The West can’t even come up with 2500 troops. The Islamofascists must be thrilled. Plus Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” scenario could even slip if Nancy Pelosi ends up as Speaker of the House.
I have no doubt the West will eventually win against Islamofascism. But if the West won’t systematically fight to win our existing commitments then we’ll find ourselves in 2 or 3 years time having to go at it this struggle in a much more heavy-handed way.
Hey, it took 2-4 years for the Allies to seriously get up to speed to take on Adolf & Co.; this battle against Islamo fascism will be no different.
Hillier is just beating the bullrushes for troops to be freed from their caveats, to be able to optimize troop deployments.
The UN method of simply observing the slaughter, per Rwanda, is not going to do the trick. Gen. Hillier and every other commander in theatre in Afghanistan knows it.
"Advanced fence sitting" by other NATO allies will not get the job done. And to let Afghanistan slip away will just encourage the Jihadists to further their agenda elsewhere.
The weight is being carried, again, by the English speaking members of NATO.
I am aware that Canada is bi-lingual, but how many Quebecers are over there right now? When there was mention of sending a platoon from Quebec, there was a tremendous outcry. The same was true in WWII, as Quebecers saw it as England's war, even though France was being occupied by the Nazis. It was the same way in Korea. The UN mission was spearheaded by the US, Canadians, Brits and the Australians. The rest of Europe and UN nations contribution was minimal. With the exception of the Brits, Europeans are basically gutless wonders who will do anything to avoid conflict, up to and including colluding with the enemy. E.G. Quisling and the French Vichy government
Why is it that Canada, a G8 country, can only contribute 2500 troops? The Netherlands, with half the population of Canada, has almost as many(2300) in Uruzgan. The Netherlands has sent F16s, chinooks and apache helicopters. Canada has no appropriate combat aircraft to send. But OK, whine about those europeans.
Another thing, perhaps OT, but contrast this reception in New Zealand to the Canadian response to the awarding of US medals to our soldiers.
[External Link]
"With the exception of the Brits, Europeans are basically gutless wonders..."
There are some german-speaking fellows who would beg to disagree. Just becasue they were on the other side in the last couple of European conflicts doesn't make them "gutless wonders" - in fact they tended to be pretty good at the whole military thing. As I recall, even with the handicap of an insane two-front strategy they came awfully close to winning the last go-round.
Actually I think Quebec sends its fair share of troops, depending on the rotations of regiments. But the MSM in Quebec which is like Europe, pacifist, therefore they constantly stir up the notion that this is “Bush’s War” and the Quebec voters get brainwashed … because they don’t watch Mark Steyn on FOX.
Posted at 2006-10-18 10:49:52 [PermaLink]You rightwinging morons can't even find your arses with two hands and a flashlight.
...and you think you can predict success in a morass as complicated as this?
Shut the hell up, already.
red ant: Simple answer" "...Canada currently spends $343 per capita on the military compared with $648 for Australians, $658 for the Dutch and $903 for Britons..."
[External Link]
Compare equipment levels via these links:
[External Link]
[External Link]
Note the Dutch have two of these--the "big honking ships" Gen. Hillier wants:
[External Link]
More on the BHS:
[External Link]
It is shameful that we spend so little on our military and demand so much.
Mark
Ottawa
red ant: One other thing. The Dutch obviously get more bang for their defence budget buck.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark:
In all fairness, I believe we outspend Luxembourg. ;-0
Thanks Mark,
I meant that question rhetorically in response to a consistant smug attitude I see on blogs. Your information helps make my point. Our soldiers are excellent but they need the tools that, (how ironic) a small "gutless wonder" european country has in Af'stan. How nice it would be to see your comments above in a mainstream news article.
John B: And Iceland (which has no armed forces)--NATO spending as percentage of GDP chart here:
[External Link]
Though it does have an armed Coast Guard.
[External Link]
But when it's spending per capita we're ahead of quite a few (poorer) members.
[External Link]
Behind Italy (just), well behind Belgium, (guess who?) Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway. (Bush-lackey warmongers!) but ahead of Spain.
Mark
Ottawa
Nomdenet, your observations about the francophone media are very accurate.
Every Quebec news outlet is like the beeb, only worse. The interview featuring director Pierre Felardeau....the bellweather of bad movies .... explaining why he attended last summer's Hezbollah march says it all.
Monsieur Pierre actually inserted a real word or two between the "osties" and the "tabernacs", both of which consistently preceded the name "Bush".
At one point he even referred to GW as a "tabernac-de-tabernac"
Bush was double "tabernaced"!
That's an honour!
And just to prove how financially dependant the old coot is on federal handouts, Felardeau demonstrated his bilingualism; at one point he said "fuck-ostie"
If it isn't info it's certainly comedy!
The VanDoos are scheduled to replace the RCR in the spring of 07.
Cheers
John P.
Merde! A tabernac squared. What an honour.
I'm disappointed there was no "calice". Maudit Anglais!
Well John B., we anglos are beyond maudit, we're double "ostie"!
Not to be a stickler about spelling but I believe that "câlice" takes un accent circonflex and most froggies spell it "câlisse".
My laptop has a "french" keyboard.........
Just an amusing anecdote about Felardeau, John B.
I encountered the guy early on the morning of the province's last elections in April 2003. This was on Mont Royal ave E. He was attempting to unlock the front door of the PQ party offices for the riding. I had to help him.
Poor, poor Pierre had a terrible tremble and couldn't quite get the key into the keyhole. I wondered aloud, "why ON EARTH does this man want into the election offices at 6:15 in the fucking morning?"
Then it hit me!
There wasn't a drop of booze left at home, the SAQ ( Québec liqour commission) didn't open until 10:00 AM and Pierre had probably stashed a reserve, just-in-case bottle in the bottom drawer of his desk.
Hence the frantic need to unlock that door!
I offered him a hand and I did so in the Queen's english whilst sniffing the odour of stale alcohol.
The man was a dishevled, disgusting mess.
If only I'd have had a camera-phone!
It was once a common myth in the USA that they defeated the British because of tactices such as were used at Bunker Hill. Not advancing in mass formations, but shooting, laying down so as not to get hit by the response, then getting up and shooting again after advancing. Having the advantage of rifling in their guns as well, permitted individual shots to be telling.
Again, this myth was repeated in the Mexican War that took Texas from Santa Anna and Mexico. He had a beautifully European trained and effective Army. The story being that Houston defeated him using what are now terrorist techniques. Santa Anna was defeated at the Battle of San Jaquinto, fought in the European style, save that Houston suprised the Mexicans during a seista.
The truth is that both Washington and Houston desparately needed time to train their disorganized forces into European style fighting groups. The "long rifles" with rifleing to make them shoot true were still not common. A massed volley of musket shot was even that late the only effective way to defeat massed opposition.
That is why Washington crossed the Deleware and the Alamo was armed and later sacrifaced - to give time to the Generals to train.
Now we seem to see the opposite. The "hit and run" tactics are defeating the marvelously well trained American, British and Canadian military machines. They really are the meanest mothers in the whole valley - but constantly stymied.
Experience has shown the side that wins in these conflicts is the side with the most popular support. It is estimated that about one third of the people in the American Colonies supported Washinton and his republicans, one third did not, and one third didn't care either way. So a movement needs only one third of the populartion to achieve any kind of success and one third to not really have a preference. (Hense Bush's prenouncement "Y'er either with us or agin' us.")
Mao's dictum of being "as fish in the water" trumps more troops.
General Hillier may be a fine General, apparently he is - it is a General's prepogative to complain about a lack of troops. Yet the ultimate decision of victory for "our" side or "theirs" is not up to him - it lies with the people of Afghanistan. This is the famous "hearts and minds". Despite General Rick doing all he can, and that is considerable - he will be flummoxed so long as popular support lies with the Taliban and their followers.
More troops is a military response to a problem - the problem is not a military problem - it is a social, political, economic problem with a patina laid on of the religious. Earlier in this subject someone compaired this to an invester that, being skittish, pulled out the money as the stock dropped. More money will not solve the problem. The patience, that brough down the USSR, is not going to solve this problem - Afghanistan has been ungovernable for a thousand years. The country will be government by whomever the Afghans decide, not someone foisted upon them.
It is here we are losing.
![[External Link]](http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/issue3/graphics/contents/i3_stats_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[External Link]](http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/issue3/graphics/contents/i3_stats_3.jpg){kind=link}