PM Chretein did all right by us

[cupper]

>I don’t think it was just luck.  Then what was it?

NAFTA, GST, low CAD:USD ratio, dot.com boom.

Luck.

He inherited the benefits of NAFTA and GST, and the associated economic and revenue boosts they provided. The lower CAD vs USD helped amplify the NAFTA benefits.

 

[greentoblue]

Sorry if that seems like trolling to you. I unfortunately just got angry at the way everyone ignored the fact that the Iraq invasion was NOT a justified war. I look upon it more as a freebooting expedition when even the US administration said the war would pay for itself when they got control of the Iraq oil fields.

The idea that former PM Chretien acted out of principle in keeping Canada out of the Iraq War is false both in theory and in fact.

Chretien was a consummate politician that willing sent Canadians into battle when it was convenient for him to win favour with the general
public. In Kosovo in 1999 he sent the air force to participate in the bombing of Serbia. A bombing campaign that was not endorsed by the
United Nations - blowing the claim that Chretien didn't join in the Iraq invasion because the UN didn't explicitedly endorse it. (If GW Bush is
ever indicted with waging a war without UN authorization we'll have to throw Clinton, Chretien and Blair, among others, in the dock as well.)
Later he authorized the deployment of troops on the ground into Kosovo making Canada a party to the invasion and occupation (of parts) of a
sovereign country without UN authorization.

Again in fall 2001, when the public was demanding shared action with the Americans against Al-Qaeda, Chretien authorized the deployment of units
and ships into the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.

When the public mood changed, most especially in Quebec but not limited to it, Chretien changed with it. Rather than tell the Americans and
British a flatout "no" he volunteered the Army to take the lead on being the Kabul force from 2003 to 2005. "Love to help you guys out but we're
too busy holding the fort in the other theatre." (I'm paraphrasing here.)  An action for which we were not equipped or prepared or advocated for. Case-in-point: sending the troops in green uniforms, riding Iltis jeeps.

As for facts on the ground, if Chretien was so resistant to Canadian participation in the Iraq invasion or to spare the lives of Canadian
soldiers, then why did he authorize Canadian exchange personnel serving with US or British forces to go war with their host units? He could
have very easily ordered them pulled out as was done during the Vietnam War and the Falklands War.  Case in point: then-Captain Ray Romses was
forced to give up command of his platoon in the 3nd Bn, Parachute Regiment when that unit was mobilized.  Even after the initial invasion,
Chretien still authorized Canadian participation in the Iraq War.  Specific examples: both Generals Natynczyk, the CDS; and Devlin, the
Commander of the Army, served in Iraq.  The number of Canadian troops who served in Iraq may be limited but they were there, wearing Canadian
uniforms with our flag on the left shoulder.

You say you're disappointed that we don't share your view but its also clear that faced with our points-of-view, you are equally, if not more, resistant to shifting and changing yours.  As for the invasion being a "looting" and "freebooting"  operation, please tell me where that occurred?  The statement that you reference by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz was that the country of Iraq (not the US) could finance its own reconstruction (the second point that he was famously wrong for; the other was that Army Chief of Staff Shinseki was wrong on the number of troops required for the occupation).  And the US ended up spending billions there anyway which is the complete opposite of a looting operation.

Let's be clear here:  you can be as proud and supportive of Chretien all you want; its your right.  But many of us were around with the first-hand knowledge and experience of the two-faced actions of Chretien to ever swallow that line.

 

[cupper]

the other was that Army Chief of Staff Shinseki was wrong on the number of troops required for the occupation

Just to clarify, you are saying Shinseki was right in his statement to Congress, and that both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong in dismissing it?

 

[greentoblue]

Just to clarify, you are saying Shinseki was right in his statement to Congress, and that both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong in dismissing it?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.  Shinseki testified that "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this."  He based his estimate on his experience as the commander in Bosnia which correctly anticipated many of the problems and tasks that would confront US and other allied forces in the Iraq War.  As he discussed with his staff prior to his testimony, "Well, let's assume the world is linear. If we required a certain amount of troops per 25,000 population in the Balkans, if the world is not radically different, something of the same extent is going to be needed in Iraq."

Three years later, the then Centcom Commander Gen Abizaid testified before Congress that General Shinseki had been correct.  A year later, many observers pointed out that the Petraeus-led surge of forces that stabilized Iraq (2007-8) mirrored the numbers Shinseki had estimated would be required in the first place.

 

[Scott]

I agree the food is better than Cuban which is rather bland to be honest. 8)

He must have intercepted the comms that gave my orders to return to the motherland next Friday.

I'm starting to think we were visited by Mr Lazlo again...I was his target the last time he made an appearance.

By the way, you're all being watched. Capitalist pig dogs.

 

[OldSolduer]

By the way, you're all being watched. Capitalist pig dogs.

That's capitalist running dogs...... you fail modern Communist catch phrases in Young Pioneers comrade?  :facepalm:

 

[Scott]

I was referencing a movie I heard the line in.

That's how deep my Red funded education goes.

 

[Danjanou]

I was referencing a movie I heard the line in.

That's how deep my Red funded education goes.

this one 

 

[OldSolduer]

I was referencing a movie I heard the line in.

That's how deep my Red funded education goes.

Well no wonder!

That movie, although entertaining, was a bit short in a lot of areas.

Like good dialog.

 

[Remius]

Yeah and the Cubans' awesome invasion from the south was so underplayed...

 

[Danjanou]

Yeah and the Cubans' awesome invasion from the south was so underplayed...

Yup as far as fictional Cold War Latin Invasions go this

Can never match this

Ok has this thread spiralled out of control down the drain yet or should we let it go on to die a natural death.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well no wonder!

That movie, although entertaining, was a bit short in a lot of areas.

Like good dialog.

Kinda liked this exchange myself....

Response from a young C.Thomas Howell:  "It keeps me warm"

 

[Redeye]

I didn't write that a functional WMD program was found.  I wrote that chemical weapons were found.  There were not supposed to be any, period.

You mean crates of ancient mortar bombs that were found in the Al Faw marshes that dated from the Iraq-Iran War, when everyone knew they had and used chemical weapons, and they got the precursors for them from the west with tacit approval?!

That's not exactly a justification.

Iraq was well contained in 2003. Invading was an absolute disaster. It set the country back decades, turned it into a violent cesspool of ethnic violence, and in the end strengthened Iran, who are probably much more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever was. It also probably made things in Afghanistan a lot worse because the focus that needed to be there was taken away when attention prematurely shifted to Iraq.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis aren't sad Saddam's gone, and rightfully so. But the price they paid to get rid of him was severe, as was the price paid by the United States. A good chunk of Americans realize that now too. It was a waste. A complete waste. I'm glad that for whatever reason you might ascribe, we didn't get involved in that quagmire. George HW Bush (Bush 41) was smart enough to realize that going "all the way" was a dumb idea (based on advice from his military commanders), for the reasons that became true. And when people like Gen Shinseki told Washington the real story and highlighted that they had totally failed to plan for what came after "mission accomplished", they were ignored.

I work with a whole lot of Americans "over here", and I was impressed to find that most of them will tell you that the Iraq War was a mistake - even the Republicans. They accomplished and learned a lot there, sure, but it was still totally, utterly unnecessary.

 

[jollyjacktar]

While I agree that Saddam was a dick who needed removal, I believe the invasion was poorly timed and should have/could have been left to a later date.  Splitting the Yanks attention away from what had been accomplished in Afghanistan took the boot off the neck of the Taliban to some extent.  If the full attention of the west could have been brought to bear decisively there first to crush them completely we would not have, hopefully, the quagmire it has become today.  Then the Yanks could have whaled on Saddam with both fists if they so desired and maybe there would have been a better outcome there as well. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

You mean crates of ancient mortar bombs that were found in the Al Faw marshes that dated from the Iraq-Iran War, when everyone knew they had and used chemical weapons, and they got the precursors for them from the west with tacit approval?!

That's not exactly a justification.

Iraq was well contained in 2003. Invading was an absolute disaster. It set the country back decades, turned it into a violent cesspool of ethnic violence, and in the end strengthened Iran, who are probably much more of a threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever was. It also probably made things in Afghanistan a lot worse because the focus that needed to be there was taken away when attention prematurely shifted to Iraq.

I'm sure a lot of Iraqis aren't sad Saddam's gone, and rightfully so. But the price they paid to get rid of him was severe, as was the price paid by the United States. A good chunk of Americans realize that now too. It was a waste. A complete waste. I'm glad that for whatever reason you might ascribe, we didn't get involved in that quagmire. George HW Bush (Bush 41) was smart enough to realize that going "all the way" was a dumb idea (based on advice from his military commanders), for the reasons that became true. And when people like Gen Shinseki told Washington the real story and highlighted that they had totally failed to plan for what came after "mission accomplished", they were ignored.

I work with a whole lot of Americans "over here", and I was impressed to find that most of them will tell you that the Iraq War was a mistake - even the Republicans. They accomplished and learned a lot there, sure, but it was still totally, utterly unnecessary.

Good post.

 

[cupper]

Invading The handling of the post invasion period was an absolute disaster.

TFTFY

 

[Good2Golf]

[slight tangent warning]

How Paul Bremer was ever allowed to reneg on the deals/understandings brokered earlier with the moderate Ba'athists (who had previously been told they could participate in the new Iraqi government) and moderate Iraqi Army leadership (dealing with seld-disbandment was one thing, but isolating many of the working leadership from the new Army was another), is beyond me.  Those  actions created hundreds of thousands of insurgents almost overnight.  The rest is, as they say, history.
[/slight tangent warning]

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[a_majoor]

Another slight historical tangent:

General Sherman told his superiors that up to 200,000 men might be needed in the Army of the West to subdue and hold the western theater of operations, but was actually called insane and temporarily relieved of duty. You can use your Google-fu to discover the actual numbers deployed by the Army of the West after Sherman returned to duty, he was fairly close to the mark.

The problem is the professional opinion of the military officers is only one factor in play. Historical evidence, intelligence delivered to the decision makers and domestic and foreign politics all play a part. WRT Iraq, both the President and the Senate had access to intelligence reports which were pretty unequivocal about Iraqu's having a WMD program, and this intelligence had been consistent for a long time (Bill Clinton, hardly a neocon war hawk, warned of to ongoing danger of Iraq's WMD program in 1998). Iraq had used chemical weapons extensively during the Persian Gulf War, as well as against domestic targets (Kurdish villages), so there was historical precedent, and many nations, ranging from Russia to France, were busy undermining the sanctions. Given these factors (as well as continuing belligerent Iraqi actions that violated the cease fire agreement), the President decided to act, and assembled a powerful coalition of domestic politicians and foreign allies to both make the case and do the deed. The fact many of the Democrat senators who supported the war cut and ran after it became a domestic liability speaks more of their motivations being driven by electibility than anything else.

Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeldt decided to go with the lower troop figure in the (correct) belief the war could be won quickly with a minimum application of power, evidently no one in Defense or State seems to have worked out what post war Iraq should look like (although they may have believed there was more time to work things out). If I remember correctly, OIF was scheduled to take six weeks of operations, but was concluded in only three.

Back to Canada and Prime Minister Chretien, his response to the whole Iraq thing was entirely driven by domestic politics, and of the most sophomoric anti-American kind. Pandering to that kind of base may have provided short term benefits domestically, but I think it left some long lasting marks on our international presence, and no doubt contributed to lots of our difficulties with Canada-US trade issues like softwood lumber and so on. Maybe not an epic fail, but hardly a win either.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Nearly all of the chemical weapons found in Iraq were artillery-delivered leftovers from prior conflicts.  Undoubtedly most of the rounds were non-functional for their designed means of delivery, but I doubt anyone expects terrorists to acquire and use gun and mortar tubes when they've already mastered techniques for detonating munitions.  As long as the chemical components were not harmlessly inert, the age and condition of the other components of the rounds is irrelevant.

And of course, knowledge acquired after-the-fact is neither a justification nor a rebuke: the case for war stands as it did at the time, based on the knowledge and beliefs of the time.  And I don't know of any wars that have been initiated that meet the conditions of "just" war, so that particular charge is always a nullity.

It is true that Iraq was contained in 2003; it is also true that the sanctions and other control measures were on the verge of dissolving.  That was the political reality.

Prior to the initiation of the war I did not believe it was necessary (for the US) and I have not changed my mind.  However, I'm not a fan of the revisionism that tries to pretend the community of nations believed Hussein's Iraq was harmless and that the control measures which "contained" Iraq were going to continue.

I don't believe the removal of Hussein had much to do with 9/11; the terrorist attacks were just a convenient introduction.  The removal of Hussein made strategic sense to increase the security of Israel and various regional oil producers.  While I don't think that justifies a war, it might do so for political realists.

 

[cupper]

Brad, you and I are pretty much along the same lines when it comes to this discussion.

During the whole run up to the invasion I knew that the WMD line was questionable at best. Up to 2003, there was no definitive evidence that Iraq was continuing to pursue any WMD program, however Hussein made it out to be the case. This would be a reasonable expectation for two reasons.

1) He did not want to appear to be in a weak position to his Iranian neighbors,

2) He may truly believed that he still had a significant WMD capability due to subordinates not wanting to tell he that there was nothing left, and all development programs were dead or complete failures.

From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.

So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.