babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Will the NDP/Liberal Coalition's Foreign Policy have Canadian Troop deployed to the Congo?

112 replies [Last post]

Comments

Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005
The Bish wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, so long as the people being brutalised would like protection, it isn't really relevant what the host government wants.

To repeat - who decides what the people want? You? Would they request help through an email, or maybe via Facebook?

 

Quote:
I can't envision a scenario under which a foreign army or armies went into those countries to fight the U.S. and produced anything other than a significant increase in bloodshed. 

Ah, so because those invaders and occupiers are too strong militarily, we should leave them alone and not increase the bloodshed.

Your formula seems pretty neat. It has the U.S. and NATO going places to help people, but no one helping the people against the U.S. and NATO. At least it's easy to remember.


The Bish
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2008

Unionist wrote:
To repeat - who decides what the people want? You? Would they request help through an email, or maybe via Facebook?


Well, in a case like what's going on in the Congo right now we could have people like Stephen Lewis and Eve Ensler, who have visited the country and spoken with the victims ask them.  In cases where that's not possible, it should still be pretty easy sometimes to determine.  I mean, do you really think the people in Sudan who are being slaughtered would rather continue to be slaughtered than protected by the international community?  Doubtful.  But you know what, if we get there, and they say to us "We would rather die than be protected by you" then fine, we admit that we've overstepped our bounds and leave.  But I think such a scenario is pretty unlikely.

Quote:
Ah, so because those invaders and occupiers are too strong militarily, we should leave them alone and not increase the bloodshed.

Your formula seems pretty neat. It has the U.S. and NATO going places to help people, but no one helping the people against the U.S. and NATO. At least it's easy to remember.



I think military force is very rarely the most useful response to conflict.  In many situations, like what's going on in Iraq, sending in more competing armies would do nothing but increase the bloodshed.   However, there are situations where military force - in a defensive role -  would be useful.  And in those situations, yes, I do think we should help out; and I think that to not do so out of some sense of misplaced anti-imperialism is needlessly cruel to the people who continue to suffer.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1054758&p=1

 

Whatever happened to 'responsibility to protect'?

Michael Ignatieff, National Post 

Published: Wednesday, December 10, 2008

"In the grim present, humanitarian intervention feels like an idea whose time has come and gone. The reasons for this are worth exploring. For 10 years after the end of the Cold War, stopping ethnic cleansing and massacre became the cause celebres of every liberal internationalist. By early 2000, the idea that all states have a "responsibility to protect" civilians at risk in other states became something approaching a principle of international law.

In this moment of apparent triumph, it was easy to forget that this idea became possible simply because intervention ceased to carry the risk of armaggedon. The interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia were possible for the West because the Russians, however much they backed the losing Serbs, were unable and unwilling to stop NATO and the Americans. The East Timor intervention was possible because Indonesia lacked a protector powerful enough to forbid the creation of a free Timor.

The crisis in Georgia reminds us that we are no longer living in an era of Russian strategic weakness. The parenthesis that allowed humanitarian interventions to occur has come to an end. In the case of Georgia, the humanitarian impulse has collided with raw and unyielding power. Russia has gone ahead and declared the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This is an obvious riposte to Kosovo's independence, and therefore a warning that further humanitarian interventions of that type will not be tolerated in Russia's zone of influence."

 

 


Ratbert
Offline
Joined: Oct 27 2006

Let the Africans sort it out themselves.

 European, especially French benevolence, in Africa consists of backing the tyrants that will allow French companies to prosper without any consideration of how many Africans suffer. The French pick winners and losers in the national interests of France without a care for local consequences. 

The French are no better or worse than other colonialists, including China and Russia - just callously open about it - turning their guns on any interference.

African countries will never accept responsibility for their own continent if they cannot build their own capacity for conflict resolution.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Webgear wrote:

Whatever happened to 'responsibility to protect'?

One of the original architects of the so-called "responsibility to protect" doctrine, and a "human rights" apologist for the Iraq war, Iggy demonstrates he has learned nothing in the past 15 years.

He still maintains the NATO attack on Serbia was a "humanitarian" war, and sees western meddling in Georgia as an other example of humanitarianism.

