Reply With QuoteFrom personal experience I know that Canadians have provided a tremendous amount of help against AQ. Specifically, in and around Kandahar. I spent about 12 months in the area from 2004 - 2009.
Canadian troops are top of the line.
U.S, British criticism of Canada's military efforts in Afghanistan 'wrong'
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-british-c...080008646.html
In his recent book "Little America: The War within the War for Afghanistan," Washington Post author Rajiv Chandrasekaran criticizes Canada for only having about 800 on-the-ground combat troops to cover the province.
He cites one U.S. adviser as saying Canadian soldiers were "focused on reconstruction activities, not providing security."
The author also writes the U.S. didn't push Ottawa to send more troops into Kandahar city because it didn't want to "dictate" to the Canadians or embarrass them, and that Canada was "reluctant" to ask for help.
"That's wrong," Granatstein said. "We tried repeatedly to get assistance. Basically, no help came."
From personal experience I know that Canadians have provided a tremendous amount of help against AQ. Specifically, in and around Kandahar. I spent about 12 months in the area from 2004 - 2009.
Canadian troops are top of the line.
The Afghan campaign was mismanaged from the very start.
To think what could have been achieved if the focus had remained on Afghanistan instead of concietedly turning attention to Iraq ranks as one of the major lost opportunities of recent history.
For anyone in the US and/or UK to attempt to judge the lack of effectiveness of other countries contributions to Afghanistan is simply ludicrous and massively hypocritical.
He cites one U.S. adviser as saying Canadian soldiers were "focused on reconstruction activities, not providing security."
Isn't the whole point of the ISAF mission to rebuild Afghanistan? And the Canadians are getting crap because they were more focused on rebuilding the country rather than getting into combat? Huh?
That's what I don't understand. Either focus mainly on hunting down the enemy , OR come to someone's village, help build the community, crops, and infrastructure, and forge friendly relations. Something tells me the latter wins you more friends.
What pisses me off about news like this is the fact that people without knowing(as in the gen public) would guess the guys & girls on the ground were useless,where the same as UK amounts and deployment has been talked about by this paper,as we see by the videos and sadley deaths in that sh1thole,anyone with a brain can see canada punchs above its weight.
blame the goverments,not the boots on the ground
That comment says it all. and history should have taught us a lesson.Originally Posted by Ngati Tumatauenga
intresting comment,and i fully agree on ure comment,i will get hung out to dry i guess with my next comment,the U.S are not good at rebuilding or getting on with the local's,but in the other hand,are we(other nations) too soft? when the **** hits the fan in those areas the massive amount of firepower and boots on the ground the U.S can provide is awesome,each army has its strong points.may that be rebuilding,or providing security given a certain task.
I understand your point, but it's also fair to point out when political considerations have trumped accomplishing the mission (whatever the mission might be...)
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of that situation in Sarobi in 2009 where the Italians were paying off the Taliban. The French took over and then lost ten men in an ambush because the Italians relay that little bit of informations.
As a British squaddie Who has attended a Repatriation for several Canucks at KAF in 2007 and walked the 'green line' in Nicosia you have nothing but my deepest admiration and respect.
The U.K. Government made serious miscalculations in Helmand in 2006
Yeah, we have a poor track record. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are no shining beacons of Democracy, but then again, look at Germany, Japan, S. Korea, and Panama. All are very prosperous countries following US involvement there, although it took awhile for things to improve. I think the US is very capable of country building, it just needs to revise it's methods further. Afterall, look at how far we've come to the practical genocide and despotism in Vietnam to the much calmer and under control state of affairs in Afghanistan.
Particularly, we need to stop blaming our allies for doing their damn jobs. You brought up a good point, the US surely does bring a hell of a lot of manpower and firepower to any fight, so maybe we should be more focused on the security aspect, and other ISAF contributor's be focused more on the rebuilding efforts. Then again, I think all ISAF countries should pull their respective weight, both in security and rebuilding. It's a complex situation. Focus on combat and security too much, and you are not going to be winning 'hearts and minds'. Focus on rebuilding too much and you are going to lose security.
South Korea and Japan were successful because they had a strong dictatorship for so long to hold their country together.
Sk and japan have done so well because they not still stuck in the stoneage,sk because of the security provided mainy by the USA(intresting on its own subject)..japan,well seeing they had 2x atomic bombs dropped on them,they have still done ok,by massive USA investment...,you can only help people who want to be helped.
A lot of other countrys people shed blood for them,not just the u.s.a,still dont understand why usa still lumbered with SK security seeing it was a UN mission.
I think some individual's opinions and rumours are being taken for the gospel positions of the US and UK.
well said there sir.
Posting Permissions
