US General asks for more troops

[KRonn]

Its crunch time in the sense that the Canadian forces will be leaving in 2011, no other nations are going to contribute more forces and the forces from other nations will likely be pulled out or reduced as well.

Like it or not this is about to become an American war very quickly and you folks have to figure out what you actually want to do about it.

The US should have invaded Canada instead; at least you guys have oil, food, natural gas and timber.   

[Berkut]

Its crunch time in the sense that the Canadian forces will be leaving in 2011, no other nations are going to contribute more forces and the forces from other nations will likely be pulled out or reduced as well.

Like it or not this is about to become an American war very quickly and you folks have to figure out what you actually want to do about it.

Right - the funny thing is if it fails, it will end up being our fault, of course.

Not the fault of everyone who categorically refused to do anything at all*, but the fault of the country that did try to do something.







* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

[crazy canuck]

The US should have invaded Canada instead; at least you guys have oil, food, natural gas and timber.   

Dont forget good beer.  You guys are getting better micro breweries but the swill most of you drink is still disgusting.

[KRonn]

The US should have invaded Canada instead; at least you guys have oil, food, natural gas and timber.   

Dont forget good beer.  You guys are getting better micro breweries but the swill most of you drink is still disgusting.

Ah yes, even more reason to invade. And you guys might not even notice a few (thousands) more Yanks roaming about your rather vast countryside.

[crazy canuck]

Right - the funny thing is if it fails, it will end up being our fault, of course.

Not the fault of everyone who categorically refused to do anything at all*, but the fault of the country that did try to do something.







* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

I agree.  Which is why I said this was crunch time.  Afganistan didnt get solved within the time that Canada could stick around politically.  Any politician who suggested extending the mission at this point would be lynched.  I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.

This will be called a US blunder if (and I sadly suspect - when) this mission fails even though the international community did squat as a collective whole to step up to the plate after supporting the war at the start.   Critics will say if the US had not invaded Iraq but put her whole might into Afganistan then this would never have happened.  That of course ignores the fact that if the Germans et al had decided to join the Canadians/Dutch in the South and the Americans in the North things also might have gone better but that will get lost.

[crazy canuck]

Ah yes, even more reason to invade. And you guys might not even notice a few (thousands) more Yanks roaming about your rather vast countryside.

The only qualitative difference is that our border guards will not have the power to ask US citizens to hand over their fire arms while in Canada.

[Barrister]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

[Darth Wagtaros]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

He meant you terrorist sympathizers need to man up and do your fair share.

[Berkut]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

Look up "paltry" in the dictionary.

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

[Valmy]

I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.

Um...no.  I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.

[Admiral Yi]

Um...no.  I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.

I'm pretty sure Dingleberry did.

[MadImmortalMan]

I suspect politicians in the US are going to face similar problems.

Um...no.  I have never actually heard a US politician actually saying we should leave Afghanistan.

Dennis the Menace

[Valmy]

Dennis the Menace

Ok besides people like he and Ron Paul.

[Warspite]

* I do realize that compared to everyone but the US, Canada did quite a lot. Even if in any objective measure it was still a paltry and rather sad commitment.

Now I don't at all support us pulling out in 2011, but I'm not exactly sure what else you think Canada should be doing in Afghanistan, or what makes our efforts there 'paltry and rather sad'.

Look up "paltry" in the dictionary.

You should be sending more troops, more money, and more support. As should every single NATO nation. And further, they should be sending those troops into harms way, and making the commitment necessary to win.

I don't think it's so straightforward. The problem is that the commitment necessary to win is looking increasingly open-ended. There's a legitimate question to be asked: if we can't make Afghanistan work in ten years, will another ten make a difference?

There are two issues. It's not just about beating the Taliban, it's about making an Afghan state that works. And that's something no one really knows how to do. It is not something that another 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 NATO troops can solve.

My issue with the current mission is that while I do think we should keep at it, no one has actually asked why were the Taliban successful in holding sway of most of the country until 2001? Until we know this, I don't think we can really beat them.

[Valmy]

My issue with the current mission is that while I do think we should keep at it, no one has actually asked why were the Taliban successful in holding sway of most of the country until 2001? Until we know this, I don't think we can really beat them.

Support from the Pakistani Intelligence Services?