The good fight (Why Canadian troops are in Afghanistan)

The good fight

National Post
Mon 06 Mar 2006
Page: A19
Section: Issues & Ideas
Byline: Lorne Gunter

Near the end of the federal election campaign, NDP Leader Jack Layton said the "warlike offensive role" Canadian troops have assumed in southern Afghanistan was wrong. "The peacekeeping role is one that Canadians support. Offensive roles are not roles that Canadians support, and certainly our party does not support."

We're lovers, not fighters. Put some flowers in our hair and pass the bong, man.

According to this logic, fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in southern Afghanistan -- a mission Canada took command of last month -- isn't our fight. We shouldn't be securing coalition bases in the six southernmost Afghan provinces or hunting down insurgents along the mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border. We should be waiting for the shooting to stop so we can come in and organize some inter-ethnic soccer games and perhaps a group hug or two.

Too bad the real world doesn't always allow a nation to pick only the duties it wants.

The Afghan fight is Canada's fight. We are not there merely to serve as American surrogates in the region or to lend credibility to the White House's claim that the war on terror is an international effort, not just an American one.

Yes, the Americans want to transfer some of their soldiers there to Iraq, and yes our willingness to assume control of the fight in and around Kandahar has made that move possible. But we are not simply doing this to win favour with Washington.

To believe that, you have to forget Canadians were killed by Taliban-supported terrorists on 9/11, that Canadians died as a result of plots hatched in Afghan caves and at the hands of killers trained in Afghan terrorist camps. You have to see the war in the Afghan mountains as just another conflict among far-off warlords who are pretty much morally equivalent. You would have to believe we shouldn't be taking sides.

Above all, you have to swallow the naive conviction that if we simply show no aggression toward the extremist Muslims we are fighting there, they will show no aggression toward us. Canada won't be a target so long as no Canadians are fighting terrorists or their co-religionists overseas. So let's all scurry into our hidey-holes and wait for the current unpleasantness to blow over.

Except, of course, 24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, or on the planes that slammed into those buildings. And long before we took on our current "warlike offensive role," al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden listed Canada among the six nations he would most like to attack.

Our soldiers are in Afghanistan not to perform some step-and-fetch-it act for the Americans, but -- like the Americans, British, Dutch, Germans, Australians and others -- to ensure that country never again falls under the control of the Taliban, so that al-Qaeda is never again free to use Afghanistan as its base of operations against the West, Canada included.

It is not easy to remember the reason for our involvement four years after 9/11, but it's essential that we do so nonetheless.

Sadly, Layton's shallow sentiments are common. Over the weekend, CanWest released an Ipsos Reid poll showing 54% of Canadians support the use of Canadian Forces for "security and combat efforts against the Taliban and al-Qaeda" -- a solid number, but down significantly from 66% in 2002.

Only 52% believe our troops should stay in Afghanistan, while 48% want them home immediately. And after Saturday's maccabre axe attack on a Canadian soldier, support may go down further.

This tepid support is not solely the fault of squishy anti-war types such as Layton, though.

The previous Liberal government is somewhat to blame. While they courageously committed our troops' to their current mission, they did so without much public discussion. They hoped to get away with doing the right thing without having to take a political hit from their own party's peacenik wing.

Which leaves the task of building popular support to the new Conservative government. It should start by allowing a Parliamentary debate on the operation -- as Layton himself is now demanding.

It is reluctant to do this for fear of losing such a debate while our men and women are in danger in the field. But they needn't worry.

Ordinary Canadians are more sensible than that. With the situation explained properly, in Parliament, a strong majority will rally behind our troops.

Lorne Gunter
Columnist/Editorial Writer, National Post
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Tele: (780) 916-0719 E-mail: mailto:lgunter@shaw.ca

I sent this on to Prime Minister Harper.

Please Freep Him at E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

*****************************************************

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

I am a Canadian Citizen living in the United States.

I am writing you about the rules of Engagement for the Princes Patricia Rifles currently stationed in, Kandahar, Afghanistan.

I copy hereunder, a post to the Free Republic discussion list to which many Canadians belong. We see a vulnerability in the Canadian Forces that can lead to very serious problems for the Conservative party and your government.

I simply request you to review the MoD Rules of Engagement for CFOR in Kandahar, so that General Fraser has the ability to mount an anti-Guerrilla interdiction operation if necessary. Reconstruction cannot begin before security is achieved in the area of operations.

God Bless you Mr. Prime Minister, keep the Princess Patricia Soldiers as safe as possible in this difficult work.

Yours,

( Sign'd True name)

*********************************************************************************

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1590566/posts?page=93

************************************************************************************

The politics in Canada's Ministry of Defence ( MoD) are to have CFOR create an image. They have no intention of even letting the Princess Patricia Rifles get the job done.

The Rules of Engagement (ROE) for CFOR appear to be really not risk effective.

I believe the ROE for CFOR should be changed to an anti-guerilla interdiction operation. The Talibanis are infiltrating Kandahar from Quetta. This traffic needs to be stopped before the reconstruction work can begin the way it should.

Would you go into an unsecured zone, put down your weapon and take off your helmet, and then sit on the ground??

These troops are well trained, and I can assure you they have ROE that are too unrealistic, micromanaged from Ottawa. The liberals in MoD Canada want this force to fail, and to embarass the newly elected conservative government in Canada, and have the public demand a troop recall. Politics are being played with the lives of young Canadian soldiers.

I mean, whats a sea change in Canadian politics worth,to get back to the liberals ? Couple hundred of English speaking Canadians die so we can get back to francophone federal politicians controlling Ottawa? Someone in MoD has decided our young Canadians in an English speaking Scots Canadian regiment are quite expendable.

If it was the Royal 22nd Regiment in Kandahar, staffed mostly by French Canadians, I can assure you that the ROE would be much more vigorous and aggressive.

Turn General Fraser loose, and let him command in the field to do what is necessary to help interdict the Quetta/ Kandahar Talibabi traffic.Change the ROE for the Princess Pats!!!!!!

This is Prime Minister Harper's first significant challange from a fedreal bureaucracy still dedicated to liberalism, and how it goes, so shall the national body politic go. I hope Harper is on a back channel to MoD making sure this Peace Corps shite ROE stops NOW!!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.