# Time for "Manley 2" Panel to Suggest Post-2011 Mission?



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2009)

Three calls for such a team are out there - one from historian Jack Granatstein:


> Such a commission could consider the key questions:
> 
> * What are Canada's national interests in Afghanistan eight years after the 9/11 attacks? What do we want to achieve there?
> * We all probably recognize that Kabul is not going to be the capital of a Western-style democracy, but can we realistically help to create a better life for a people who clearly want their daughters to be able to go school? Can we help to build an Islamic republic that is a just society?
> ...



by BruceR, a former CF OMLT trainer, at his blog:


> Given the departure date of mid-to-late 2011, decisions will inevitably start to be made by the second quarter of next year as to future manning, the disposal of resources, and procurement that will be either expensive or impossible to change should Canada shift course on what if anything military is to be part of the post-2011 commitment after that. We've got six-to-nine months to come up with any new plan, before inertial guidance starts to take over: still enough time for a Manley 2 process, but not much more than enough.



and the _Toronto Star_:


> However the U.S. debate plays out, Harper will need to redefine and refocus our aims. He should hear from Canadian diplomats and the military, from regional leaders and officials, from academics, aid agencies and allies. It might be worth striking a new version of John Manley's panel, or a Commons select committee, to chart the way forward.
> 
> And quickly. Washington will want to hear from Ottawa by the middle of next year for its own planning. That gives Harper maybe nine months to reshape the mission – and get Parliament's backing.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Oct 2009)

All I know is this:
Someone, somewhere, better start up OPP on how we are getting out of there.  They better start NOW, or, better yet, start LAST YEAR.  I just know that this mission (and that's what it would be, a mission) to withdraw from Kandahar will be the biggest jug-up ever.  We have kit strewn across the battlespace, and some very VERY keen people had better get on it now.

Step one: Mission Analysis.  Get on it, lads.  

And someone else better get on "What's next?"  

So, the Withdrawal from Kandahar is the tactical-level plan to do many things, such as conduct a relief-in-place with another coalition force, the thinning out, the move plan, all that "fun" stuff.  The "What Next" is the strategic plan.  It better involve things such as consolidation of lessons-learned, reconstitution, re-vamp the training system, etc and so forth.

So, chop-chop, boys, or this will simply be a matter of years of "we shoulda..."


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2009)

The actual motion, the one passed on 13 Mar 08, the one which referred to the Manley report, said:



> *Government Orders*
> Mr. MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) for Mr. Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform), seconded by Mr. Prentice (Minister of Industry), moved, —
> 
> 
> ...



the key bit, the *”will of Parliament*” is:

*”the government of Canada* [is to] *notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;”*

That’s it: Canada will be *out of Kandahar*, in a _phased_ withdrawal (to somewhere) which will be completed by sometime in Dec 11.

It seems pretty clear to me that, contrary to my previously expressed guesses, everyone, PRT, battle group, base and _Tim Hortons_ (without the apostrophe), will be gone, from Kandahar.

There is no ”will of Parliament” regarding anything or any time in Afghanistan, _per se_, it is all about Kandahar and it is only about Kandahar.

Parliament reaffirmed Canada’s *ultimate policy aim* which is: ”to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict.”

Since then the prime minister and ministers and politicians of all stripes have said many, many, frequently self-contradictory things – many of them, from all parties, being arrant nonsense. *Parliament’s* “opinion” (“Whereas ... therefore, it is the opinion of the House, that ...”) is that *”Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan.”* That’s it, neither more nor less.

Political leaders, including Prime Minister Harper, Ministers Cannon and MacKay, and Michael Ignatieff have all been careless with the facts and, almost without exception, Canadian politicians have done a real disservice to Canadians, especially to the Canadian men and women who are prosecuting this war. They should all be ashamed.

So, as Midnight Rambler said: it is time to get on with planning the withdrawal from Kandahar and the redeployment to ... ?

                                                                            Another Afghan province? Congo? Gagetown, Petawawa and Shilo? Darfur?


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, as Midnight Rambler said: it is time to get on with planning the withdrawal from Kandahar and the redeployment to ... ?
> 
> Another Afghan province? Congo? Gagetown, Petawawa and Shilo? Darfur?



And to amplify for persons who may not understand what I meant by "OPP" (which in this case means "Operation Planning Process", and certainly not "Ontario Provincial Police), in conducting a mission analysis, the first step, one must know what those tasks are, implied and assigned.  So as in any withdrawal, one simply does not break contact, one must have a place whither the troops will go.  

(I'm just throwing out that Haiti is probably a place that we could very well go to help and sort out, with real benefit to Canada, but it's way too soon for me or anyone to speculate "the next step".  That is why the process must begin NOW)


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2009)

With only some slight edits in yellow...


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Political leaders, including Prime Minister Harper, Ministers Cannon and MacKay, and Michael Ignatieff have all been careless and inconsistent with the facts their statements to the public and, almost without exception, Canadian politicians have done a real disservice to Canadians, especially to the Canadian men and women who are prosecuting this war. They should all be ashamed.


+10000

Meanwhile, others are discussing, and curious, too, according to the Canadian Press:


> The U.S., Britain and other NATO countries are waiting for Canada to decide precisely what kind of role it can play in Afghanistan once the current mission ends in 2011, says a high-level diplomatic source.
> 
> The silence and seeming indecision in Ottawa about the scope and shape of the future redevelopment mission is disconcerting to allies, who are struggling to refocus the overall strategy in troubled mission.
> 
> ...



_- edited to add CP story -_


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act is an interesting retrospective about how John Manley helped Stephen Harper to "see" Canada's role in Afghanistan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/bipartisanship-can-work-it-got-us-out-of-afghanistan/article7617628/


> Bipartisanship can work: It got us out of Afghanistan
> 
> DAVID MULRONEY
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I remain convinced that we _might_ have achieved much, much better results in Kandahar and throughout Afghanistan had we been able to exploit the tactical successes we achieved in 2006/07, but political and military leadership - especially in the highest levels of NATO and ISAF - was somewhere between poor and totally absent. That being the case - and Manley _et al_ saw that it was the case - the Manley Panel made the only sensible recommendation. They told Prime Minister Harper that it was time Canada stopped being a patsy for failed US and European policies and doctrines. We can only hope it taught us a lesson about our allies - but i doubt it has.


----------

