Layton's Military Proposals
This weekend there has been a lot of talk about Layton's proposal to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan. While I support this as a long-term goal, I am very disappointed the way the NDP has handled this. The Nanaimo-Cowichan EDA resolution calling our soldiers terrorists was unacceptable and Layton must condemn this immediately. Whether one agrees with our presence in Afghanistan or not, calling our soldiers terrorists is unacceptable. These are young men and women who are putting their lives on the line for our country.
Now when it comes to the main thrust of his resolution which is Canada should pull out of Afghanistan, I generally agree here, however I don't think it should be done immediately. Rather we should consult our NATO allies on how best to have the most orderly pull-out. In Italy, Romano Prodi unlike his predecessor Silvio Berlusconi, opposed the Iraq War, but the pull out of Italian troops will be done over 1 year not immediately. Even Zapatero in Spain took two months after being elected to pull a much smaller contigent of Spanish troops out of Iraq. This is the responsible way to handle the pull out. I would also support keeping our troops in Afghanistan but moving them to Kabul or elsewhere and having them take on a humanitarian or peacekeeping role as opposed to combat role. I am not opposed to us being in Afghanistan, I am simply opposed to Canada being involved in a combat role.
Now when it comes to the main thrust of his resolution which is Canada should pull out of Afghanistan, I generally agree here, however I don't think it should be done immediately. Rather we should consult our NATO allies on how best to have the most orderly pull-out. In Italy, Romano Prodi unlike his predecessor Silvio Berlusconi, opposed the Iraq War, but the pull out of Italian troops will be done over 1 year not immediately. Even Zapatero in Spain took two months after being elected to pull a much smaller contigent of Spanish troops out of Iraq. This is the responsible way to handle the pull out. I would also support keeping our troops in Afghanistan but moving them to Kabul or elsewhere and having them take on a humanitarian or peacekeeping role as opposed to combat role. I am not opposed to us being in Afghanistan, I am simply opposed to Canada being involved in a combat role.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 10:02 PM
33 Comments:
Question: Would you support armed intervention in Darfur to prevent what is happening there?
Interesting - Layton was absolutely horrified that Canada via Harper is going to pull out of Kyoto. He was just so upset about Canada not keeping its commitments and promises and how it would affect Canada's image and how Canadians keep their promises - BUT it's OK to pull out of our commitment with NATO? A little double-standard here?
Layton is an idiot. He's using and exploiting this to get Quebec votes. In fact, Layton makes me ill.
I would support sending peacekeeping troops to Darfur, but not armed conflict. In Afghanistan we are fighting an armed conflict.
Anonymous, good point. Since not every NATO member has troops in Afghanistan, I do think we could re-locate them to Kabul to take on a traditional peacekeeping role without upsetting our NATO allies, however certainly Layton's method of just pulling out instantly wouldn't help.
Miles, you are so out of touch it is both comical and sad. You would only support sending troops that do not engage in armed conflict? What excactly do you think it is that they do? Have you ever talked to any troops? Do you realize that the pride of helping out Canada and the rest of western civilization is what caused many of these brave men to enlist? Of course you don't, you have likely never seen a soldier let alone talked to one.
Rather than displaying your irrelevant little "no deep integration with the United States" ribbon (how cute), why don't you show support for the troops and place a yellow ribbon on your site? I dare ya.
And you want to coordinate with NATO to see how we should best leave? Are you kidding? What do you think their response would be to Canada shirking on its responsibilities?
You are a gutless coward, I certainly hope you don't represent the majority of Canadians as you claim, otherwise I have never been so ashamed to be Canadian.
Miles, you are so out of touch it is both comical and sad. You would only support sending troops that do not engage in armed conflict? What excactly do you think it is that they do? Have you ever talked to any troops? Do you realize that the pride of helping out Canada and the rest of western civilization is what caused many of these brave men to enlist? Of course you don't, you have likely never seen a soldier let alone talked to one.
I full well understand the difference between an armed conflict and peacekeeping. Peacekeeping does mean sending soldiers with guns, but not taking sides, rather trying to keep order between two warring sides. Armed conflict, which Afghanistan is, is about taking sides. I am not against Canadian participation in a war if it serves our national interests as World War I and World War II did, but clearly being involved in Afghanistan does not serve our national interest.
Rather than displaying your irrelevant little "no deep integration with the United States" ribbon (how cute), why don't you show support for the troops and place a yellow ribbon on your site? I dare ya.
I off course do support our troops and I may just consider putting a yellow ribbon, especially one that says support our troops, bring them home. Also opposing deeper integration with the United States is a valid view in my opinion. Due to the United States size, I don't believe we can have deeper integration without forcing Canada to surrender a lot of its sovereignty. An EU style North America won't work since one country would dominate, which unfortunately some Canadians such as Thomas d'Aquino don't seem to understand this. I believe in friendly relations with the United States, but I also believing in maintaining our independence. If anything I believe we could have better relations with the US by distancing ourselves rather than getting closer.
And you want to coordinate with NATO to see how we should best leave? Are you kidding? What do you think their response would be to Canada shirking on its responsibilities?
They wouldn't be happy, but they would still help coordinate our withdrawal just as the Americans did with the Spanish troops in Iraq when they pulled out in 2004. The decision to go to war or not go to war is ultimately a national decision so while our NATO allies might be disappointed, they would also accept that we have the right to make our decisions independently. In addition most NATO countries are playing a far smaller role if any at all. Canada's combat role is in the minority, not the majority of NATO countries.
You are a gutless coward, I certainly hope you don't represent the majority of Canadians as you claim, otherwise I have never been so ashamed to be Canadian.
There is nothing gutless about not wanting to fight in a war that has nothing to do with Canada and not wanting to attack a country that presents no security risk to Canada. If we were attacked or threatened, I would favour military intervention, but we aren't. If anything I am ashamed Canada is moving away from its traditional peaceful role, which made us well liked globally. I am proud of the fact that I can sew a Canadian flag on my backpack when I travel abroad, but regretably that might not last much longer.
Canada does not have a traditional peaceful role. Learn the full history of your country, not just the history of it in the brief time that you have been alive.
If you don't think that the Taliban and those who masterminded 9/11 are a threat to Canada then you must not have heard of the terrorist plot on Toronto. And if you think this is simply a US issue, than you musn't have heard of attacks on Spain, Bali, London, etc etc. Hell, just listen to Bin Laden himself.
But you applaud moves by the Spaniards, whose left-wing party was nowhere close to winning up until the Al-Qaeda attack, and then all of a sudden they were swept into power and withdrew their troops. I'm not sure if you can grasp this, but that handed the terrorists the biggest victory they could have ever hoped for.
If there were more appeasers such as you during WWII, we would all be speaking German today.
Canada does not have a traditional peaceful role. Learn the full history of your country, not just the history of it in the brief time that you have been alive.
Actually I know our history very well and with the exception of the Boer War, we've stayed out of wars that presented no threat to Canada such as the Suez Crisis (we went in as peacekeepers after, not fighting alongside the British and French), Vietnam War, and Iraq War. World War I and World War II were different scenarios where Canada clearly was threatened.
If you don't think that the Taliban and those who masterminded 9/11 are a threat to Canada then you must not have heard of the terrorist plot on Toronto. And if you think this is simply a US issue, than you musn't have heard of attacks on Spain, Bali, London, etc etc. Hell, just listen to Bin Laden himself.
Osama Bin Ladin only said he would attack countries that ally themselves with the United States. As long as we are in Afghanistan, then yes we are at risk, but if we pull out no we aren't at risk.
But you applaud moves by the Spaniards, whose left-wing party was nowhere close to winning up until the Al-Qaeda attack, and then all of a sudden they were swept into power and withdrew their troops. I'm not sure if you can grasp this, but that handed the terrorists the biggest victory they could have ever hoped for.
