. So it’s relevance to my comment wrt the above post is lost on me.

In fact neither the formation of ISAF nor NATO’s presence is mentioned once in the article. And yes I do separate that command from the distinct US command in theater. And while both commands have attached American elements, the two have distinct stated missions and end states. This is problematic and represents a conflict of interest for both commands and their stated goals.

I was there in 2002 and have followed the evolution of the operation since. Canada’s was a distinct command under a US led mission from 01-02. The role of elements pushed there were primarily war fighting.

It was unable to maintain a commitment to both the Balkans and Afghanistan. And sent units to the relatively safer Kabul in 03. Upon the formation of ISAF by NATO, Canada, (now commanded by CDS General retired Rick Hillier), abandoned further commitments to the former Yugoslav and took on majority of command and control of the ISAF command back south in the volatile Panjawi district in and around Kandahar - while still maintaining some commitment to stability in Kabul.

The mission in Kabul had been primarily one of stability and security. The mission in Kandahar region was supposed to be one of full spectrum operations (war fighting synchronized with efforts humanitarian aid etc).

I’m paraphrasing but the corporate line for DND has been one where as part of the global war on terror Canada will commit military resources to fight Taliban and other terrorist forces with a view to providing stability to the region.

What do I “think”? I “think” the facts speak for themselves that efforts must be reorganized and re-assessed if that end state of stable region is to be achieved. The rest of what I “think” is well documented in the archives.

Nope not interesting at all. I struggled past the first page.

The article focuses primarily on the war in Afghanistan and the US involvement in it.[/quote]

Anyway, I hope you found the power to struggle back to your feet and read until end.

[quote comment="64527"]The post above is about a Canadian soldier being killed and Canada’s commitment there - as part of ISAF or any other MNB.[/quote]

Patrick, Canadian soldiers dying these days in Afghanistan doesn’t change anything about this war being an US-american baby, primarily driven by US american interests (thererfore the article). You can’t seperate incedents that just arise out of these facts from that. Nobody will deny that the allied countries that joined the war have particular interests in doing so as well. But that wouldn’t lead me to the suggestion that Canada would have started this war on its own, meaning without the USA as driving force behind.

But ok, I agree, Canada’s explicit role in this war can and maybe should be examined individually (as well as the roles of other countries just like my own).

[quote comment="64527"]I’m curious if it’s common knowledge if people in general understand Canada’s role in Afghanistan .[/quote]

So what do you think it is? I am pretty curious to know what you think is Canada’s explicit “mission” in the war.

Nope not interesting at all. I struggled past the first page.

The article focuses primarily on the war in Afghanistan and the US involvement in it.

The post above is about a Canadian soldier being killed and Canada’s commitment there - as part of ISAF or any other MNB.

I’m curious if it’s common knowledge if people in general understand Canada’s role in Afghanistan (if policy makers do either); and the evolution of it’s foreign policy from 2001 to date. I doubt many do - because I certainly don’t see it achieving it’s current stated mandate..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1024.htm

I think that tells it pretty good.
But maybe you are favoring some completely different aspects as being causal to the US deciding to wage that war? I’d be interested to know.

Sure we want to get of there, but can the Afghans hold off the Taliban, or is it going to descend into pre 9/11 terrority?

Maybe what we have is not working, but we have to make sure the situation is stable and productive or risk everything being lost. We need more support from other nations.

The Iraq war was totally unjustifited and plain immoral and illegal, but the surge is suceeding. We need more forces to secure this country.

Canadian attitudes seem to be; we want to contribute, but we don’t want to risk anything. Well, it rarely works that way.[/quote]

You do not believe for one second, that the mission in Afghanistan is about ‘holding the Taliban off from the Afghans’, Chris K., do you?

Sure we want to get of there, but can the Afghans hold off the Taliban, or is it going to descend into pre 9/11 terrority?

Maybe what we have is not working, but we have to make sure the situation is stable and productive or risk everything being lost. We need more support from other nations.

The Iraq war was totally unjustifited and plain immoral and illegal, but the surge is suceeding. We need more forces to secure this country.

Canadian attitudes seem to be; we want to contribute, but we don’t want to risk anything. Well, it rarely works that way.[/quote]

The surge is not working and is it all that bad of a thing if most of Canadian attitude is leaniant in wanting to contribute in non-military ways? Why could we not be the country that truly meant ot promote peace, through peaceful actions?

Sure we want to get of there, but can the Afghans hold off the Taliban, or is it going to descend into pre 9/11 terrority?

Maybe what we have is not working, but we have to make sure the situation is stable and productive or risk everything being lost. We need more support from other nations.

The Iraq war was totally unjustifited and plain immoral and illegal, but the surge is suceeding. We need more forces to secure this country.

Canadian attitudes seem to be; we want to contribute, but we don’t want to risk anything. Well, it rarely works that way.