|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 24, 2009 10:14:49 GMT -5
Should we pull out in 2011? Yes, I feel we should. However, like I was saying before I don't think we'll ever pull out entirely. There will still be responsibilities to take care of; mentoring and reconstruction, but as far as active combat goes, I really think there are countries who haven't gone up to the plate as yet. Cheers. Do I want the troops pulled out ... of course, any reasonable person wants them out of there. Should our troops be withdrawn? Thats the question that I think needs a sober second thought. Yes, I totally agree that Canada needs help and HAS to apply pressure on other nations to supply that support ...... I never thought the day would come where Canada was seen as a military nation again. In recent memory we have been seen as nothing more than an American-tag-along, never publicly taking a stand against anything. Peacekeepers. Basically neutral. But Afghanistan has put us in the military spotlight once again and the world is seeing that Canada is still a military force, and though a small military we are one of the best trained. Canada's military is very well respected internationally, Skilly. If you were to ask Canadian soldiers whether we should be there, the majority would probably say, "... yes, until the job is done." However, there are a lot who have simply had enough. Our attrition rate speaks volumes about that, as I continually hear about the amount of troops getting out of the service upon their return from Afghanistan. And I'm not only talking about one-timers here, I'm talking about those soldiers who have had multiple tours and it's now starting to catch up with them. As it is, we're now starting to have problems keeping soldiers. I don't have the statistics, but we're losing soldiers at a very high rate and we're not replacing them very fast at all. As for losing international support, I'm not so sure that will happen. What I'm wondering is how many will other countries would follow Canada's decision. Once they see a reputable country like ours make that hard decision, what kind of pressures will the governments of other countries get because of it. The European countries are almost all online with Afghanistan now; many of their populations simply do not want to see any more of their soldiers come back in caskets. WRT the USA, Obama doesn't strike me as a particular tyrant when it comes to making deals, but like a lot of Presidents before him, I get the impression that if he doesn't tow the line, then his tenure can pretty tough for him. The fear I have is that if he has asked for Canada to extend, then what are the consequences for us if our government decidedly says, "no." Will Obama get enough pressure to the point where he won't have a choice and start slapping petty little tariffs and sanctions on Canadian products like beef, pork, softwood lumber, et al? And while you and I and others here on the boards are discussing it (as we should be) what kind of discussions are going on at the top levels? How will Canadian popular opinion affect the government's decision to pull out or extend the troops? Will Harper cave to the US demands because he knows the implications of not complying? Will the opposition parties understand the fallout of saying no and vote the government down anyway? That's all worse-case scenarios though, Skilly. The bottom line, that is what's in the best interest of the troops (that's my bottom line, not necessarily anyone else's), or what's in the best interest of the country, has to be debated. However, when politics and politicians are involved it's, "what's in the best interests of getting re-elected." It's a tough call for the Harper government. He may just have to miff the USA and remove his combat troops, because it's what the majority of Canadians want (I think anyway). And the more happy citizens, the more votes. That will be the catalyst in this case I think. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2009 14:12:25 GMT -5
I have no problem with small countries, who have negligible GDP's (and thus significantly smaller military budgets) and smaller populations shying away from putting their limited resources on the line in Afghanistan. Countries like Greece (no offense HA), Iceland, Latvia and others have no place in this battle, because they don't really have an armed forces of the appropriate size to support operations. It is the countries that are capable of support large armed forces - France and Germany come to mind - who ought to be ashamed of themselves. . Greece has a very potent military, WAY above what it should for it's size. They build it expecting to fight Turkey, a country several times it's size. The simply have no will to fight based on politics and the pretense that they stradle a neutral line between Arabs and the West, My take is simple, you are either part of the solution or GET OUT. As for the rest, surely they can contribute a few hundred. I don't expect them to go to the front lines, but they can't disappear and only appear when they need help. Why bother to belong to the NATO PARTNERSHIP. As for France and Germany. For 50 years, they expected Americans, Canadians, British and the rest to put their lives on the line for them and yet, they don't have the political will to fight a good fight because it may lead to deaths? And? Why should Canadians and Americans put their lines on the line for THEM? Are they better then Afghanis? One of the French excuse is that they have a large Muslim population and it will be unpopular. BULLSH!T. They are helping Arabs get a better life. If their government can't explain that simple fact, then they are more worthless then I thought. But alas, ANY excuse is a good excuse whrn others are doing the heavy lifting....of caskets. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2009 14:22:18 GMT -5
* We get pulled off the line, and assigned to a safer province, where we can concentrate on reconstruction and training efforts (perhaps somewhere in the North). * We get some military hardware out of this. Yes, it's a shakedown. Doesn't have to be an aircraft carrier, but say 3-5 military transports given to us by the US, for "free". Or whatever equipment of equivalent value that the military would like to have but has never been able to fit into it's budget. Something like that would be nothing to the US military complex, but it's something Canada desperately needs and has never had the chance to get. First. There is nobody stepping up to replace us. That is the problem. There is going to be MAJOR political fallout with the US unless Harper starts to scream about "fairness" now. The last thing we need is for Congress/Senate circus to point fingers at us. We need to make it [public and LOUDLY clear that our "partners" need to take the load. Name names and let the US circus point fingers at France and Germany. As for equipment, I head obama is going to send us one of his printing presses.  There is no way that we are going to get freebies with obama slicing back his military budget. Nor can we appear to be blackmailing them. Better to take the high road and make it clear that some are not holding up their end. Igniting anti French and Anti German feelings in Americans is just a match away. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 24, 2009 14:37:07 GMT -5
Greece has a very potent military, WAY above what it should for it's size. They build it expecting to fight Turkey, a country several times it's size. The simply have no will to fight based on politics and the pretense that they stradle a neutral line between Arabs and the West, My take is simple, you are either part of the solution or GET OUT. And so, expecting to fight Turkey, they should send all their troops to Afghanistan. Sorry my friend, I know you are proud of your heritage - but the Greeks simply don't have any business in Afghanistan outside of non-combat operations, for reasons which I will highlight below. As for the rest, surely they can contribute a few hundred. I don't expect them to go to the front lines, but they can't disappear and only appear when they need help. Why bother to belong to the NATO PARTNERSHIP. Contribute a few hundred. Sure. But a few hundred in a combat situation? I know there is some semblance of NATO structure used by all NATO members, but putting small groups of one hundred or two hundred soldiers in piecemeal is not going to work. You either wind up with sectors being run by a bunch of different forces who lack the ability to communicate well with each other, or you place the troops under the command of one of the larger powers, who immediately assigns them limited roles because of communication issues. To say nothing of what happens when you put two nominal allies in the same sector - can you imagine if NATO put Turkish troops in charge of a Greek battalion (or vice versa). The contribution of smaller states offer to NATO is forward operating bases and logistical support. As for France and Germany. For 50 years, they expected Americans, Canadians, British and the rest to put their lives on the line for them and yet, they don't have the political will to fight a good fight because it may lead to deaths? And? Why should Canadians and Americans put their lines on the line for THEM? Are they better then Afghanis? Well, to be fair we did that to save our own skin too. It was in our best interest to prop up buffer states. But generally I agree. We shouldn't put our lives on the line for them. Well, no - that's not fair. We should because it's right. And because we're better than them, and we don't make excuses. But, if a crisis breaks out right now in one of the major states that is refusing to contribute in Afghanistan - let's say Germany - I wouldn't be upset if the Canadian government said "we're too busy cleaning up in places where you didn't want to help - had you helped we could've been out of Afghanistan and ready to go in and help you. Now you'll have to make do with what we can spare." Of course, that'll never happen for various political reasons. Turning a blind eye to a crisis in Europe to focus on Afghanistan would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. We depend to much on Europe for other things. Other options are limited - given the financial state of the world we can't try to hamper trade right now. The trick would be to find some way to hurt them that limits how much they can hurt us I guess. Boycott bratwurst and snails maybe? One of the French excuse is that they have a large Muslim population and it will be unpopular. BULLSH!T. They are helping Arabs get a better life. If their government can't explain that simple fact, then they are more worthless then I thought. But alas, ANY excuse is a good excuse whrn others are doing the heavy lifting....of caskets. Again, I don't disagree. The French need to step up. But not everyone sees it as plainly as you do HA. There are more than a few Muslims in Canada who think that this nation should be run the same way Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran are. You need look no further than the honour killings in Kingston a while back, or the young men who were planning on storming the House of Commons. Yes, we see it as helping these people out of the stone age. Others see it as the destruction of their culture and heritage. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 24, 2009 15:22:57 GMT -5
I have no problem with small countries, who have negligible GDP's (and thus significantly smaller military budgets) and smaller populations shying away from putting their limited resources on the line in Afghanistan. Countries like Greece (no offense HA), Iceland, Latvia and others have no place in this battle, because they don't really have an armed forces of the appropriate size to support operations. It is the countries that are capable of support large armed forces - France and Germany come to mind - who ought to be ashamed of themselves. . Greece has a very potent military, WAY above what it should for it's size. They build it expecting to fight Turkey, a country several times it's size. The simply have no will to fight based on politics and the pretense that they stradle a neutral line between Arabs and the West, My take is simple, you are either part of the solution or GET OUT. As for the rest, surely they can contribute a few hundred. I don't expect them to go to the front lines, but they can't disappear and only appear when they need help. Why bother to belong to the NATO PARTNERSHIP. This was the argument given to Canada for years before Gen Hillier took over and we ended up going into combat role in Afghanistan. One example could be the 1991 Gulf War. We had troops in Qatar and Bahrain, but the closest military we had to the front under a Canadian flag would be a forward field hospital. As for countries making minor contributions, IMO I feel that if a lot of countries make a lot of little contributions then that, itself, makes a difference. As TNG referred to, there are a lot of tangibles that can go wrong, but there are ways of bringing a group of smaller commands under one larger command. The main problem here is, again, politics. Language could be a barrier, but in my two tours of duty Canadian communicators were attached out to foreign commands to do just that; communicate. Our communications detachments came under the command of the units they supported. I've served under the Danish, Austrians, Poles, British and even the Americans over my tenure in the service. And, you'll be interested in knowing that there were Canadians serving in combat roles in the '91 Gulf War. They were part of an exchange program between Canada and their home countries. Specifically, I knew a captain who served with "The Desert Rats" during that war. He doesn't talk about his experiences at all. Yes and no, HA. Hard to say buds. At first, we were part of an occupation force. Later NATO was there to deter the Russians, but there was an exception. Of all of the countries I served with, France was the only non-NATO army still serving in Germany. Some of my German friends actually looked on the French as an occupation force more than a deterrent force. Actually, it was because of NATO and France's presence, that the Euro community developed multi-country Quick Reaction Teams (QRTs). Part of the reason for this was so they didn't have to rely on NATO for anything. I mean, the Cold War was over and there really wasn't any more threat to Europe any more. It simply wasn't necessary to have NATO there any more and this pleased the Europeans, mostly the Germans, to no end. Depending on what source you read, the real threat to Europe isn't from another continent, but from within itself. NATO can't help them with this problem. However, it's precisely this kind of political pressure that is keeping countries from contributing to the Afghan mission. It's not just the Muslim pressures either. Plenty of Christian groups and just folks from all walks of life are pretty much putting pressure on their governments to either pull their troops out or just not participate. IMO, the Canadian population will be turning up the heat big time as 2011 comes nearer. What Harper has to determine whether to listen to those voices and stick to his decision, or listen to the voice of his neighbour to the south. Either way, to leave or to stay, it's a political pull to either side. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 24, 2009 16:22:25 GMT -5
It's important to remember just how good we have it and to be grateful for it. RIP Andrew. Canadian soldier killed by roadside bomb in Afghanistan Colin Perkel  Kandahar, Afghanistan — The Canadian Press Published on Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009 12:08AM EST Last updated on Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009 2:10PM EST A period of relative post-fighting season calm was shattered Wednesday when a Canadian soldier on foot patrol in the volatile Panjwaii district of southern Afghanistan was killed. Lieutenant Andrew Nuttall, along with an Afghan soldier, died when an improvised explosive device detonated in the town of Nakhoney, the military said early Thursday — Christmas Eve. An interpreter was seriously injured. Lt. Nuttall, 30, of Prince Rupert, B.C., belonged to the 1st Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry based in Edmonton. “Andrew came to Afghanistan because he honestly thought he could make a difference to the people of Afghanistan,” said Brigadier-General Daniel Menard, commander of coalition forces in Kandahar province. “He wanted to lead from the front and set the example, attributes he passionately displayed every time he was in front of his platoon.” Brig.-Gen. Menard described Lt. Nuttall as generous, someone who always had a smile on his face and “greeted everyone he met with enthusiasm and goodwill.” Lt. Nuttall is survived by his mother Jane and father Richard. In a statement, Lt. Nuttall’s family said he always put others ahead of himself and they were proud of his decision to join the military. The statement added that he believed his service in Afghanistan was making a difference. “We have lost a bright light in our lives,” the family said. The death was the first of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan in almost two months, when Sapper Steven Marshall was killed, and the first since Menard took over as top commander in Kandahar province. Sapper Marshall died Oct. 30 in a similar incident in what has been a record year for IED attacks in Afghanistan. Since April 2007, 66 of the 89 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan have been the result of the homemade bombs. In all, 134 Canadian soldiers have now been killed on the Afghan mission since it began in 2002. With the relative quiet of the post-summer ebb in violence, Canadian soldiers, reinforced by hundreds of fresh American troops, have been attempting to establish secure areas in and around Kandahar city. The aim, according to Brig.-Gen. Menard, is to establish a “ring of stability” around the bustling city before the uptick in fighting traditionally begins in the spring — the phenomenon known as “fighting season.” Nakhoney, about 25 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City, one part of what was dubbed the Panjwaii triangle, has been an area in which Canadian forces have frequently encountered problems. In July, for example, Canadian and Afghan soldiers uncovered four factories used by the Taliban to make improvised explosive devices. They also seized suicide-bomber vests, large quantities of explosive materials as well as weapons. One soldier, Private Sebastien Courcy was killed during the operation when he stepped on an explosive. Brig.-Gen. Menard recently cited Nakhoney as an example where the reinforced Canadian forces were having an impact in providing security for local Afghans. At the time of his death, Lt. Nuttall was searching for Taliban transit routes, Brig.-Gen. Menard said. “His patrol was part of our efforts to protect the people of the village from insurgents.” Under Brig.-Gen. Menard’s new strategy, soldiers are moving out of their relatively safe operating bases to move into platoon houses in the community. In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Lt. Nuttall’s ”sacrifice will not be forgotten.” “The impact of this news is especially profound during the holiday season and will be felt in households across the country,” Mr. Harper said in a statement early Thursday. “Canadians are proud of our military men and women. We support their families, and all those who serve and sacrifice to protect the interests and values of Canadians. We will not waver in our goal of helping Afghans rebuild their country as a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.” Governor-General Michaelle Jean said she was “deeply saddened.” “This death comes at the end of a particularly difficult year and as we begin the holiday season, an important time for families,” Ms. Jean said. “It is a harsh reminder of the enormous sacrifices our soldiers and their loved ones have agreed to make so that stability and security can be re-established in a dangerous region of the world and to help people who have been deprived of their most fundamental rights, distressed by years of violence and oppression.” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff also mourned the loss of Lt. Nuttall. “Lt. Nuttall laid down his life in the service of peace, while bringing stability to a troubled region of the world in the proudest tradition of the Canadian Forces,” he said in a statement Thursday. “We honour his commitment and sacrifice, and the courage of all our soldiers working to ensure a safe and secure future for the people of Afghanistan,” Mr.Ignatieff added. www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-soldier-killed-by-roadside-bomb-in-afghanistan/article1411166/ (link)  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 24, 2009 20:23:17 GMT -5
War is hell.
The Americans did it all wrong in Vietnam.
If/when it is decided that it is necessary to intervene somewhere in the world, then you must do it the way the Yanks forced Saddam out of Kuwait. If you are going to war you must do it 100% committed to win. You must expect to kill at least 1000 Afganis for every Canadian life lost.
Sending our young boys overseas to be targets for terrorists to shoot at is not good parenting.
I have difficulty understanding who we are helping?
The tribal leaders that must be bought off in a tribal country?
The opium growers that have the money and guns.
The corrupt Afgan government officials.
The Taliban who have 1000 years of fighting and oppression built into their culture?
The Muslims that to us have so much in common with eachother but insist on fighting because they can't agree on who is in charge after the death of Mohammud?
The extremists that strap bombs on their children and send them to crowded markets to buy themselves martyrdom?
The arms sellers, Russians, Iraquis, Iranians that have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo?
The world is a small place and we all share the water, air, carbon, pollution. Isolationism is no longer possible.
The longer we wait the more nuclear capability the enemy will have and the worse the eventual catastrophy will be.
Yes, war is hell, but I favour premptive suicide bombing. Wipe out Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Northern Pakistan with a demand that Pakistan turn over all their nukes or we will wipe them all out.
I fear for my children, not that the world will get 2 degrees warmer, not that the spotted owl will disappear from the Pacific forests, but that they will be killed in a nuclear attack from a radical country or radical terrorist group.
Inaction didn't work for Chamberlain and won't work for us either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 24, 2009 21:59:24 GMT -5
Greece has a very potent military, WAY above what it should for it's size. They build it expecting to fight Turkey, a country several times it's size. The simply have no will to fight based on politics and the pretense that they stradle a neutral line between Arabs and the West, My take is simple, you are either part of the solution or GET OUT. And so, expecting to fight Turkey, they should send all their troops to Afghanistan. Sorry my friend, I know you are proud of your heritage - but the Greeks simply don't have any business in Afghanistan outside of non-combat operations, for reasons which I will highlight below. Contribute a few hundred. Sure. But a few hundred in a combat situation? I know there is some semblance of NATO structure used by all NATO members, but putting small groups of one hundred or two hundred soldiers in piecemeal is not going to work. You either wind up with sectors being run by a bunch of different forces who lack the ability to communicate well with each other, or you place the troops under the command of one of the larger powers, who immediately assigns them limited roles because of communication issues. To say nothing of what happens when you put two nominal allies in the same sector - can you imagine if NATO put Turkish troops in charge of a Greek battalion (or vice versa). . Again, you WAY underestimate Greece's military. Greece is better equipped in terms of quality then Canada, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Spain, Poland, Austria, just to name a few. Greece has been planning for an all out war with a much larger neighbor for the last 50 years. There is absolutely no question that they could deal with something like Kandahar with one hand tied behind their backs and the other playing a bouzouki. Here is a link.... www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=GreeceVersus.... www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=CanadaThe airforce is far larger. Navy far larger. On field artillery, they are third on the planet (34 times larger then Canada's). The issue is not capability. The issue is that NATO is not very useful for Greece because their prime potential enemy is also a NATO member. And as I said before, they think of themselves as "in the middle" between Arabs and the West. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 25, 2009 0:33:14 GMT -5
Again, you WAY underestimate Greece's military. Greece is better equipped in terms of quality then Canada, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Spain, Poland, Austria, just to name a few. Greece has been planning for an all out war with a much larger neighbor for the last 50 years. There is absolutely no question that they could deal with something like Kandahar with one hand tied behind their backs and the other playing a bouzouki. Here is a link.... www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=GreeceVersus.... www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=CanadaThe airforce is far larger. Navy far larger. On field artillery, they are third on the planet (34 times larger then Canada's). The issue is not capability. The issue is that NATO is not very useful for Greece because their prime potential enemy is also a NATO member. And as I said before, they think of themselves as "in the middle" between Arabs and the West. It's entirely possible I am underestimating the Hellenic Armed Forces. I am not an avid Janes reader by any stretch. But I would point out that numbers do not a superior force make. A student of Greek history should know that quality is far more important than quantity - from the marshes of Marathon to the hills of Thermopylae to the plains of Platea, the Ancient Greeks proved time and time again that numbers mean very little in war. But it is neither here nor there because you more or less confirm what I have been saying - for another reason, perhaps, but it doesn't make that much of a difference. In short NATO is unable to properly use what the Greeks are able to provide. I postulate this is due to the Greeks fielding a military that is incapable of handling the situation, while you propose that it is because NATO does not want to cause friction between the two nominal allies. Either way, you can't say that the Greeks should have an increased presence if they don't work in the system. Like I said - it's France and Germany that need to step up, not Greece and Iceland. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 25, 2009 8:32:20 GMT -5
Anbody have the real "dope" on how opium/heroin production is going in Afghanistan? Here's a pretty balanced report from 2008. Seems to me the opium/heroin trade is the grease that turns the wheels. Remove that cash cow....(if possible, as there's so much $$ to be made, and corruption has perhaps even found its way into Karzai's government)....and you just may take them out at the knees. Don't know....I'm not an expert on it, at all....but Afghanistan is far and away the leading producer of opium in the world....so I was just wondering its status. I've read sites on it....but perhaps there is an expert here. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 25, 2009 9:47:11 GMT -5
depends on what kind of expert youa re looking for, CH. No Robert Downey's here, I think [hold it: wrong powder].
I think you are right: opium keeps the Afghan economy moving . . . and there is no way the US . . . er . . . NATO forces can contain trade; nor do they want to -- that would be a sure way to get the Afghans against them.
Just the way it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 25, 2009 14:08:24 GMT -5
depends on what kind of expert youa re looking for, CH. No Robert Downey's here, I think [hold it: wrong powder]. I think you are right: opium keeps the Afghan economy moving . . . and there is no way the US . . . er . . . NATO forces can contain trade; nor do they want to -- that would be a sure way to get the Afghans against them. Just the way it goes. Here's one of the ways Canada is trying to make a difference. They spent $1.2 million on wheat seeds and fertilizer to be distributed to Afghan farmers as a replacement for poppies. Canada buys wheat seeds to give Afghan farmers alternative to poppies Canada is providing $1.2 million to buy wheat seeds and fertilizer for thousands of Afghan farmers, but the Taliban warn they may attack any foreigners who attempt to distribute the seeds. By Vancouver ProvinceNovember 8, 2008 The rest of the story.Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 25, 2009 15:02:53 GMT -5
Thanks guys....wonder how the wheat deal went.
2000 hectares is a small dent in the 157,000 that was dedicated to poppy production noted in the article I posted....and I'm sure the wheat revenues don't come close to what the farmers (and all the other levels involved) make on opium....but it's a start.
As long as locals do the distributing, that's fine, say the Taliban. Doesn't make much sense to me, I mean....apparently it doesn't matter if the West finances and supplies it....they just can't distribute it to the farmers. But then, little makes sense over there.