His latest screed lays bare the fundamental cowardice underlying the whole idea: "humanitarian" war can only be made on small countries that don't have any powerful allies like Russia or China. 


The Bish
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2008
Ratbert wrote:

Let the Africans sort it out themselves.



Racism and indifference - solving mankind's problems since the dawn of civilization.

M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Quote:
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon must be grinding his teeth this morning as word filters out of Eastern Congo that once again his peacekeepers stayed in their barracks while fighting raged just down the road and precious resources were wasted looking for a foreign journalist rather than saving the women and children who were being murdered in the cross-fire between rebels and government militia. 

The key indicators of the UNs ineptness in Eastern Congo came from the resignation of Vicente Díaz de Villegas y Herrería, the Spanish General who only was in-country for three weeks before jumping a plane back to Madrid. The official U.N. response was that the resignation resulted from ‘personal reasons’ but the U.N. is a very leaky ship and the real story seems that the Iberian Commandante was upset that he was a given a mission with ‘no mandate, no strategy and no resources.’ (One wonders why he didn’t inquire about these things before he took the assignment, but who knows what the career ‘wishful-thinkers’ in New York promised him. Remember how they bamboozled General Dallaire during the Rwanda Crisis.) 

The war in the Congo is essentially an international conflict, a world-war involving many nations that has lasted longer than any other modern conflict and has resulted in the deaths of over 5 million people, the vast majority being innocent civilians. Having said that, how many people, even well-informed ones, would recognize the name Nkunda, the head of the main rebel faction? Despite its ferocity this has been an invisible conflict and is likely to remain so since aside from a few mining companies it will be hard to find anybody’s strategic interests at stake and the Security Council has been resting easy because its peacekeepers are on the ground. The problem is that the 17,000 strong peacekeeping mission, code- named MONUC, is in shambles and seemingly unable to protect itself, not to mention the hundreds of thousands now fleeing, whose safety they were sent to guarantee. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that U.N. peacekeepers should stay out of areas where there is no peace. In a country like Liberia, the U.N. does a credible job of keeping the lid on a disarmed and developing country. The experiences in Rwanda, Bosnia and now the Congo suggest that a toothless U.N. presence, backed up by an ambivalent Security Council mandate, is more to be pitied than supported.

Michael Keating, December 12th, 2008


Sunday Hat
Offline
Joined: Nov 10 2008
The Bish wrote:

Well, in a case like what's going on in the Congo right now we could have people like Stephen Lewis and Eve Ensler, who have visited the country and spoken with the victims ask them

Sorry, but this is odious. Who made Stephen Lewis God? I'm sure he wouldn't reject the title but he's not as infallible as he thinks he is.

Let's think this through. If we start saying it's okay for one country to invade another as long as an Important Person reports that that's what "the people" want then the US invasion of Iraq was perfectly moral, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly moral, Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland was perfectly moral. In each of these cases the invading nation produced "really smart people" who claimed that the citizens longed for "liberation".


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

It's the White Man's Burden. The Holy Crusade. The War on Terror.

Even if it bears Stephen Lewis's face, it doesn't change its essence.

 

========================== Join M. Spector's tagline Satyagraha!


The Bish
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2008
Sunday Hat wrote:

Sorry, but this is odious. Who made Stephen Lewis God? I'm sure he wouldn't reject the title but he's not as infallible as he thinks he is.



Lewis and Ensler just came to mind as people who have visited the country and spoken with the victims.  I was not suggesting that we should specifically grant that power to Stephen Lewis, just that there have been a number of people who have gone to the Congo and spoken with the victims and it wouldn't be difficult for them to go around the refugee camps, the women at the Panzi hospital, etc. and ask them how they would feel about it.

Quote:
Let's think this through. If we start saying it's okay for one country to invade another as long as an Important Person reports that that's what "the people" want then the US invasion of Iraq was perfectly moral, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly moral, Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland was perfectly moral. In each of these cases the invading nation produced "really smart people" who claimed that the citizens longed for "liberation".


