qwerty's picture

qwerty

image

So We Fought (and died) in Afghanistan ... What Has Been the Payoff?

The link is to a Globe and Mail report published Monday June 25, 2912.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/obama-jilted-canada-leading-us-journal-says/article4369527/

 

The headline is "Obama ‘jilted’ Canada, article in leading U.S. journal says"

 

 

 

The article quotes an essay by former Canadian diplomat and Ottawa policy expert Fen Hampson in the journal Foreign Affairs.  The essay enumerates the many snubs to Canada  by the U.S. during the Obama Presidency.  Some of these snubs thwarted pet projects close to Harper's heart.  Some of them made him look bad or (depending on your point of view) worse.  

 

The snubs and setbacks include the Keystone XL pipeline, protectionist Buy American provisions, even disrespect for Canadian military contributions in Libya and Afghanistan.  Other slights include the U.S. for demandfor concessions from Canada on agricultural subsidies as the price of entry into negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership while it preserved massive agricultural subsidies of its own; sticking Canadian taxpayers with the bill for a new bridge between Detroit and Windsor; and failing to trust and respect its loyal ally,” the essay argues.  For instance, when Canada ran for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2010, the United States offered little support. For whatever reason, Portugal was a more compelling choice.

 

Canadian military sacrifices in Afghanistan – including more than 150 lives lost and billions spent – as well as its major contribution to last year’s NATO-led Libya air campaign have simply not won any enduring respect with U.S. leadership.

 

Our young men were sent to Afghanistan by Harper specifically as a way of currying favour with the U.S.  This sacrifice has been wasted and has not forwarded our national interest one iota.  We are still pouring moneyinto Afghanistan and continue to train Afghan military personnel at great risk of further casualties.  

 

Have our soldiers died in vain?  Was it a fool's mission?  Before you answer consider that just today a story appeared where the Candian mission to Afghanistan was misrepresented and belittled by a prominent Washington Post writer and correspondent extensively quoting an American general as his source.  These things don't happen by accident.  This was not just an unfortunate mistake.  This is the story that is being put out for public consumption in the U.S.  This is the new version of "THE TERRORISTS CAME FROM CANADA".  It is another lie that if told often enough becomes the accepted official story.  See http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Setting+record+straight+Afghan/6840674/story.html

 

As someone who never supported the idea of sending troops to Afghanistan I find all of this sickening.  What do you think?  Are any minds changing out there?

Share this

Comments

ninjafaery's picture

ninjafaery

image

Maybe this chilly partnership will change the geopolitical landscape. Southern Alberta will become a Republican State and the rest of us will continue to be very suspicious of their motives.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. Those young soldiers were sacrificed to benefit a few corporations & sociopaths.
Unimaginably evil and very, very tragic. Eisenhower warned everyone about all this. Wars create wealth through well-funded, military-industrial corporations. They are wealthy enough to do painstaking research and the social engineering needed buy a majority government.
Citizens are just sheep who will swallow anything they're told.
For God's sake wake up and smell the decay.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

We are in serious decay.

Check the faith and religion section. You won't find a word about it.

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

What has been the payoff?

 

as far as I can ascertain

 

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi qwerty,

 

qwerty wrote:

What do you think?

 

I'm not particularly surprised.  Canada's willingness to tag along is taken for granted.  Canadian soldiers are useful fodder.  Canadian politicians rarely bend over backward to challenge that notion.

 

What is the payoff?  Did we expect one?

 

Did Canadian politicians think that just because we said yes to Afghanistan that our no to Iraq would be excused, overlooked or forgiven?  Did Canadian politicians think that American politicians wouldn't sacrifice trade agreements with Canada as soon as it became expedient to do so or, were we like stereotypical beaten spouses who sign new agreements believing this time it will be different?

 

If they did then we are all the more to be pitied because we elected dunces.

 

qwerty wrote:

Are any minds changing out there?

 

Changing about what exactly?

 

The value of the mission in Afghanistan or the political goodness of our nearest neighbour?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

qwerty's picture

qwerty

image

Did we expect a payoff?  I didn't., except of "the wages of sin is death" variety.   I know graeme didn't.   I recollect that our politicians and the conservative press were saying that our involvement would pay dividends.  I recall there were plenty of voices around here telling us that going over to Afghanistan was a good thing or at least a defensible thing.  I'm wondering where the silence about this comes from ... are we irate or prostrate ... are we proud ... how long will it be until we take down the signs on the Highway of Heroes so we don't have to be reminded of how foolish we were ... again.

EasternOrthodox's picture

EasternOrthodox

image

The more important question IMO is has there been any net benefit to Afghanistan from the whole thing, quite apart from the Canadian angle.
.
All I see is a net benefit to the corrupt Karzai clan and a few others connected with it.
.
Not that I hold any fond feelings for the Taliban but the west is not capable of doing anything about that. I have been reading about this for several years and this my conclusion. However I will say just that and no more so as not to derail someone else's thread.

Pilgrims Progress's picture

Pilgrims Progress

image

EasternOrthodox wrote:

The more important question IMO is has there been any net benefit to Afghanistan from the whole thing, quite apart from the Canadian angle. .

 

I agree, EO, a very important question........

 

Since the United Nations  started to keep figures in 2007 , 11,864 Afghanistan civilians have been killed.

 

Traumatised, many Afghan seek refugee status elsewhere.

 

 

Many make it to Indonesia -where "people smugglers" charge them an exorbitant amount to sail to Australia in overcrowded boats which continue to end in tragedy -with many drowning.

 

All the while the Australian government -in the interests of political expediency - make it very difficult for them to be accepted as refugees -as sadly, there's votes in racism........

EasternOrthodox's picture

EasternOrthodox

image

Expect another exodus after NATO leaves. It is a myth that all citizens of Afghanistan are Taliban-sympathizers.
.
(In fact, according to an article I read in the NYT, some better-off Afghans are already leaving.)
.
But Pakistan is backing the Taliban as a way of having some control of the country.
.
It does not do to blame all this on NATO. Before 9/11, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, there was a huge refugee population right across the border in Pakistan. Many returned in the early days after the Taliban were driven out. A "it's all our fault" take on this is just not true. The situation is far more complicated.

qwerty's picture

qwerty

image

Whatever shape Afghanistan is in (good or bad), its not our fault.  We had zero chance of effecting any change there.  As Derek Burney our former ambassador to the U.S. confirmed the other day, Canada has no tangible national interest to protect in Afghanistan. To put it another way we involved ourselves in something we had no business involving ourselves in.  We interfered and we paid a heavy price.  The idea that we were going to somehow help the Afghans was just a pretext ... a cover.  Whether we helped or hurt Afghanistan is irrelevant.  We shouldn't have been there at all.  Our lack of tangible interests meant that we lacked established contacts; lacked resources and networks; were unable to communicate with the populace effectively (except with the point of a gun); lacked the cultural understanding necessary to understand how to deal with the public and go about fulfilling our mission (whatever it was).  All of this meant we were doomed from the get-go. The government threw away your money and mine and the lives of many Canadians, all on what is now clearly revealed as a fantasy ... a caprice.

EasternOrthodox's picture

EasternOrthodox

image

Qwerty, true.
.
But Canada was hardly alone in misjudging the situation. It is easy to be wise after the fact. Many people saw a humanitarian angle, as with Bosnia in the 1990's. They regretted that the west did not intervene in Rwanda. But Afghanistan (and the Middle East) are not like Bosnia, it turns out.
.
In the latest conflagration, Syria, the mood is much different. There is virtually no interest in the west to become involved here, much as we feel badly about the violence there. We have learned that, like Afghanistan, this case too is beyond our ability to solve.
.
As for Graeme being right, remember that Graeme's analysis of politics comes down to, "The US is evil". I think that is a gross over-simplification. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Graeme's US clock stopped at least two decades ago.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

Really? If  you cneck my posts, I said the Afgjhanistan war was a blunder from the start. I also said Libya had nothing to do with humanitariamism. Do you know something I don't about great humanitarian efforts in Libya? All I've heard of is western seizure of the oil fields, and murder, rape and chaos in the rest of the country.

If you check my posts, you will also find I have never said the US is evil. In fact, I have never even said that Germany was evil in world war two. Check my posts. Tell me if I'm wrong.

All countries do very evil th ings, indeed. Countries do not have morals. Countries are neither evil nor good. They are simply self-interests mechanisms that serve whoever controls them - and hold on to domestic support through propaganda, historical myth, and intimidation.

You can't u nderstand that a mass murdere like bush (and Obama) is not different from a mass murderer like Hitler or Caligula. Times change. people don't.

Alas! Even reading the financial pages will not get you beyond the kindergarten stage of understanding what drives the great powers.

EasternOrthodox's picture

EasternOrthodox

image

EO abandons discussion. Ta ta.
.
Graeme just says the same thing, over and over. Nothing to discuss is there? Humanity is irredemably evil. If so, nothing more to say is there?

graeme's picture

graeme

image

What discussion? You  haven't understood a word I've said.

Read the post above. i was quite clear in NOT saying that humanity is evil.

But you're right on one point. There is nothing more to say because you cannot admit to anything.

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

One of my adult upgrading students is from Afghanistan -- here for economic and social reasons.

EasternOrthodox's picture

EasternOrthodox

image

Graeme, you're being rude and arrogant.
.
I wonder how many people you've caused to leave the Politics section with your insulting posts. No wonder the place is such a washout, with you waiting to insult people and then brag about how smart you are. I saw you do that to Lastpointe. And others.
.
I'll leave you to your little band of admirers.

InannaWhimsey's picture

InannaWhimsey

image

here's how the selling goes

 

 

Back to Politics topics
cafe