Besides, if the government really wanted to stop opium production it would be easily enforced. How do you hide a field of poppies? Especially 157,000 hectares of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Dec 25, 2009 16:07:10 GMT -5
Thanks guys....wonder how the wheat deal went. 2000 hectares is a small dent in the 157,000 that was dedicated to poppy production noted in the article I posted....and I'm sure the wheat revenues don't come close to what the farmers (and all the other levels involved) make on opium....but it's a start. You're quite right. It's a start. And frankly, unless Canada is in Afghanistan a lot longer than anyone currently expects, all we're going to get is a start. You can't expect people to change a persistent way of life over night. It just doesn't happen. We don't need to look much further than our own back yards to realize that - it's been 18 years here in Newfoundland, and we're just now starting to pull out of the tailspin the moratorium sent us into. As long as locals do the distributing, that's fine, say the Taliban. Doesn't make much sense to me, I mean....apparently it doesn't matter if the West finances and supplies it....they just can't distribute it to the farmers. But then, little makes sense over there. All about control. The Taliban can't exert any control over foreign forces present in Afghanistan. Once it's in local hands they might not be able to exert complete control, but their influence grows greatly. Besides, if the government really wanted to stop opium production it would be easily enforced. How do you hide a field of poppies? Especially 157,000 hectares of them? I would imagine it's easier to hide than you think - perhaps not as easily hidden as cannabis, but think of how easy it is to hide cultivation here. Now consider that Canada has a large number of advantages when it comes to eradicating the illicit plant - better resources, less corruption in government etc. And many parts of Afghanistan are ridiculously remote (not that parts of Canada aren't remote - but it's tough to get cannabis to grow in the high arctic). |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 25, 2009 16:15:21 GMT -5
I don't think it is hidden at all . . . why bother.
The dirty rotten foreign forces [that's us] want to be on the side of the Afghanis. Quicest way to tick them off: end their way of making money without replacing it.
If "we" really wanted to end the opium trade, all we'd need do is burn the fields and not let the crops grow. Of course, all that would do is push the Afghanis back to the Taliban.
Tough balancing act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 25, 2009 17:05:16 GMT -5
Thanks guys....wonder how the wheat deal went. 2000 hectares is a small dent in the 157,000 that was dedicated to poppy production noted in the article I posted....and I'm sure the wheat revenues don't come close to what the farmers (and all the other levels involved) make on opium....but it's a start. As long as locals do the distributing, that's fine, say the Taliban. Doesn't make much sense to me, I mean....apparently it doesn't matter if the West finances and supplies it....they just can't distribute it to the farmers. But then, little makes sense over there. Besides, if the government really wanted to stop opium production it would be easily enforced. How do you hide a field of poppies? Especially 157,000 hectares of them? I first heard of the program a couple of years ago and thought it was a good initiative. Afghan wheat program successful so farThe Canadian Press
Date: Wednesday Oct. 14, 2009 12:16 PM ETKANDAHAR, Afghanistan — In Afghanistan's war-scarred agrarian society, where farmers tend the land the same way generations of their predecessors did, change happens slowly -- especially when it comes to the grassroots civilian effort to replace insurgents with resurgence. The goal is to restore the "golden age" of farming that existed before the Russians invaded in 1979, with the help of more modern tools like irrigation and fertilizer, as well as lucrative, practical crops like wheat to replace the burgeoning poppy trade. When the Canadian government offered 50-kilogram bags of high-quality Canadian wheat to about 6,000 Afghan farmers last year, only the most adventurous were willing to give it a try. For them, that pioneering spirit is beginning to pay off. "They had a bumper crop last year," said Jean-Frederic Beauchesne, the economic growth officer for the Canadian International Development Agency, who is part of Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar city. "I'm thrilled about it and I think it's a really good opportunity for farmers to basically get their feet up off the ground and also for us to look at more." Wheat and other suitable cash crops, such as safflower, are considered key elements in an ongoing struggle to wean Afghanistan from its addiction to opium poppies. Afghanistan produces roughly 90 per cent of the world's opium, which is used to make heroin. Advocates of growing wheat say they can earn as much as they would with poppies, with the added bonus of not having to worry about Taliban reprisals or the threat of having their crops destroyed by poppy eradication teams. "The price of wheat and poppy are almost balancing each other, and if you cultivate poppy or instead cultivate wheat here, both give you the same money," farmer Haji Sultan said in an interview. "Instead of poppy we should cultivate wheat -- this is not forbidden." But while production is down slightly across the country, opium production remains the single largest cash crop in Afghanistan, and by far the largest source of income for both the farmers and the warlords who buy it from them. Convincing farmers to try a new crop is never easy, especially in a country so set in its ways. "The fact is we don't understand if (wheat) is good or not, because we haven't used this before," said Din Mohammad, a farmer in the Daman district east of Kandahar city. "We are the people who are expanding, and telling others this is good. In our community they just take two or three bags because they don't trust more." So far, though, the experiment has been a success. Mohammad's first effort produced only 500 kg of wheat per 2,000 square metres of land, but his second planting more than doubled the harvest, he said. The bumper crop, combined with wheat's strong, government-subsidized price, means those who have tried it already want more than just one bag this year. That's unlikely to happen anytime soon, although the program is being expanded, Beauchesne said. "Instead of giving wheat seed distribution on a yearly basis, we're also trying to look at more sustainable wheat production options so that we don't have to do this every year." The Canadian government produced about 350 metric tonnes of wheat last year for Afghan distribution through Mercy Corps, a non-government organization based in Portland, Ore., that provides aid in more than 30 countries around the world. The tonnage is expected to increase to about 550 metric tonnes this year, nearly doubling to 11,000 the number of Afghan farmers who will get a chance to plant wheat instead of poppies, much of it in the fertile and volatile Arghandab River valley. "This year we're pretty confident they'll be able to work in the entire Arghandab valley, which to me is very important," Beauchesne said. "It is the bread belt. They have the entire green belt covered this year all along the river." Beauchesne is particularly excited about another project in the Tarnak Farms area near Kandahar Airfield. Infamous these days as a former al Qaeda training camp where Osama bin Laden once lived, it was in its heyday a rich agricultural area. Work is proceeding on turning the facility into an agricultural training institute which would allow farmers to come in to test out a variety of crops and experiment with new farming techniques, such as modern ways of drying grapes to make raisins. The possibility of seconding a piece of land for growing high-grade wheat seed near the proposed institute is also in play, Beauchesne said. "The original design is fairly modest, but it would require about 40 hectares and produce a few hundred metric tonnes to produce high quality wheat." That proposal is in the hands of the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture, he added. (link) www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091014/afghan_wheat_091014?hub=World |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 25, 2009 17:07:13 GMT -5
As this current interview states....poppy culitivation is out in the open. Some properties guarded by private militias, financed by the proceeds of the poppy trade. A different world for sure..... This man offers excellent insight....IF it's a legitimate interview. IRIN |
|
|
|
Post by OopyDoopy on Jan 7, 2010 22:19:46 GMT -5
I have read this thread from start to finish and it's hard not to agree with almost everyone's opinion as they all have valid points. Yes, war is hell, but I favour premptive suicide bombing. Wipe out Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Northern Pakistan with a demand that Pakistan turn over all their nukes or we will wipe them all out. I don't know if you were being serious or not but, this is my philosophy also, why put Canadians in harms way, use technology and have at it. I know its a cold way of thinking but how many Afghanistans are really innocent or any of the middle east people or any in these war torn nation that are in a constant flux of conflict. Really either get in and get it done or let them kill themselves and stay the f... out of it. I would have never sent troops in Iraq I would have sent in a hit squad and killed Saddam his sons and all his government and let the Iraq people decide who leads. The US is stuck there and in my opinion is in no better than if they would have just took out the leaders and left. Afghanistan being a terrorist haven makes it hard to stay out and after 911 it should have been the main focus but GWB had a score to settle and went into Iraq guns blazing and limped into Afghanistan. Now the Coalition suffers for it as the Taliban are probably more entrenched then if it was a quick massive insurgence and thus harder to get out. If you are innocent then get out of harms way if not then suffer the consequences. I know that is cold and probably not realistic but either is Canadians dieing for something that I am 99% sure isn't going to change a thing. The coalition will eventually leave and within 1 to 5 years it will all be back to the same. So after my rant I don't know that Canada can just get up and leave unfortunately, I would love to see Canada leave if the job is done and if we are not leaving the Coalition in a bad spot, you can't start something and then leave when it gets tough. I also hope that everyone in the Coalition is risking equally, which it doesn't seem like is true from what I read in this thread. But just because someone else isn't doing their part doesn't mean Canada can get out of do theirs. Also I am very proud to be a part of Canada and of our men and women who make this the country it is and protect our freedom. |
|
