Internationalism BT Style

This is the new logo for the Blogging Tories.
It shows that they are truly internationalists.




Unfortunately it also shows they are out of step with the average Canadian.
- Bush ties leave Harper in bind

Which despite their criticisms of Jack Laytons attacks on Harper connecting him with Bush, it's a winning strategy.

And clearly from this logo we know where Conservatives and conservatives in Canada stand, they approve of appeasement.....with the Bush Doctrine.

Also See

Blogging Tories


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
blogs, bloggers, blogging, blogaggregators, Canada, poltics, Conservatives, Bush, Harper, appeasement, BloggingTories, Tories,

Negotiating With The Taliban

The Conservatives and their Blogging Tories echo chamber claim that Jack Layton and the NDP want to negotiate with the Taliban. Wrong.

Unfortunately for Mr. Harper it is his NATO allies who want to negotiate with the Taliban. Now who is being unrealistic.

I expect an immediate telegram from the PMO to Tony Blair to tell him to end this politics of appeasement and rapproachment.

Failing that perhaps Jack has a point, eh.

British Minister hails Pak-Taliban deal in Waziristan
The peace deal between the Pakistan government and pro-Taliban militants to end the five years of unrest in the tribal area bordering Afghanistan is a "great step forward" and could be a "future model" for insurgency-ridden Kabul, a British Minister has said.

Visiting British Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Howells told reporters during his visit to Peshawar yesterday that the accord was a "great step forward" and would be closely watched by the Afghans, who might also attempt a similar sort of deal to quell the violence in their country.

Taliban resurgence, Pak’s Waziristan pact cause deep concern.
Indian Express, India - 12 hours ago
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 10:

There is no doubt in India that Taliban will get bolder and try to execute more ambitious plans in the South. And while this is imminent, grounds are being prepared in Pakistan’s Waziristan area from where troops would be withdrawn under the agreement worked out by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

Though Musharraf claims that the Durand Line will remain sacrosanct, there are not many takers for the promise in India. Unlike the Taliban dominated South and South-East Afghanistan, sources say, this area is shared with Al-Qaeda cadres.

Deal with militants a license to promote Talibanisation: PPP
It is alarming that the Taliban, which had been routed after the fall of Kabul, have regrouped and gained in strength virtually enforcing their writ in the tribal areas, carrying out punishments, policing the area and now forcing a peace treaty through which their confiscated arms and vehicles are to be returned to them, the spokesman said.

Almost all the Taliban demands were met by the deal including the release of their men, return of their weapons and vehicles, dismantling of the army checkposts in the area, and monetary compensation for those killed or injured during military operations, the spokesman claimed.


Pakistan

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Why We Fight

We are fighting in Afghanistan to end oppression by the Taliban like this.

"Taliban's Afghan Hound" De De La Rue 1st Place Other Best entry depicting a Dog from the Hound Group Best entry depicting a Sighthound Best entry depicting an Afghan Hound

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Afghan, hounds, hound, Burka, dogart, dogshows, dogshow,
Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

How Many Troops In Afghanistan?

The Afghanistan assignment, which involves 16,000 NATO-led soldiers now and a projected 25,000 by the end of the year

Forgot to to mention that did we Mr. Harper.

And that will replace the Americans who are withdrawing. As they need more troops in Iraq they will reduce troop deployments to Afghanistan while NATO takes up the slack.

Even if the US left 15, 000 troops along with the 25,000 NATO forces this would be exactly how many troops the Soviet Union initially used in 1979 when it invaded Afghanistan. However this will stil not be enough to neutralize the Taliban threat.

Afghanistan

The Soviet armed forces that invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 consisted of about 40,000 officers and men and their equipment. The fierce resistance by Afghan guerrilla forces mujahidiin, literally meaning warriors engaged in a holy war. forced the Soviets to increase the size and sophistication of their military units, and in late 1985 a United States government official estimated that Soviet units in Afghanistan comprised about 118,000 men, of which about 10,000 were reported to be in the Soviet secret police and other special units.

It is errie to read this...which is oft repeated these days in the media refering to NATO operations moving from Peacekeeping to combat.


The Soviet Army also quickly realized the inadequacy of its preparation and planning for the mission in Afghanistan. The initial mission—to guard cities and installations—was soon expanded to combat, and kept growing over time. The Soviet reservists, who comprised the majority of the troops initially sent in, were pulled into full-scale combat operations against the rebels, while the regular Afghan army was often unreliable because of the desertions and lack of discipline.
The Soviet Experience in Afghanistan: Russian Documents and Memoirs
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 57
Edited by John Prados and Svetlana Savranskaya
October 9, 2001


The irony is that the U.S. which funded the collapse of Afghanistan in order to force a Cold War defeat on the USSR now has to clean up its historic mistake. What began with Jimmy Carter was expanded by Reagan and later Bush I and II.


According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

The Bush White house adopted the neo-con limited engagement strategy when it invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. With the same success that the Russians had with it in Afghanistan.

The limited contingent in Afghanistan

In 1979, however, the Soviet Army intervened in a civil war raging in Afghanistan. The Soviet Army came to back a Soviet-friendly secular government threatened by Muslim fundamentalist guerillas equipped and financed by the United States. Technically superior, the Soviets did not have enough troops to establish control over the countryside and to secure the border. This resulted from hesitancy in the Politburo, which allowed only a "limited contingent", averaging between 80,000 and 100,000 troops. Consequently, local insurgents could effectively employ hit-and-run tactics, using easy escape-routes and good supply-channels. This made the Soviet situation hopeless from the military point of view (short of using "scorched earth" tactics, which the Soviets did not practise except in World War II in their own territory). The understanding of this made the war highly unpopular within the Army. With the coming of glasnost, Soviet media started to report heavy losses, which made the war very unpopular in the USSR in general, even though actual losses remained modest, averaging 1670 per year. The war also became a sensitive issue internationally, which finally led Gorbachev to withdraw the Soviet forces from Afghanistan. The "Afghan Syndrome" suffered by the Army parallels the American Vietnam Syndrome trauma over their own lost war in Vietnam.

And lets not forget that it was in the Post Soviet internecine civil war period; 1990-1999 that lead the Taliben to take power. Because the Americans cut and ran, leaving the country to the Mujahedin, War Lords, and Drug Lords. Not our problem said the CIA who conducted the anti-Soviet war.

One long-term effect of the Soviet invasion and pull-out was the establishment of a weak state full of religious hatred and hatred of richer nations: a breeding ground for terrorism. Though supplying the Afghan resistance with American guns and anti-aircraft missiles seemed like a good idea for the US in the 1980s, and was the reason for the Soviets’ defeat, now as the US invades, they are met with their own guns. The significance of the sophisticated guns has yet to be determined. In light of the US involvement today in Afghanistan after the September 11th terrorist attacks, it is especially important to understand the history of the Soviet's involvement there so we can avoid making the same mistakes.

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979: Failure
of Intelligence or of the Policy Process?

1989–1991, after the official Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan,
when both the Soviets and the US nevertheless continued to support their
proxies in the Afghan conflict. The group also considered the consequences
of American policy decisions to withdraw from engagement in Afghanistan;
consequences which not only gave free license to years of internal Afghan
turmoil, but profoundly impacted US strategic and security interests as well.



And it makes for a great movie too. Not like all these 9/11 Memorial TV and Movie shows but the real reason for 9/11; the CIA failure in Afghanistan. All else is conspiracy theories. Osama bin Laden could not have attacked America if America had not destabilized Afghanistan in the first place. And five years after ousting the Taliban we are still no better off.

Also See:

9/11

CIA

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Democracy In Afghanistan

Remember the slogan This Is What Democracy Looks Like, chanted in Seattle and subsequent anti-globaliztion demonstrations. Well this is what democracy looks like in Afghanistan. If you are a Woman MP.

Malalai Joya, spoke at the NDP Convention this weekend. Unlike Hamid Karzai who will speak in Parliament this month, hers was a true act of courage to be able to leave Karzai's corrupt regime to speak here in Canada.

She was attacked in Parliament in Afghanistan the same month that the Harper government allowed six hours debate on extending our mission in Afghanistan for another two years.

Our mission is to purported to be to defend women and girls and democracy there. For real reports on the condition of women and girls in Afghanistan see RAWA.

We are fighting to defend a government of warlords and druglords, who have cabinet positions in the Karzai regime because of their status not because of elections.

The Times, May 9, 2006

Woman MP is attacked in a blow for democracy

Joya: “I have lots of threats. I have had people call me to threaten me, and in Kabul have to stay in a different house every night."

FROM TIM ALBONE IN KABUL

BOTTLES were thrown, insults traded and chairs knocked over in the bedlam. This was no bar-room brawl, however. It was the scene in the Afghan parliament on Sunday when a woman MP dared to stand up to a male colleague.

Malalai Joya, 28, interrupted a former warlord as he praised the holy warriors — or Mujahidin — of Afghanistan during a debate to mark the anniversary of their defeat of communism.

She declared that there were “two types of Mujahidin — one who were really Mujahidin, the second who killed tens of thousands of innocent people and who are criminals”.

Angry members of the assembly, which is dominated by former faction members, threw a plastic bottle and swore at the woman MP, Malalai Joya, during the late yesterday session.

''One hurled a bottle of water at Malalai but missed her,'' said Mohammad Hasib Noori, a parliamentary press officer. ''Some cursed her and one woman MP even pulled her hair.''