That's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that in situations where there is a humanitarian catastrophe, sometimes military support is necessary for humanitarian aid to have a chance at success.  I've repeatedly said that I don't think it's a valid excuse for an aggressive invasion, especially one that seeks to topple a government and install a compliant regime, so neither of your examples are relevant. 

I also don't think that just because an idea has been misused means we have to throw out the entire idea.  Virtually every idea can be used to justify horrific things, that doesn't mean we should abandon them, it means we need to be careful and judicious about the ways in which we use them.

 


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

The Bish wrote:

I also don't think that just because an idea has been misused means we have to throw out the entire idea.  Virtually every idea can be used to justify horrific things, that doesn't mean we should abandon them, it means we need to be careful and judicious about the ways in which we use them.

Why would you trust the same people who used "humanitarianism" as a cover for imperialist aggression to use the same "idea" again? If people misuse an idea you don't throw out the idea, but you do throw out the people.

Fool me twice, shame on me.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005
"Rape is currently being used not only as a consequential act of war - which would be bad enough - but as the very instrument for the waging of war itself, and where up to 70 per cent of women in targeted villages have been the victims of indiscriminate sexual violence. In a prescient statement of a crime foretold, even before this renewed violence Lewis described what is currently happening in the Congo as an act of "criminal international misogyny, sustained by the indifference of nation states and by the delinquency of the United Nations."

If Canada's leadership in the responsibility to protect doctrine, affirmed by the UN Security Council, is to find expression - and if the recent commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is to be acted upon - it is imperative that Canada, in concert with the international community, address and act upon the worst ongoing humanitarian catastrophe since World War II.

Regrettably, Canada, together with the international community, continues to ignore the compelling lessons of history - in the Congo as well as in Darfur - that genocide occurs not only because of the machinery of death but also because of crimes of indifference, because of conspiracies of silence - because of bystanders facilitating the perpetrators.

Indeed, what made the genocide in Rwanda so unspeakable was not only the horror of the genocide itself, but that it was preventable. No one can say that we did not know. We knew, but did not act. Just as no one can say today that we do not know what is happening in Darfur - or in the Congo. We know but we are not acting."

 

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/554265

 


Slumberjack
Online
Joined: Aug 8 2005

@ Webgear

African issues cannot be solved by non-African states.  No amount of 'international community' involvement will resolve anything.  The white colonial cavalry rode through there in the past, and undertaking more of the same sort of intervention isn't the answer.  I'm not sure what the solution is to be honest.  The AU might be better positioned to respond to crisis areas if they had a robust, superbly trained and equipped standing peacekeeping force, or peacemaking force if necessary, which is backed up by an AU security treaty and a permanent war crimes tribunal comprised of legal authorities from AU countries.  This is not to say that support cannot come from outside the AU AOR in the form of funding or technical assistance.  Direct military intervention by western nations in African affairs, either by colonial powers or through UN authority has been a failure and will continue to be.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

Slumberjack, I agree with some of your points.

I am only providing statements from the Liberals and NDP members on the topic.

I have stated before that Canada should not become involved in Africa especially the conflict in Sudan.


The Bish
Offline
Joined: Nov 11 2008
Slumberjack wrote:

African issues cannot be solved by non-African states.  No amount of 'international community' involvement will resolve anything.



I was unaware that the people of Africa were of a different breed.  I was under the apparently mistaken impression that people everywhere were roughly the same.  Since I'm apparently uneducated on the matter, perhaps you could describe for me exactly what an "African" problem is and how it differs from the problems that white people are able to cope with.

Sunday Hat
Offline
Joined: Nov 10 2008

I actually agree with The Bish that simply saying "let them sort their own shit out" isn't a real answer. I don't think people in the West (who've grown rich from colonialism) can simply walk away now and say, 'not my problem'.

More importantly, these comments fail to recognize that the "international community" is involved. Rwanda recieves extensive US aid and political support (a US "client state" in Cold War terms) which has continued to flow while they have invaded and sponsored terrorism against Congo. As a recent piece in Foreign Policy in Focus noted: "Bush knows that Rwanda’s involvement in the armed conflict in the DRC delays peace in eastern Congo, but he continues to authorize military aid to Rwanda. In 2007, the United States armed and trained Rwandan soldiers with $7.2 million from the U.S. defense program Africa Contingent Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA) and $260,000 from the International Military and Education (IMET) program. At the same time, the United States is involved in facilitating peace talks between Rwanda and the DRC and the various rebel groups operating in eastern Congo."

So, "non-African states" are involved and, if one were cynical, one might think that they have an agenda - namely aiding Rwanda's bid for regional domination. It's worth remembering that the US (under Clinton) enthusiastically backed Rwanda's bid to install Laurent Kabila as President of Congo and backed him gladly when they thought he'd toe the line. As the New York Times reported at the time: "IT was a high-powered team that President Clinton sent to meet with the new Government here: the United States representative to the United Nations, Bill Richardson; an assistant secretary of State; an admiral; a senior member of the National Security Council; a senior spy, a member of Congress. But ''the center of attraction,'' as Mr. Richardson said in introducing the delegation to Congolese officials, was the man from the Agency for International Development, Richard McCall. ''He has the money,'' Mr. Richardson said of Mr. McCall, third in command at the agency that doles out American largesse. All the new Congolese President, Laurent Kabila, has to do to get the money is become a democrat and free-market capitalist. Reinforcing that message, Commerce and Treasury officials were along, dangling financial lures. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were close behind."

Of course, Kabila ultimately decided he didn't want to be a proxy and when he asked Rwandan troops to withdraw the war started again (with Rwandans fighting the President they helped install) and the US decided Kabila was a bad President.

The bottom-line: while the "international community" has wrung their hands, cried crocodile tears and supported peace talks, they've continued to fund Rwanda and (perhaps indirectly but probably not) Rwanda's ongoing efforts to conquer the DR of Congo.

The concern for "human rights" expressed by Irwin Cotler sounds admirable but is, ultimately an empty PR gesture. Cotler certainly hasn't expressed much desire to prosecute human rights violations in Israel's occupied territories (much less those committed by US adminitration).

And while there's something to be said for cracking down on the mining companies that seek to profit off the conflict Canada can't talk out of both sides of their mouth. When we encourage (or sit quiet while the US encourages) these countries to embrace globalization and capitalism we can't feign surprise when unscrupulous operators swoop in to make a profit.

If a peace process is going to work it has to be genuine and it has to be real. The US has to stop the two-faced routine where Rwanda gets harsh words in public but the money continues to flow. If - and it's a big if - the US is sincere about ending this conflict that needs to happen. And any Canadian government that's sincere about ending the war needs to be able to say that. Knowing the Liberal party, I don't have a lot of hope that a Coalition government (should it happen) would be willing to do so.


Sunday Hat
Offline
Joined: Nov 10 2008

I'll note that Sweden and the Netherlands have suspended some aid to Rwanda following the release of a report linking the Rwandan government to Laurent Nkunda's "rebels".

Maybe the NDP and/or Liberals could be encouraged to do the same.


Ze
Offline
Joined: Nov 14 2008

Is "the international community" synonymous with the West? Sounds like it, to hear people like Ignatieff talk. 

 Anyways, for sure the West is involved. How many Canadian mining companies are in the Congo already, causing the problems that intervention-boosters want to then "solve"?  

Quote:
In 2001, SOMIKA, a processor of heterogenite (copper and cobalt), set up operations in the Katanga region of the DRC. The company processes ore from various neighboring sites where extraction is contracted out to artisanal miners. SOMIKA’s installations are located on a major water table that supplies drinking water to 70% of the population of Lubumbashi. There is a risk that the water could potentially be contaminated by SOMIKA’s operations. In addition, there are persistent concerns about discriminatory hiring procedures and working conditions including health and safety risks that have not been adequately addressed.

This case study remains incomplete. A number of difficulties were experienced during the research process and therefore it is not possible to present definitive conclusions of the impact assessment here. Nevertheless, preliminary results indicate that there is reason for concern that violations of labour rights and the rights to water and health may have occurred as a result of the investment.

 http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/what_we_do/index.php?id=1489&page=7&subsection=themes&subsubsection=theme_documents


Sunday Hat
Offline
Joined: Nov 10 2008

This article provides some insight into the depth to which Canadian mining companies (and the Canadian government) are involved in the Congo conflict. The Canadian companies of note are Barrick Gold and Banro though the article also notes that the TSX is where most of the speculative actibity in the mining sector happens:

"Most of this speculative activity is carried out on the Toronto stock exchange. About 60% of the world’s mining companies – not all necessarily Canadian – are quoted there. Canadian law affords the industry significant tax breaks, incentives for investors in the mining sector, lax controls on insider trading, and no serious requirement for companies to explain how they came by their profits. Between 2001 and September 2004, the Toronto stock exchange’s TSX Venture index – which favours mineral prospecting companies – showed that the value of share transactions rose from $800m to $4.4bn (6).

The government is prepared to support the Canadian mining industry’s foreign activities at any cost. It claims to be protecting the public interest on the grounds that the nation’s savings (pension and growth funds) are pegged to the industry. Despite many serious allegations of crimes and abuses in the Great Lakes region, Canada has conducted no recent political or legal investigation into the activities of any mining company. The country has turned itself into a legal haven for the industry."

Barrick Gold's Chairman, Peter Munk is, of course, the man who UofT obsequiously named their Centre for International Studies after (and who infamously praised Augusto Pinochet for "transforming Chile"). The Liberals, when they mattered, benefited from his largesse. So, ironically enough, Cotler's re-election efforts have been paid for, in part, with the blood of the Congolese. Of course, Munk is now directing his energy towards supporting Stephen Harper (as the article notes).


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

http://www.thestar.com/article/570442

 

"The largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world today is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The force has been expanded from an initial 5,000 troops to 17,000 today. It is a complex mission operating in a violent and unstable environment, involving a multitude of factions and states. Scores of UN peacekeepers have been killed since the operation began in 1999. Today the Congo is falling apart. This mission is anything but peaceful and non-violent.

 

We hear a lot in Canada about the joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Some 200,000 civilians have been killed in Darfur since 2003 at the hands of a Sudanese government allied militia known as the Janjaweed. The Bush administration called the Darfur crisis genocide. The atrocities have continued virtually unabated, notwithstanding the presence of a significant African Union force, which has now morphed into this much larger combined AU-UN operation. Darfur is a war zone - there is little peace to keep.

 

In 2005, then prime minister Paul Martin wanted to deploy the Canadian Forces to Darfur if the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a mission. Canada's military leadership assessed the situation on the ground at that time and advised the prime minister that it could be more dangerous for Canadian troops in Darfur than in Kandahar."

 


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Webgear wrote:
  Some 200,000 civilians have been killed in Darfur since 2003 at the hands of a Sudanese government allied militia known as the Janjaweed. The Bush administration called the Darfur crisis genocide.

Why should we be quoting known war criminals and mass murderers on a country which the US has admitted to forging intelligence ties with since 2005? We know about the oil discovery in Sudan - and that China now has business interests in 47 African countries - and we know the US and friends have worked to destabilize Sudan and surrounding nations since the 1970's.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

 http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2009/D39015.htm#1

 "On January 16, Israeli Foreign Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning the "ending of Gaza arms-smuggling" with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. This was Ms. Rice's last working day in office but her signature on behalf of the U.S. government binds the incoming administration. It should be noted that as a member of NATO, Canada is also bound to be dragooned into future U.S.-led aggression undertaken in the name of "stopping weapons flows to Hamas in Gaza."

According to the second specific undertaking of this MOU:

"2. The United States will work with regional and NATO partners to address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including through the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and eastern Africa, through improvements in existing arrangements or the launching of new initiatives to increase the effectiveness of those arrangements as they relate to the prevention of weapons smuggling to Gaza. Among the tools that will be pursued are:

"Enhanced U.S. security and intelligence cooperation with regional governments on actions to prevent weapons and explosives flows to Gaza that originate in or transit their territories; including through the involvement of relevant components of the U.S. Government, such as U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Special Operations Command.

"* Enhanced intelligence fusion with key international and coalition naval forces and other appropriate entities to address weapons supply to Gaza;

"* Enhancement of the existing international sanctions and enforcement mechanisms against provision of material support to Hamas and other terrorist organizations, including through an international response to those states, such as Iran, who are determined to be sources of weapons and explosives supply to Gaza."

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

 

"Would you like to commend or criticize any particular Canadian politicians and/or political parties with respect to Darfur?

Darfur is a cross-party issue. In our campaign "Speak the Name," which we ran during the last federal election, we offered to any candidate that if they spoke about Darfur, that we would speak about them. We had ninety-two supporters, of which fifty-one were elected. We need to see that support turn into action. In particular, I travelled to Sudan with [Liberal MPs] Carolyn Bennett and Glen Pearson, who are phenomenal advocates for Darfur; [Liberal MP] Irwin Cotler and [NDP MP] Paul Dewar are other particularly strong allies.

Your literature refers to "advocacy" toward Canadian politicians. What exactly are you advocating them to do?

The Canadian government needs to lead the world in response to genocide, and particularly Darfur. Canadians wrote the Responsibility to Protect [R2P] doctrine, which posits that the international community needs to help protect the citizens of a country from persecution if their government does not, and we need to uphold this. We need to pressure the United Nations [UN] to fully deploy peacekeepers, to help facilitate peace talks with tribal leaders, and to divest Canadian institutions from holdings in the worst offender companies doing business in Sudan.

So would your support for foreign intervention in Darfur extend to support for military intervention? Can the genocide be stopped without military intervention? By whom?

We want to see the UN mission be effective-and for this to happen, the full deployment of peacekeepers needs to occur, and we cannot kowtow to the desires of the Sudanese government. "

Ryerson Meets Darfur

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

CONGO WOMEN

A panel discussion on the plight of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo takes place March 20 from 4:30 to 6 p.m. at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at UBC. It's organized by the Africa Canada Accountability Coalition. Speakers include NDP Foreign Affairs Critic Paul Dewar and Major General (Retired) Philip Lancaster, a senior official to peacekeeping operations.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/communitybriefs/story.html?id=ab815f62-8cf6-41e3-9a8b-fee6af0db47e 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009

Israel is not a member of NATO and there is nothing in the NATO Charter that would force Canada to become militarily involved in the Sudan.

According to former Gen. Rick Hillier and Stephen Harper, Canada's military is overstreatched in Afghanistan and is currently unable to make commitments anywhere else.

See my comments on NATO in The Afghan people will win - Part 3 thread. 


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

Statement from Jack Layton on the 15th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide

 

"When the killing started in Rwanda, the rest of the world made the decision to turn away. This is why it is so important now for Canada to follow the example of Roméo Dallaire and participate wholeheartedly in efforts to bring peace and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan, and to the Democratic Republic of Congo."

 

http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-from-jack-layton-on-15th-anniversary-r...


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009
This was Prime Minister Paul Martin's sentiment in 2005. While Gen. Rick Hillier was pushing for redeploying troops from Kabul to Kandahar, Martin wanted to send a mission to the Sudan. Martin: "Will Canada's role in Southern Afghanistan be humanitarian?" Hillier: "Yes" Martin: "Will our troops be engaged in combat?" Hillier: "The mission of our troops will be to protect the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Should there be any combat, I expect it to be light." Martin: "The Canadian military will then be able to support both the Afghan as well as a Sudan mission in Darfur?" Hillier: "Yes." As events turned out, we know that insurgent activity in Southern Afghanistan was not "light" (the Afghan war has been escalating ever since) and the Canadian military was not capable of conducting both operations.

thorin_bane
Offline
Joined: Jun 19 2004

What our military lie? Undecided

 

 

There is a reason the military has a propaganda arm.


Webgear
Online
Joined: May 30 2005

 

Every organization has a propaganda arm.


Frmrsldr
Offline
Joined: Mar 4 2009
Yeah, the kinder, gentler word is "spin". The Army refers to its "spin doctors" as Public Information Officers or Assisstants - PIOs or PIAs - something the Army probably borrowed from civilian marketing (advertizing) agencies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments