Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

After 2011

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:24pm - 30 Comments

The government has now confirmed—via news conference—that up to 950 personnel will remain in Afghanistan to train the Afghan military through 2014. The training will take place within facilities around Kabul. The cost will be approximately $500-million per year. The official announcement and explanation are here.

A new Canadian Press-Harris Decima poll has Canadians split on such an extension and largely opposed to a Canadian military presence in Afghanistan.

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    Utter stupidity, by utterly stupid people.

  • Emily

    I'm in the majority, chum….so skip the personal attacks and stick to the topic.

    • Erkel

      A new Canadian Press-Harris Decima poll has Canadians split on such an extension

      • Emily

        Actually the poll says 60% oppose a military presence in Afghanistan.

        And 48% say bring them home now.

  • Mike R

    A good and responsible decision by the government. It would be better if they removed the restriction on going "outside the wire", however. It is an artificial restriction that will limit the ability of our soldiers to properly train the Afghans. If they are going to turn them into a capable fighting force that can look after Afghanistan's own interests, then a proper training role should involve actual mentoring in the field.

    • Mike T.

      Well then they wouldn't have a non-combat role.

      And I ask again – are Canadian troops who are trained in peacetime considered "ineffective"? Is their ability to do their job "limited"? There is also no reason that training which needs to be done on the battlefield cannot be handed to another country.

      • Mike R

        The question would be, why? There is no question that complete training includes a mentoring aspect in the field, something we are doing now. Taking units from beginning to end, and moving them from the classroom to the field would be a realistic way to implement the plans to turn security over to the Afghans. We've done this type of training "behind the wire" before in Afghanistan, and while it is useful, it is an inappropriate limit on our soldiers to deny them the ability to train Afghan soldiers in the field as well as on base.
        I didn't, by the way, use the term "ineffective". I'm just stating it would be better if they were tasked with training without the limits being proposed.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Why?

          Perhaps because 48% of those polled want the troops home in 2011 regardless, and 60% oppose the mission in Afghanistan? The government might take some flack on this extension, but they'll survive it. A 3 year COMBAT extension could EASILY bring the government down, imho.

          • Mike R

            That might mean the decision would be unpopular. It has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Agreed (to a point.. more in a bit).

            I thought you were asking why it mattered that it be a non-combat role, and I think the reason that matters to the government is simply that a combat role would be highly unpopular.

            Furthermore, while I agree with the general thrust of your comment, I'm not sure that unpopularity has "nothing" to do with whether it's right or wrong. I think a compelling argument could probably be made that a government keeping its country's sons and daughters fighting a foreign war that is opposed by 60% of the citizenry is objectively wrong in a democracy. I think that wrong would also be compounded if the government that was extending the combat mission just spent the last two straight years convincing the nation that the combat mission was right about to end.

  • gottabesaid

    "The combat mission will end in 2011," said Lawrence Cannon, but you felt like he needed to add, "or something like that… we're not really sure. We'll see how it goes for now, we may change our mind. But this is what we're saying today, unequivocally and unreservedly."

    • Mike R

      You mean if the circumstances change the government may change its position? I suppose that's true, but is that wrong, in your opinion? Isn't that what intelligent people do?

      • gottabesaid

        Changing one's opinion in the face of changing circumstances is one thing, and it's totally understandable. The thing is, the government has staked out several unequivocal, rock-solid positions on the Afghanistan situation only to reverse themselves, on so many occasions, it's hard to take what they're saying to the bank. So, I hope you can understand if I greet this latest pronouncement with a grain of salt. A whole shaker-full, in fact. At this point, it's kinda like a promise from Dalton McGuinty that he's not going to raise my taxes here in Ontario… I'll believe it when I see it.

      • LdKitchenersOwn

        I also question the premise that, since 2008, things have been the same, the same, the same, and then SUDDENLY, the weekend before last, POOF! We discovered that the Afghan army needs training.

        I see no evidence that this policy change is related in any way to any change on the ground. If it is, then I guess we can add the Liberals to the NDP on the list of "political parties that can figure out what's happening in Afghanistan months/years ahead of the government".

  • Frank Cybulski

    Why all the virulence against this idea? Afghanistan clearly needs more help in building up its own capabilities, especially its domestic police force and army, in order to prevent the government from collapsing and essentially erasing all the blood and treasure expended over the last decade. Canadian troops would not be acting in a primarily combat role, would be in a significantly safer part of the country, and the number of troops deployed and their cost is significantly reduced. Those who say "it's time to leave" are ignoring Canada's responsibilities to our allies and the country we've been purporting to help. It's not 'stupid', it's good policy, and if they're not in combat, there's no reason that our fractured and irrelevant parliament need argue over this ad nauseum.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Why all the virulence against this idea? Afghanistan clearly needs more help in building up its own capabilities, especially its domestic police force and army, in order to prevent the government from collapsing and essentially erasing all the blood and treasure expended over the last decade.

      I don't necessarily subscribe to this line of thinking, but I believe the argument would be that having spent 10 years of blood and treasure on this mission, spending another three years of blood and treasure isn't going to change a damned thing, so why pile waste on top of waste? It's the "if you're stuck in a hole, the first step is to stop digging" argument.

  • Blue

    I feel the same way about having a debate in the H of C concerning our continued presence in Afghanistan as I do about including the NDP, the Bloc, and the Greens in election debates.
    None of these parties have a chance of forming Government, therefore, they can preach their self-righteous and naive gospel knowing full well they will never have to answer to their unrealistic expectations.
    Is it just me or is Layton getting even more annoying—-do not give him a soapbox to crow on.

    • dougrogers

      Your attitude is horrendous.

      All parties have their base constituency. This constituency is the citizens of Canada. You would stifle the voices of any who do not have a chance of forming the government? Their government?

      This country as yet remains a democracy.

      • Blue

        ….not stifling anyone—i just have no interest in giving a platform to Layton to preach to his 5% of the populace hardcore Laytonites and Duceppe and May putting their unique spin on things to demonstrate their one-issue narrow beliefs.
        You can listen to them as much as you like but don`t expect a stampede of Canadians pushing down the doors to hear them.

        • kcm

          "…as I do about including the NDP, the Bloc, and the Greens in election debates."

          How's that not stifling anyone? And i'm pretty sure the NDP pulls in more than 5% of the vote.

          • Blue

            Maybe the three of them can debate amongst themselves. I just don`t think it`s productive to give them equal time in a debate when they will never form gov`t—-let`s check out their ratings on their own debate—probably just you and doug and some family members watching.

            But a one on one debate between Harper and ignatieff would be a barn-burner and I think iggy would win.

            That 5% figure is my own—not terribly scientific, but I know a lot of ordinary folk, especially union people who hold their nose when they vote NDP because they totally disagree with Layton`s preaching about Afghanistan, Khadr, etc.

      • Orson Bean

        And Layton remains sanctimonious, Duceppe remains a separatist and Elizabeth May remains unelected and essentially irrelevant.

        • TJCook

          Right – so they should be shut out of election debates. Does that really make sense too you?

          What about the startup Reform Party? By this weak reasoning, they'd have been excluded too.

          • Blue

            —not a good comparable. The Reform Party in `93 and `97 were the real opposition in Parliament and the only Party that could realistically say they had sufficient support to unseat the Liberals which they did after they joined with the PC`s.

  • kcm

    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/11/greg-…

    Hillier doesn't seem to agree with Harper's take on no-combat.

    • gottabesaid

      Well, it's not like this government ties itself down to a particular position when it comes to our involvement in Afghanistan.

  • bennji1977

    Try this, there was an extra http:// @ that end of the link
    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/11/greg-…

    • kcm

      thanks

  • Leo

    I think all will be revealed after the big NATO get-together. Other NATO countries are dealing with similar polls – the Dutch goverment fell over this and now they are talking sending 'training' personnel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,…
    Russia has been eager for help in getting rid of the drug trade as it is killing so many of their people.

    I say keep the Taliban guessing!!!

  • BGLong

    Wire ? What is this wire of which you speak ?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/excl…

Previous

Next

From Macleans