LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Thursday, August 30, 2007

After Katrina

George W. Bush failed to be on site in New York immediately after 9/11. He failed again when Katrina devastated New Orleans.

On September 14, 2001 he cruised over WTC site in a helicopter, shades of flying over New Orleans, and does his famous photo-op with the Firemen at Ground Zero.

==Around mid-afternoon on Friday, Bush finally appears in New York City with a large Congressional delegation and takes a quick helicopter tour of the devastated area with Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki as warplanes fly overhead. Afterwards, Bush visits Ground Zero, where he engages in a rare impromptu exchange with a crowd. As rescue personnel chant “U.S.A! U.S.A.!,” Bush climbs atop a small pile of rubble and uses a bullhorn to thank them for their efforts. When some workers call out that they can’t hear, Bush responds "I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" The crowd reacts with cheers and more chants of “U.S.A.!” Workers at Ground Zero are clearly encouraged by Bush’s visit, but there is also annoyance over the two hour shutdown of rescue work caused by the extremely tight security measures. [nyt.Sep.14.2001 / cnn.Sep.14.2001 / dmn.Sep.15.2001]

After talking to state officials and emergency teams in New York, the president flew to Camp David for what a senior US official called a "decision-making meeting" later on Saturday with top advisors.

September 14: President Bush declares a national emergency. The Senate adopts a resolution authorizing the use of U.S. armed forces against those responsible for the attacks. President Bush visits the World Trade Center site. Federal officials release names of the 19 hijackers. Bush declares a "national day of prayer and remembrance." Many Americans attend religious services. Congress unanimously approves $40 billion for emergency aid, including $20 billion for New York. President Bush activates 50,000 national guard and reserve members to help with recovery and security.

After Katrina he failed to visit New Orleans until the anniversary of 9/11. Weeks after the hurricane hit. And then it was for another photo op like 9/11.

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) Sunday, September 11, 2005;

-- President Bush arrived in Louisiana Sunday as the official death toll from Hurricane Katrina climbed past 400 and the search for bodies continued nearly two weeks after the storm hit the Gulf Coast.
The visit is Bush's third to the region but his first chance to get a first-hand look at the streets of New Orleans, which were flooded after levees protecting the low-lying city broke.

Two days after the storm hit, Bush surveyed Katrina's destruction from Air Force One on his way back to Washington from Crawford, Texas, where he'd spent a month's vacation. He visited other parts of the region in two subsequent visits.

He was on vacation prior to Katrina as he was prior to 9/11.

“News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.

Yesterday he commemorated his regimes failure to support the people of New Orleans then and now. And as usual there was no mea culpa.

President Bush and other officials observed the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, honoring the dead and touring still ruined neighborhoods.

However the real scandal is not that he arrived late after Hurricane Katrina, but that after two years the City has not been rebuilt, funds have been squandered.

A recent report from the RFK Center for Human Rights and the Institute for Southern Studies estimated that the Bush administration was overstating federal funding for the Gulf Coast rebuilding campaign by as much as 300%, with about $35 billion of an estimated $114 billion actually spent.

With America's largest black city and thousands of blacks stranded in the immediate aftermath of the storm the failure to rescue them smacked of racism.

That the federal government has utterly failed in these lethal days is universally obvious.

Is it because so many of these people are black and poor? Is it because Bush has successfully stolen a second term and just doesn't care? Is it because this gouged and battered organization that was once our government has been so thoroughly exhausted by war and corruption that it cannot or will not manage so basic a task as bringing the necessities of life to its needlessly dying citizens?

But to hear of dead bodies being stacked outside a professional football stadium to avoid further stench where ten thousand Americans can't get water, food or sanitary facilities.To see dazed elders who've just lost their homes or hospital rooms being laid on sidewalks to die. To watch crying children stretched out on the ground, separated from their parents, dehydrated, overheated, starving....this is too much to bear.

How utterly can our nation have failed? How totally bankrupt can we be?

And the guy in charge of all this who should have been fired; Homeland Security boss Chertoff, wasn't.

Congressional investigators lambasted the U.S. government for its response to Hurricane Katrina, saying a lack of a clear chain of command hindered relief efforts and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff or another top official should have been the point person on relief efforts.

