CTV News | Obama says U.S. to begin Afghan pullout in 2011

Top Stories -   

Obama says U.S. to begin Afghan pullout in 2011

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Scott Taylor, Esprit de Corps
A military analyst explains Canada's increased area of responsibility in Afghanistan and what that means for Task Force Afghanistan.
Canada AM: Alex Their, U.S. Institute of Peace
The director of the Afghanistan and Pakistan programs discusses how the accelerated timeline will impact the mission to defeat the Taliban.
Canada AM: David Mendell, Obama biographer
An author on the U.S president reveals whether he feels that Obama emotional speech on Afghanistan will have Americans rallying around the planned troop surge.
CTV National News: Paul Workman on the plan
As expected, U.S. President Barack Obama announced he will send 30,000 more soldiers into Afghanistan. The surge will happen quickly, and it will have a time limit.
CTV News Channel: Obama's speech, part one
Referencing the events of 9-11, U.S. President Barack Obama explained why the country went into Afghanistan and the steps he intends to take to 'bring this war to a successful conclusion.'
CTV News Channel: Obama's speech, part two
The U.S. president outlined the three core elements of his plan for Afghanistan -- 'a military effort,' 'a civilian surge,' and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
CTV News Channel: Obama's speech, part three
Defending the Afghan mission and his new strategy, U.S. President Barack Obama presented a rebuttal to the most prominent arguments against the war.
CTV News Channel: David Jacobson, ambassador
The U.S. ambassador to Canada explains the president will not ask the prime minister to commit addition troops, but will try to figure out how best to use soldiers already there.

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(68)

Photos

Slideshow image

View Larger Image

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Tue. Dec. 1 2009 7:33 PM ET

U.S. President Barack Obama has called upon NATO allies to increase their presence in Afghanistan, as he announced a significant new deployment to the country and plans for the U.S. to begin its pullout in July 2011.

"Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world," Obama said Tuesday night in what could be one of the defining speeches of his presidency.

"Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011."

Obama said the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated, but the stakes are too high for the U.S. to pull out immediately.

"Afghanistan is not lost, but for years it has moved backwards," he said.

"If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow."

The president said the core U.S. goal in Afghanistan remains disabling the al Qaeda terror network.

"To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies," Obama said.

Obama said an additional 30,000 U.S. soldiers will be deployed to the country in 2010 and a group of Marines will be deployed this month.

"The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest pace possible -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers," Obama said.

The increased troops "will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans."

Obama began outlining his plans at 8 p.m. in a nationally broadcast speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.

He started by reminding Americans why their country went to Afghanistan, invoking the September 11 attacks and the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden.

"America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security," Obama said.

He also spoke broadly of the affect the Iraq war had on Afghanistan, noting the disparaging troop numbers between the two countries.

"When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war," he said.

Obama spent some of his speech directly speaking to some of the criticism of his plans, as a recent poll said a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of the Afghan war.

He downplayed the comparisons to the Vietnam War, saying unlike that case, the American people were attacked and they have a broad-based coalition.

Obama also stressed the importance of putting a timeline on the mission.

"The absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan," he said.

Obama also spoke of the financial cost of the war, noting that the U.S. is recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

"By the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit," he said.

The speech came on the same day news emerged that Canada's area of responsibility is shifting, with the Canucks becoming responsible for Arghandab district, north of Kandahar city.

At least one group of Marines is expected to be deployed within a few weeks of the announcement, with boots arriving on the ground by Christmas.

Further deployments would follow next year, with a total of between 30,000 and 35,000 new troops arriving in Afghanistan by the end of 2010.

In total, there are 71,000 U.S. troops already in Afghanistan, many stationed in the turbulent southern provinces. The U.S. should have about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan by May 2010, officials say.

European officials say Obama has asked for an additional 5,000 to 10,000 troops from his NATO allies there.

Obama also asked for tougher targets for the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments and outlined why the U.S. needs to provide more training and backup to Afghan troops -- despite the war being eight years old.

He called Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday morning to share the details of the strategy with him.

Tuesday night marked the end of Obama's 92-day review of the war in Afghanistan -- during which he probed the value of a costly troop surge.

He already boosted the U.S. contingent by 21,000 soldiers.

Comments are now closed for this story

Leona from London
said
0 0

Looks like Obama and Bush are two branches on the same warmongering tree.


david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
said
0 0

I kinda have to agree with Leona on this one... What is the deadline for the Nobel peace prize nomination? I certainly hope we are not too late to nominate George W Bush.........


duck
said
0 0

This is a tough call. Do you leave the country and Allow afganistan to return to a terrorist haven or do you force democracy on a country that does not embrace democracy? I would hate to be held accountable for the decision either way.


Lucy: We need inquirey on Obama
said
0 0

He and the other 65 countries must know every prisoner in Afganistan is tortured, they do about 1,500 per day and then another 1,500 the next day, to torture guys are in very good shape to do this all day but they want no info they just do. We need an inquirey to find out what Obama knew and when.

Common Sense Retribution
said
0 0

They just can't get out. Funny how when you "spin" logic to justify your actions, you can't go back...like Mom used to say: "when you lie, you have to keep lying to cover the previous lies, and it always ends up worse than if you told the truth from the beginning". The truth is: They need to be able to control this region for financial gain, and control of natural resources...didn't anyone ever propose sharing them?Greed kills.


Mike S.
said
0 0

This man was left with a mess of a job. He has no choice but to try and clean it up best he can. Bush never really dealt much with Afghanistan. He was way too focused on Iraq's oil. He's barely been in office a year. Give the poor man a term to do stuff.


Tiger in Hamilton
said
0 0

Obama will give a great speach and he will turn this announcement into a big circus the guy loves the sound of his own voice. But while he gives this great speech Iran centrifuges are spinning away while China sits on the sidelines. Obama has not been able to get anyone involved that was not already involved under Bush. Sure Obama is the man of the hour but come on 65 countries came on Bush's request Obama should be able to get one more even one tiny little country.


Frank
said
0 0

Obama is just copying McCain surge from Iraq. I like Obama I just wish wish he had one original thought of his own.


Kirk
said
0 0

I totally disagree that Obama and Bush are on the same war mongering tree. Yes, Bush is probably the worst president the United States has ever brought into office. But he now has to try and clean up the mess. Afghanistan is in desperate need of international assistance. The media reports on everything negative because they are trying to sell a product to the public. I think that the majority of the people in Afghanistan want help to try and climb out of the poverty that has imporverished this nation for so long. This is that opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, there are always people who would like to prevent this from happenning. Therefore, to help this nation, troops need to be sent in to secure the ground to give the people a sense of security and to try and bring some sort of peace to the area.


Soldiers Mom
said
0 0

Canada has been doing a lot in the toughest part of the country with 2,500 men and women. We have reconstructed damns, built schools, immunized kids, educated girls and built roads. I am glad we finally got some back up. I hope we get more roads paved because its the IEDs in the roads that kill our brave men and women. We also need to turn of the cash and that means stopping the drugs at the crop stage even if it means some upset farmers. Take away the drug money and the taliban cannot afford to pay the terrorists.


Pat
said
0 0

So where are all the U.S. protesters now. For 8 years, when Bush was in power, there were thousands of protesters out every day with their signs...protesting the 2 wars. Have they suddenly decided that these wars are now OK because Obama is in power?? You are either in favour of those wars or against them...shouldn't matter who is President. Maybe the media chooses not to show them...wouldn't want to tarnish Obama's halo!!


Portes
said
0 0

As usual the Jarheads have to take up the slack from the Army. For those who do not know Jar heads are,US Marines,it is a term used by all Navy personnel in reference to them. Obama knows what he has to do, but is afraid of upsetting the left wing of his party so he is trying to set a middle ground, but it won't work,it has been tried before and has failed. You either go in to win or stay out and let the Taliban take over agan, I guess that is what the left wing of his party wants. He will be a one term President, the Health care bil will bring him down as there are too many fingers in the pie and each one wants something different, even his some of his own Party members are not supporting him on this. It is going to prove very difficult for him to get his party back together again and in 2010 the Rebublicans will regain the Senate and that is why he has to push now, because after 2010 he won't have the votes to pass any legislation. Sad but that is the reality of the situation. I am not pro or against Obama


Wade Ens- Obama won't mention Prisons
said
0 0

Obama and 60 some other countries turned over prisoners to the same as our forces did. So either everyone is guilty of war crimes or no other country is, I think it is the latter those prisoners never had it so good. I bet one thing Obama does not talk about is the terrorist prisoners talk about concern about the school girls and security. Too bad our opposition parties wouldn't join with Harper and Obama on trying to get this right.


