18

Canada’s Afghan training mission to be “Kabul-centric”

Defense Minister Peter MacKay rules out Kandahar presence


 

Canadian military trainers in Afghanistan will assume their July mission in regional centres outside of Kabul, Defense Minister Peter MacKay said Thursday. “We have looked at a few locations in the nearby region, that is to say in the north, that is in close proximity to Kabul. That would also facilitate the type of training we’re undertaking,” he said. MacKay’s announcement followed a meeting with U.S. Defence secretary Robert Gates. Five regional army centres have requested help, among them Mazar-e Sharif in the north, Heart in the west and Kandahar in the south. However, MacKay emphasized that the government will be “consistent with the parliamentary motion” calling for the end of Canada’s combat role, and that the training mission will not be carried out in Kandahar.

Winnipeg Free Press


 
Filed under:

Canada’s Afghan training mission to be “Kabul-centric”

  1. Another about face, I guess that means they will need some of those armoured cars that we were sending back, to keep them safe. xGen Hillier was and is right there is no safe place for foreign troops in Afghanistan and to suggest that Kandahar is the only war zone…… you guys know out there that the Cons are cutt5ing combat pay after Jyly 1st!!!! Hence if any of the troops, so called "Training" come under fire, get injured or killed, they won't be getting combat pay…. what a con

  2. Another about face, I guess that means they will need some of those armoured cars that we were sending back, to keep them safe. xGen Hillier was and is right there is no safe place for foreign troops in Afghanistan and to suggest that Kandahar is the only war zone…… you guys know out there that the Cons are cutt5ing combat pay after Jyly 1st!!!! Hence if any of the troops, so called "Training" come under fire, get injured or killed, they won't be getting combat pay…. what a con

  3. Defense Minister?

    This is Canada. We don't have a "Defense" Minister.

  4. Defense Minister?

    This is Canada. We don't have a "Defense" Minister.

  5. This is good, Training in Kabul is the way to go, Not realy a lot of active fighting up that way, better infastructure, and more favourable climate. It's a lot easier to train troops when its not hitting 67deg celcus in the shade like in Kandahar. Add in the fact that there is more suport in the north for ISAF… AKA not an overwhelming number of fundimentilist Pashtuns that still back the taliban to this day; This might actualy work out well.

  6. just ask f35 he know everthing ,even how to find a wife,but nobody want him ,poor pete

  7. just ask f35 he know everthing ,even how to find a wife,but nobody want him ,poor pete

  8. Wow,

    I didn't realize that the only safe place for our troops is the capital!

    Who is ruling the rest?

  9. Wow,

    I didn't realize that the only safe place for our troops is the capital!

    Who is ruling the rest?

  10. Only mentally deficient people could really think of military without risk. We might as well expect our military to hide in bunkers somewhere here in Canada, then it might be less risky. Even driving in our highways and byways or just a simple as sleeping are risky business – or on the later case has its own risk, how much more teaching policing in Afghanistan. Grow up people! Otherwise we Canadians will end up throwing away much of our common sense and our thinking minds.

  11. Only mentally deficient people could really think of military without risk. We might as well expect our military to hide in bunkers somewhere here in Canada, then it might be less risky. Even driving in our highways and byways or just a simple as sleeping are risky business – or on the later case has its own risk, how much more teaching policing in Afghanistan. Grow up people! Otherwise we Canadians will end up throwing away much of our common sense and our thinking minds.

  12. The vandoos attempt at being heros, again. lol

  13. The vandoos attempt at being heros, again. lol

  14. Does a anyone think for one minute that our troops will be safe from attack simply because they are no longer in a combat role? Fighting by other NATO members will still be going on for years to come and the reason for the fighting is the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil. Not a fight between alQaeda and NATO as perceived at the beginning 8 years ago. We are presently fighting the Taliban, some insurgents, Pashtun Tribes and who knows who else. Not alQaeda.
    I personally feel that keeping our soldiers there is dangerous and useless and that we will lose more lives. I hope I am wrong. God bless our soldiers but not those that put them in harm's way.

  15. Does a anyone think for one minute that our troops will be safe from attack simply because they are no longer in a combat role? Fighting by other NATO members will still be going on for years to come and the reason for the fighting is the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil. Not a fight between alQaeda and NATO as perceived at the beginning 8 years ago. We are presently fighting the Taliban, some insurgents, Pashtun Tribes and who knows who else. Not alQaeda.
    I personally feel that keeping our soldiers there is dangerous and useless and that we will lose more lives. I hope I am wrong. God bless our soldiers but not those that put them in harm's way.

  16. This is good, Training in Kabul is the way to go, Not realy a lot of active fighting up that way, better infastructure, and more favourable climate. It's a lot easier to train troops when its not hitting 67deg celcus in the shade like in Kandahar. Add in the fact that there is more suport in the north for ISAF… AKA not an overwhelming number of fundimentilist Pashtuns that still back the taliban to this day; This might actualy work out well.

Sign in to comment.