I agree...that's the point!
[ Follow Ups || Post Followup || The War Diary ]
Posted by Boyd from Canada on May 22, 2021 at 18:11:39:
In Reply to: How does that apply... posted by Michael Dorosh on May 22, 2021 at 10:44:22:
My point is that Canada's deployment of armed forces has historically been best when sent in with clearly stated intentions. As you pointed out, the modern PC environment has clouded the deployment of troops. As I'm sure you'll agree, the CAF has been on a steady slide for quite some time. The actions in Kosovo, the Gulf and Somalia have all shared the common idea of "limited warfare". As you said, we liberated Kuwait, then left Iraq alone. Historically speaking, what would have happened if we had stopped at the German border during WW2? I think Canada needs to refine it's methods of how and when we deploy troops. I'm not comfortable deploying Canadian forces in half measures(If a regime is worth fighting, it's worth destroying.). If NATO(Read:US) wants us to send troops to Upper Blogistan to keep the US strategic supply of Blogweed open, I have no problem with that. But rest assured that if we're sending troops anyway, let's make sure that Lower Blogistan is totally removed as a threat. No terms, no conditions, no staying in power for the leader of the defeated Lower Blogistan forces.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup