Posted on 02/05/2005 8:28:25 AM PST by UpHereEh
Canadian troops may be deployed to Iraq to help with reconstruction if Prime Minister Paul Martin agrees to the anticipated request from U.S. President George Bush.
The two leaders are expected to discuss the issue when they meet later this month in Brussels for a NATO summit meeting, the Toronto Star reported.
The paper says a small contingent of 40 Canadian troops would be sent abroad, joining another 300 NATO forces, if Martin agrees.
The news comes days after Bush's state of the union address during which he called on his allies for more foreign aid and support for Iraq's new government after an election Sunday that he deemed "a great and historic achievement."
The mandate of the Canadian troops would be to help train Iraqi troops and prepare the violence-ravaged country for the eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.
The Star reports that sources have said Canada is considering the notion more favourably after last weekend's successful elections in Iraq.
There was no comment from the prime minister's office.
The decision would be controversial following the move by former prime minister Jean Chretien to keep Canada out of the war -- a move political analysts said alienated Chretien and Canada from the United States.
France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Greece banned their nationals from participating in training efforts -- even when NATO increased its training troops from 60 to 300, the Star reported
Martin's response will help to firm his position on involvement in Iraq.
At a swearing-in ceremony for Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's new chief of defence staff, Martin said Ottawa must continue its humanitarian work, adding that "none of that will be possible in conflict-ridden states unless security is first established."
He added: "the defence of Canada is limited not only to North America but it must be extended around the world."
Earlier this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Canada stands behind its southern neighbour.
"We share a lot of priorities with the President of the United States," Pettigrew told reporters on Parliament Hill.
"He can certainly count on Canada to be a steadfast partner in fighting terrorism around the world."
But in October 2004, Martin expressed his hesitance to commit any Canadian troops to Iraq.
"There's a limit to our resources," Martin said at the time.
"And that's why I'm putting the focus right now on Afghanistan, on Haiti.
"Whatever it is that we do, I really want to see us do it in an area that makes a difference," Martin said.
With files from The Canadian Press and The Associated Press
MEMO to Canada PM Martin. We dont NEED nor WANT your involvement here. It just smells of fishing for reconstruction contracts and NOTHING MORE!
That's great news if it comes to pass. I'm sure it would bring great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Canadian loons.
Save 'em for when they're needed, Mr. Martin.
Will these troops be fighting for or against us?
...always better to go in when most of the shooting is over with. Real nice.
Many Canadians want to help America complete it's Iraqi mission. It is never too late to repair the damage caused by Chretien and the vocal minority. The most recent elections have been met with a noticible silence from these usual suspects. God Bless President Bush.
Canada should see if they can manage to keep four subs in the water and maybe even dive in them without killing any of their sailors before they think about sending any forces beyond the 9 mile limit.
It's not the fault of our military that the liberal government has slashed funding and refused to aid the US in the war on terror. In fact, the connection this corrupt party has to the oil-for-food scandal are slowing being revealed. We are very proud of our troops who would have participated from the beginning if they could have.
Denny Crane: There are two places to find truth. First God and then Fox News."
Canadian troops may be deployed to Iraq........all 100 of them.
I know that, UHE. You guys have great soldiers who have proven their valor on many occasions. And I have done some joint projects with the RCMP and they too are good guys -- their attitudes are the same as their US counterparts. My jest was meant for the Lib government, not your troops. I'm happy for any friends we can get north of the border, and I really do sense a slight shift in the wind direction. Let's hope.
Both of them ???
I am grateful for any and all assistance our troops receive. Jacks Cretin and his ilk were but a temporary bump in US/Canadian relations.
This is how the Canadian Forces feel about the Americans, the War in Iraq, and the Liberal Government who held them back:
Global Security: It is Time For Canada to 'Fish or Cut Bait'
The loneliness of our neighbour's sons and daughters, the American soldier in Fallujah, is a shame.
The American soldier again stands tall for us Canadians in a quest for enhanced global security by containing the uproar of a dangerously failed statehood and terminating another genocidal maniac's rule just as was done in Bosnia.
Ignoring the contributions of brave Brits, Poles, Danes, Dutch, Ukranians, Italians and thousands of other valiant troops from dozens of other nations serving now in Iraq is an unforgiveable mistake made every day by everyone, it seems.
Those valiant young soldiers fight terrorists, spill their sweat and blood, and all the while administer humanitarian aid to any willing takers in Iraq, just as did the American soldier in Bosnia-Herzegovina after we, our U.N. pals and the former Western Europan Union screwed up there but good (See The Wednesday Report Volume 8, Number 12 April 20, 1994).
It is reprehensible that Canadians sit and do nothing to assist our loyal friend and ally while enjoying the rich prosperity allowed us by having America as a good geographic neighbour, protector and trading partner.
Once Al Qaeda issued its pronouncement that any country denouncing the "Coalition" will be spared brutal terrorist attacks, Canada should have mustered as if Bin Laden's threat were a 'call to arms'. Damn us if we cower and cringe at the command of the psychopathic fear-monger, Usama Bin Laden, who all the while hides in tunnels and caves.
'Too few resources to support the United States in Iraq', says our new Prime Minister.
No. It is not true. We have the resources. We could make the stretch and contribute a sophisticated and worthwhile effort to truly make a difference in the scheme of global security.
Canada has considerable expertise and experience in providing assistance for national elections in troubled regions.
Canada has the wherewithal and an immensely popular approach to teaching the nuances of public law enforcement to those who want and need to learn.
Canada's solid reputation earned by years of contributions to global peace and stability initiatives would elevate the local perception of an international effort aimed at fixing Iraq.
'We don't have enough soldiers because of our extensive U.N. commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere', implies our new Prime Minister who must soon face the electorate in a national election.
Don't say "not enough soldiers". Too many millions of dollars have been poured illegally into patronage pots by our central government to now make that argument. Find the money. Find the soldiers. We hired our central government politicians to make tough decisions, not excuses and not to purloin our tax dollars.
Iraq is a 21st Century pivotal point in global security. This is not the time to manage public policy and global security obligations exclusively on the basis of popularity polls: this is a time for true leadership and a deeper understanding than what is apparent in the bafflegab that emits from the players in North America's own tribal warfare, otherwise known as electioneering.
Well, as paradoxical as it may seem, Canada may have to wait till after an election for true leadership from our current Prime Minister, who will, and certainly should, win the next federal election. But let that not be as it was in Spain.
Beneath the veneer of anti-Americanism that shellacs international headlines and TV sound bites these days there is an emerging thread of facts as well as informed conjecture, which for future historians may vindicate the U.S. and Britain's, decision to invade/free Iraq --with the help of troops from Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (non-combattant logisitics support), Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine and friends.
Saddam wasn't 'taken out' in 1991 after Kuwait was freed because, according to the U.S. theory at the time, Saddam had effectively glued an unlikely mix of conflicted ethnic and religious elements which once unglued would explode in violent civil war and embroil the Persian Gulf Region.
Without Saddam Hussein's brutal totalitarian rule, no process could contain the inevitable civil war. "It would be worse than the former Yugoslavia and much faster", some said. The global impact would be more than economic as oil shipments and sea traffic in the fragile Gulf region became unreliable or ground to a halt.
By the summer of 2003 it was absolutely clear Iraq had been a failing nation prior to invasion and Saddam's grip on power, previously unknown to the West, was collapsing. With Saddam's dynasty in near ruin, it was only a matter of time before Iraq would have blown into fractional conflict divided along ethnic lines with ethnic alliances all around the circle of its neighbours.
Undoubtedly the inevitable collapse of Saddam Hussein's iron rule would have brought Syria and Iran as well as Saudi Arabia into the fray and the West would only have been a spectator as the Gulf Region exploded into conflict. Who would have fetched the spoils then? Syria? Iran? And what if any cities would be retired to smoking rubble after Israel were attacked?
The inevitable collapse of Iraq needed to be contained with strong measures.
Jordanian law enforcement professionals seized a potpourri of chemical weapons yesterday. Where are they from?
According to limited information emerging from Jordanian officials, the mix was potent comprising choking agents, nerve gas and blistering agents--Saddams fetishes in a few hundred barrels. We don't know the exact chemical compounds but the existence of Al Qaeda CW capabilities is clear enough given that the tons of contraband including explosives was seized from the possession of eight confessed Al Qaeda agents. Add the name of Abu Musab Zarkawi (Ahmad Al-Khalayla), (see also Video: American Hostage Beheaded by Zarkawi?) their direct commander, and it is no stretch to suggest the chemicals may be a secondary proliferation of Saddam Hussein's hidden, illegal CW stash.
Haven't you wondered, "from where came the chemical weapons and nuclear weapons programme elements handed over by Mohammar Qaddafi"? Is it possible that this mismatched pile of dangerous paraphernalia of destruction was purchased from pre-war Iraq? We don't know. That's purely conjecture, but the Lybia-Iraq connections go back a long way.
In this issue you can read about a corrupt, "U.N. Oil For Food Programme" that improperly benefited France, Germany and Russia among others. That may have been the real reason to oppose a U.N.-backed invasion of Iraq instead of the fibs we all heard. Now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps Europe can put on its most intellectually-honest thinking cap, get its hypocritical and longish Pinocchio nose out of the air, then 'lend a hand' in Iraq.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien who like his popular mentor, the late Pierre Trudeau, hated the Canadian military but hated the United States even more. Not just rejecting the U.S. request for Canada's assistance Chretien went on to insult and berate the U.S. and its leadership in late 2002 and early 2003.
Now that Canada has resolved its problem of "bad leadership"--quoting the grandson of Winston Churchill who made this observation in a 5 April 2003 Larry King interview-- it is now time to properly join our nation's primary ally.
Micheal J. O'Brien, Editor
This is editorial from "The Wednesday Report, Canada's Aerospace & Defense Weekly".
Let me guess; your 40 canadian troops will be joining the same unit as the three french troops already apprehended.
"The paper says a small contingent of 40 Canadian troops would be sent abroad, joining another 300 NATO forces, if Martin agrees."
That's half the canadian Army!
Excellent read, thanks for posting it
I thought so too, it just goes to show the damage that the liberal government has done to the moral of the Canadian Forces who yearn to fight in the war on terror.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seemed like even the conservatives in Canada were against our troops invading Iraq. And didn't Canadian opinion polls show that overwhelming majorities of Canadians (including conservatives) were against the United States invading Hussein's Baathist Iraq? And in the last election, wasn't one of Martin's arguments against the conservatives that they would involve Canada in the fight in Iraq -- which was an argument that the conservatives strenuously denied. Finally, maybe I am wrong on this but here on FR, Canadian conservatives who supported our invasion of Iraq have been few and far between. I have argued with some of the Canadian conservatives and they sound like leftists when it comes to Iraq. The first thing they do is say that no WMD's were found in Iraq therefore the war never should have been fought. That is not an argument I expect to hear from conservatives in the United States but I sure expect to hear it from Canadian conservatives even when it is pointed out to them that Hussein was routinely firing missiles at our pilots prior to the start of the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.