Fallen Soldiers' Parents Call for Troops to Remain in Afghanistan After 2011

[leroi]

Ottawa Citizen: April 3, 2010
Ethan Baron

LINK

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — After an emotional Easter-weekend ceremony to honour nine Canadian soldiers who have fallen in recent years, parents of dead sons called for Canada's troops to remain in Afghanistan after 2011.  While military brass continue to assert Canada's mission has made significant headway toward stabilizing Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated as recently as Tuesday that all Canadian troops will leave the war-torn country by the end of next year, to be replaced by diplomatic and aid workers.

"Mr. Harper, you've still got to have security," said Myles Kennedy, whose son, Pte. Kevin Kennedy, was killed on Easter Sunday in 2007.  Withdrawing all the soldiers would "send the wrong message to the world," said Kennedy, a high-school teacher in northern British Columbia who came to Afghanistan with his wife, Kay, and attended Saturday's ceremony. "If you look at our history, we always went in with strong moral causes, and we went in to do a job," Kennedy said. "Our job will not be complete if (Harper) pulls out the whole group.  We have to maintain some type of military presence for security, and . . . to let the world know that we haven't really abandoned this mission."

Other parents among the 18 family members flown here for the ceremony expressed similar views on the withdrawal.  Theresa Charbonneau, whose son, Cpl. Andrew Grenon, died in September 2008, said she wants Canadian troops to stay in Afghanistan to fight the global terrorist threat. Grenon had written a poem that ended with the words, "I fight so my children won't have to," she said. "One hundred forty-one lives have been lost.  The journalist has been lost. The diplomat has been lost.  I don't want their deaths to be in vain," she said. "I don't want to see (Afghanistan) collapse. If by staying longer we can help that not happen . . . I would like to see that."

The parents' statements followed a 45-minute tribute to Grenon, Kennedy, Cpl. Stephen Bouzane, Cpl. Mark McLaren, Sgt. Gregory Kruse, Master Cpl. Scott Vernelli, Sgt. Vaughan Ingram, Cpl. David Braun and Cpl. Aaron Williams.  "It is easy to use words like service and sacrifice," Canadian Brig.-Gen. Daniel Menard, commander of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, said to the family members seated facing the cenotaph outside the Task Force Kandahar headquarters.  "As you know, it is quite another thing to live and breathe those words every day.  "Every time we step out on patrol, we know that each and every name on this monument is watching over us. I would like to highlight the effect that your presence has on the men and women in theatre.  Your presence gives comfort to them, just as I hope that your time here will give you some comfort as well."

Patty Braun, the mother of Cpl. David Braun, was wearing around her waist the tan-and-black checked scarf that her son wore while at war — a garment many Canadian soldiers use to shield themselves from dust and the fierce Afghan sun. "It came back with his belongings," said Braun, who's from Raymore, Sask. "I didn't wash it.  It stayed with the smells and the dust and the dirt, and I knew I had to bring it back with me when I came."

Like other visiting parents, Braun said she came here to be where her child was last alive. "I needed to smell it. I needed to taste it. I needed to hear it. We see pictures on TV, but nothing, nothing can show what it's actually like.  I'm just incredibly grateful that I was able to come here, and take home all these memories," Braun said.  Braun, too, spoke against the 2011 troop withdrawal.  "There is progress.  Maybe what I'm afraid of is, if everybody pulled out, are things going to go back to the way they were before?  It would make me feel extremely sad, for all the people that are left here, for all the women, for all the children."

But Kandahar province's Canadian-Afghan governor, Tooryalai Wesa, said Canada's pullout won't hurt the stabilization effort, as other NATO soldiers will replace the Canadians, and Canadian governance-building and development work will continue. "The development part is here. The civilian part is here. They will not leave, and their work is very significant for us," Wesa said.

(Here reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.)​

 

[tk_01]

Easily one of the more admirable and noble articles I've read today. Thanks for sharing mate.

 

[regulator12]

Very heartfelt and understandable however I believe our time is up in Afghanistan.  Are military is hurting and needs a chance to refit and replenish.  The Americans will be pulling out of there in the years to come they can fight the long fight we can not.  We have done more than our fair share over there.  The soldiers lives lost will not be forgotten and will not have been wasted.  Just my two cents.

 

[HItorMiss]

Very heartfelt and understandable however I believe our time is up in Afghanistan

Good for you, they think better and to be blunt their opinion is about 100X more important and poignant then yours. They have truly sacrificed in this conflict their words should be carrying a significant weight however I suspect sadly they will fall on deaf ears.

Our military is hurting and needs a chance to refit and replenish.

Speak for yourself, Should we perhaps reduce troop levels to a more long term sustainable level perhaps but and this is a big but WE can and WE should continue what we have began. I would go many many more times I may be tired I may be hurt but I am not out and thus I will finish my job.

The Americans will be pulling out of there in the years to come they can fight the long fight we can not.

Look at my post above, we can; however we are just taking the politically expedient way out, the cowards way out. Our government is shifting to save itself a sad day in my mind I had always thought more of Harper but this to me is the biggest betrayal by his government I have seen.

We have done more than our fair share over there.

This one irks me most of all... Define more then our fair share... no really explain it to me....
Simple answer is how arrogant are we that we think we have done so? how many lives is our world worth I know what that answer was in 1939.. and again in 1950 but now we seem to think that 141 lives is our fair share how sad and weak we have become. My answer is whatever it takes to finish what we have committed to. Whatere it takes to make the world a brighter place.

The soldiers lives lost will not be forgotten and will not have been wasted.  Just my two cents.

Perhaps not by us or by their families and friends but in the grand scheme all they will be linked to is a failed effort and because it was a failed effort those lives and the lives of my friends will have been wasted.



As for those families I cannot imagine the grief but I can see the strength they have the strength to accept a hard road and to speak to that hard road and maybe for a second remind Canada what a noble country we can be and what noble people we can be. Perhaps some of those on the fence will read this and be reminded of what a sacrifice really means.

 

[regulator12]

Bullet Magnet,

This one irks me most of all... Define more then our fair share... no really explain it to me....
Simple answer is how arrogant are we that we think we have done so? how many lives is our world worth I know what that answer was in 1939.. and again in 1950 but now we seem to think that 141 lives is our fair share how sad and weak we have become. My answer is whatever it takes to finish what we have committed to. Whatere it takes to make the world a brighter place.

Let me try to explain.  Take the emotion out of it for a minute and think logically.  Our military is hurting.  Take a look around the battalions.  The front line troops.  We have serious kit issues with vehicles, weapons, etc.  We have manning issues losing experienced NCO's yearly and having many of these experienced members getting burnt out because of the extreme Op tempo.  We have young inexperienced soldiers being thrust into leadership positions just because we need the numbers!  These inexperienced soldiers in turn are leading sections into battle!  Were filling our ranks with numbers.  We used to have quality, we are losing this quality more and more every year.  This is not healthy for our army.  The infantry is a revolving door that's begun spinning a lot faster lately.  Our operational tempo is high. It never ends, exercises training Operations, guys are getting sick of it.  To say that we should stay there simply because we have lost 141 lives is making this operation about emotions and retribution.  Does it make sense to drive our armed forces into the ground just so we can say we were not cowards? So we can say we were there till the end?  That's ridiculous!!!  We have done our fair share when compared to any other nation there. We have sacrificed not just our lives but our entire army.  Sometimes you need to know when to suck back regroup and re-plan.  If you were to take a honest hard look around at our forces you will begin to see that we are in need of a rest and refit.  We dont have the capabilities to sustain a long hard fight like the Americans or even British.  This is not WW1 or 2.  Afghanistan is not the real issue when it comes to terrorism.  The Taliban are the least of your worries right now,  homegrown terrorism is on the rise.  We couldn't even defend our own land effectively right now because of the commitment we made to Afghanistan.  Our Mission has and will always be to defend Canada. 

 

[GAP]

Then we should have never gone....

What about all the people that were thrust into leadership positions in previous conflicts, they don't count?....they rose to the occasion. Are today's troops any less capable?

Equipment, etc can be bought, but the pride of finishing the job can never be.

I fought in a conflict that the politicians abandoned, and there is no sicker feeling than watching that which you believed in, go down the drain because it was no longer politically correct to be there.

 

[regulator12]

I cant talk about past conflicts but regarding Afghanistan and our current state of affairs yes some guys do rise to the occasion however a lot don't.  That's not necessarily the issue its the fact that we are losing our experienced members that normally would help mentor and train these guys.  Our troops are extremely capable.  However like i said before I believe that sometimes you need to suck back and regroup. That's not quitting its reorganizing and planning to fight the next or same fight.  We have a small army that is supposed to be able to defend Canada at a moments notice, natural disasters, terrorism, conflicts etc.  We don't have that capability because all our focus is in Afghanistan and all our resources are going over there.  You seem to have this mentality that just because we went there we need to stay there till the end? End of what? When does it end? How does it end? Do we stay until we have nobody left to fight? Do we stay until .....???? I don't see the point to driving our armed forces into the ground simply because its the honorable thing to do.  Our commitment over there could be streamlined and made more efficient.  We have amazing spec ops units doing great work over there, we have the PRT and OMLT that is doing fantastic work.  Our battle groups are getting burnt out and need a rest. Leaving Afghanistan in my opinion is the best thing for our military and I fully support the planned withdrawal. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Very heartfelt and understandable however I believe our time is up in Afghanistan.  Are military is hurting and needs a chance to refit and replenish.  The Americans will be pulling out of there in the years to come they can fight the long fight we can not.  We have done more than our fair share over there.  The soldiers lives lost will not be forgotten and will not have been wasted.  Just my two cents.

