Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Canada's military

513 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Canada's military

*

 

Pondering

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion warned this week that Canada will not be able to give its allies everything they want — something Sajjan reiterated on Friday.

Speaking at the closing of the Canada 2020 foreign policy conference, Sajjan politely pushed back at critics, saying a measured approach is needed, considering the ripple effect of decisions. The cabinet debate is focused on understanding the consequences of its decisions.

To illustrate his point, Sajjan produced a slide detailing the intricate, often-confusing spider web of tribal relationships he dealt with in Kandahar as a liaison officer who sifted through intelligence.

He suggested the so-called war on terror has failed.

...

"Over the last 10 years, we need to do a really hard assessment," he said. "Should we be patting ourselves on the back? And, I'm talking from a security perspective around the world, I think we can say things have not gotten much better. Things have gotten worse."

He said the western coalition in Afghanistan lacked a clear understanding of the situation on the ground, the parties involved and the impact of its intervention, which contributed to Afghanistan's downward spiral after 2006.

Had the allies recognized some of the signs early and adjusted their strategy, a surge of thousands of U.S. troops into Kandahar in 2009 might not have been necessary, he added.

There were other mistakes, particularly when it came to the billions spent on reconstruction.

"Some of our development strategies of the coalition partners in Afghanistan helped create the corruption that fuelled the insurgency," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/29/sajjan-vows-no-repeat-of-the-mis...

monty1

Pondering wrote:

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion warned this week that Canada will not be able to give its allies everything they want — something Sajjan reiterated on Friday.

Speaking at the closing of the Canada 2020 foreign policy conference, Sajjan politely pushed back at critics, saying a measured approach is needed, considering the ripple effect of decisions. The cabinet debate is focused on understanding the consequences of its decisions.

To illustrate his point, Sajjan produced a slide detailing the intricate, often-confusing spider web of tribal relationships he dealt with in Kandahar as a liaison officer who sifted through intelligence.

He suggested the so-called war on terror has failed.

...

"Over the last 10 years, we need to do a really hard assessment," he said. "Should we be patting ourselves on the back? And, I'm talking from a security perspective around the world, I think we can say things have not gotten much better. Things have gotten worse."

He said the western coalition in Afghanistan lacked a clear understanding of the situation on the ground, the parties involved and the impact of its intervention, which contributed to Afghanistan's downward spiral after 2006.

Had the allies recognized some of the signs early and adjusted their strategy, a surge of thousands of U.S. troops into Kandahar in 2009 might not have been necessary, he added.

There were other mistakes, particularly when it came to the billions spent on reconstruction.

"Some of our development strategies of the coalition partners in Afghanistan helped create the corruption that fuelled the insurgency," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/29/sajjan-vows-no-repeat-of-the-mis...

Pondering, would you agree that this is just pablum for the masses? Canada's contribution to the US led wars is only important in the sense of it being seen that Canada is supporting their wars. In that sense, withdrawing the most visible aspect of it is all that really matters. What happens behind the scenes matters not a whit. Or in other words, if the US could say that Canada is onside witht their wars, by it being demonstrated in the public eye, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if our whole armed forces was in there killing people or we had one forward observer sending messages back to headquarters on the number of times ISIS fighters piss each day.

If you recall, Chretien handled it very nicely, even though we suffered blackmail by the US for our visible stance of telling them to stick it.

Too bad these NDP'ers are so involved in their partisan bullshit politics to even attempt to understand how we are going to be able to stay out of this mess the US has created. Too bad they don't understand that the public, combined with US propaganda would have made mincemeat out of Mulcair if he tried to dial it back one iota from what the Harper regime had us into.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

Pondering, would you agree that this is just pablum for the masses? Canada's contribution to the US led wars is only important in the sense of it being seen that Canada is supporting their wars. In that sense, withdrawing the most visible aspect of it is all that really matters. What happens behind the scenes matters not a whit. Or in other words, if the US could say that Canada is onside witht their wars, by it being demonstrated in the public eye, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if our whole armed forces was in there killing people or we had one forward observer sending messages back to headquarters on the number of times ISIS fighters piss each day.

If you recall, Chretien handled it very nicely, even though we suffered blackmail by the US for our visible stance of telling them to stick it.

Too bad these NDP'ers are so involved in their partisan bullshit politics to even attempt to understand how we are going to be able to stay out of this mess the US has created. Too bad they don't understand that the public, combined with US propaganda would have made mincemeat out of Mulcair if he tried to dial it back one iota from what the Harper regime had us into.

I don't think it's pablum at all. It isn't everything we want but it isn't nothing either. He said the war on terror has failed, not is failing, has failed. He said our actions have fueled the violence and that has to be considered going forward. That is a shocking admission of reality.

Nothing Canada says is going to stop the US from doing what they want to do and even if the US pulled out tomorrow the violence would not stop. This man understands the region and the culture and our military in a way Harper and his ilk never did. Harper's approach was simple, blunt. Support Israel, the US and whip out our CF-18s.

We can continue agitating for the currently impossible (full withdrawal from all military action) while still understanding that diplomatically the international community expects us to spend a certain percentage of GDP on "defence".  How we spend it is up to us.

He is correct when he says it is the locals who must do the fighting and maintain the peace. As long as our military is going to be active I would prefer that they train local troops and provide humanitarian aid than go on bombing runs.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Pondering, would you agree that this is just pablum for the masses? Canada's contribution to the US led wars is only important in the sense of it being seen that Canada is supporting their wars. In that sense, withdrawing the most visible aspect of it is all that really matters. What happens behind the scenes matters not a whit. Or in other words, if the US could say that Canada is onside witht their wars, by it being demonstrated in the public eye, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if our whole armed forces was in there killing people or we had one forward observer sending messages back to headquarters on the number of times ISIS fighters piss each day.

If you recall, Chretien handled it very nicely, even though we suffered blackmail by the US for our visible stance of telling them to stick it.

Too bad these NDP'ers are so involved in their partisan bullshit politics to even attempt to understand how we are going to be able to stay out of this mess the US has created. Too bad they don't understand that the public, combined with US propaganda would have made mincemeat out of Mulcair if he tried to dial it back one iota from what the Harper regime had us into.

I don't think it's pablum at all. It isn't everything we want but it isn't nothing either. He said the war on terror has failed, not is failing, has failed. He said our actions have fueled the violence and that has to be considered going forward. That is a shocking admission of reality.

Nothing Canada says is going to stop the US from doing what they want to do and even if the US pulled out tomorrow the violence would not stop. This man understands the region and the culture and our military in a way Harper and his ilk never did. Harper's approach was simple, blunt. Support Israel, the US and whip out our CF-18s.

We can continue agitating for the currently impossible (full withdrawal from all military action) while still understanding that diplomatically the international community expects us to spend a certain percentage of GDP on "defence".  How we spend it is up to us.

He is correct when he says it is the locals who must do the fighting and maintain the peace. As long as our military is going to be active I would prefer that they train local troops and provide humanitarian aid than go on bombing runs.

You misunderstood me when I suggested that it was pablum for the masses. My following words expalined it but ai may have failed to make myself clear. What I mean is that only the 6 bombers really matter because they are visual support of US wars. Anythine less is pretending to be a contribution but in reality is just "pablum for the masses.

I think our minister of war is great too as well as, I agree totally with you that it was a 'shocking admission of reality' that the mission has failed and will continue to fail. He'll get hell from the media and Rex Murphy for saying that! 

Too fucking bad the NDP'ers don't seem to be deep enough thinkers to come along with us on this. Rather, they are afraid of supporting anything the Liberal party does on foreign policy. That's how the left always gets defeated! 

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

You misunderstood me when I suggested that it was pablum for the masses. My following words expalined it but ai may have failed to make myself clear. What I mean is that only the 6 bombers really matter because they are visual support of US wars. Anythine less is pretending to be a contribution but in reality is just "pablum for the masses.

I think our minister of war is great too as well as, I agree totally with you that it was a 'shocking admission of reality' that the mission has failed and will continue to fail. He'll get hell from the media and Rex Murphy for saying that! 

Too fucking bad the NDP'ers don't seem to be deep enough thinkers to come along with us on this. Rather, they are afraid of supporting anything the Liberal party does on foreign policy. That's how the left always gets defeated!

I see and I am happy we agree. I don't expect or want any unification of the NDP and the Liberals but I agree on the NDP right now.  Layton didn't hesitate to support the Liberals when they were doing the right thing, at least until the end of 2005. That made their criticisms more credible. In my view the NDP is harming itself not the Liberals with this attitude. Fortunately the general public isn't paying much attention and those that are, are paying attention to Rona Ambrose. (what an awful woman)

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

"Some of our development strategies of the coalition partners in Afghanistan helped create the corruption that fuelled the insurgency," he said.

I've been underwealmed by him so far.  His comments in that article seem like a lot of political-speak but this seems right on the money. Our penchant to just throw cash around and expect it to fix everything didn't work. It made it worse.

 

Pondering wrote:

He is correct when he says it is the locals who must do the fighting and maintain the peace. As long as our military is going to be active I would prefer that they train local troops and provide humanitarian aid than go on bombing runs.

That's the problem though, the locals need to do the fighting themselves BUT they want more money to do it. They want expensive gear and equipment. They want NATO advisors beside them all the time. 

But what happened in with the Iraq soldiers we (NATO) trained for over 10 years? With billions of dollars of equipment? Without a large NATO presence?   At the first sign of trouble they dropped their expensive stuff and ran away. ISIS picked it up and used it on them.

We can train local troops but the minute they're on their own they'll crumble.  Experience and history showed us that. And that was without all the high tech expensive stuff they have now, or the massive numbers they have now.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

 

That's the problem though, the locals need to do the fighting themselves BUT they want more money to do it. They want expensive gear and equipment. They want NATO advisors beside them all the time. 

But what happened in with the Iraq soldiers we (NATO) trained for over 10 years? With billions of dollars of equipment? Without a large NATO presence?   At the first sign of trouble they dropped their expensive stuff and ran away. ISIS picked it up and used it on them.

We can train local troops but the minute they're on their own they'll crumble.  Experience and history showed us that. And that was without all the high tech expensive stuff they have now, or the massive numbers they have now.

Apparently that is not so true when Canadians are doing the training, at least that is the impression I got. Training and intelligence seems to be two of Canada's strengths.

I'm also very interested in what he said about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan and more humanitarian aid. Couple that with intelligence and I see a very different role for Canada.

I'm pleased that he is being more honest about the complexity of the issues in the mid-east, no easy answers. Under the Liberals the military tended to take full responsibility for a specific task or geographic area then operate independently. Harper's preference has been to imbed our military in US led missions. By having independent missions we can more readily assess our goal and whether or not we are meeting it.

A goal like "defeating ISIS" has no boundries. Even if they were defeated the violence would just be rebirthed under different names, perhaps weakened but far from gone.

Realistically we are going to contribute. Canadians expect us to. Canada will not suddenly become isolationist. We have diplomatic international obligations that Canadians would be upset if we did not fulfill in some manner.

I think the roles Sajjan is describing aren't perfect but way better than bombing.

iyraste1313

¨Realistically we are going to contribute. Canadians expect us to. Canada will not suddenly become isolationist. We have diplomatic international obligations that Canadians would be upset if we did not fulfill in some manner.....¨

 

It´s hard to believe, what with all the evidence as to the nature of ISIS and the conflict, that people think, that the violence will continue!

These are mercenaries with the obvious support from the USA, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.....cut their supply lines...shut down their finances....they will just disappear! Sure there will always be sociopaths (just look to the banksters, for proof)...as in human society there always will be....but keep them under control, don´t support them!
I´m sorry, but Canada is legitimizing a false paradigm, not to mention our manipulative agenda to weaken and break up these countries......all of course war crimes and illegal internationally! 

Paladin1

Thoughtful reply thank you Pondering.

Pondering wrote:

Apparently that is not so true when Canadians are doing the training, at least that is the impression I got. Training and intelligence seems to be two of Canada's strengths.

I don't see the issue so much being the level and quality of training as it's cultural and idealogical. All the best training in the world won't matter if their heart isn't in it.   In June of 2014   (In Mosul, Iraq) 30'000 Iraqi soldiers armed with the latest american weapons available fled a much much smaller ISIS force who weren't nearly as well armed.  After 10+ years of training and billions of dollars spent their excuse was "We didn't know what to do".

Quote:
I'm also very interested in what he said about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan and more humanitarian aid. Couple that with intelligence and I see a very different role for Canada.

Humanitarian aid is great so long as care is given to ensure it's protected and ends up in the proper hands. If we just ship a box of supplies 'to whom it may concern' and it ends up in ISIS hands then all we're doing is helping the people physically responsible for the abuse and murder happening.

 

Quote:

I think the roles Sajjan is describing aren't perfect but way better than bombing.

Can I ask you what you see the difference between bombing and a training mission is?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
  I don't see the issue so much being the level and quality of training as it's cultural and idealogical. All the best training in the world won't matter if their heart isn't in it.   In June of 2014   (In Mosul, Iraq) 30'000 Iraqi soldiers armed with the latest american weapons available fled a much much smaller ISIS force who weren't nearly as well armed.  After 10+ years of training and billions of dollars spent their excuse was "We didn't know what to do"

Were they Sunni or Shia? We aren't training either. We are training Kurds who are fighting ISIS (Sunni based) and won't turn and run. Turkey is afraid of the Kurds because Kurdish lands were split between Iraq, Turkey and Syria. The Kurds have sought independence ever since. That is why it is so important that we act independent from the US in whatever contributions we make.

Paladin1 wrote:
Humanitarian aid is great so long as care is given to ensure it's protected and ends up in the proper hands. If we just ship a box of supplies 'to whom it may concern' and it ends up in ISIS hands then all we're doing is helping the people physically responsible for the abuse and murder happening.

That isn't what the military is planning to do. They are putting boots on the ground to stablilize Lebanon and Jordan which both have large refugee camps. That is where the humanitarian aid comes in.

Paladin1 wrote:

Can I ask you what you see the difference between bombing and a training mission is?

 

Pretty obvious isn't it? In one our armed forces are dropping bombs on foreign soil. In the other we are training foreign people to defend themselves.

I think you might find this interview interesting. I did even though it was very slow going at first. It's about Sajjan's beginnings as a police officer on the beat, his interactions with gang leaders, and how he rose to be a top level intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces as well as his time in active duty in Afghanistan. In particular, what a difference a stolen bicycle can make.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-as-go-to-guy-in...

 

 

monty1

Here's an idea. One that may not have been introduced as yet in any of the conversations. But that would be too incredible to believe so I'm going to assume it hasn't:

When the domestic scene gets tough, the unemployed can fall back on the military to make a living. The problem with that is they really don't have the 'heart' into it and don't want to go out killing people. Fortunately for them, if they're not of a lower caste, there are lots of jobs in the military that don't require killing or risking your neck. Any recognition of 'privilege' and you'll get one. Much moreso in some countries than others of course.

Sound a little like the situation in the US at the moment? It's meant to but it's still a distraction from the main point.

The point is, the reason why Iraqis don't fight is because they don't really want to kill others in the US made war. They want to feed their families. And that is no more true to day than it was in Lawrence's time in Arabia. I won't get into elaborating on that time because most will understand what was happening hopefully. 

Canada can do all the training we want, and preferably we do nothing, but it's not going to change the situation. Without the US in there fomenting wars and hatred, the situation will quiet down to a few tribes killing other tribesmen for the loot. Probablby much less though than during WW1 because they have become much more civilized. Especially Iraqis, whrere they lived in prosperity and all religins were accepted under Saddam's rule. Unless you were a Kurd who was actively  involved in cutting out a piece of Iraq for a future Kurdistan. Say it ain't so. It makes a good discussion.

Pondering

We aren't training Iraqis, we are training Kurds.

Afghanistan was also quite civilized with university educated professional women before Russia and the US decided to use it for a proxy war.

Iraq was "secular" because Saddam Hussian was a strong man leader (brutal dictator).

You are absolutely right that Canada can't change anything in a global sense whether we participate or not. It's driven by powers greater than us and solutions lie in diplomacy and trade not invasions.

This is the reality:

Canadians expect Canada to be part of the international community and to live up to our responsibilities. I haven't done a poll but I am convinced that Canadians would not be in favor of our withdrawing from NATO and the grand majority expects us to hold up our weight in fighting ISIS. The question isn't whether or not we will participate, it is in what way will we participate.

I think if you watch that entire interview with Sajjan you will be impressed and reassured that if we have to participate he is the person guiding it.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Were they Sunni or Shia? We aren't training either. We are training Kurds who are fighting ISIS (Sunni based) and won't turn and run.

I wish I shared your faith. I hope you're right.  I'm surprised they trust the west after the west abandoned them after the first gulf war.

Quote:

That isn't what the military is planning to do. They are putting boots on the ground to stablilize Lebanon and Jordan which both have large refugee camps. That is where the humanitarian aid comes in.

That makes more sense.  That seems like a really good idea.

Quote:

Pretty obvious isn't it? In one our armed forces are dropping bombs on foreign soil. In the other we are training foreign people to defend themselves.

I think on the surface it sounds obvious.  Maybe I should have included why trainers and not bombers in my question (avoiding civilian casualties seems like the most common answer I've seen to that question).

 

So we want to remove Canadian planes dropping US (or NATO?)bombs on targets (avoiding civilian casualties?)

and trade them with

Canadian soldiers teaching locals how to call US and NATO warplanes to drop US and NATO bombs on targets.

If we're talking morality or saving civilian lives I really struggle with understanding this train of thought.

Not saying you per se Pondering but I think a lot of people presume a training mission is a kindler gentler less violent involvement.

 

Quote:
I think you might find this interview interesting.

I suspect I will, I'll check it out thank you.

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I haven't done a poll but I am convinced that Canadians would not be in favor of our withdrawing from NATO

 

Trudeau Sr considered that in 1969 and quickly dropped the idea when he saw the reaction it had.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I haven't done a poll but I am convinced that Canadians would not be in favor of our withdrawing from NATO

Trudeau Sr considered that in 1969 and quickly dropped the idea when he saw the reaction it had.

Of course in 1969 NATO was not the same as it is now and the Prague Spring had just been crushed by an occupying army from the Warsaw Pact, the military alliance that NATO was designed to oppose.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

We aren't training Iraqis, we are training Kurds.

Afghanistan was also quite civilized with university educated professional women before Russia and the US decided to use it for a proxy war.

Iraq was "secular" because Saddam Hussian was a strong man leader (brutal dictator).

You are absolutely right that Canada can't change anything in a global sense whether we participate or not. It's driven by powers greater than us and solutions lie in diplomacy and trade not invasions.

This is the reality:

Canadians expect Canada to be part of the international community and to live up to our responsibilities. I haven't done a poll but I am convinced that Canadians would not be in favor of our withdrawing from NATO and the grand majority expects us to hold up our weight in fighting ISIS. The question isn't whether or not we will participate, it is in what way will we participate.

I think if you watch that entire interview with Sajjan you will be impressed and reassured that if we have to participate he is the person guiding it.

Brutal dictator? Sounds like a US propaganda talking point, even though you may not mean it as such. Personally, I scoff at it because I am aware of the history of British, French, and US involvement in the ME and how they brought brutality to the region that will never be surpassed in the future. 

A brutal dictator who used effective measures against factions that were attempting to tear off a chunk of his Iraq and turn it into a kurdistan. And aided and abetted by US involvement every step of the way.

I urge you and others to read "Lawrence in Arabia" by Scott Anderson for a feeling of what happened and why the ME is what it is today.

Fwiw, I've mentioned the book to a few people and half of them at least say it's the best book they have ever read! Take it or leave it but nobody should be drawing too many conclusions on the subject until they have read about it in that detail.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

I think on the surface it sounds obvious.  Maybe I should have included why trainers and not bombers in my question (avoiding civilian casualties seems like the most common answer I've seen to that question).

So we want to remove Canadian planes dropping US (or NATO?)bombs on targets (avoiding civilian casualties?)

and trade them with

Canadian soldiers teaching locals how to call US and NATO warplanes to drop US and NATO bombs on targets.

If we're talking morality or saving civilian lives I really struggle with understanding this train of thought.

Not saying you per se Pondering but I think a lot of people presume a training mission is a kindler gentler less violent involvement.

The Kurds are not exactly enlightened by western standards but they are defending and retaking their land not invading. ISIS are invaders and manage to make the Taliban and Al Quada look like the good guys.

Even if we are teaching locals how to call in bombing targets the more direct responsibility still lies with the locals. We are not forcing anything on them as did the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria. I really have no clue on how to create or nurture peace in the middle east. What is done cannot be undone. Canada won't have an impact on that.

In my view the best we can hope for is to not make things worse and maybe offer a slightly safer life to those trying to survive in the refugee camps in the region. We aren't going to stop the US or the Russians from doing what they want to do.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

We aren't training Iraqis, we are training Kurds.

Afghanistan was also quite civilized with university educated professional women before Russia and the US decided to use it for a proxy war.

Iraq was "secular" because Saddam Hussian was a strong man leader (brutal dictator).

You are absolutely right that Canada can't change anything in a global sense whether we participate or not. It's driven by powers greater than us and solutions lie in diplomacy and trade not invasions.

This is the reality:

Canadians expect Canada to be part of the international community and to live up to our responsibilities. I haven't done a poll but I am convinced that Canadians would not be in favor of our withdrawing from NATO and the grand majority expects us to hold up our weight in fighting ISIS. The question isn't whether or not we will participate, it is in what way will we participate.

I think if you watch that entire interview with Sajjan you will be impressed and reassured that if we have to participate he is the person guiding it.

Brutal dictator? Sounds like a US propaganda talking point, even though you may not mean it as such. Personally, I scoff at it because I am aware of the history of British, French, and US involvement in the ME and how they brought brutality to the region that will never be surpassed in the future. 

A brutal dictator who used effective measures against factions that were attempting to tear off a chunk of his Iraq and turn it into a kurdistan. And aided and abetted by US involvement every step of the way.

Yes, the US has installed and supported brutal dictators all over the world as long as it suits US interests plus the US is only picking up where the British Empire left off.

Having said that the people of Saudi Arabia support beheading as a suitable punishment. Not all the countries are that extreme and the people themselves are not necessarily that fussy about who is Shia and who is Sunni. Cross marriages between the two were not rare and for all I know still aren't. The entire region is still far more religiously fundamentalist and many don't consider sharia law to be extreme or indefensible. Extreme judaism is equally comfortable in the region.

Maybe military action in the region would be defensible and effective if our motivation was to bring peace to the region but it isn't so it is bound to fail.

swallow swallow's picture

Pondering wrote:

The Kurds are not exactly enlightened by western standards 

Speaks well for them, if true. The West is pretty unenlightened by global standards. 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Kurds are not exactly enlightened by western standards.

Speaks well for them, if true. The West is pretty unenlightened by global standards. 

Where are these enlightened places? China? Russia? Not saying we have reached some perfect state of enlightenment but we no longer practice public hanging for entertainment and women are no longer the property of men.

My point is that Canadians in general do not understand who they think they are liberating.

In 2015, the number of beheadings reached a two decade high of "at least" 157[4] and 47 were executed on 2 January 2016.[5]

Unlike executions in most other countries that practice the death penalty, executions are not performed privately in prisons, but publicly. It is one of the last four countries to still carry out public executions.

Canadians are freaking out over the ISIS beheadings while we are shipping arms to Saudi Arabia and calling them our allies.

 

monty1

Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Kurds are not exactly enlightened by western standards.

Speaks well for them, if true. The West is pretty unenlightened by global standards. 

Where are these enlightened places? China? Russia? Not saying we have reached some perfect state of enlightenment but we no longer practice public hanging for entertainment and women are no longer the property of men.

My point is that Canadians in general do not understand who they think they are liberating.

In 2015, the number of beheadings reached a two decade high of "at least" 157[4] and 47 were executed on 2 January 2016.[5]

Unlike executions in most other countries that practice the death penalty, executions are not performed privately in prisons, but publicly. It is one of the last four countries to still carry out public executions.

Canadians are freaking out over the ISIS beheadings while we are shipping arms to Saudi Arabia and calling them our allies.

 

ISIS is fighting an assymetrical war where everything and anything goes. Saudi is a state that is uncivilized, corrupt, and a US ally. The first is always justified and the latter is not. 

Anyone who is surprised at my comment should just consider that when you fight a war with knives against cluster bombs, huge carpet bombs, fuel/air explosives and their like, the people with the knives attempt to terrorize their enemy by showing what happens if they catch one of them. 

Canadians freak out after watching US propaganda becasue they still think they are our holier than thou friends.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

ISIS is fighting an assymetrical war where everything and anything goes. Saudi is a state that is uncivilized, corrupt, and a US ally. The first is always justified and the latter is not. 

Anyone who is surprised at my comment should just consider that when you fight a war with knives against cluster bombs, huge carpet bombs, fuel/air explosives and their like, the people with the knives attempt to terrorize their enemy by showing what happens if they catch one of them. 

ISIS isn't just fighting the US. They are an extreme Sunni group that wants to murder everyone that isn't fundamentalist Sunni including all Shia and Sunni moderates and have no intention of stopping until they rule the world. Even if they got 100% control of the mid-East and turned it all fundamentalist Sunni they still wouldn't be satisfied.

ISIS considers Al Qaeda to be too moderate.

swallow swallow's picture

You could google Gandhi and West, Pondering. 

Given how many people have died as a result of actions by the "enlightened" West over the decades since the Enlightenment, I'm not sure the West should so uncritically assume its automatic superiority. 

monty1

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

ISIS is fighting an assymetrical war where everything and anything goes. Saudi is a state that is uncivilized, corrupt, and a US ally. The first is always justified and the latter is not. 

Anyone who is surprised at my comment should just consider that when you fight a war with knives against cluster bombs, huge carpet bombs, fuel/air explosives and their like, the people with the knives attempt to terrorize their enemy by showing what happens if they catch one of them. 

ISIS isn't just fighting the US. They are an extreme Sunni group that wants to murder everyone that isn't fundamentalist Sunni including all Shia and Sunni moderates and have no intention of stopping until they rule the world. Even if they got 100% control of the mid-East and turned it all fundamentalist Sunni they still wouldn't be satisfied.

ISIS considers Al Qaeda to be too moderate.

Well, that's what the US propagandists say anyway. And I know Pondering, it's accepted by the large majority of Canadians still. 

As for them ruling the world, uh, is that after they become a world super power with a military to rival that of the other recognized super powers? 

No Pondering, the are the result of the US wars on the Arabian peninsula and the best they will do is threaten to push the US off of it. But threaten is all obviously. Any threats carried out against the West is purely for revenge until one becomes large enough to become a warning that will have to be taken seriously. A 'small' mushroom cloud on a good day.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

You could google Gandhi and West, Pondering. 

Given how many people have died as a result of actions by the "enlightened" West over the decades since the Enlightenment, I'm not sure the West should so uncritically assume its automatic superiority. 

I didn't say western standards were superior only that the Kurds would not meet what westerners consider enlightened.

Gandhi was definitely not Kurdish.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

You could google Gandhi and West, Pondering. 

Given how many people have died as a result of actions by the "enlightened" West over the decades since the Enlightenment, I'm not sure the West should so uncritically assume its automatic superiority. 

I didn't say western standards were superior only that the Kurds would not meet what westerners consider enlightened.

Gandhi was definitely not Kurdish.

Gandhi was an anti-imperialist socialist from India. Of course the fact that many Kurdish fighters are unabashedly socialist is something that many in the West would consider unenlightened.

Quote:

Though this is the first all-female brigade of Yazidi fighters, there are precedents nearby. The YPJ (Kurdish Women’s Protection Unit) and YPG (People’s Protection Unit) are the armed branches of a Kurdish coalition in northern Syria, and has thousands of volunteer fighters both men and women. There is a YPJ/YPG subset in Sinjar, who played a crucial role in rescuing Yazidis trapped by Isis on Mount Sinjar in 2014, along with the PKK (Kurdish militant organisation founded on revolutionary Marxism) and the Peshmerga (Kurdish fighters in Iraq).

...

Pictures of their training camp are empowered and confident. One image shows a woman looking at her reflection in an uneven shard of mirror, adjusting her headscarf. Her gaze is firm, determined, clear-eyed. “Their decisions are in their hands, no longer in the hands of their families or their brothers,” says Yaghobzadeh.

Young fighters in training The YPG provide three months of ideological training to new recruits, so they “know who they are, what they are doing, what it is to be equal. It’s easy to teach them to shoot, but psychologically …” The pictures show an unforgiving training regime: “your face is on the ground, you feel the pain,” says Yaghobzadeh.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/11/women-taking-on-isis...

Pondering

Women also fight with ISIL.

By Kurdish standards, the west is unenlightened.

Pondering

Getting back to the topic of the thread:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/04/canada-wise-to-be-cautious...

To his credit, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan seems to recognize this. A veteran of the Afghan War, he knows what can happen when politicians send troops into conflict before sorting out the ramifications.

“I want to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past,” Sajjan told the Commons Monday.

“Because every single time we make these mistakes as political leaders, we send our men and women into harm’s way for no reason.”

....

In fact, Sajjan was right. Mistakes were made in Afghanistan. As a soldier serving in that war, he was on the receiving end of them.

On Friday, he outlined some of these mistakes in a speech to a foreign policy conference.

The Canadian Press reports that Sajjan singled out the West’s failure to grasp the complex situation on the ground.

He also noted that much of the money earmarked for Afghan aid only fuelled corruption.

And he issued a general caution about the war against terror.

Did anyone watch the video interview? We may still be involved but this man seems to have a good grasp on the problem and is honest about it.

iyraste1313

Yes we must watch as Trudeau is ordered to send his troops, oops I mean his technical advisors to coordinate with the other imperialist allies in their plans for Libya and Syria ad nauseum...mustn`t forget Venezuela...will this apparently honest gentleman have the guts to resign?

monty1

As honest as a politician can be when he doesn't have the backing of the Canadian people to withdraw further support. Turning around what Harper took ten years to create isn't going to be easy. Turning the people's heads around will have to start first and that's a job for the NDP and the Liberals in cooperation. Maybe the NDP will get vocal in return for Shiela Malcolmson's bill. 

We'll see when the plans for Canada's new commitment are released where everybody's hearts and minds are.

Pondering

Iyraste, if you watched the video you might realize the man isn't a monster. He's an actual human being with a history and perhaps a dedication to peace greater than yours.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

Iyraste, if you watched the video you might realize the man isn't a monster. He's an actual human being with a history and perhaps a dedication to peace greater than yours.

That's at the heart of it isn't it Pondering. I hope I have been at least a small influcence in us now hearing you challenge some of the NDP'ers to understand that cooperation between the two parties is what's needed. Or maybe not, but I commend you on your comment that seems to be suggesting that. Not to say that it's going to be acknowledged overnight.

Pondering

I don't want cooperation between the parties as much as I want the NDP to act in their own best self-interests. Their single-minded focus on attacking the Liberals as opposed to advancing the interests of Canadians is hurting them. People are looking for Corbyn or Sanders or Warren, and the NDP is giving them a party whose sole interest is political maneuvering.

monty1

Pondering wrote:

I don't want cooperation between the parties as much as I want the NDP to act in their own best self-interests. Their single-minded focus on attacking the Liberals as opposed to advancing the interests of Canadians is hurting them. People are looking for Corbyn or Sanders or Warren, and the NDP is giving them a party whose sole interest is political maneuvering.

I get it Pondering but I think that the NDP acting in it's own self interests is one and the same as cooperation with the Liberals. That is, the Liberal agenda and how it meshes with the NDP agenda. Almost everything in my opinion.

NDPP

CANADA TO EXPAND MILITARY MISSION (AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE) [nudge-nudge-wink-wink]   -  by Steven Chase

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-expand-military-m...

"The Liberal government will lay out its new EXPANDED role in the US-LED war against Islamic State next week that will include ADDITIONAL SPECIAL FORCES, a non-combat [?] air component and participation in an ENLARGED TRAINING MISSION, sources say.

The long-awaited announcement will be made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before Harjit Sajjan attends a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels next Wednesday and Thursday..."

Canada OUT of American Imperialist Wars!

pm@pm.gc.ca

Paladin1

Is there a point when civilian loss of life reaches a point where Canadian military involvement should supported?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Ready Aye Ready says our new PM. Liberal Tory same old story. They will happily be a colonial lap dog of our Big Brother next door. The only difference is that Harper spoke like a nasty in your face imperialist. Trudeau is much nicer and almost sounds reasonable if you don't pay attention to what he is doing and instead listen to his soothing voice. Anyone who thought they were getting anything except cosmetic change by voting Liberal has to be well on their way to disillusionment or are delusional or are in denial.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Is there a point when civilian loss of life reaches a point where Canadian military involvement should supported?

Given that the majority of civilian deaths have occurred because of Western intervention it is like pouring gasoline on a fire and thinking that since gas is a liquid it'll extinguish the blaze.

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ready Aye Ready says our new PM. Liberal Tory same old story. They will happily be a colonial lap dog of our Big Brother next door. The only difference is that Harper spoke like a nasty in your face imperialist. Trudeau is much nicer and almost sounds reasonable if you don't pay attention to what he is doing and instead listen to his soothing voice. Anyone who thought they were getting anything except cosmetic change by voting Liberal has to be well on their way to disillusionment or are delusional or are in denial.

The Liberals are being a bit ambigious. They're talking about 500-1000 trainers for a NATO-led training mission. That number is for the trainers and doesn't include the support staff required. We have 9 jets in country and takes 700 people. 3 of those 9 jets are staying. 

500-1000 trainers will take a lot of support. This training mission will probably see more soldiers deployed in country at any given time than we had in country in Afghanistan.

jjuares

Paladin1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ready Aye Ready says our new PM. Liberal Tory same old story. They will happily be a colonial lap dog of our Big Brother next door. The only difference is that Harper spoke like a nasty in your face imperialist. Trudeau is much nicer and almost sounds reasonable if you don't pay attention to what he is doing and instead listen to his soothing voice. Anyone who thought they were getting anything except cosmetic change by voting Liberal has to be well on their way to disillusionment or are delusional or are in denial.

The Liberals are being a bit ambigious. They're talking about 500-1000 trainers for a NATO-led training mission. That number is for the trainers and doesn't include the support staff required. We have 9 jets in country and takes 700 people. 3 of those 9 jets are staying. 

500-1000 trainers will take a lot of support. This training mission will probably see more soldiers deployed in country at any given time than we had in country in Afghanistan.


So essentially we are escalating our involvement.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Watch Trudeau's actions don't listen to his words. He has a sweet voice and is becoming a master at disinformation.

monty1

NDPP wrote:

CANADA TO EXPAND MILITARY MISSION (AGAINST ISLAMIC STATE) [nudge-nudge-wink-wink]   -  by Steven Chase

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-expand-military-m...

"The Liberal government will lay out its new EXPANDED role in the US-LED war against Islamic State next week that will include ADDITIONAL SPECIAL FORCES, a non-combat [?] air component and participation in an ENLARGED TRAINING MISSION, sources say.

The long-awaited announcement will be made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before Harjit Sajjan attends a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels next Wednesday and Thursday..."

Canada OUT of American Imperialist Wars!

pm@pm.gc.ca

Sounds good to me! You know how the old saying goes: When we stop killing them over there then they will stop wanting to kill us over here.

Therein lies the explanation for why Trudeau wants to bring the 6 bombers home. The visuals are important to the Canadian people as well as the victims of the bombs. Except the Canadian people at 2/3's in favour of loving it and that's all the more reason for Trudeau to do it. Right? For saying that on other forums I have been sworn at and attacked viciously and called a surrender monkey and even called a jihadi. The nice thing about this forum is that nobody will stoop to that kind of flak.  yet?

monty1

Paladin1 wrote:

Is there a point when civilian loss of life reaches a point where Canadian military involvement should supported?

Never! The entire reason behind the civilian loss of life is the US and their wars of aggression. This goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union which was the only deterrent to US led wars. Now Russia, with the backing of China behind the scenes, is needed to stop it, by applying the principle of MAD.

There is no other way of saving civilian lives. Aiding the US in their wars ensures that more lives will be lost and more refugees will be bombed out of their homes.

NDPP

jjuares wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ready Aye Ready says our new PM. Liberal Tory same old story. They will happily be a colonial lap dog of our Big Brother next door. The only difference is that Harper spoke like a nasty in your face imperialist. Trudeau is much nicer and almost sounds reasonable if you don't pay attention to what he is doing and instead listen to his soothing voice. Anyone who thought they were getting anything except cosmetic change by voting Liberal has to be well on their way to disillusionment or are delusional or are in denial.

The Liberals are being a bit ambigious. They're talking about 500-1000 trainers for a NATO-led training mission. That number is for the trainers and doesn't include the support staff required. We have 9 jets in country and takes 700 people. 3 of those 9 jets are staying. 

500-1000 trainers will take a lot of support. This training mission will probably see more soldiers deployed in country at any given time than we had in country in Afghanistan.

So essentially we are escalating our involvement.

Yes indeed, Trudeau is dramatically escalating our involvement. This will be just the beginning. And this is all about rendering aid and assistance to a US imperialism in trouble, not fighting ISUS.

A very good and wise Canadian activist, Ursula Franklin after many years of political campaigns, summed up this experience which can be useful when considering things  like TPP, Israel, Ukraine, or the present question of Canadian military involvement in the Middle East.

'I used to believe that people in government were well-intentioned just ill-informed. I believed that if I made a strong and clear case, the officials would be bound to change their views. But after years of frustration, I now believe government is well informed but ill intentioned...'

I do too. And especially in this instance. Say no now and mean it, or get ready to spend more Canadian blood and treasure we simply can't afford, nor the immorality and criminality -  on another dangerous, murderous, American shit-show in the Middle East and beyond...

 

Pondering

I'd like to hear what people think we should do. Just withdraw all our miltary personnel and keep them in Canada?

Do you think the Kurds should be left to their own devices?

What about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan? Should we stay out of that too?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I'd like to hear what people think we should do. Just withdraw all our miltary personnel and keep them in Canada?

Do you think the Kurds should be left to their own devices?

What about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan? Should we stay out of that too?

I think that if our NATO ally Turkey stopped its illegal war against the Kurds they would be able to retake their territories on their own. I think that the term stabilizing is double speak. We stabilized Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan so far and are in the process of stabilizing Syria. Who are our enemies in Lebanon and Jordon? In Lebanon would that be the resistance fighters that fought Israel for decades and finally drove them out? Will our troops be invading with the IDF as allies so that Israel can reconquer the south of Lebanon?

NDPP

Pondering wrote:

I'd like to hear what people think we should do. Just withdraw all our miltary personnel and keep them in Canada?

Do you think the Kurds should be left to their own devices?

What about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan? Should we stay out of that too?

First question: Yes.

Second question: Yes. The Kurds, as proven, have amazing 'devices'. And far better, trustworthy allies than Uncle satan's little helper Canada.

Third question: Send the Yanqui fiasco money instead to the UN for the maintenance of refugees..

https://youtu.be/FaFoawu_0_0

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Its strange how we never heard about the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees Syria took in or the million plus refugees that they took in from the Iraq war. I suspect that many of those are now counted in the Syrian refugee column.

The solution is to stop attempting to implement regime change in Syria because once the bombs stop dropping the people will go back home and begin the long painful process of rebuilding what used to be a modern and beautiful country.

NDPP

Whatever is ultimately decided certainly won't depend on or reflect the thoughts and wishes of Canadians. Let's get real about where power is and where it is not. This government will do as its elite managers and owners wish, not the country's people. Unless and until they demonstrate their power and willingness to employ it against any leadership that refuses to carry out their wishes.

At present this is not the case and we're only along for the ride.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I'd like to hear what people think we should do. Just withdraw all our miltary personnel and keep them in Canada?

Do you think the Kurds should be left to their own devices?

What about stabilizing Lebanon and Jordan? Should we stay out of that too?

I think that if our NATO ally Turkey stopped its illegal war against the Kurds they would be able to retake their territories on their own. I think that the term stabilizing is double speak. We stabilized Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan so far and are in the process of stabilizing Syria. Who are our enemies in Lebanon and Jordon? In Lebanon would that be the resistance fighters that fought Israel for decades and finally drove them out? Will our troops be invading with the IDF as allies so that Israel can reconquer the south of Lebanon?

Okay, so diplomatic pressure on Turkey to stop aggressive actions towards towards the Kurds.

The Kurds want our help. We are there at their invitation as well as the invitation of the Iraqi government. Libya. Iraq and Afghanistan were all invasions. So are incursions into Syria.

We don't have enemies in Jordan or Lebanon. They are home to large refugee populations that are likely to get larger. Apparently there is fear that those two countries could become destablized because of it. If we were to go there it would be at the invitation of those governments not an invasion.

Pages