John from Saskatoon
said
0 0

I honestly don't know what should be done here. Afghans have been defending this territory from invaders and winning for thousands of years and I don't think we'll be any different. On the other hand we went in for the right reasons and to leave now before the job is done seems like a disservice to our soldiers and the Afghan civilians. This can't be made into a partisan issue. It's to important. I don't think there is any perfect answer for what to do.


Adam Lambert - Don't ask Don't tell wrong
said
0 0

Obama needs to do away with the don't ask don't tell policy on gays. As a liberal minded person I support Obama but this is the issue that should of been addressed before the surge. I would never go to war even if I joined the army for the pay but I would like to have that option.


Joey
said
0 0

More troops, more blood. After 8 years over there with over 100,000 foreign troops, and we can't even stabilize that country. Recently, the US states that Bin Laden was within reach of capture in 2001 in the Bora hills while speacilized troops were left alongside for their call. Everyone knows that Pakistan is behind in aiding Bin Laden. Put a loop hole in the Northern Pakistan and you have him. When Musharrif was in power, who do you think kept him alive. You think he was telling the truth behind the cameras. He knows where Bin Laden is, You don't think his family knows his whereabouts. Afghanistan is a major corrupt country and keeps foreign troops on it's knees. I feel for the Afghan people but hey bear arms and fight for your country too. God bless our soldiers who should be home with families


Paul in AB
said
0 0

It seems to me we (collectively including all allies fighting in Afghanistan) are unable to negotiate a successful outcome because for some reason we feel a responsibility to be fair. It reminds me of the Redcoats lining up in a row to attack the Americans hiding behind trees and rocks. War is war and whatever means are necessary to secure a winning outcome should be employed. You cannot continually expect one side to adhere to protocols to ensure a "nice" war while another side uses any ruthless tactics it wishes. Furthermore not only do we try to undertake a "fair" war but we advertise this strategy globally due to public pressure. May as well put on those Redcoats and march in a straight line! Lets just punt the media out of the war zone, go in and do what is necessary to get the job done and over with. Afterwards we can talk about what happened.Continually trying to please all the people will underscore failure regardless of best intentions.


Tom in BC
said
0 0

My prediction. The surge will go ahead. The Taliban will fade back into the villages and hills and wait. The invaders (Nato) will some years from now leave and the Taliban will resurface. Life will go on and the Americans will go fight another war in an area where they see foreign economic gain. When Obama during his run for president said he would make a pre-emtive strike into Pakistan territory to capture Osama Bin L. without the Pakistanu goverment approval a lot of warning lights went on for me. I think he fancies himself as another Abe Lincoln and Abe made a mark for himself during the civil war but the Afgan war will be Obamas undoing.


The Man
said
0 0

For years the American government avoided war with the Islamic radicals, even as terrorists like Bin Laden called for a jihad against the West. The result: almost 3,000 dead Americans in the worst surprise attack on America since Pearl Harbour. Now, a mere eight years later, Bin Laden is given a safe haven in the Middle East while men like Bush and Obama who dare challange him are branded as war-mongering tyrants. Like so many other aspects of life, ignoring men like Bin Laden will not make them go away. You have to fight them if you want to hold on to your freedom and your life.


B. Kelley, Ontario
said
0 0

Obama is in a difficult situation. On one hand he risks losing the support of his like-minded radical left Democrats who are demanding an immediate pull-out regardless of the costs and, on the other side, he has the obligation to do the responsible thing and commit the resources necessary to permanently close down terrorist havens. People forget that the Afghan invasion was a United Nations sanctioned action, not a unilateral U.S. decision so, unlike Iraq, this cannot accurately be called a "Bush war". If the U.S. withdraws its support the whole effort will collapse and the Taliban and Al Quaida will be back within a week more emboldened than ever to attack the west, including Canada. Hopefully, lessons were learned from Viet Nam and Obama realizes that we can't win a war of attrition on someone else's turf. Wars are won or lost, there is no tie.


Nico
said
0 0

Conservatives are funny, no matter their nationality. It amazes me how they compare what Obama is doing now as compared to what Bush started. First, Bush's focus had always been Iraq. Unfortunately, he was never able to justify that invasion, as the true terrorist haven was Afghanistan.The war in Afghanistan, is, in my view, justified and desperately in need of more human resources. Resources that could have been there from the start, had they not been in Iraq.


gb686
said
0 0

have most of you forgot what got this started?? The USA was targeted and in doing so all of us in the free world were targeted. This is no different than the second world war, except that many of the enemy are hiding in plain sight. The free future of our children is at stake.If you lost friends at 911 maybe you would understand.


trunorth
said
0 0

Nobody wants war with the death and destruction that goes with it. But the bleeding hearts have lost sight of the fact that the terrorists will be bringing the fight to our shores if the NATO allies ever give up on Afghanistan and let the Taliban and al Quida have their way.