I think he's right, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

I think there are some important, relatively low cost (in numbers of people) jobs, outside of Khandahar, that we could, even should undertake, but I am pretty certain that Hillary Clinton, with some of the clumsiest diplomacy on record, if that's what ti was meant to be, put paid to that prospect. I'm pretty sure that Prime Minister Harper is fully soured on whatever inclination he might have had to help the NATO and the USA.

My guess is that Clinton came to Canada very well briefed but intent on bullying because it will play well inside the beltway in DC - recent US diplomacy has involved kowtowing (to China, India and Japan) or being told to "piss off, rude message follows" by Israel. Bullying Canada is a pretty safe bet and a cheap win, but she must have known that she was going to come away empty handed on the military front.
 

 

[aesop081]

  homegrown terrorism is on the rise.

Did i miss the day this stopped being a police responsability ?



 

We couldn't even defend our own land effectively right now because of the commitment we made to Afghanistan.

Defend it from what ? Was i asleep the day (obviously it must have been in the last few months) where Canada developed a continental threat it must rely on the army to defend itself from ?

Our Mission has and will always be to defend Canada.

Thanks for the newsflash  :

In case you havent seen the strategic outlook for the last decade (and more), threats to Canada arent fought here.....

 

[SeanNewman]

We have done more than our fair share over there.

Say what you want about the mission, but I can't stand that specific argument.

If it were true, then that's great and that's what we want.

It it were true and we leave before the job is done, do you think the rest of the world will see us as the hard workers or the quitters?

But the even bigger picture is that it's retarded to view something this important that way.  Who gives a sh!t how big your Army is or what you have...when you're in combat you send what you can as a team, you don't half-ass it, and you do what you can to win.

You don't say "Well we had X deployments and Y fatalities so until other countries can say they've had Y fatalities they're useless".

 

[regulator12]

Say what you want about the mission, but I can't stand that specific argument.

If it were true, then that's great and that's what we want.

It it were true and we leave before the job is done, do you think the rest of the world will see us as the hard workers or the quitters?

But the even bigger picture is that it's retarded to view something this important that way.  Who gives a sh!t how big your Army is or what you have...when you're in combat you send what you can as a team, you don't half-*** it, and you do what you can to win.

You don't say "Well we had X deployments and Y fatalities so until other countries can say they've had Y fatalities they're useless".

So because its combat we have to sacrifice everything we have? We must give up the ability to defend Canada? We are still part of the team, the spot will be filled with someone else. Do you run your star players into the ground in a hockey game? Or do you sub them out and give them a rest. Some players can play 60 min some can only handle 30 min. They still all contribute to the success of the team.  Nobody says oh look at those sacks only playing 30 min!!!! Everyone knows the great job Canada has done.  We can still contribute behind the scenes with diplomacy, training, money etc, but the military front we need a break.  I never said to compare deployments and fatalities to other nations I simply stated that our military is burning out and we do have a responsibility to be able to defend Canada at home.  You may think that nobody has a beef with our nation but if and when the time comes that the army must defend at home can we effectively do it? I personally dont think so. Do you think that we could effectively provide aid and support if we have a catastrophic natural disaster?  We would have a hard time reacting quickly and effectively.  You guys all seem that this is some sort of competition and image campaign.  The rest of the world can think what they want about whomever.  We will still have our seat at the round table and will still be a country to listen to.  People will still want to live here.  You need to  really know when enough is enough. 

 

[Towards_the_gap]

May I be the first to add this point:

All talk of 'finishing the job', 'doing the honourable thing', and vice versa, is moot. The facts, as I have interpreted them, is that public opinion is against a continuation of our combat role. We live in a democracy, so if 51% of jackass civvies want us to do one thing, we do it. Add to this that the conservatives are still a minority government and you can see why they are bending to public will. All politians share one value = remaining the government of the day.

And you can lay the blame for this public opinion on both the pro-war camp and anti-war camp. The pro-war for not having legitimised the mission enough to joe schmuck suburban civvy, and the anti-war camp for effectively leading people to believe we are in afghanistan for oil/christian domination of the middle east/GW Bush's vanity, or any other non-legitimate, evil theory.

 

[aesop081]

we do have a responsibility to be able to defend Canada at home.

Again, thanks for the news flash. I guess you are the only one here who understands that. You have skipped my question to you however........

You may think that nobody has a beef with our nation but if and when the time comes that the army must defend at home can we effectively do it?

Plase, tell me who is a threat now that we require what is in Afghanistan as a defence ?

Do you think that we could effectively provide aid and support if we have a catastrophic natural disaster?

People also said we couldnt effectively support olympic security because of the Afghanistan commitment. Guess what.......

We would have a hard time reacting quickly and effectively. 

Says you. Seems to me we reacted pretty fast and rather well to a major disaster much farther away that home in the recent past did we not. We managed to react to major events in the past, inside our own borders too, with large forces deployed abroad.

You guys all seem that this is some sort of competition and image campaign.

Far from it.

  You need to  really know when enough is enough.

I suppose you have all the answers and are just the person to tell us when that is eh ?

:

 

[GAP]

Slight derail.....

If Canada were to ascend to Hillary's request of 600 personnel to do....whatever....

and if the tail to tooth is generally estimated at 6 or 7 to 1, then don't we effectively have the same number of people in Afghanistan?

 

[regulator12]

CDN Aviator, i am simply stating my opinion.  I believe that we have done enough and should get a chance to re organize and replenish.  Tell me what do we gain by staying in Afghanistan till the so called end? What extra protection does that give Canada? We are not designed as a military to occupy a land for a long time. We are a small force with lots of talent that has been used in my opinion to the max. 

 

[aesop081]

  Tell me what do we gain by staying in Afghanistan till the so called end?

What do we gain by leaving now ?

What extra protection does that give Canada?

What extra protection does Canada gain by up and leaving ? Are you trying to tell me that havigng 2500 more troops  in Canada gives the country more protection ?









Other than hanging up a sign that says " Cause some casualties and Canada will leave"

 

[HavocSteve]

I personally think we shouldn't be leaving... Till the Taliban has gone or are changed (working with the Afghan gov.) then there is no point in leaving. The USA wasn't at war and had troops there (at home) before they were attacked. What happened to those troops? They got shipped to the country that attacked them. We are now on the hit list with University and College students of the Muslim faith (Not saying all Muslims fall under the terrorist stereotype) going to Afghanistan and joining the ranks of terrorism as is.

Did we pull out in WW1 or WW2 just because we had men fall and weren't properly prepared for battle? No, we stayed till it was finished and made the world a safer place. I think that pulling out will give the worst impression on us as Canadians. Not that it's a big deal but staying till the job is done and making the world a better place is better for all. I would hate to see that we pull out and fall victim to a terror attack and watch all the people say "I told you so". You know as well as I know, once we leave, our forces will be cut back for budget reasons. So this "replenish" stuff is just garbage...

 

[Towards_the_gap]

So this "replenish" stuff is just garbage...

Tell me if you think that after your 4th tour.

The army is burning out, and burning out fast. A lot of bright young experienced and capable leaders are heading to civvy strasse, partly because of the unsustainable tempo. And part of that unsustainable tempo is not necessarily ops, but all the career courses, pre-deployment training, dog and ponies, pointless exercises and training taskings that fall in between. So to sacrifice that talent purely in the name of keeping boots on the ground is in my eyes, pointless. If we want to sustain our numbers in afghan, let's increases the reg force army numbers, and stand up another battle group. If we want to maintain our influence, and have more of a strategic impact, let's keep the PRT/POMLT/OMLT and SF, and keep the battlegroups at home.

 

[HavocSteve]

I repeat. "You know as well as I know, once we leave, our forces will be cut back for budget reasons. So this "replenish" stuff is just garbage..." Pulling out will just put our CF down the drain. If people want a civvy life.. then that is their choice. You can't ask people to fight forever which is understandable. That's why it's mostly young recruits who are full of life and energy that are most welcomed. The CF would be a great place for our Government to cut back a couple people and force them into civvy life once we pull out of Afghanistan, only for the simple fact that it will save millions.. maybe billions (on equipment that no longer needs to spent ect..). I could only dream that we had a force like the USA or China. They have quality people leading but also a strength in numbers so no one gets burned out.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I repeat. I could only dream that we had a force like the USA or China. They have quality people leading but also a strength in numbers so no one gets burned out.

They also have populations that at a minimum, are near 10x our own (in the case of the USA). Nevermind the chinese.

The fact is we have no say whether we stay or go. Joe public, and the government who must enact his wishes, makes that call.

And for the record, I am on the side of pull out, only because I know Canadian society has lost it's stomach for this war.