Canada demands more NATO help in Afghanistan

AP/Washington Post:

Canada will extend its military mission in Afghanistan only if another NATO country puts more soldiers in the dangerous south, the prime minister said Monday, echoing the recommendation of an independent panel to withdraw without additional forces.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is under pressure to withdraw its 2,500 troops from Kandahar province, the former Taliban stronghold, after the deaths of 78 soldiers and a diplomat. The mission is set to expire in 2009 without an extension by Canadian lawmakers.

The panel, led by John Manley, a former Liberal deputy prime minister and foreign minister, recommended last week that Canada continue its mission only if another NATO country musters 1,000 troops for Kandahar.

European allies' refusal to deploy to Afghanistan's dangerous south and east has opened a rift with Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and others which, along with the United States, have borne the brunt of Taliban violence.

The U.S. contributes one-third of NATO's 42,000-strong International Security Assistance Force mission, making it the largest participant, on top of the 12,000 to 13,000 American troops operating independently.

...

"If NATO can't come through with that help than I think frankly that NATO's own reputation and future will be in grave jeopardy," Harper said.

Harper said he also agreed with the panel's recommendation that the defense department speed the purchase of helicopters and surveillance aircraft.

"Both of those recommendations will have to be fulfilled or Canada will not proceed with the mission in Afghanistan," he said.

...

NATO has already ignored other pleas from the US and the UK. The other member countries lack the will needed for the Afghan mission. They are living down to the expectations of bin Laden and the Taliban and Canada appears ready to join them despite their strong effort there. The story also demonstrates the weakened state of the Canadian military with the shortage of combat equipment. It has a lack of heavy lift also. Canada has invested in the sinkhole of rationed health care instead of in providing a strong military. That, unfortunately is what liberals do and despite having a conservative government now, it is not strong enough to undo all the damage caused by the evils of liberalism.

Update: The US is backing the Canadian demand for more NATO troops according to Reuters.

Comments

  1. Ianwpg2:07 PM

    Actually the story does not demonstrate the weakened state of the Canadian Military. What it states simply is this. Canada answered the call to come to our allies assistance in 2002 as part of NATO. As history has always shown Canada always responds when its allies are attacked. What Canada is simply saying is this...there are 26 member nations in NATO, Canada with its 30 million people has contributed more than its fair share and sacrificed more lives then most of the rest of NATO combined. All Canada is saying is if this is a NATO mission then NATO countries need to step up and fight. Leaving one member nation like Canada to do all the fighting does not meet the "an attack against one is an attack against us all" jargon of NATO.

    Its tough as Canadians to watch other NATO countries that Canada helped liberate in World War 2 sit back on the sidelines in this War while Canadian troops are comming home in body bags.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more