Not sure if pictures will come through but here is the text presented by Korean Veterans' Assoc We follow events in Afghanistan because the Regiments we Korean War Veterans served with in Korea are there in action, as is the Air Force successor of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Naval personnel are there on the ground, too, serving alongside their Army comrades. The Navy is always there where things are tough. Canadaâs ships have served on operations in the region. What we did in Korea half a century ago is present today in the proud heritage of those who now serve in the Army, Navy and Air Force units of the Canadian Forces. The Canadian commitment to Afghanistan and its people The technology used to disseminate news today is one of the reasons radical extremists keep blowing themselves up in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Without the headlines the suicides would be none-events â except for those deceased and injured and their families who are made to suffer. The ruthless killing and maiming is not the perpetratorâs goal, although some of the lunatics may enjoy planning to do it. Their quest is for headlines all around the world that will bring attention to their âcause.â Headlines that will perhaps encourage citizens of nations who might have troops deployed abroad to consider pulling them out. Four Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan at approximately 9:15 a.m. Toronto time on September 18, 2006. By noon the story had been reported in major news media in nearly every nation in the world. News reports were not only published but updated throughout the day. Virtually every major newspaper and TV outlet in Canada and the United States reported the story. By noon Toronto time the stories had appeared in major daily newspapers or been distributed by regional wire services in Australia, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emmirates and the United Kingdom. Some editors tied together three separate suicide bombings that occurred that same day in Afghanistan together. They reported that a âwave of violenceâ had stretched across Afghanistan. Many of them included a note that Canada was reevaluating its position with respect to Afghanistan, that there was clamour to pull out. Some even alluded to a âriftâ in Canadian government over the matter. They do not understand Canadian politics and the unique Canadian Parliamentary system in which the leader of the government is the head of the political party that holds most seats in the House of Commons; that politicians from the most populace provinces have greater representation than those from provinces that have fewer voters (although some smaller provinces are overrepresented â not proportionately represented - based on other rules). They donât understand that Canadian voters vote locally for Members of Parliament and not nationally for their Government leaders. They do not understand the custom of the non confidence vote that can bring down a government. They do understand that Parliamentary wrangling over the Afghanistan war can make the standing government unpopular in some eyes because it would seem that they are sending Canadians needlessly to danger. Thatâs good enough. Itâs controversial and inflaming. Those editors will publish reports of an alleged rift in âGovernmentâ, on opposition parties calling for a Parliamentary debate and consideration of ending Canadian troop involvement in Afghanistan. But they will not report on things like â NOT EVEN IN CANADA HAS THE MEDIA REPORTED ON â the official statement issued by the leader of the Official Opposition Party relative to the Afghanistan war and the four Canadian soldiers killed by a fanatic vile killer who detonated a bomb among them. Why? Because it defuses the âriftâ sham. Here is the official statement from Bill Graham, leader of Canadaâs Liberal Party, which sits as the Official Opposition to the Canadian Government. Bill Graham was Minister of National Defence in the previous Canadian Government at the time of its electoral defeat. September 18, 2006 âOn behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary caucus, I would like to express my deepest sadness and regret at the news of the death of the four Canadian soldiers killed in a suicide bombing in Southern Afghanistan on September 18, 2006. âWe send our deepest sympathies to the families, friends and comrades of the four soldiers as they cope with this terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers also go out to the other Canadian soldiers and innocent Afghan children who were injured in the bombing as they recover in hospital. We wish them a speedy recovery. âTodayâs senseless attack demonstrates the real challenges that are faced by the men and women of our Canadian Forces every day during this mission. I speak not only for our party but all Canadians when I say that we greatly appreciate all the hard work and sacrifice that they undertake on our behalf to help the people of Afghanistan and bring stability to the region. âThe Liberal Party, like all Canadians, remains steadfast in our support for the women and men of the Canadian Forces stationed in Afghanistan as they put their lives on the line to provide us with a safe and secure world.â Others in the House of Commons are less kindly and less statesmanlike and seek to evoke the controversial headlines that cause the worldâs news media to say Canada is considering pulling out of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. But the âothersâ combined have only half the voting power of the powerhouse Liberal Party, which for many years until 2006 WAS the Government of Canada. Presently, the Conservative Party holds 125 of the 308 seats in Parliament. The Liberal Party holds 102, for a combined total of 227 or 73.7 percent of all seats in the House of Commons. The Bloc Quebecois holds 50 seats (16.2%) and the New Democratic Party holds just 29 seats (9.4%). There is one seat held by an independent and one vacant seat. The Liberal Party when in power laid the plans to send the present mission to Afghanistan. The Conservative Government, now leading Canada with a majority of seats in Parliament, concurred and followed through and strengthened Canadian presence in the field. The Liberal Partyâs so-called âshadow cabinet defence criticâ pursues for rhetorical bating purposes the silly notion that the present Government is somehow at fault because the war in Afghanistan is âescalatingâ and so is the response from the Canadian Forces. How in the world can Canadian Forces NOT meet increased opposition in the field by increasing its own strength in numbers and equipment? The defence critic allows that he is all for increasing the safety of the troops in Afghanistan but deplores the escalations by the Canadian Forces. He implies that the âescalationâ exceeds the original âmandateâ or precepts of the previous Liberal government. That is asinine. How can a nation commit troops to a war and know in advance precisely how many soldiers will be required, the sort of equipment that must be deployed and how long the war will last? The commitment must be made with a willingness to fully support the mission with reinforcements and with whatever equipment it takes to get the job done. The troops also must stay in the field until the job is done. Recollection: Canadian Army, Navy and Air Force units stayed fully active in Korea for three years until an armistice agreement was signed â instead of the few months the Canadian Government had anticipated that they might be involved. Initially when Canadaâs Special Force had been raised it was thought they might not be needed in Korea at all and instead could be deployed on NATO service in Europe. But they stayed. Canadians in fact did not withdraw from Korea until one year after the shooting stopped and there was reassurance that the truce would hold. The proposition that Canadian troops were deployed to Afghanistan with the supposition of sustaining only light casualties in a not very hard to win war is stupid. So is the suggestion that when those same troops incur casualties their mission should end. It is so stupid that it is a wonder that the worldâs news media doesnât challenge it. But then, why let intelligent thought get in the way of a good story and a chance to heap shameful commentary on Canada and Canadian service personnel? In fact, the Official Opposition defence critic himself said to the contrary this April when he addressed Parliament on his view of the merits of debating Canadaâs involvement in the war. Hereâs whatâs contained in his speech notes: âThis past February, pursuant to a decision taken by the Liberal government, and at the request of the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan, our Forces increased their presence in the south of Afghanistan by deploying a brigade headquarters of approximately 300 Canadian Forces personnel and an army Task Force of about 1000 personnel to Kandahar, where they will remain for nine and 12 months respectively... âAs government, we knew then that this would not be a quick, easy mission. We knew that the enemy was determined and that casualties were a virtual certainty. âWe also knew that the mission marked a shift from the traditional Canadian role of peacekeeping. But traditional peacekeeping in the post-Cold War, post 9-11 world has changed to include humanitarian, security, and reconstruction dimensions. Reconstruction is not possible without security; the area must be secure in order for reconstruction activities to take place, and to take hold.â He suggests that it is not enough for the Government to stand behind the troops but that it needs to reassess over time the projected objectives and likelihood of success and balance it against the casualties being sustained. That is not worthy and even if it were a valid recommendation, certainly seven months is not a sufficient length of time to undertake such reexamination. Sympathy and sorrow for those fallen and injured and for their grieving families is a natural and proper response within our nation. Todayâs communications technology brings that news to us quickly, too. To try to exploit or build upon that national emotion for political causes is not worthy of those who fell or who suffer or of their comrades who served with them and the families that support their service. Many of our politician critics do not even possess much understanding of the citizens who â by their conviction and volunteerism - comprise our Armed Forces. To join the Canadian Forces today the minimal educational requirement is completion of high school. Even the recruitâs academic record is reviewed to determine if he or she is an acceptable candidate. Whereas during the Korean War it was possible to sign on in a single day in some cases, now it may take up to a year before an enlistee is accepted into the Canadian Forces. The point is that our soldiers are not senseless individuals who are shifted about by an insensitive government and put in harmâs way without a voice in the matter. They are highly intelligent, highly vocal, highly patriotic and in many cases they are more traveled and sophisticated than some who sit in Parliament. Further, no Canadian is required to serve in a theatre of war against his or her will! Any commander will accommodate any soldierâs request to beg off of a deployment on compassionate or personal grounds. The fact is that all of these intelligent soldiers, men and women, now deployed in Afghanistan are all avid to serve! They volunteered for it, hoped for the chance to be deployed. Skeptics cannot argue that they never knew what they were getting themselves into; that they would never do it again. Many now serving in Afghanistan have been there before. They have served there in more than one deployment. Even when they have casualties in the field as expected, whether from bullet, bomb, shell, or the bomb of a fanatic wretch who creeps in among them, they donât ask to return to Canada. To the contrary. They become more intense in their mission. Even wounded soldiers are anxious to get back to their subunits. Many who must be sent back to Canada say they are sorry they cannot stay with their friends at the front. So, if elected representatives want to debate the presence of Canadians in Afghanistan, why not pose their stinging questions to the very people who really know what Afghanistan and their mission is all about? Why not travel to Afghanistan and debate with the Canadian soldiers in the field and ask them if they think Canada should withdraw from the battle? Why not? Because politicians do what is âpoliticâ to hold their jobs. They stay away from frays that they would lose hands down. Nothing wrong with arguing the merits of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. But the troops should be included in the dialogue. What expertise do the ostensibly concerned politicians who allege they deplore Canadaâs presence in Afghanistan really know about the requirements and the situation and the feelings of the troops? Most have never served in uniform. Yet all should be intelligent enough to know that a war, or even a strictly âpeacekeeping and keep your guns lockedâ situation is a fluid one. Itâs not a hockey or football game where there are parameters and a time to start and a time to end. The Official Opposition âdefence criticâ is a lawyer noted for the pursuit of minority causes and once was the attorney general of British Columbia and for several months was its premier. That was when he belonged to the NDP, which was then in power in BC. He went into national politics after the NDP Government was defeated in his province. He did so as a Liberal Party member and right out of the starting gate was appointed Minister of Health. His military knowledge is abysmal if his recent utterance about the Defence Departmentâs decision to send tanks to support the troops in Afghanistan is an example. While he says he supports measures that will increase the safety of Canadaâs troops in the field he quips that, âTanks are famous for blasting and smashing things; not reconstruction.â No. Heâs wrong. Only the deeds of the brave soldiers who operate the tanks are famous. They do not callously or mischievously blast and smash things. They defeat the enemy. They win battles. They make reconstruction possible, like he said in Parliament in his April speech. Ask any soldier who has fought in the infantry what the tankers do and how well they do it. Blasting and smashing things is defamation. It shows lack of understanding of soldiers and a sorry perception of them. The soldiers of the Lord Strathconaâs Horse (Royal Canadians) have a sterling record going back to the South African War. They did not blast and smash things when they bravely fought as cavalry troops on horseback. Nor did their infantry brothers in The Royal Canadian Regiment who served in South Africa with them and whose successors are also deployed today in Afghanistan. The Strathconas have served in Afghanistan with armoured reconnaissance vehicles â with very little public acknowledgement of their efforts which have been crucial to the success and security of earlier Canadian missions there - and now they will go to war in tanks. They will go to war in tanks because in the estimation of commanders in the field, the tanks are needed. Their bosses at DND in Ottawa obviously concur. Finally, the Canadian Government does not require an approving vote from the House of Commons before it deploys Canadian troops. Obviously, Members of Parliament have a right to question the Government about any of its programs or actions. But Parliament does not collectively send Canadians to war; the Canadian Government does. And only the Canadian Government can withdraw its troops from a war. Can the Government face a confidence vote over the deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan and possibly fall? Come on! How would that impact the troops in the field, to have their country go to the polls to decide whether or not they should be there fighting? By statute there must be at least 36 days of campaigning once an election is called. What would happen to our troops in Afghanistan meanwhile? And if the present Government fell and a new Government was formed, how could it possibly withdraw Canadian Forces without jeopardizing the entire NATO force now engaged and which in fact is sorely in need of additional troops? How could the largest force in the field be suddenly pulled out? Come on. No Canadian Government would do that and put the armed units of many other nations at increased risk â and without doubt undo whatever the NATO force has so far achieved. Letâs get serious. It is theoretically possible to withdraw such a vital contingent, of course, over a protracted period of time when the action would not jeopardize all of the other NATO units now engaged. But that time is when victory is achieved. The definition of victory in Afghanistan is not the usual one that has worked before. Victory means when the goals â and goals do indeed change as facts and circumstances change â are attained. Itâs a tough situation in Afghanistan. Thatâs why itâs called a war. All photographs used in this edition of Korea Vet News were taken by the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces Combat Camera unit in Afghanistan.