The Iraq War had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. It was an unnecessary and unprovoked war. 90% of Spaniards opposed the war so Zapatero was only doing what most Spaniards wanted. In addition he was only five points behind in the poll taken before the attack. In addition the right leaning Popular Party had 42% meaning they would have won a minority government and the opposition who all opposed the war could have united to force a pull out. In the 2000 election, the Popular Party got over 50% of the popular vote so that is why they could send Spanish troops. As far as I am concerned, Spain should have never been in Iraq and I totally support their decision to pull out which Zapatero had campaigned on doing long before the 3/11 attack.
If there were more appeasers such as you during WWII, we would all be speaking German today.
There is a big difference here. Hitler attacked several European countries unprovoked. Terrorism against the United States and the West in general is largely a response to our foreign policy in the Middle East, which has killed thousands of innocent Arabs. I totally condemn terrorism as it is wrong to kill innocent civilians regardless of their government's policy, but we should not be promoting an endless cycle of violence. We should be looking for ways to bridge the gap between the West and the Muslim world.
Anonymous said:
Interesting - Layton was absolutely horrified that Canada via Harper is going to pull out of Kyoto. He was just so upset about Canada not keeping its commitments and promises and how it would affect Canada's image and how Canadians keep their promises - BUT it's OK to pull out of our commitment with NATO? A little double-standard here?
Standing behind Canada's commitment to the enivornment, which has widespread global support among the world's people's and standing behind the US' militaristic agenda, which has very low world support, are two very different things. The NDP's mandate is very different than the Conservative mandate. It makes no sense to say that the NDP should stand behind every commitment made by the Canadian government when their policy disagrees with it.
Miles said:
I totally condemn terrorism as it is wrong to kill innocent civilians regardless of their government's policy, but we should not be promoting an endless cycle of violence. We should be looking for ways to bridge the gap between the West and the Muslim world.
I strongly agree with you, Miles. The end of western oppression in the middle east would go a long way towards reducing terrorism. You'd think that between the time of the Crusades and now, humanity would have learned something about trying to bring about large ideological changes by force.
Do you believe troops in Darfur without the mandate to shoot at rebels, the janjaweed, and other groups that threaten civilians would accomplish anything?
Kyle,
Perhaps a reading of this, from the UN peacekeeping website, would help your understanding.
In addition to maintaining peace and security, peacekeepers are increasingly charged with assisting in political processes,
reforming justice systems, training law-enforcement and police forces, and disarming former combatants. For example:
Under its disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme, the UN Mission in Sierra Leone alone
destroyed 42,330 weapons and more than 1.2 million rounds of ammunition, disarmed 75,490 combatants
including 6,845 child soldiers and provided reintegration benefits to almost 55,000 ex-fighters.
What if these combatants do not want to be disarmed? Should 'peasekeepers' still be sent in?
I support peacekeepers using force if done in self-defence. However, there is a big difference between shooting in legitimate self defence versus attacking the other side. Also peacekeeping involves not taking sides, whereas in Afghanistan we are clearly taking sides.
Would not taking sides in Afghanistan really just allow the Taliban to regroup, re-arm, and attempt to take back government controlled areas?
If it is about not taking sides, in Darfur if we act against all sides (I remember there being something like 14 different groups represented in that conflict) is that ok?
In reality is your position that we should withdraw from foreign entanglements completly? (Besides the limited number of peacekeeping missions that currently exist, that don't involve firing on one side or the other) so Cyprus, East Timor and the like.
Kyle,
Many peacekeeping missions that don't involve supporting the aims of one side or another have been successful in ending conflicts and creating more stable political environments. What are you not understanding? If the only option in ending armed conflicts was militarily overpowering one of the sides, there would have been a lot more death and carnage in the past.
The question is, in Afghanistan, is this even possible (the Taliban don't seem like the most rational people, they banned kites!) ?
The UN decided long ago that a political solution was not viable in Afghanistan. Are we to undermine the UN?
Quote
"Many peacekeeping missions that don't involve supporting the aims of one side or another have been successful in ending conflicts and creating more stable political environments. What are you not understanding? If the only option in ending armed conflicts was militarily overpowering one of the sides, there would have been a lot more death and carnage in the past"
Also armed intervention does not have to favour one side, it just happens in Afghanistan it does, since the Taliban are viewed to be antithical to the interests of the international community.
You do miss however, the failure of sit in the middle and hope the fighting stops peacekeeping:
Rwanda
Somalia
Lebanon (in the early 1980s)
the Balkans (mostly Yugoslavia)
I totally abhor the Taliban, however I only believe in military action if a group poses a threat to domestic security. Ultimately it is up to the Afghans, not us to determine what type of government they have. Foreign intervention in other people's affairs historically has not worked very well. Just look at the mess Iraq is in. Also both Britain and Russia tried to attack Afghanistan in the past and both failed so we are deluding ourselves if we think we can win. Brutal dictators tend to take root in isolated and poor countries. We should be helping the Afghans raise their standard of living and making Afghanistan less isolated. By doing those two, it is less likely a brutal regime like Afghanistan would exist.
One just has to look at Germany after both world wars and see which method worked. After World War I, we punished Germany through the Versailles Treaty that made the country so desperate, the conditions were created for the Rise of Nazism. While I think we absolutely should have gone to war in World War II, since Hitler was a mad man who posed a threat, I also believe that had we helped Germany re-build after World War I, Hitler would have never been able to take power. After World War II, through the Marshall Plan as well as the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, Germany was re-built and in the case of West Germany became a successful and peaceful democracy that posed absolutely no threat to its neighbours.
Your example of the Marshall Plan is true. However, you fail to take in the fact that the plan came after the complete military defeat in total war of a ideological regime.
To extend the Marshall plan argument to Afghanistan, would be to argue for the complete defeat of the Taliban followed by a massive rebuilding/building.
The Taliban sponsored a group, which led to a direct attack on our nation. It gave them support, and areas within which to operate, and refused to turn over the group to the international community when it was asked. The mission in Afghanistan was in direct response to this and continues to prevent the previous state of affairs from occuring in the future.
The United Nations was able to act in Afghanistan like only few other events in its own history, World War II, Korea, and Kuwait.
That preventing the previous state of affairs from coming to being is not a threat to domestic security shows the lessons of history seem to be lost on you.
(Or if one did not see the Sept. 11th attacks as a domestic threat to Canada, one must advocate withdrawl from Nato)
Actually I know our history very well and with the exception of the Boer War, we've stayed out of wars that presented no threat to Canada such as the Suez Crisis (we went in as peacekeepers after, not fighting alongside the British and French),
Actually, Canadians fought in armed combat in Suez, mainly fighting Egyptians and Israeli's. Canada suffered 32 casualties in the fighting. And Suez was 10 times the favour for the Americans as Afghanistan is.
Your example of the Marshall Plan is true. However, you fail to take in the fact that the plan came after the complete military defeat in total war of a ideological regime.
In the case of World War II, Hitler presented an external threat which required removal since he attacked several sovereign nations. The Marshall Plan initially also involved helping communist countries too and only didn't because Stalin refused to take any aid from the Marshall Plan. Communism was an ideological enemy of the United States yet rather than using war, containment was used and ultimately succeeded in defeating the scourge of communism.
The Taliban sponsored a group, which led to a direct attack on our nation. It gave them support, and areas within which to operate, and refused to turn over the group to the international community when it was asked. The mission in Afghanistan was in direct response to this and continues to prevent the previous state of affairs from occuring in the future.
That part of the operation that removed the Taliban is largely over. Now it is about gaining control over areas they still mingle such as Kandahar. Besides while I don't think we can make peace with Osama Bin Ladin, I believe better foreign policy would make it more difficult to find recruits therefore reducing the chances of an attack. Osama Bin Ladin cannot carry out his attacks without recruits and the more we meddle in the Middle East, the angrier the people will become and the easier it will be to find new recruits.
The United Nations was able to act in Afghanistan like only few other events in its own history, World War II, Korea, and Kuwait.