The Government Accountability Office also found that the government still lacks sufficient plans and training programs to prepare for catastrophic disasters like the Aug. 29 storm that devastated much of the Gulf Coast area. But it also singled out Chertoff in several shortcomings.

Until now, Chertoff has largely escaped widespread criticism of the government's sluggish response to Katrina. By contrast, then-FEMA Director Michael Brown, the principal federal official at the disaster site, quit his job after becoming the public face of the failures.

The report said that neither Chertoff nor any of his deputies in the disaster area acted as President George W. Bush's overall storm coordinator, "which serves to underscore the immaturity of and weaknesses relating to the current national response framework."

After all Katrina was not a surprise to the administration since they had anticipated it.

Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of all."

Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal flood-control projects around New Orleans.
Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years.

And with a lame duck President and an administration running on the spot nothing has changed. The failures that led to the destruction of New Orleans plague the White House still.

When investigating the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, a House of Representatives select committee cited a “failure of initiative” at all levels of government. The storm killed 1,836 people, caused an estimated $81 billion in damage, and displaced some two million people. The population of New Orleans is currently about 66 percent of its pre-Katrina level, and the city’s uneven recovery is examined in depth in this New York Times interactive feature. The Department of Homeland Security has since quadrupled its stockpiles of emergency supplies and sought to improve emergency planning at the community level. The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act signed by President Bush in August promises to provide increased funding for emergency communications and first responders. Yet some experts believe the lessons of the disaster appear to have gone unlearned. In his recent book, The Edge of Disaster, CFR’s Stephen Flynn says the levees that failed to protect New Orleans two years ago are being rebuilt to the same standard as before, capable only of enduring a Category 3 hurricane.

Now compare Bush's slow response to President Johnson's visit to hurricane ravaged New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy. And a visit to the same lower ninth ward that Bush visited yesterday.

Lyndon Johnson received high marks for visiting the Lower Ninth Ward and victims in shelters a day after Hurricane Betsy ravaged New Orleans. ("I put aside all the problems on my desk to come to Louisiana as soon as I could," Johnson said.)

President Lyndon Baines Johnson flew into New Orleans the day after Hurricane Betsy in September 1965 and announced at the airport, "I am here because I want to see with my own eyes what the unhappy alliance of wind and water have done to this land and people."

The day after. Not a week later.

LBJ believed in the 'Great Society'. Bush believes in 'compassionate conservatism'. The latter is an ideological reaction to the former. And it has proven to be more of a failure than the Great Society ever was.

SEE:

Our Living Earth

Surge Blackout

What He Didn't Say

Soul of a City

Remember Katrina and Rita?

Katrina Mission Accomplished

Katrina: It's a Dog-Gone Crime

This is What Global Warming Looks Like

A Paradox called Katrina

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Katrina, New Orleans, FEMA, Bush, fraud, rebuilding, Hurricane, Gulf Coast, USA, disaster, 9/11, relief,
Rita, hurricanes, USA, weather, climate-change, environment,
FEMA, Bush, America, Empire, reconstruction, New, Orleans, Louisiana, delta, Gulf-Coast,
Corruption, Halliburton, Bechtel,
Politics, SOTU, State of the union, President Bush,

Harpers War II

Over the past year I have been called on the rug by pro war commentators on my blog posts claiming that Canada's 'new' military operations, by the 'new' Canadian Government, in Afghanistan since the 2006 election, are Harpers War. They like to claim this was merely a continuation of previous Liberal Government policy. Yeah Right.

This is not a quote from a left wing peacenik.....If the shoe fits....

After remaining silent about Afghanistan throughout the 2005-2006 election campaign, Harper made his feelings known on the day after the election. “We will continue to help defend our values and democratic ideals around the world – as so courageously demonstrated by those young Canadian soldiers who are serving and who have sacrificed in Afghanistan.”

The attention on Afghanistan by the new Harper government was intensified with his surprise visit in March 2006. The destination for a new prime minister’s first international visit is important. It highlights the key priority for Canada’s foreign policy. Most prime ministers select New York and Washington to show the importance of Canada-US bilateral relations. However, Harper went to Afghanistan. The symbolic values of this trip cannot be overstated.

In the midst of the heavy fighting, Harper both extended and expanded Canada’s mandate in Afghanistan. In the process, he made it clear that he was taking ownership of the operation. On May 17, 2006, Harper pushed a motion through the House of Commons to extend Canada’s participation in ISAF, which was due to expire in February 2007, until 2009.

Stephen Harper had very little international experience, or even interest, before becoming prime minister. In his previous political jobs within the Reform Party, National Citizens Coalition, and Canadian Alliance, his focus was on reforming Canadian federalism, reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and eliminating the government’s deficit and debt.

The party platforms of the Reform Party, Canadian Alliance, and the merged Conservative Party, were weak on foreign policy. Nevertheless, starting with the formation of the Reform Party in 1987, its members were clear on two key foreign policy principles: better relations with the United States and a stronger Canadian military. These two themes cropped up over and over again in their attacks on the Liberals. An example of the intertwining of these two issues was a major speech delivered soon after Harper became leader of the Canadian Alliance. Harper argued that “for nine years the government has systematically neglected the Canadian forces and undermined our ability to contribute to peace enforcement and even peacekeeping operations, including recently our premature withdrawal from Afghanistan

Harper’s foreign policy ideas started to crystallize during the debate about Canadian participation in the US-Iraq War. Many of his comments on Iraq would foreshadow his actions in Afghanistan.

In his speeches on Iraq, Harper touched on a number of themes that would become important with respect to Afghanistan. First, Canada should support its allies. Canada went to Afghanistan in support of the United States, the United Nations, and NATO – its most important bilateral partner and its most important multilateral alliances.

And of course Harper was backed up in his war mongering by the DND and Chief of Defense Staff Hillier, another Republican in Conservative clothing.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was a debate over the precise military role of the Canadian Forces. While there were elements in DFAIT that wanted Canada to play a “traditional” peacekeeping role, the CF wanted “to get into the fight.”Eventually, the CF, in combination with the civilians in the DND, got what they wanted when the Chrétien government deployed the 3 PPCLI to Afghanistan in October 2001. That initial deployment did much for the morale of the CF. The Commander of Canadian ground troops in Afghanistan would later brag that Canadian participation in the war “established our credibility in the coalition. Canada had been tainted with an image of being blue-hatted peacekeepers, and I think…the aggressiveness and tenacity that the troops showed…dispelled the myth…we were like a pack of rabid pit bulls in satisfying the coalition’s end state.” Since then, the CF, especially under Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, has consistently lobbied for greater combat responsibilities in Afghanistan. Kirton has identified a wing of the Canadian military that had trained with the Americans and wanted “to do some real war fighting.”They were led by Hillier who had served as the first Canadian Deputy Commanding General of III Corps, US Army in Fort Hood, Texas from 1998-2000.

I rest my case.

Conclusion
This paper has argued that the operation in Afghanistan has become Mr. Harper’s war. In part this was due to timing. Harper took over as prime minister at the same moment that Canada was taking on much more demanding tasks that would involve greater combat responsibilities. When ISAF launched Operation Medusa, its spring 2006 offensive against Taliban forces, Canadians naturally associated the fighting with the government of the day. However, Harper, through his rhetoric and his actions, made sure that there was no mistake; ownership of the mission was with him. He wanted Canadians to hold him responsible.

Unfortunately due to recent deaths of Quebec soldiers War Monger Harper was less than effusive about his war in a recent speech in La Belle Province. Le silence est d'or

See:

Harpers Body Count

Harpers Constituency

Harpers War

Heil Hillier, Maintiens le droit

Joined At The Hip

Harper War Monger

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai,, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values,
Injury, Government,Canada, parliament,

Sounds Like

A collection of sound bites on Afghanistan....then and now.

"What will happen if we withdraw now…"

Soviets in 1980s

"Recently one can often hear …that we 'betrayed' [our] Afghan friends [by withdrawing from Afghanistan] and that, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, we are not interested anymore in the fate of Afghanistan." (Sovetskaya Rossiaya, 14 April 1990)

"Continuation, and even escalation, of fighting after the withdrawal of Soviet troops …" (Minister of Defence of Afghanistan general Sh. Tanai, Izvestiya, 8 September 1989)

Canadians now

"…pulling troops out of Kandahar would simply open the door to another Taliban takeover. There is also a real danger that the return of the Taliban would lead to civil war..." "unwillingness to grapple with the consequences of withdrawing troops seems common, if not endemic, among those opposing the war…. In the face of the Taliban's history of cruelty, MacDonald argued that withdrawing troops would be a betrayal. …But before raising the call to withdraw troops, we might consider those whose lives have unquestionably improved because of the security provided by international forces. " (This Magazine (Canada), March/April 2007)

Insurgency was/is called…

Soviets in 1980s

"hardened murderers" (Pravda, 13 December 1985)

"… scumbags" (Soviet soldiers and a nurse quoted in Izvestiya, 23 May 1988)

Canadians now

"detestable murderers and scumbags"
(Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, Globe and Mail, 13 April 2007. Also see "Helping Afghanistan will protect Canada, says top soldier", CBC News, 15 July 2005)

"There is no comparison"

Soviets in 1980s

"If one agrees with people who…are ready to declare Soviet people to be 'occupants' and compare their [i.e. Soviet people's] actions to what Americans were doing in Vietnam, or to what British colonizers were doing in the same Afghanistan, then one has to admit that those 'occupants' were behaving in a very strange ways. They were delivering food and fuel, clothing, agricultural machinery and industrial equipment to the [Afghan] population; they were treating the sick [Afghans], teaching in the educational institutions, building residential houses, supporting work of the vital industrial plants, electric stations and irrigation structures…" (Zhitnuhin & Likoshin, 1990, p.169).

"I would not draw any analogies between our actions in Afghanistan and the American actions in Vietnam. There was no similarity in objectives or methods, nor were the results similar" (Soviet general Varennikov, CNN interview)

Canadians now

"We are not an 'occupation force' as some even here in Canada have stated, but backers of the legitimate Afghanistan government, which was voted in by a huge majority of Afghans who wanted their first democracy in 25 years. (column by Sgt. Russell Strong, CBC News Viewpoint, CBCNEWS, 13 September 2006)

"…comparison of current international efforts [in Afghanistan] and the Soviet invasion in 1979 is totally without merit… To compare today's mission [of Canadian forces in Afghanistan] to the invasion of a totalitarian [Soviet] regime is beyond comprehension" (op-ed "Unfair comparison" by Col. (ret.) M. Capstick, Globe and Mail, 2 December 2006)

On "fighting evil"

Soviets in 1980s

"…we heard shots. Run towards the village. Found three dead on the road: man, woman and a child. They we probably on the way home. This is the evil. That's why we are here - not to allow such [things] to happen." (from the journal of the Soviet soldier in Afghanistan, quoted in Komsomolskaya Pravda, 26 July 1986)

Canadians now

"We believe that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, a war on evil people, just as we were during the First and Second World Wars. We believe that these people have to be brought to justice," (Jay Hill quoted in Toronto Star, 20 April 2007)

On "our troops in Afghanistan"

Soviets 1980s

"We are giving our young years and our lives for peace"(from the journal of the Soviet soldier in Afghanistan, private Yuri Pahomov, published in Komsomolskaya Pravda, 15 December 1989)

"…my son …died a hero" (mother of the Soviet soldier killed in Afghanistan quoted in Krasnaya Zvezda, 17 March 1988)

"[he] died a hero …shielding his comrades from death" (Komsomolskaya Pravda, 25 April 1987)

"…sincere belief in the high meaning of their [Afghanistan] mission." (book "Star over Kabul-city", 1990, Moscow, p.171).

Canadians now

"He died a hero" (friend of Canadian Soldier killed in Afghanistan quoted in thestar.com, Apr 19, 2007)

"[he]… died a hero, he died protecting his fellow comrades" ( message by Jason Carey on the death of Pte. Costall, 3/30/2006, DND website)

"…unwavering belief in the Afghanistan mission" (Toronto Star, 17 December 2006)

SEE:

Kandahar

Afghanistan

War

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
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, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values,

Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Narco Politics

The British alternative is what? More civilian deaths from air strikes?

British diplomat opposes legalized Afghan poppy crop

Britain’s top diplomat in Canada has dismissed a poll, commissioned by the international think-tank that is championing the legalization of Afghanistan’s contentious opium poppy crop, which shows that Canadians overwhelmingly support for the use of Afghan opium for medicinal purposes.

Cary was responding to the release of an Ipsos Reid survey of 1,000 Canadians, conducted on behalf of the Senlis Council, which found that nearly eight in 10 Canadians (79 per cent) want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to get behind an international pilot project that would help transform Afghanistan’s illicit opium cultivation into a legal source for codeine, morphine and other legitimate pain medications for the international market.

Oh so you could do it just that after six years you don't have the infrastructure.....right-o that's why Harper sent our troops into the Opium Fields. The effectiveness of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams can be measured in opium production.

Cary noted that while opium production has been licensed in such places as Thailand and Turkey, it took 15 years to achieve such a system. Afghanistan simply lacks the infrastructure and regulatory framework to cultivate opium legally and to keep it out of the hands of drug dealers, he said.

And for the British who created this problem in the 19th Century in order to expand their Empire to be telling us they oppose legalization, well that is a bit rich isn't it. They have a history of creating infrastructure and regulations for opium production.

It was not until the British Empire started organizing and commercializing opium production in the 19th century that the opium poppy became entrenched in the world economy. The opium produced in British India was the first drug to become integrated into the then emerging globalization.

Tea, which was then only grown in China, was bought by British merchants with silver extracted from South American mines.

This triangular trade went on at least until the British Empire, together with the East India Company it had set up, created a thriving opium market in China, first through illegal smuggling and then through forced imports.

The two so-called “opium wars” (1839-1842 and 1856-1860) waged by the British to impose their opium trade onto China resulted in “unfair treaties” that not only made Hong Kong a British colony but also provoked, in China, the biggest addiction ever to happen in world history.

Chickens, home, roost.

And after all this is a British problem, which they created back then and again today in Afghanistan.

Britain is stoned at home and sold out in Helmand

The vast increase in opium poppy farming in Afghanistan is indicative of an inability to grasp a basic law of economics

The British government for sure knows how to do one thing. It knows how to help farmers in need. Since it arrived in Afghanistan in 2001 and was put in charge of the staple poppy crop, ministers have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on promoting it. On Monday the United Nations announced the result. Poppy production in Afghanistan has soared since the invasion, this year alone by 34%. The harvest in the British-occupied protectorate of Helmand rose by 50% in 12 months. This is a dazzling triumph for agricultural intervention.

Ministers may deny this was their policy, but they cannot be that inept. They faced a heroin epidemic at home. Suddenly finding themselves charged with controlling almost all the world's opium production, they must have known what they were doing. By alienating farmers and forcing them into the arms of the Taliban, they would drive up illicit production and encourage oversupply. While that would increase heroin consumption in Britain in the short term, as it has done, oversupply would eventually cause prices to collapse. At that point, the British policy of "poppy substitution" with wheat and other crops would start to bite and supply would be stifled. What happened when that stifling drove prices back up again was someone else's concern.
I cannot think of any less daft explanation for a policy that otherwise defies every law of economics. Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister responsible for flooding British streets with cheap heroin, may squabble with his American colleagues over whether poppy eradication is better than substitution, but one thing is certain. Since Nato arrived in Afghanistan, opium has become to the local economy what oil is to a Gulf state. It is roughly 60% of the domestic product and 90% of exports, with productivity per hectare rising by the year.

Those into conspiracy theories might be forgiven for thinking this might also be a policy of the CIA to destabilize Iran by increasing the number of heroin addicts in that country.

Despite US suspicions, Iran - which has one of the world's highest drug addiction rates - argues that it has legitimate interests in combating the influx of heroin and opiates from the poppy fields of Afghanistan. More than 3,000 Iranian police and security personnel have been killed in clashes with drug smugglers along the Afghan border since 1979.

Legalization would of course cure this problem by recognizing drug addiction as a medical problem, a curse of capitalism, rather than a crime.

The year 2009 will mark the centennial of the Shanghai Opium Conference, the first world-wide agreement on the reduction of opium use and production. China, then still an extremely poor feudal nation, was spending most of its foreign exchange on opium it imported through British traders. The British sold their cheap Indian Opium for pure silver to the Chinese, and had almost two centuries of opium fortune-making behind them. The fledgling United States of America tried to conquer a share of the profits in this lavish market, at a time when prohibitionist ideas about alcohol and opium control were expanding all over the globe. It was time for the American Disease to be born.

But don't expect support for that from Bush or Harper. They represent the traditional prohibitionist culture of social conservative Christians. The folks who oppose heroin legalization used to oppose the 'demon rum'.

In later analyses of the history of drug and alcohol controls other names for the American Disease have been coined. The most appropriate one, not tied to any nationality per se, is the 'Temperance Movement'. It was comprised of a collective of local movements prevalent in a group of nations. Later these nine nations would be identified as a special group, the nations where the temperance culture would endorse far reaching control policies in the attempt to regulate medical and recreational drugs. The global impact of these temperance cultures has varied from almost nothing to considerable.

Meanwhile it is telling that not only are Afhgani's the largest producers of opium they are also its victims.

Afghanistan is hooked on opium. The drugs trade has become the largest employer, its biggest export and the main source of income in a land devastated by decades of war. Opium is grown on 10 per cent of the farmland and employs 13 per cent of the population as labourers, guards and transport workers.

The ubiquity of the drug has now created the world's worst domestic drug problem, a crisis threatening to engulf any hope of economic revival. The first nationwide survey on drug use, by the Afghan Ministry of Counter-Narcotics and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, estimated that one million in this nation of 30 million were addicts, including 100,000 women and 60,000 children.

Defending the rights of Afghani women and children, the mantra of the Harpocrites used to justify their warmongering. And their war efforts have resulted in increased addictions amongst women and children. That surely is a measure of success of this mission.

SEE:

Two Canadians In Afghanistan

Say It Ain't So

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Afghanistan, War, Harper, Britain, UK, Canada, politics, military,
NATO, Helmand, drugs, heroin, opium, Iran, narcotics, addiction, opium war, Afghanistan, CIA, Narco Politics,

Le silence est d'or

Silence is Golden.

At his first Quebec appearance since two Quebec-based soldiers died in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper nearly completely refrained from commenting on the mission in the war-ravaged country. Harper, who didn't use the word "Afghanistan" in the speech, wouldn't answer reporters' questions afterwards.

The Right Honorable War Monger is embarrassed by pointed questions. And he should be. He can't answer this one.

The wife of slain Vandoo Mario Mercier has said she hopes
he's the last Canadian soldier to die in Afghanistan.

Clarification

 Christian was on afghan ground for a little over a month,
when his light armoured vehicle struck a land mine.

The fact he is dead, and how he died, his vehicle hit a land mine (not and IED, not a Taliban roadside bomb, not a suicide bomber) is less important than getting his regimental colours right.

Final Van Doos soldiers head to Afghanistan
Funerals for Master Cpl. Christian Duchesne and Master Warrant Officer Mario Mercier will be held Friday, near Valcartier.

Department of National Defence

Aug 24, 2007 17:00 ET

DND: Not Only Vandoos

MONTREAL, QUEBEC--(Marketwire - Aug. 24, 2007) - To show respect to the majority of the military personnel currently deployed in Afghanistan, who work in collaboration, but are not part of the Royal 22e Regiment, we want to specify this fact and ask the media's cooperation regarding the diffusion of complete and fair information.

Master Corporal Christian Duchesne belonged to the 5th Field Ambulance, part of the 4th Health Service Group.

The Joint Task Force - Afghanistan (JTF-Afg) Rotation 4 deployed in the summer of 2007 is comprised of approximately 2300 soldiers representing many different professions in the Canadian Forces. The majority of those troops come from over fifty different units and regiments in Canada. A third of them actually belong to the Royal 22e Regiment. Even if the core of these men and women come from Valcartier, many also come from other regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

For the complete list of regiments and units comprised in the JTF-Afg, you may consult the following website: http://www.5gbmc.ca/spip.php?article557