Charmion, it seems you are "nitpicking" when it comes to the term Middle East in my earlier post. This seems to be defined differently by different folks. Bush referred to "the greater Middle East" when discussing the "coalition missions" , this definition is fine with me, so, consider it as amended (if, it really matters the discussion, and your original case).

I would hardly consider the Afghanistan mission peacekeeping, but if you promote it as such, good luck. Again, my meter was actual Canadian dollars diverted from defense and peacekeeping in other areas, including Canada. Possibly some of those dollars coud have been used to rebuild capacity and equipment for santioned UN and reasonable NATO defense purposes? You seem to put a case forward that Canadas involvement in Afghanistan was money well spent. I disagree. I also suspect Canadas bombing missions in Libya, Iraq and Syria did little to make much better. Some feel it may have made things worse (as the Arab League once cautioned that suddenly emiving leaders could open up a Pandoras box in the region-much like we see today). BTW, because of a lack in transparency brought about by Harper, accurate data the real financial costs of Canadas military involvement in "the greater Middle East" is difficult to determine.




libya mission