Doug @ BC
said
0 0

Obama,like every other leader involved in this war,MUST make the right choice,NOT the one tht offers them the greatest political gain in their own nations.While it is true that a leader has to remain in power to accomplish anything at all,we elect and pay our leaders to do the right thing even if it's not always the popular thing.The most unfortunate thing here,is that people treat this as as partisan political issue that can be spun to either discredit their political foes,or invigorate the political party of their choice. The fact that so many people still refer to this action as a US invasion,or Bush's war leads me to believe that a lot of people with loud voices haven't got a clue what this is all about,or who is responsible. Walking away now would be the cruelest possible option.Torture,murder,and acid throwing would be rampant.Obama's toughest challenge is not the war itself,but getting leader in other nations to support some level of human rights for the people of Afghanistan.lmost every nation on the planet is hoping that area can be stabalized.Even those not openly involved.It is Obama's challenge to get them to help.Even if that help is somewhat covert,China,Pakistan, Russia,and a host of other nations need to eithe help,or get out of the way. I don't fault Obama or even Bush.The reality is,as it always has been,that it is far more difficult to govern,than it is to oppose. Like Europe in the last century,these people need help.We should do what we can,or quit our self rightous,arrogant,and our oh so holier than thou preaching about how we stand for human rights.Our rights,and our freedoms were paid for with the blood of our ancestors.Not even trying to help would be worse than either success or failure.


Anne M
said
0 0

I cannot figure out why Canada even supports Obama, He has snubbed us on more than one occasion, now he has done it again. While he personally told the EU leaders of his plan, he let Joe Biden tell Harper. Obama seems to think that he is too good for Canada. Joe Biden cannot get his own name straight, so I guess we'll get a semi version of what Obama is planning in Afghanistan.


Norman in Calgary
said
0 0

At $1,000,000 per year per fielded US soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq AOs why not just hire the locals to hunt down the Al Queada and Taleban? As for Taleban they are reportedly local unemployed young men for hire and adventure. So start a bidding war with the Taliban for their services. Then when the war is over put them all to work on building roads, hospitals and schools. An outbreak of prosperity and education will cause more enduring peace than oppressive poverty and war. We did it in Germany and Japan after WWII and it certainly worked.


B.Kelley, Ontario
said
0 0

To: Doug @ BC - You hit the nail squarely on the head with your post. Nothing else need be said.


sarah613
said
0 0

Hey where does Osama bin Laden fit in this picture?? What is does this 'get the job done' really mean? Is it capturing bin laden, or wiping out every living so-called islamist/jihadist/militant/taliban/al-qaeda groups there are out there? Well good luck with that, kill one member and another joins and they are not only joining in Afhanistan, they are spreading. Now the U.S. can't be in 20 countries at once. I don't see the U.S. getting out anytime soon, way it looks like they'll be there just as long as the Soviets if not longer. History seems to always be repeated in different ways and never learned.


Mark in TO
said
0 0

Whenever Afghanistan is being discussed the same talking point gets used again and again "nobody has ever won there", this talking point however isn't really true.When the Soviets left Afghanistan in '85 they pulled out all of their troops out of the country and provided only weapons and supplies until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. With all the talk here about Afghan's not being able to defend themselves, it's an inconvenient fact that the Soviet puppet state of Afghanistan with proper weapons and supplies lasted longer than the Sovet Union before finally collapsing in 1992-93 after their supplies were cut off.The insurgency back then was of course much stronger than it is today, victory is entirely possible.


Allan Eizinas
said
0 0

Al Qaeda and not the Taliban is the enemy. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan …Obama is going to have to separate the nationalistic Taliban from the Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Go after the enemy where they are and begin negotiations with the moderate Taliban leaders.There is no military solution and the political solution will have to include the Taliban.


Dr. M
said
0 0

People often act as if history begins only when they want it to. So the invasion of Afghanistan was a response to the attacks of 9/11, which for many people on the right wing, had no basis in history, no cause other than a vague notion of "Islamofascism", a term coined by Dick Cheney to end any serious discussion of the reasons for the attacks. In this version of history, al-Quida has no motive for attacking America except that they hate the West and its values. They killed themselves and thousands of innocent people without a discernable historical cause. But anyone who has done some research will know that bin Laden, who was previously a friend of America (as was Saddam Hussein) turned against the West when the U.S. stationed American troops on Saudi soil. Americans remain there after promising to leave within 6 months. That was in 1992. America could have prevented the attacks by withdrawing its troops, but has refused to do so, as it must protect "their" oil. Therefore the entire premise of many posters here, that the war must end in "victory" or the Taliban will attack Canada, is sheer nonsense. Al-Quida no longer needs Afghanistan, because thanks to the Iraq war, they are now international in scope. The Taliban never attacked anyone, but are fighting to remove foreign troops from their soil. They have no plans to "attack Canada", nor do they have the means to do so. If we wish peace in the Middle East, it will take an honest appraisal of American foreign policy that led to this disaster, not more jingoistic nonsense about fighting for freedom and justice. But that would require a kind of honest appraisal of American motives, and that's unlikely.


reece
said
0 0

It's amazing how much damage drug dealers can do to the world. If you legalize ALL drugs, then heroin production will collapse and the terrorists/drug cartel, would find no reason to take over a country. Are we done yet? Can we grow up and legalize all drugs now? No, then stop complaining about your taxes!


Revisionism revised
said
0 0

To: Dr. M - You hit the nail squarely on the head with your post. Nothing else need be said.


Jay
said
0 0

Canada and the US. should remain in Afghanistan until every girl/woman is able to enjoy the freedom and equality that North American women have the right and should expect to enjoy.


eddytoronto
said
0 0

Obama’s blurry vision for Afghanistan!How complicated really is it to understand why Canada and the US doesn’t belong in Afghanistan? We invaded the country illegally after 9/11, supposedly in search of Osama bin Laden!Eight years later we haven’t found him?Osama Bin Laden – Dead or Alive, which presents a great deal of factual proof that Osama died at the end of December, 2001 in Pakistan and was buried there in an unmarked grave, according to Muslim tradition. Theoretically that should collapse our entire reason for being there. Yet we are still there?You remember Iraq? The country The United States attacked to save it from Saddam Hussein, who was about to nuke us any day with his invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was more like the mass deception of an ADHD administration, distractible to its death. And you remember George Bush, declaring victory in 2003, in his calculated carrier landing, in his tailor-made flight-suit, with an armada of cheering sailors behind him. Well, seven years later we’re still at it, now dealing with a troubling insurgency that has no intention of going away, especially as we re-distract ourselves to Afghanistan, this time under Barack Hussein Obama. The ironies are crippling, mind-boggling, but somehow thoroughly expected.You haven’t delivered peace, Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama. You are delivering more bad news. Some of your Democratic colleagues are even talking “a surtax,” yes, a war “surtax” to pay for this disaster!the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other!


Elephant rose
said
0 0

Hey "Jay", There lies the root of the problem; thinking that we know what is best for them, and being pompous enough to think we have the right to impose on their way of life, convinced ours is better.They do not desire our way! If they did they would adapt to it! They think our way is vile, and sinful. For every acid throwing, honor killing we see, they see school shootings, pornography and drug addicted runaways forced into prostitution! So they prefer humility and subservience...kinda like the Christian bible preaches.The bottom line? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! If you honestly think we are over there to "liberate" them, then you have fallen Hook, Line and Sinker for the hollow excuses western governments have used as an reason to invade. Get your head out of the (oil soaked) sand.


Dr. M
said
0 0

@JayJay, spreading women's rights is a noble goal, but is that a sufficient reason to stay in Afghanistan? Are we willing to invade China to stop the infanticide of female babies? Are we willing to invade India to stop arranged marriages? I don't think so, so women's rights are just not sufficient as a basis for invasion anywhere, are they? Furthermore, some female politicians in Afghanistan are calling for the withdrawal of all foreign troops because they claim that foreign soldiers are making it more difficult for women to gain equality! It's not clear that we have made any real progress in this goal in any case. We claim that we believe in multiculturalism in Canada, but actually, we seem to believe that every other culture has the right to follow our values and beliefs, and if they don't that's sufficient reason to attack them. How is this different from the Taliban imposing their views on everyone? What gives us the right to be moral crusaders around the world? I have no problem in defending our values when we're attacked. I have a real problem justifying our attacking others to spread our ideals abroad. There has to be a better reason to be in Afghanistan. But what is that reason?


Melanie Terrace,BC
said
0 0

Actually,the post by Norman in Calgary is not as far off of what is being done,as some might imagine. Hiring locals is high on the list of "things to do" in Afghanistan.They need what we all need.A means to feed and take care of their families.I see winning the hearts and minds there as likely being impossible if ISAF can't find them productive ways to earn a living.If this conflict was just about blasting the Taliban to smithereens,we could have won it years ago. One huge problem,is that the people feel they were left to the mercies(or lack of mercies) of the Taliban,whenthe Soviet Union was finally forced to withdraw.That sour taste remains in the minds in Afghanistsn.So,now,they are hedging theri bets.Not willing to fully trust ISAF,NATO or the UN,to complete this mission,they are rightfully afraid to be seen support us.If they were seen to do so,and we left suddenly,those supporting NATO would be quickly hunted down and either tortured,or killed. But I think Norman is essentially correct.We cannot win this by military means alone.The military can only supply security until the government there can find productive work and a legal means for people to earn a decent living and provide for their families.To be fair to all,I think most nations there know that.By doing that and being patient while a generation of students gets enough education to expect more from their own government,I believe there is still hope for real change in Afghanistan.No.They will never be like us.But for most,that never was the real objective. The Taliban are not the enemy here.The extremists among them are the problem.If there are jobs,peace,and education for their families, many Taliban will come over to the side of ISAF.


Tono
said
0 0

I think India should send some troops to Afghanistan. India has the world's biggest standing army.


Chris in Kingston
said
0 0

Finally! Just as there are now more troops to help the Canadians out, we're going to turn tail and run away from the challenge. Just think about it for a second, if you were an Afghan, would you want a major international player abandoning you to a life of despair, terror and poverty? Then again, its easy for everyone in Canada to play armchair General with our troops, without ever having had your own boots on the ground. For the most part, Canadian soldiers WANT to be in Afghanistan, because we believe we're making a difference. And if actual people on the ground think they're helping, who are you to contradict them?


Disgruntled in MTL
said
0 0

To Soldiers Mom: Do you really think destroying the livelihood of Afghan farmers is going to win the hearts and minds of the population? Do you think we'll get any good intel of Taliban activity? The west cannot look like the guys trying to take their money and the Taliban can't look like they're giving it. The Opium that does make it to the Taliban is now worth much more due to the laws of supply and demand that's why they are doing so well financially. Wouldn't it be much easier and cheaper just to pay the couple hundred bucks to the farmer for his crop and then burn it? Now the locals are happy with us and the main source of profit to the Taliban has been cut off. We'd receive good intel, the Taliban will be broke then we supply the knockout punch.


Brian the Cynic
said
0 0

The winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize is following a familiar path in post-World War II American foreign policy: 1) declare mission accomplished; 2) hand over the responsibility for security to the "democratically-elected government" of the client state; 3) get out of Dodge; 4) watch the government crumble as the people they were fighting take over. In 1973, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the terms for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. To his credit, Tho refused to accept the award, saying that his country was still not at peace. We all know what happened next: the communist north defeated the U.S.-backed south two years later.


willowway
said
0 0

A US "surge" will just be a further waste of money and lives.Insofar as Canada is concerned, there are many of us who believe that we are being presumptuous and arrogant when we think we can go into Afghanistan with our Armed Forces and teach the Afghans how to govern themselves. This is especially so when the country has a history of tribalism dating back thousands of years. In my view, if we as a Nation feel we want to come to the aid of some less fortunate country then send them money with which to build schools and hospitals. Or buy wheat from our own farmers and send it as food aid. Do not send soldiers. That seems to be a very unproductive WW2 type response. This is not WW2. It is a civil war in which we have no business taking sides.Bring our troops home! Our soldiers would be engaged more productively if they were providing homeland security.


CSWest
said
0 0

Great idea. Let's all pull out and let the Taliban take over. Then in a few years we can go through the whole process again. In the mean time I'm sure the Taliban will treat the people fairly. They certainly did the first time.


Dick C.
said
0 0

Gee, that coincides perfectly with the next presidential political campaign.


Doug @ BC
said
0 0

I actually agree with "Cris in Kingston".If the men and women in the CF didn't want to be there,most of them would not have volunteered for the mission.I recently read that the army has more people applying to enlist than it can actually handle at this time.While I concede that not everyone would share this sentiment,I think we have to take some message from that. Regardless,it does pain me to thin of offending any of them in any way.I wish it was as simple as asking them what they want.But in the real world,that's not how it works.In Canada,we all know they have been puching far above their weight for a very long time. For my part,I wish we had a larger military so that so many people,would not have to do so many tours of duty.I'm torn when it comes to getting them out of there.On one hand,there are lots of tears in this house every time one of them falls in the line of duty.There will be such a relief when they are no longer in harms way.I feel very reluctant to ask them to do more than they already have.On the othr hand,I would hate to offend them by telling them "time is up",if they genuinely want to remain to the end,and truly believe they can help make a difference. For me,there is no easy answer.I just hope,no matter when they come home,we all get to know where and when they will land.My family will travel to any part of this country to shake their hands and give them personal thanks for all they have done for this country. God Bless Them All.Now,lets all make sure the children and spouses of the fallen are also taken care of.


Raj
said
0 0

Old Boss, meet the new boss.


SK Doc
said
0 0

Bottom line - you cannot abandon this country at this critical stage... at least Obama understands that...if you do, you will doom the Afghan people to decades of persecution and allow the enemies of freedom to openly operate against the west and Pakistan...support the war and support our troops!


John from Saskatchewan
said
0 0

Wow! So soon, never thought they would announce such an early exit. Pleased to see it though, even if it will mean the Taliban mainly lying low until the troups are gone. There has to be an end sometime, and there is no comparison, Bush would not be leaving so early.John from Saskatchewan


allstar
said
0 0

bin laden is dead for gods sakes. he had kidney problems and is a old geezer he could barely walk without a cane.


Ted
said
0 0

Like them or not, Iraq and Afghanistan had governments who had things under control and there was at least a pair of somewhat functioning countries. The Americans and followers come in, turn things upside down, get countless people killed, then they leave. For sure a bloodbath will follow as scores are settled. I for one, would not want America as a friend when I am in trouble. We also have family in the Canadian armed forces. I'd hate to ever see them die for nothing. That is exactly the case, with all those who have died already, if we pull out without finishing the job.


Michael, Delray Beach, FL
said
0 0

Pull out tomorrow and turn the skies over Afghanistan into a video war game. When al-queda pulls up a chair in a tea house, let loose a drone attack. When anyone crosses the Pakistan border into Afghanistan, use the drones. Make Afghanistan inhospitable and do it remotely.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said
0 0

@ Dr. M: Not to rain on your condescending parade of silly anti-American rhetorical conspiracy that foolishly blames 9/11 on the simple lack of prompt withdrawal of American troops from Saudi soil, allow me the opportunity to set you straight with the help of my friends at CTV by referring you directly to a piece that ran on this news website on Sept. 14th of this year in which Osama bin Laden himself (via confirmed voice recording) principally blamed America's favored relationship with "evil" Israel ("the Jews") and their alleged treatment of Palestinians. You see, "Dr. M," the al Qaeda gang hates Israel, and the Jews, with a twisted, unrelenting passion. FYI: This American "foreign policy" of supporting Israel isn't a crazy "right-wing" concept. (Aside: The CTV article in question, titled "Bin Laden Reportedly Calls Obama Powerless," will also give you a glimpse into bin Laden's perception of Obama and Afghanistan.) Kindly reference the aforementioned news item and, henceforth, please refrain from peddling your own custom version of history in which you make up "facts" suitable to your pronounced political biases. Thanks. (P.S. Your whole Republican, Bush, Cheney, oil hang-up isn't serving you well. Lecturing is for those "in the know.")


Again
said
0 0

So sick of hearing about OBAMA the HEARO.


Andrea in Ottawa
said
0 0

I am glad for the decision made about the pullout of Afghanistan . He is right though unfortunately, we can't just split because our security would be at risk.And Obama did say tonight he is going to close down GITMO. If this has something to do with the detainees, then our country needs to have a public inquiry.


Lorne
said
0 0

Vietnam - war lostIraq - war lostAfghanistan - war soon to be lostIt does not matter how many troops the US or it's Nato allies send, the war will continue for centuries, as it has and always will.The loss of the Afghan war will be Obama's legacy - trust me.People in these countries know nothing else but to fight and die - for whatever cause they believe in. Corruption in government will continue.It's too bad, but the mentality of the population in this part of the world will never change.


Roger D
said
0 0

Its not too late! Obama should be denied the Noble Peace Prize on December 10th. Adding 30,000 troops in Afghan? Recent decisions he made on landmines? It would be a rare and strong pubic statement from this organization. Please send emails with your opinion to the Nobel Organization. Spread the word, it is not too late!


Observer
said
0 0

@Dr. M/Revisionism revisedHow ironic that you chastise others for selective views of history, but you cite only examples dating back to the late 1970s as the cause of Islamic-based terrorism against the United States. The fact is that Islamic extremists have been proponents of violence and hate against the decadent western infidel for much longer than our footprint has dotted their landscape. Citing western involvement in the muslim world as the cause of terrorism is simplistic at best, hypocritical at worst, considering you are criticizing proponents of intervention in Afghanistan of having a narrow view of history!@eddytoronto: Care to explain how a UN backed mission to Afghanistan qualifies as illegal?


Observer
said
0 0

@Ted: The Taliban had things under control? Are you serious? That was a country trapped in the dark ages, where people were under fear of bodily harm for things like flying a kite and women were put to death for not covering themselves from head to tow. The Taliban were the very definition of of a monstrous, horrible regime that the world is better off to be without!


Joe
said
0 0

Here is what we are going to do. I am going to bring ALL my friends to fight you, but only until midnight, after that you can terrorize the neighborhood all you want. OK?


Observer
said
0 0

@Dr M: In short, "yes" womens rights is a sufficient reason to stay in Afghanistan. Perhaps if that was the reason that we originally invaded the country, then the reasoning could be debated further (although the case could be made that human rights are enough reason on their own to justify intervention). Nevertheless, we didn´t invade Afghanistan for women´s rights, we invaded because we (as an extension of the USA, thanks to our NATO obligations) were attacked and we responded. A positive side-effect of toppling the Taliban is that women now have more rights than they did before and to abandon them now, after opening the door and encouraging them to exercise those rights is a reprehensible idea. If we did leave them high and dry, at the very least they would suffer the loss of all their gains, at the very worst they would meet an abrupt and horrible death at the hands of their former oppresors. As for the so-called spokeswomen for the women of Afghanistan, their claims of western troops hindering the progress of women are baseless and illogical and the rhetoric that they bring to our airwaves is either very naive or they are thinly veiled schills for the anti-war left, looking to give a female Afghan voice to their politics.


Miriam
said
0 0

Obama keeps on saying that he will bring peace to American etc etc, last time i checked peace wasn't sending in another 30,000 soliders.


D J In Manitoba
said
0 0

The sad thing about this all is it will have all been in vein. The soldiers that we have lost is very sad. The country will go back to the same way it was before. This country is too corrupt to change. The Russians know all to well about this. The rich get richer and poor get poorer. Sad but true.


The Other Lowell in BC
said
0 0

What was the central motivation in the first place. To protect the security of the US and allies from Al Qaeda. Creating a more democratic country was a secondary goal. I think Obama has revisited that earlier mandate and is suggesting a course of action to neutralize as much as possible the terrorist forces that could harm NATO countries or Allies of the US. To leave now would allow these forces to move back and reestablish themselves again. Of course there is a big onus on the part of Afghanistan to step up to the plate and develop an effective security force. Given the situation with Karzied (?spelling) and the trial warlords etc, that is a formidable task and possibly not achievable. But Obama is kind of between a rock and a hard place.


Ahmad Shah
said
0 0

I think there is no benefit to increase the number of troups in Afghanistan, cause its not just Afghan Taliban(nomads). This fight is not between USA and Afghan Taliban, but this is between USA, UK, IRAN, RUSSIA, CHINA and...Obama should better seek Alqaeda out of Afghanistan border I mean in Pakistan. If all the people of USA come to Afghanistan, they neither defeat Taliban nor bring peace in AFghanisan.


lc
said
0 0

Why people can't seem to grasp the fact that no country likes occupation.What Canadian would want to be occupied by a foreign army?Would not a large % take up arms to repel the invaders?Of course we would and the funny thing is those that support this occupation would be the first ones to fight for their countries sovereignty.We insert ourselves into civil wars in areas we know little about.It is a foreign policy that results in failure no matter what conqueror has attempted it.But not until blood and treasure is spilled.Americans who elected Obama on his promise to reverse Bush foreign policy must be heart broken.


Roger T
said
0 0

This makes the US & NATO look like a bunch of fools running on foreign soil's playground. With all the high tech and manpower but yet they need to deploy more to fight a SMALL figure with a BIGGER force.The math just doesn't add up. Losers will always be losers no mattr how you paint the picture to the world.


Mike T
said
0 0

Not very smart telling the enemy when your exiting a war .Now the taliban will just wait for us to leave and the country will be given back to terrorists.The US is repeating history .Make a mess then cut and run !Just like Iraq and veitnam.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz