Canada Parliament backs Afghan mission extension

[tuvor]

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's Parliament narrowly backed a two-year extension of the country's Afghan mission to February 2009 on Wednesday, despite serious misgivings by many opposition legislators.

The House of Commons voted 149-145 in favor of the motion by the minority Conservative government. It clears the way for Canada to seek a more prominent leadership role in trying to bring security to Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051702328.html

[CHIMO]

1. Afghan 2-year deployment approved

OTTAWA (CP) — Canadian troops will spend two extra years fighting to bring democracy and security to Afghanistan’s most perilous corner after Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a tense political showdown over his divided opposition rivals.

A motion to extend the deployment barely passed 149 to 145 Wednesday night. The NDP, Bloc Quebecois and most Liberals, including key leadership candidates such as Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe, voted against it.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147902615515&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Looks like the door is now open for Dion to address some issues that have floated across borders with some intellectuals.

[CHIMO]

2. PM's Afghan mission motion squeaks through

A motion to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan narrowly passed in the House of Commons Wednesday night despite a lack of support from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

The motion, which squeaked through 149-145, called for the support of the House in extending the military mission by two-years, after its current commitment expires in February 2007.

The Bloc and the NDP announced their intention to vote against the motion before the six-hour parliamentary debate that ended at about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday. The Liberals said that they would allow their MPs a free vote on the issue.

Roughly 25 Liberals voted in favour of the motion, including such notables as Liberal Leader Bill Graham, and leadership hopefuls Scott Brison and Michael Ignateiff.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060517.w2afghan05171/BNStory/National/home

A bunch of total idiots protecting their stand on the invansion of Iraq and the hope that they can become a cabinet minister.

If there was a party that could present a united logical and common sense standard they could walk away with this issue that is being made into a political issue.

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. Canada's stay in Afghanistan extended by 2 years (Vote - 149-145)

.
.
.

Here we go - our Peacekeeping status deteriorating (sigh)

I had the sad experience of watching it live on CPAC

Canada's stay in Afghanistan extended by 2 years

Last Updated Wed, 17 May 2006 22:42:56 EDT
CBC News

With the latest death of a Canadian soldier fresh in their minds, members of Parliament have voted to approve an extension of the military mission to Afghanistan.

/snip/

The vote was close, but the government prevailed 149-145. It means Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan two years longer than previously planned.

/snip/

Liberal Leader Bill Graham said he would wait to see if the Conservatives answered all his questions regarding the two-year extension before deciding which way to vote. In the end, Graham and 29 other Liberals supported the motion.

But he did criticize the government for holding a vote without providing sufficient time to debate the issue. Graham said his party supports the troops and the mission in Afghanistan, but that MPs would be voting "with a gun put to our heads."

MORE

We have turned a sad day in our history, and made our country LESS safe by participating in the USA's illegal wars, IMO

Wasn't the Afghan "deal" supposed to be to capture/kill ONE MAN???

(sigh) (again)

[reprehensor]

4. Get Harper out. ASAP.

Tell him he could write speeches for the President, like David Frum.

It pays better, anyhow.

Afghanistan is bound to get worse.

[flyarm]

5. welcome to our world Canada!! and the conservtive murdering

son of a bitches!

sad day Canada!!

fly

[Erika]

6. Didn't Canada just lose it's first female in Afghanistan?

Maybe they are joining W in his corporatist global agenda. American and Canadian troops dying for the bottom dollar in corporate greed.

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. Yup - First female killed in combat since WW2 - Thanks George . . .

.
.
.

From the posted Article:

"Capt. Nichola Goddard is the first Canadian female soldier to be killed in combat since the Second World War. (Department of National Defence Photo)"

[Erika]

8. How very sad. Afghani women are still wearing Burquas

and totally subject to the will of the men. At least she lived a free life.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. I can't put my finger on it

but I find that observation of yours quite offensive.

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. "offensive" might be a bit strong, "disturbing" may be more appropriate

.
.
.

Nichola didn't "live" her life

Nichola "lost" her life due to our government's stupidity

I bet she'd be happier alive, even if she had to wear that face-covering thing

Just My Canuk Opinion

[CanSocDem]

20. I think the choice was hers....

They ran an interview done previously with her on the news tonite. She originally signed up to get a degree in English, but, she said, "I fell in love with the military...I'm probably a lifer now."

She did look pretty happy so I think it's fair to say she died doing what made her happy. Can't discount that!

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. I disagree - I STRONGLY disagree. . . dying for an illegal war cannot

.
.
.

compute in my pacific Canuk mind

Us Canuks have been a PEACEFUL Nation since the USA tried to invade us in 1812

We had a shameful participation in Korea in 1954, but have been involved in peacekeeping missions ever since

Martin got us into this combat role, and now Harper has committed our troops to certain death for at least another 2 years, and our country as a target for the terrorists is now well-earned, as supporters of the USA's agenda

WRONG, I say

Very very wrong

PNACers are pleased

They have dragged Canada as Co-Conspirators into their Global Genocide

(sigh)

[enigma000]

25. I'm not sure the Germans, Japanese and Italians saw Canadians as peaceful

How many hundreds of thousands did Canadians kill in two World Wars? Canada went to war twice; both times against countries that did not attack Canada.

[ConcernedCanuk]

26. Canada never dropped bombs on countries that were trying to surrender

.
.
.

Canada got involved in WW1 and WW2 because we believed it was a threat to OTHER countries, and we were helping them out . .

Japan was trying to negotiate a surrender with the USA, but the USA wanted to test out their new "toy"

And Iraq is the same thing - Iraq was no threat, but the USA had a new bunch of weapons they wanted to test out - "smart" bombs and all

and they had a beef with Iraq anyways

So make up the WMD threat to justify it to the World

the do "target practice" in Iraq!!

USA is waging wars on countries that are no threat,

but they (other countries) can sure hurt the PNACers pocket book

THAT's what it's all about

Think about it . . .




THAT's what it's (the war in the Middle East) is all about

[HuffleClaw]

11. a disgrace

goddamned neocons and their enablers (from all THREE opposition parties)

[Telly Savalas]

23. The Post and Star articles said the Bloc and NDP voted against it.

[Pierre Trudeau]

12. OK, I'll be contrary here...

While I certainly agree that Canada's mission in Afghanistan needs to be re-assessed and debated on a regular basis, I wonder if some of us aren't reacting a little hysterically.

A few points:
- Canada in Afghanistan is NOT the same as the US in Iraq
- the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan enjoyed near-unanimous international support and was, to some degree, approved by the UN
- Canada's involvement there goes WAY beyond just our military presence: there are also major diplomatic initiatives, civil engineering assistance, and humanitarian work
- so far, no evidence has arisen that Canadian Forces are torturing prisoners, indiscriminately killing civilians, or acting like assholes the way some US forces have been in Iraq.

YES, I agree that Canada should not be a toady to the US war machine. But the US is desperate to get OUT of Afghanistan, it doesn't seem very interested in what happens there at all, especially now their attention is consumed by Iran.

THAT is why Canada perhaps should take over the mission there, so we can put a Canadian stamp on it, and promote our usual internationalist (and law-abiding) approach. Provided, of course, that the Afghan people really do want our help (it's hard to know for sure, but apparently a lot of them appreciate our efforts).

I had been wondering myself, "Are we doing any good over there?" So I asked an old friend of mine who ought to know: Chris Alexander, who was our chief diplomat there for three years. He told me that while there's not much about it in the news, he could assure me that Canada was doing good valuable work there (at least on the diplomatic front) and it was truly worthwhile. This guy is definitely NOT a conservative, he's a career diplomat who knows what he's talking about.

OK, flame away. I just wanted to present this side of the issue. Cheers!

[enigma000]

13. Chris Alexander? I've read good things about him n/t

[Pierre Trudeau]

17. He's a good fellow...

I've known him over twenty years, since we went to high school together.
He's very smart, affable, and has been one of the bright lights of Canada's foreign service.

Also in my class: Toronto Film Festival director Noah Cowan and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie.

[daleo]

14. I think we have deviated from our traditional role

And I think there is mounting evidence that the majority of the Afghan people in the regions where we currently are, don't want us there.

At best we are becoming involved in a civil war that we know nothing about, at worst we are becoming an adjunct to a colonial adventure. The Soviets didn't have any success changing Afghanistan, so why should we?

I don't know that the Afghanistan invasion was as solidly supported as people now think. It's just that Iraq was such a disastrous mistake that the relatively minor mistake of Afghanistan looked like a good move in retrospect. Bush was more interested in regime change in Afghanistan than in bringing Bin Laden to trial. Ultimately, he was successful in neither objective.

[Pierre Trudeau]

18. it is a deviation...

yes, this extended mission is a departure from our usual peacekeeping missions. But it wouldn't be the first one: Canada participated in various NATO campaigns in eastern Europe in the 1990s which would hardly count as "peacekeeping" according to the traditional definition.

Not that I endorse those activities necessarily, but I want to point out that our armed forces have in fact been sent on numerous non-peacekeeping missions over the years.

At best we are becoming involved in a civil war that we know nothing about, at worst we are becoming an adjunct to a colonial adventure. The Soviets didn't have any success changing Afghanistan, so why should we?


Quite possibly. How close it is to civil war, I don't know. Reliable sources though seem to concur that the Karzai gov't. is legit and backed by most of the people there... as for a colonial adventure, I doubt the US even sees it that way. They got their Unocal pipeline, now they just want to skedaddle.

As for the old argument about Afghanistan being a lost cause (many empires couldn't hold onto it), it's not really a logical reason to justify complete inaction.

But you do make some good points. I would only back this mission if it was a truly international enterprise, but as Spazito points out in the next post, it's only partly that.

[daleo]

27. I meant colonial in a more general sense

Perhaps imperialist would be a better choice of words. In other words, the U.S. (and arguably the power structure of the west) doesn't necessarily want to conquer and colonize the territory - destabilization might be all they really have in mind. In either case, the purposes are for the benefit of the western powers, not Afghanistan.

I honestly don't know if their are any "reliable sources" when it comes to these matters. Ultimately, the results will be the judge.

[Posteritatis]

15. Indeed

I just caught on the radio here that there's talk of Canada actually commanding the Afghanistan mission in 2008. That idea kinda pleases me, and not just for patriotic reasons. You're right that us in Afghanistan is somewhat different from the US in Iraq, though.

I'm kinda curious about how our managing of it would go, too. Both Canada's civilian and military sectors have a pretty heavy guilt complex over some botched ops in the nineties, especially Rwanda, and I wonder if trying to erase some past stains on the national honor might result in some more good being done in Afghanistan.

[Spazito]

16. Canada taking over the larger NATO mission is separate from

the combat mission Canada is involved in under U.S. Command. The U.S. Command is not affiliated with NATO, it is separate and apart and will continue which means we will have what we have now; Canadian soldiers under the auspices of NATO AND Canadian soldiers under U.S. Command.

"Harper is proposing that Canada once again take over leadership of the command centre in Kandahar, under the American mission, in late 2007. He said Canada is prepared to take over leadership of the larger NATO mission in Afghanistan in 2008."

The US has not and WILL NOT put their mission under NATO, it will remain separate and apart.

Edited to add link to quote in this post:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=bf0155d8-1609-4a0b-8fd0-c2742f7f6e56&k=85338&p=2

[Pierre Trudeau]

19. no wonder people are confused

Thanks Spazito, this distinction should really be stressed. I don't think the average Canadian is aware that part of our forces are operating entirely under US command.

I bet if you asked people, they might think we were operating strictly through NATO or the UN or something.

So a typical Toronto liberal like myself would likely endorse the Canada-taking-over-NATO-mission part, but not the extended-stay-in-Kandahar-under-Yank-command part.

....

Well, nobody seems to want to flame me at all.
You bunch of reasonable Canadian politeniks!
:P

[CanSocDem]

21. Here's a good article by David Orchard...

...on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html

"Canadians are fighting and dying in an undeclared war in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Harper has stated that Canada will not "cut and run" in the face of increasing casualties. Foreign Affairs Minister MacKay says Canada will "finish the job." Chief of Defense Staff, Rick Hillier, is quoted as saying "Canada needs to be in Afghanistan for the long haul... at least a decade – and probably a lot longer."

But why is Canada in Afghanistan?"

[ConcernedCanuk]

24. Bombing the sh#t out of Afghanistan was supposed to find/kill ONE MAN

.
.
.

But it was a pretense to move Billions of dollars of military machines to invade Iraq

simple math

The USA has over 130,000 troops in Iraq

under 13,000 in Afghanistan

GEEEE!

OH right

they hadda get all them troops into Iraq

They plan to move on Iran next

Feck the Afghanistan thing for now - - -

They ain't building those bases in Iraq to protect the Iraqis ya know

They's right in Iran's back door now - -

Sumthing to think about