Actually the United Nations didn't exist until after World War II was over. Also the Korean War and Gulf War I all involved direct attacks on a sovereign nation by a state actor. UN rules on attacks on a nation by a non-state actor are ambiguous. Even if the Taliban provided shelter to Al-Qaeda, 9/11 was committed by Al-Qaeda who is not a state, but a terrorist organization.
That preventing the previous state of affairs from coming to being is not a threat to domestic security shows the lessons of history seem to be lost on you.
Actually my view is based on the idea of proportionality. 2,800 people were killed in 9/11, but the number of innocent Afghan civilians who have been killed is likely over 5,000 therefore the response is not proportional. World War II involved the killings of 20-50 million directly or indirectly by the Nazis so the response while greater in terms of number of deaths, was proportional to the threat. Our reponse in Afghanistan is not.
(Or if one did not see the Sept. 11th attacks as a domestic threat to Canada, one must advocate withdrawl from Nato)
Had the European Constitution not been rejected by French and Dutch voters, NATO would become essentially redundent since it called for an attack on any EU country to be considered an attack on all. Since every NATO member except Canada, United States, Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria are EU members plus Romania and Bulgaria will join next year, Turkey probably some time in the future when Europeans can accept the idea of admitting a Muslim nation and Norway and Iceland whenever their voters agree to join, NATO in the long-run will essentially become irrelevant as Canada and the United States will be the only ones outside the EU. I personally think the EU should take over NATO in terms of defence responsibilities at which point Canada should pull out, but not before then.
Actually, Canadians fought in armed combat in Suez, mainly fighting Egyptians and Israeli's. Canada suffered 32 casualties in the fighting. And Suez was 10 times the favour for the Americans as Afghanistan is.
Actually Israel was on the side of the British and the French, while Egypt was on the side of the Arabs and Russians, so Canada was not taking sides if it involved firing at Israeli and Egyptians who were on opposite sides. Peacekeeping does involve casualties, however it doesn't involve taking sides nor does it involve firing pre-emptively, it involves firing in self-defence. Suez Crisis fits the UN definition of a peacekeeping mission, the Afghanistan one is a combat mission.
Sayeth Miles:
Peacekeeping does mean sending soldiers with guns, but not taking sides, rather trying to keep order between two warring sides.
How do you keerp order between the Taliban and the most basic type of civlization?
Afghanistan is largley controlled by various tribes and warlords. You would try and keep order between the various fighting groups. Even with the Taliban gone, you do have different groups fighting for control.
Miles, the UN was founded in 1942, on January 1st as an alliance against the axis powers, under the " Declaration by the United Nations" which bound the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Afterwards, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.
Also, the proportionality argument must be one of the worst arguments against the use of force in history. If someone drops one bomb on you, and you have the power to eliminate their ability to drop bombs on you for a very long time, wouldn't it be stupid to not defend yourself (by eliminating the threat).
With your lack of faith in the ideals of collective defence, and your lack of stomach for disproportionate force, what would you suggest should have been the response to the Sept. 11th attacks by the Nato Alliance?
If someone drops one bomb on you, and you have the power to eliminate their ability to drop bombs on you for a very long time, wouldn't it be stupid to not defend yourself (by eliminating the threat).
I'm sure that by nuking all the life out of any country, we could stop them from having the ability to ever bomb Canada. What are your moral ideas, Kyle, about killing innocent people indiscriminately, which is what's been going on?
With your lack of faith in the ideals of collective defence, and your lack of stomach for disproportionate force, what would you suggest should have been the response to the Sept. 11th attacks by the Nato Alliance?
I know you asked Miles, but I thought I'd like to put my two cents into this one. How about the response of any rational society that follows the rule of law when a crime is committed against it? Conduct a criminal/forensic investigation and bring those responsible to justice. The unabomber was a domestic US terrorist who is now serving life in prison. This seems a measured response.
Would you support a armed military intervention to stop what has been going on in Darfur?
Who cares what the United Nations think anyways? The UN has just relased a paper in the last 2 weeks declaring that individual self defense is not a human right. The UN is a joke organization.
I also think Layton went too far in calling our troops terrorists. I will never support any war, see my comment on Brandon's blog to find out why
Would you support a armed military intervention to stop what has been going on in Darfur?
Peacekeeping yes, armed conflict no.
Who cares what the United Nations think anyways? The UN has just relased a paper in the last 2 weeks declaring that individual self defense is not a human right. The UN is a joke organization.
I am no fan of the United Nations either, however since war is such an awful thing, I would rather we abstain from a UN sanctioned war than support a non-UN sanctioned one. However, I ultimately believe our decision must be made independently of any organization.
I also think Layton went too far in calling our troops terrorists. I will never support any war, see my comment on Brandon's blog to find out why
I certainly can understand your opposition to war. I believe war is generally wrong, but I do think in the case of World War II it was justified since the alternative of doing nothing was worse. War should only be done if the alternative is even worse. In the case of World War II Hitler favoured global domination as he advocated of his policy of lebensraum and called for killing all people not from his so called "Aryan" race. Had he succeeded in killing all people from his so called "Aryan" race, the number of deaths would have been ever greater than had we gone to war. Besides if another country invades your country, I think you have the right to push them out. I don't believe one has the right though to pre-emptively attack another country based on flimsy evidence.
Miles, Afghanistan was not a pre-emptive attack.
It was a response to the attack on Sept. 11th.
Your example of proportionality in reference to World War two raises some interesting questions. Since your proportions are based on possible future outcomes - which justify current actions to prevent future problems. Using the groups ideological statements of goals was used as a method to help project outcomes.
Then we apply this to Afghanistan. Taliban habour Al-Queda, provide support in a multitude of ways. What happens: embassy bombings, Cole bombing, September 11th.
Project future terrorist attacks based on current trend, if Al-Queda is allowed to train, and operate without opposition. Project these attacks based on the ideology of Al-Queda (the elimination of Israel, large scale attacks on civilians in secular states (Turkey, Indonesia, Spain, U.K., U.S.A.)
Now the government providing the support to Al-Queda refuses to comply with multiple UN Security Council resolutions demanded extradition of members of the leadership of Al-Queda to the international criminal court, and to stop supporting Al-Queda.
With your conclusion that there are things such as just wars, and said just wars can be justified based on ideological statements of goals leading to projected harm, and alternative means of problem solving were tried (diplomacy) what is the next course of action you would support?
In other news:
I've been pulling my cat's tail for the last sixty years. It's been taking it, more or less, with an occasional hiss in my direction. Last night, it lashed out and bit me in frustration. I have decided to place it on my official terrorist list and blow it to kingdom come to prevent future bites.
Mike, are you calling terrorist attacks justified acts of frustration?
Mike, are you calling terrorist attacks justified acts of frustration?
This is a common reaction to the suggestion that US foreign policy plays a role in terrorism attacks against it.
I guess because in my simplified scenario with the cat, it's hard to say what a cat is morally justified doing. I don't think that that murder by humans is ever morally justified. But this is not to say that it will never be expected.
US middle east official government policy has been responsible for the deaths of millions. It is not surprising that some sort of backlash comes from this. I don't think revenge is a sound moral policy (just as our misplaced revenge in Afghanistan is immoral in my view), but it seems humans are yet to get beyond such knee-jerk reactions.
A far better way to prevent future terrorist attacks would be to stop harassing the people that we are fearful of perpetrating them. This, of course, may involve some changes to our "comfy life" that we, or at least our policy makers are not yet willing to make.
I believe the United States had the right to respond to 9/11 including going after Afghanistan, however I do not believe Canada needs to be involved in the combat role. We can help in the re-building and humanitarian side, which is where our strength lies. Had the United States focused solely on Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq, the Taliban would be gone militarily and we would now be re-building something Canada is good it. While I support us offering moral support to the Americans in Afghanistan, I do not believe the threat warrants Canadian troops being sent. I should note in the Iraq War, which I am dead set against, of the 49 countries who endorsed the war, only four sent troops (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland), although some sent troops after the war, but even then it was never over 30 countries at any time and many such as Japan were strictly in non-combat roles.
Post a Comment
<< Home