No debate, says MacKay, generals will decide

[MrPrax]

No debate, says MacKay, generals will decide how long troops in Afghanistan

OTTAWA (CP) - The length of Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan is an "open question" to be determined in large part by the generals, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Monday.

Amid sustained calls for a full parliamentary debate - and at least one for Canada to quit the southwest Asian country altogether - MacKay said now is the time for "perseverance and resolve" rather than a public review of the deployment.

He was responding to comments by Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, who said last week the dangerous mission will require troops for at least a decade and that Canada is in for the long haul.

<snip>

"Canada's in a position where we have to exhibit in a very clear way that we are committed to this mission, that we intend to finish what we started - if I can put it that way - and to work with our allies there."

Canada.com link

The article goes on to speculate that Hiller is being set up as a 'fall guy' if there are more deaths in the future.

I dunno about that, but, since when do Generals get to decide these things?

Could Hiller clarify what the 'finish' part is, in the "finish what we started" mission?

What a waste of time, money and perhaps more lives...

[CHIMO]

1. Commons vote could undermine Afghan mission: MacKay

Commons vote could undermine Afghan mission: MacKay
Last Updated Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:32:41 EST
CBC News

But Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor signalled Monday he would be willing to allow debate on the mission.

"We will give opportunity for parliamentarians to understand our mission and to have input."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/06/mackay_afghanistan060306.html

Tory machine slow to hire
Senior staffers grumble about top jobs left unfilled Indecision, slow hiring hampers bureaucrats' work

A high-ranking ministerial official, who, like others interviewed, didn't wish to be named, said there is still a lot of indecision, and the slow pace of hiring means ministers are sometimes finding it hard to accomplish even basic tasks, like setting up meetings with colleagues to align departmental priorities.

One cabinet source said ministers have been instructed that in the near term, all that matters are Harper's much-ballyhooed five priorities — child-care payments, tough law-and-order measures, a GST cut, a guarantee on health-care wait times and new accountability legislation — and that departments outside those areas have been told to hang on to their new ideas and keep their noses clean.

But as the government gradually finds its feet — after playing defence on files from Afghanistan to the defection of International Trade Minister David Emerson to the Mexican Mayan Riviera murders — criticism is emerging from some quarters that Harper is trying too hard to control the agenda.

Keen to preserve the kind of discipline that carried the Tories to power, Harper has decreed that all major decisions and announcements must be vetted by the PMO, sources say, and that all ministerial communications strategies must also be co-ordinated with his office.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1141599010836&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Seems like some jockeying going on. Also seems like people are mixed up a bit. But looks like everything will have to pass head office and I wonder if MacKay is following the leader.

Further there was a report on CBC radio a day or two ago from a military chap that was explaining that this was not a peacekeeping mission. So it is apparently war. Nice to find out that we are now in a war with a country.

[tuvor]

2. More from the article.

MacKay is adamant a public debate of the mission's merits would undermine Canadian soldiers.

<snip>

"Recent results have demonstrated this is life and death and we don't want to jeopardize or in any way have a psychological or a real impact on the troops who are in Afghanistan," said MacKay.

If that doesn't sound like something a Republican would say...

Harper's been in power for, what? Six weeks? That didn't take long, now, did it? I wonder what the next six weeks holds.

[ClusterFreak]

3. And if the Generals say "We need more money, better helicopters...

...better warships and subs", then I guess they make those decisions too, huh Peter?

[tuvor]

4. I trust we're all writing to our MPs?

Thank GOD my riding elected someone from the NDP this time. If the Conservative candidate had won yet again (because the Liberals had no chance in HELL in my town) I might as well be pissing in the wind.

Now to ensure my MP is busting her ass for me.

[Bassic]

5. Yeah, God forbid the will of the people have anything to do

with the decision making process. God dammit, I hope the House of Communes votes them out within the year.

[daleo]

6. Is this a military dictatorship now?

"Generals will decide".

Power has gone to these people's head in record time.

This Afghanistan mission is too ill defined at this point to feel comfortable supporting. What exactly are we doing "chasing down Taliban"? How do we recognize them? Do they wear uniforms? How reliable is our intelligence? How many people do we have that speak the language? How many that understand the culture? Is the purpose just to keep the place unstable, so that it can't pose a threat to the west? If so, would that even work?

How do we know we aren't just killing people who are tired of having foreign troops in their farms and fields?

[Spazito]

7. I can't support the change in mission that has occurred

Originally we went to Afghanistan under NATO to participate in reconstruction and peace-keeping and were limited to in and around Kabul.

The recent deployment of troops are NOT under NATO but under US command who, coincidently, are NOT under NATO either. Their mission is NOT peacekeeping but replacing US combat soldiers. The faux Cons are not responsible for this, the blame lies solely with the previous Liberal government.

I am glad Canadians no longer support our involvement in Afghanistan, they (we) understand that the criteria by which Canadians did support the original mission have radically changed.

[daleo]

8. Agreed that the Libs and Cons both support(ed) the overall strategy

But, I think that the change in government might have led to even more aggressive tactics at the operational level. Alternatively, the forces opposed to western militaries in Afghanistan may have picked up the pace after the Conservative victory, sensing that they are closer to Bush in spirit and policy. That is just a conjecture - it is obviously difficult to say how much they follow western political developments at that sort of a detailed level.

Either way, the mission is ill defined and needs wider political consideration. Else, it might evolve into a mini-quagmire for Canadian troops. Ten deaths and several dozen serious injuries is a pretty high casualty rate for a force of one to two thousand troops.

[Spazito]

9. It struck me that the aggressive tone and change in mission really

stepped up upon the appointment of Hillier. His rhetoric mirrors his US Pentagon counterparts. The moment I heard him speak after his appointment I knew our military was going to be used for combat instead of peacekeeping duties. To be honest, Hillier scares the crap out of me with his gung-ho attitude. I can only hope the NDP make this issue a high priority because the Libs have no credibility to question it given Hillier was their guy and the change of mission happened under their watch.