However I was rather pleasantly surprised to see Trudeau and the Libs not at the last join with Harper on the combat side, I rather had expected to see that. Indeed, in the last couple of days Trudeau has been sounding a lot more sensible than I was expecting, and in even more importantly, nuanced in his positioning on this issue, which I happen to think is the right place to be. I do think something needs doing by Canada at this point, if only because of our alliance partners being involved, as well as just how ugly ISIS is in its actions, but the idea that it must be combat action, no that comes from the Harper mentality on this issue. I happen to think we are far better suited in this case for the non-combat logistic and recon roles where military elements are concerned, and we have been asked by the Kurds and Iraq last month not for combat power but humanitarian assistance. That being said though I was never in favour of military/combat action to begin with.
I have yet to be convinced of the threat to us here in Canada by this group. Are they nasty operators with terrible ideology and aims with brutal means of trying to bring them about? No question on any of that. Are they recruiting from our disaffected youth? Again yes, that is factually inarguable. However, what actual threat capacity to they pose to us here in this nation above and beyond the already ever present threat of individual actions of terrorists (of which there are many such groups including some with high funding) using local materials to disrupt/attack local targets? This is a question I have yet to hear any answer that makes any sense to me beyond the political rhetoric level.
I am also more than a little troubled that until ISIS/ISIL started beheading western reporters and using youtube to publicize that fact this group was not seen as such a massive threat to our interests. We know this group has a lot of well educated westerners within it, that indeed they recruit for such as much as locals. Therefore they have to understand that this sort of thing will inflame emotions and make military intervention more probable, so why then are they asking for it? There is much military wisdom in not doing what your enemy is clearly trying to get you to do, I said that about GWB and the 2003 shift in focus to Iraq instead of following through with Afghanistan (where I still believe that if the US had stayed there alone and done the full follow through there could not only have been a real success but a ripple effect to weaken such forces, instead of the strengthening we saw as a result of doing what bin Laden clearly wanted from the US with Iraq), and I think this is something that has not gotten anywhere near the serious consideration it needs in this case.
I also recognize the difference that while ISIS/ISIL is using terrorist tactics yet it is still more than a terrorist group, it is an insurgency, and that is an important distinction to be making. This is a group that wants to become a real government, it means that to really defeat them will take far more than military action but serious political/diplomatic action, and there Canada could have been vital in laying the groundwork in that area, and I think that was where Trudeau was making the most sense to me.
I find it interesting to note that both sides are using that Goering quote against us. The Harper side is obvious and other have dealt with it before so I won't rehash it here at the moment. However, the point I was making about the use of youtube and the handful of western beheadings ISIS/ISIL has been releasing is also clearly being used to create that effect in countries like ours, which is why I said it is clear to me they want military action from us, and when your enemy wants something so obviously is it really the wisest course to give it to him?
An insightful analysis, Scotian, with which i almost entirely agree. I am, however, dubious about whether the U.S. could have truly succeeded in Afghanistan, has they concentrated their energies there. The Russians in the 80's tried to do that, without success, although I suppose it could be argued that the U.S. supplying of arms to the mijahideen had something to do with their failure. On the other hand, history does tell us about past unsuccessful ventures there as well.
I would like to post your analysis as a separate entry tomorrow.
I think we need to remember the profound difference between the Soviet invasion and 2002 Afghanistan, namely the world commitment thanks to the 9/11 attacks and the attitude of the Taliban when confronted about AQ and bin-Laden. I do not think it would have been easy, but I do think that had the focus been maintained all along and we had had the full US resources, military and other, focused on Afghanistan alone as it was in the beginning before the shift to Iraq happened that there was a serious credible chance of a real victory both militarily and socially. Do I think it was a given, no, but I do think that was a unique chance blown by bush/Cheney that you see once in a generation if that frequently in global events. We had a remarkable convergence of events and actors in that at the outset, and a remarkably clear basis for acting in the 9/11/01 aftermath.
When you combine that with no real logistical support for the Taliban aside from Pakistan unlike what the US did for the Muj back in the 80s, well the balance of forces would have been far more lopsided than in the 80s. The social conditions were different as well, many Afghans had lost all use for the Taliban as it got increasingly harsh even by their beliefs, and there was remarkable global consensus in acting and providing real meaningful support, support which was abandoned once it became clear the US had changed its focus and left NATO to deal with Afghanistan. That is what I base my belief in the real potential for a victory in the original conditions the Afghanistan war was launched. Pity they didn't last more than a few months after it began, thank you assholes GWB and most especially Dick(head) Cheney. You cost the world a rare chance to make a real profound change for the better and instead you squandered it in the worst possible way to aid the very enemies you supposedly claimed to be fighting against. Way to go.
So that is where I am at the moment. I am very disturbed by how poorly I find this issue being examined given the level of obviousness of ISIS/ISIL in trying to provoke this exact response. I am also bothered by no one being able to show the actual real threat in real terms to western nations by this group. I know there is some threat posed, if only by their destabilizing effect in an oil rich part of the world, but in terms of direct security threat, that I have seen a remarkable dearth of credible information, and that also troubles me. This time I think the Opposition parties are right to vote against this action (and I am far from a dove, I have strong military history within my family, would have been reserve in my youth save for a disqualifying injury in my late teens) and that currently the Liberals (much to my surprise) are actually closest to where I am on this issue at this time, something I did not expect, and has actually increased my respect for Trudeau in this issue. He was smart enough to to not freeze his position too soon, he showed nuance, yet he also in the end stuck up for the role which in this conflict I think we would be best serving our national interests as well as those of those suffering on the ground.
This is a very complex and nuanced issue and deserved far better treatment than this government has given to it, not just on the political aspects but the substantive as well. As I said, much to my surprise over the past month Trudeau navigated the substance of this issue far better and closer to my own preferences than I expected to see from him (and I am one that was not offended by his comment regarding whipping out F-18s the other day, it was clear to me he wasn't trying to make a joke or be funny but to make a policy point/critique in a fairly blunt and direct manner, something a bit different than just a joke, and I went and watched the relevant material multiple times before I came to this degree of belief as to what he was doing), and his party is in my view making not just the right decision but also for the right reasons. Imagine that.
I hadn't meant to go on quite so much on Trudeau, I only did so because for me at the moment he is of the three main leaders making the most sense on this issue (May is also providing serious sense on this front, but being such a tiny party leader gets little coverage and carries negligible impact unlike the big three) to me since it first started becoming a serious political issue in this country some weeks back. I've been relatively quiet to date because like Trudeau I was waiting to see what was actually being proposed, and issues like this I take seriously and tend to try to stay away from discussing only in political/partisan terms because of that (mind you the political partisan games Harper clearly has been playing is I believe unheard of in our history for such an issue).
I thank you for your willingness to let me use your blog as one of those places for me to leave my thoughts on such matters, it is much appreiated, and just in case you decide you want to front page it consider this my permission granted already, but then you should consider that a given for any comment I leave on your blog. I see no difference in saying something in a comment threat to saying it on a front page, anymore than I see saying something online versus saying it in real life. I never write what I would not/do not say in person.
Sadly, I am forced to agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever I was rather pleasantly surprised to see Trudeau and the Libs not at the last join with Harper on the combat side, I rather had expected to see that. Indeed, in the last couple of days Trudeau has been sounding a lot more sensible than I was expecting, and in even more importantly, nuanced in his positioning on this issue, which I happen to think is the right place to be. I do think something needs doing by Canada at this point, if only because of our alliance partners being involved, as well as just how ugly ISIS is in its actions, but the idea that it must be combat action, no that comes from the Harper mentality on this issue. I happen to think we are far better suited in this case for the non-combat logistic and recon roles where military elements are concerned, and we have been asked by the Kurds and Iraq last month not for combat power but humanitarian assistance. That being said though I was never in favour of military/combat action to begin with.
I have yet to be convinced of the threat to us here in Canada by this group. Are they nasty operators with terrible ideology and aims with brutal means of trying to bring them about? No question on any of that. Are they recruiting from our disaffected youth? Again yes, that is factually inarguable. However, what actual threat capacity to they pose to us here in this nation above and beyond the already ever present threat of individual actions of terrorists (of which there are many such groups including some with high funding) using local materials to disrupt/attack local targets? This is a question I have yet to hear any answer that makes any sense to me beyond the political rhetoric level.
I am also more than a little troubled that until ISIS/ISIL started beheading western reporters and using youtube to publicize that fact this group was not seen as such a massive threat to our interests. We know this group has a lot of well educated westerners within it, that indeed they recruit for such as much as locals. Therefore they have to understand that this sort of thing will inflame emotions and make military intervention more probable, so why then are they asking for it? There is much military wisdom in not doing what your enemy is clearly trying to get you to do, I said that about GWB and the 2003 shift in focus to Iraq instead of following through with Afghanistan (where I still believe that if the US had stayed there alone and done the full follow through there could not only have been a real success but a ripple effect to weaken such forces, instead of the strengthening we saw as a result of doing what bin Laden clearly wanted from the US with Iraq), and I think this is something that has not gotten anywhere near the serious consideration it needs in this case.
I also recognize the difference that while ISIS/ISIL is using terrorist tactics yet it is still more than a terrorist group, it is an insurgency, and that is an important distinction to be making. This is a group that wants to become a real government, it means that to really defeat them will take far more than military action but serious political/diplomatic action, and there Canada could have been vital in laying the groundwork in that area, and I think that was where Trudeau was making the most sense to me.
I find it interesting to note that both sides are using that Goering quote against us. The Harper side is obvious and other have dealt with it before so I won't rehash it here at the moment. However, the point I was making about the use of youtube and the handful of western beheadings ISIS/ISIL has been releasing is also clearly being used to create that effect in countries like ours, which is why I said it is clear to me they want military action from us, and when your enemy wants something so obviously is it really the wisest course to give it to him?
To be concluded...
An insightful analysis, Scotian, with which i almost entirely agree. I am, however, dubious about whether the U.S. could have truly succeeded in Afghanistan, has they concentrated their energies there. The Russians in the 80's tried to do that, without success, although I suppose it could be argued that the U.S. supplying of arms to the mijahideen had something to do with their failure. On the other hand, history does tell us about past unsuccessful ventures there as well.
DeleteI would like to post your analysis as a separate entry tomorrow.
I think we need to remember the profound difference between the Soviet invasion and 2002 Afghanistan, namely the world commitment thanks to the 9/11 attacks and the attitude of the Taliban when confronted about AQ and bin-Laden. I do not think it would have been easy, but I do think that had the focus been maintained all along and we had had the full US resources, military and other, focused on Afghanistan alone as it was in the beginning before the shift to Iraq happened that there was a serious credible chance of a real victory both militarily and socially. Do I think it was a given, no, but I do think that was a unique chance blown by bush/Cheney that you see once in a generation if that frequently in global events. We had a remarkable convergence of events and actors in that at the outset, and a remarkably clear basis for acting in the 9/11/01 aftermath.
DeleteWhen you combine that with no real logistical support for the Taliban aside from Pakistan unlike what the US did for the Muj back in the 80s, well the balance of forces would have been far more lopsided than in the 80s. The social conditions were different as well, many Afghans had lost all use for the Taliban as it got increasingly harsh even by their beliefs, and there was remarkable global consensus in acting and providing real meaningful support, support which was abandoned once it became clear the US had changed its focus and left NATO to deal with Afghanistan. That is what I base my belief in the real potential for a victory in the original conditions the Afghanistan war was launched. Pity they didn't last more than a few months after it began, thank you assholes GWB and most especially Dick(head) Cheney. You cost the world a rare chance to make a real profound change for the better and instead you squandered it in the worst possible way to aid the very enemies you supposedly claimed to be fighting against. Way to go.
Conclusion:
ReplyDeleteSo that is where I am at the moment. I am very disturbed by how poorly I find this issue being examined given the level of obviousness of ISIS/ISIL in trying to provoke this exact response. I am also bothered by no one being able to show the actual real threat in real terms to western nations by this group. I know there is some threat posed, if only by their destabilizing effect in an oil rich part of the world, but in terms of direct security threat, that I have seen a remarkable dearth of credible information, and that also troubles me. This time I think the Opposition parties are right to vote against this action (and I am far from a dove, I have strong military history within my family, would have been reserve in my youth save for a disqualifying injury in my late teens) and that currently the Liberals (much to my surprise) are actually closest to where I am on this issue at this time, something I did not expect, and has actually increased my respect for Trudeau in this issue. He was smart enough to to not freeze his position too soon, he showed nuance, yet he also in the end stuck up for the role which in this conflict I think we would be best serving our national interests as well as those of those suffering on the ground.
This is a very complex and nuanced issue and deserved far better treatment than this government has given to it, not just on the political aspects but the substantive as well. As I said, much to my surprise over the past month Trudeau navigated the substance of this issue far better and closer to my own preferences than I expected to see from him (and I am one that was not offended by his comment regarding whipping out F-18s the other day, it was clear to me he wasn't trying to make a joke or be funny but to make a policy point/critique in a fairly blunt and direct manner, something a bit different than just a joke, and I went and watched the relevant material multiple times before I came to this degree of belief as to what he was doing), and his party is in my view making not just the right decision but also for the right reasons. Imagine that.
I hadn't meant to go on quite so much on Trudeau, I only did so because for me at the moment he is of the three main leaders making the most sense on this issue (May is also providing serious sense on this front, but being such a tiny party leader gets little coverage and carries negligible impact unlike the big three) to me since it first started becoming a serious political issue in this country some weeks back. I've been relatively quiet to date because like Trudeau I was waiting to see what was actually being proposed, and issues like this I take seriously and tend to try to stay away from discussing only in political/partisan terms because of that (mind you the political partisan games Harper clearly has been playing is I believe unheard of in our history for such an issue).
I thank you for your willingness to let me use your blog as one of those places for me to leave my thoughts on such matters, it is much appreiated, and just in case you decide you want to front page it consider this my permission granted already, but then you should consider that a given for any comment I leave on your blog. I see no difference in saying something in a comment threat to saying it on a front page, anymore than I see saying something online versus saying it in real life. I never write what I would not/do not say in person.
Thanks again Scotian, and thanks for your permission to post your comments separately..
Delete