Reuters, May 8, 2006

This was a step too far for the parliament’s Islamic extremists and former warlords, who are still getting the hang of democracy. They leapt from their seats and rushed towards her. They hurled abuse and water bottles. Punches were thrown. Even women MPs joined in.

Moderate MPs had to form a protective ring around Mrs Joya as she was hurried from the chamber. “My supporters heard one MP tell someone to wait by the door and knife me as I walked out,” she said.

Omid Yakmanish, a television cameraman, was hit as he filmed the uproar, and dropped his camera. He said: “The MP (Al-haj Khyal Mohammad Husaini, from Ghazni) said in an interview, ‘I have the right to beat people up if I want to’.”

The session was adjourned.

Mrs Joya told The Times yesterday: “There are two problems for these people: firstly, that I am a woman and, secondly, that I believe in democracy. They don’t believe in democracy. They don’t believe in women’s rights.”

She went on: “I have lots of threats. I have had people call me to threaten me, and in Kabul have to stay in a different house every night. I don’t feel safe. I’m never scared because I tell the truth and I believe in the truth and in democracy. They can kill me but they cannot kill my voice.”

The episode was another embarrassment for the Western nations who invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taleban regime and install democracy.

It comes shortly after a man named Abdul Rahman was arrested for converting to Christianity and threatened with the death penalty. Mr Rahman was spared only because of international outrage, but he had to be given asylum in Italy.

Qasim Ackajhar, a spokesman for the Kabul-based Freedom of Speech Association, lamented that the violence had “damaged the dignity of Afghanistan and the dignity of the parliament”.

But Mrs Joya’s opponents showed little remorse yesterday. Parwin Durranai, a woman MP for the nomadic Kuchi people, who charged at her, said: “I am not regretful. She spoke against 90 per cent of Afghanistan’s people. She is rude in the way she speaks.”

Haji Niyaz Mohammad Amiri, one of the male MPs accused of trying to attack Mrs Joya, told The Times: “I didn’t hit her or try to hit her. That was some of the brave female MPs.”

Mrs Joya caused a similar outburst at a Loya Jirga — a traditional gathering — in 2003 by insisting that former warlords guilty of atrocities deserved punishment.

Also See:

NDP

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Flashback

Last winter as Canadians went to the Polls to elect a new government Afghanistan was the farthest thing from our minds. And certainly was not a priority for the Harper Conservatives.

That all changed in February when the Harper Government extended the mission in Afghanistan automatically. Despite the fact that it was about to change dramatically from Peacekeeping to war making.

Clearly NATO forces were not prepared even then to take on war making, it was the Harper government that took the first step to shame NATO into acting on behalf of the Americans.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Nato's Afghanistan troop dilemma
Monday, 26 December 2005, 10:50 GMT

Nato's very public announcement on 8 December that it will send an additional 6,000 troops to Taleban-infested southern Afghanistan next spring and Washington's more cryptic remarks that it wants to withdraw 4,000 troops from the same region at the same time are being read very differently by all those affected.

Most Afghans and many diplomats in the capital, Kabul, see it as the start of a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, no matter how profusely Washington's spin machine insists that "the US will never abandon the Afghans".

Senior aides to President Hamid Karzai say any US withdrawal, no matter how it is camouflaged, will be disastrous for people's morale and remind them of the US withdrawal from Afghan affairs after the Soviet pullout in 1989.

The administration of President George W Bush sees it as an opportunity to redeem popularity at home by bringing the boys home from a foreign war, even though the militants are far from defeated.

Shifting the burden to the Europeans is also a chance for the US State Department to try to recharge the Atlantic alliance after all the unilateral and isolationist moves undertaken by the first Bush administration.

The Nato deployment, announced with much fanfare in Brussels after a meeting of the 26 foreign ministers of Nato countries, came after months of agonising and countries refusing to take part in the new deployment.

Nato troops are feeling vulnerable after suicide attacks

"When the expansion takes place next year, it will mean Nato is operating in three-quarters of Afghanistan," said Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

At present, while the 19,000 strong US-led coalition is responsible for waging war on the Taleban, the estimated 9,000 strong Nato contingent is carrying out peace-keeping duties in Kabul.

In late November, senior White House officials in Washington confirmed to me that the administration would be withdrawing some 4,000 troops from southern Afghanistan next spring, once a Nato-led force was in place.

US officials refuse to use the term withdrawal, insisting it is merely a troops "adjustment" or "rotation".

Are Nato troops really prepared to move beyond peace-keeping duties and take on a combat role in a region which is the hotbed of Taleban activity?

Every single deployment of Nato troops or aircraft since 2003 has led to months of wrangling between European capitals and Nato's high command, played out very publicly in the press.

Even in their peace-keeping role, each Nato country's forces have a list of what they will do and not do - national caveats - that has paralysed Nato commanders in Kabul.

Spanish troops based in the west will rarely leave their compound.

German troops in the north will allow no other Nato troops to fly in their helicopters.

Every nation has a different concept of running a PRT which makes any kind of unified reconstruction programme in the provinces next to impossible.

For the past six months Britain has had tremendous difficulties in getting support from other Nato countries to join it in deploying to six provinces in the south and take over the American base in Kandahar.

Britain and Canada are committed to deploy an estimated 4,000 troops, but they needed another 2,000 more - specifically soldiers who will perform a peace-keeping role in the shape of PRTs, but also would not hesitate to fight if called upon to do so.

Major European countries such as France, Spain and Germany have refused to take part in operations that could involve fighting the Taleban.

The Harper government automatically approved the February redeployment of Canadian forces in Afghanistan knowing they were to be deployed in combat operations in Kandahar. There was no debate. They used their government authority to approve it with no debate.

And they tried to later downplay the combat operations as continuing to be Peacekeeping in a PRT. The reason for Harpers Bush photo-op like visit to Base Kandahar before the real fighting began.

Britain and NATO still had not prepared to take over the operation in Kandahar leaving it to Harper and Hillaire toopportunitically step up to the plate to fill the vacumm betwen the Americans leaving and NATO taking up the slack.

From March through August we were the sole Country in charge of command and control of the transfer of Kandahar from the U.S. to NATO. And Harper knew it.
He knew our mission had changed from Peacekeeping to combat. He knew that in February and refused to present that mission change to Parliament. When he did in May he and his War Minister still refused to say we were going to war.

Contrary to the governments line that an immediate withdrawl of Canadian forces is not possible it is.NATO reviews its mandate and operations in Afghanistan according to the Afghan Accord every other month and at least twice a year.

NATO General Wants More Troops in Afghan South

On Aug. 1, U.S. commanders turned over military responsibility for southern Afghanistan to NATO. The alliance force in the south, led by contingents from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, so far has about 6,000 members, Jones said.

Previously, NATO troops operated largely in the capital, Kabul, and other relatively calm parts of the country. Casualties resulting from their entry into a full-blown combat zone, where the enemy is using weapons and tactics reminiscent of Iraqi insurgents, have rattled public opinion in some alliance countries.

AFGHANISTAN: Can NATO Win Against Taliban Insurgents?

KABUL, Aug 20 (IPS) - Two weeks ago, NATO took over command of insurgency-plagued southern Afghanistan from the United States,

NATO's priorities include maintaining security, extending the central government's authority and speeding up the reconstruction process. It will consult and coordinate all its activities with the Afghan government and the international community and would evaluate its strategy every other month and twice a year.

This is where the US-led coalition failed. This decision of NATO is likely to go well with the Afghan government and public.

NATO officials declared that they would not engage in counter-terrorism operations, but would assist the reconstruction process and strongly react to those who intend to disrupt the efforts aimed at extending and strengthening the Afghan government's authority.

It's a sad day when the NATO site can only tell us how many troops are in Afghanistan in 2005.

NATO in Aghanistan - Factsheet ISAF contributing nations (as of 21 February 2005)
NATO Nations
Belgium	616
Bulgaria	37
Canada	992
Czech Republic	17
Denmark	122
Estonia	10
France	742
Germany	1816
Greece	171
Hungary	159
Iceland	20
Italy	506
Latvia	9
Lithuania	9
Luxemburg	10
Netherlands	311
Norway	313
Poland	5
Portugal	21
Romania	72
Slovakia	16
Slovenia	27
Spain	551
Turkey	825
United Kingdom	461
United States	89
Partner Nations
Albania	22
Austria	3
Azerbaijan	22
Croatia	45
Finland	61
former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia (1)	20
Ireland	10
Sweden	85
Switzerland	4
Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations
New Zealand	5

The withdrawl of US troops was planned as early as 2003, six years ago, as they cut and ran into a George Bush's private war with Saddam Hussien.

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Dec. 1, 2003 –

The first meeting of the day brought the defense ministers together with NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson. The meeting included what one official called "a good discussion of Afghanistan," as well as the importance of the alliance having "usable" forces organized and equipped to meet 21st-centuray threats.

Robertson has advocated expansion of NATO's contributions in Afghanistan beyond the capital city of Kabul with more provincial reconstruction teams operating in the country. Eventually, U.S. officials said, NATO might absorb U.S. Central Command's Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. They cautioned, however, that such a result would be a long way down the road if it were to happen at all, and the notion is in only the earliest stages of thought and discussion.

Also See:

Afghanistan






Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, Nukes, Pakistan, Taliban, Balochistan, Harper, Bush, Afghanistan, nuclear, nuclearfuel
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values, Men, mysogyny, women, Afghanistan, Canada, Harper, war, Taliban, Kabul, Karzai, Islam, fatewha, girls, school


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO