tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post7587010546856372023..comments2024-02-07T16:22:39.625-05:00Comments on Jeff Jedras: No easy answers on AfghanistanUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-13978380152473129222007-07-05T15:22:00.000-04:002007-07-05T15:22:00.000-04:00The mission has not been properly defined. Right n...The mission has not been properly defined. Right now, it seems like our only goal is to kill talibans. The tactical missions of our troops are accurately defined as "offensive." We're actively looking for talibans and killing them when we find them. <BR/><BR/>Part of the definition of our mission should include an acnowledgement of just who we are fighting for. We are not fighting and dying for western values and Mom's apple pie. We are fighting and dying for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai's warlord-dominated government. We are assisting the economy of a true narco-state that supplies 90% of the world's opium.<BR/><BR/>Are these guys worthy of even one Canadian life? Does it occur to anyone that 90% of the world's opium market represents huge profits for warlords who are only too happy to have Canadians die fighting the anti-drug talibans? <BR/><BR/>The real threat posed by the taliban to Canada is minor. They ain't equipped to mount an invasion. We never went in to protect Canada. We got involved to show support for our good friends the Merkans after the taliban-hosted alQaeda attacked on 9/11. <BR/><BR/>We went in as a small team player in a big team headed by the Merkans. They got sidetracked in EyeRack and without the massive support expected from the Merkans, the mission went bad.<BR/><BR/>The war's just got bigger, btw. We're opening up a new front in Pakistan. I've posted on that over to my little boog.<BR/><BR/>JBJimBobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04603665575714484326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-35815400196105741022007-07-05T14:02:00.000-04:002007-07-05T14:02:00.000-04:00Well said Jeff. The other aspect of just carrying ...Well said Jeff. <BR/><BR/>The other aspect of just carrying on carrying on is the effect it has on NATO allies. If NATO just assumes we will always be there, there is bound to be less of an urgent push to bolster support from other sources.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, too many hawks overstate the case by saying this is surrender. As you say, we are a little country carrying more than our fair share, but Canada, the US and the UK can't do this on our own and the relative cost to us is greatest. We are there for a good reason and we haven't suffered nearly the kinds of losses we have in past similar fights. But a relatively low death toll and a good principle to fight for are not enough to justify an endless war.<BR/><BR/>On balance, I don't think we should be leaving or telegraphing our leaving, but it is not as black and white as too many postulate.Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19402125.post-86460584073318608852007-07-05T13:19:00.000-04:002007-07-05T13:19:00.000-04:00Jeff,Very thoughtful piece. I think many Canadian...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>Very thoughtful piece. I think many Canadian's are torn in a similar way.Olafhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434267803807108634noreply@blogger.com