Military presence in Afghanistan vital: O'Connor
Although Canadian troops do engage in some combat operations, that's not the main point of the mission, said the minister. "The military is in Afghanistan to try to provide a security environment, a stable environment, so that the government can grow, so industry can grow, so schools can be opened."
NaPo

Hey Folks: We're Just There as Good Ol' Canadian Peace Keepers It was only a few days ago that Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor was bemoaning the fact that "the population" had to be told six, seven or eight times before they understood that we had troops in Afghanistan because they attacked us on 911. But now, before repeating himself more than three or four times, Minister O'Connor has changed his tune. Now we're there to provide a security environment, a stable environment, so that the government can grow, so industry can grow, so schools can be opened." So we're just playing our usual good ol' Canadian peace keeper role. No chance, the minister says of our getting "bogged down the way American troops did in Iraq." Well that's what you may think Gord, but that's not what the Director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress yesterday. He stated that the "insurgency" is growing and is stronger than at anytime since 2001. In other words, he's saying things are worse now than at any time since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. And in particular, he says that the growing challenge is with the expansion of the central government's authority, precisely the task you have set for Canadian forces. So let's review the situation. We participated in the invasion of Afghanistan because George Bush said the Afghans, through their guest Osama Bin Laden working with Saddam Hussein, were responsible for 911. However, the fraudulence of Bush's claims were made abundantly clear when Bush declared his complete indifference to the apprehension of the supposed criminal Bin Laden, and when the U.S. government failed to bring Saddam to the U.S. for trial after they had captured him and removed him from Iraq (he was held in Kuwait for months). Nevertheless, we are still in Afghanistan to assist "expansion of the central government". What that means is that we are there to help the Lord Mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, ex-employee of Unocal Oil, to fight the Taliban who remain in control of large parts of the country and who would surely regain control of the central government if the puppet Karzai were not supported by foreign troops. We are, in other words, still fighting a slow motion invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban have not been defeated and the American puppet regime controls little beyond the boundaries of Kabul. So here's a question Gord. If the people of Afghanistan (pop. 30 million) are so keen about opening schools for girls and generally becoming a model Canadian-style democracy committed to a woman's right to chose, gay marriage and the full range of benefits of the political correct society, why is it that Canada (pop. 30 million) needs to send troops to help them? I mean, we've helped them for four years. That's as long as either of the World wars. If the central government has failed by now to recruit and train enough troops to expand its authority beyond the capital without the aid of foreign troops, one has to ask how keen, really, are the people there about this project for democracy? Permanent Link

The Canadian Spectator is optimized for viewing with Firefox Version 1.02.

Please address correspondence to .