# Britian or Canada taking control in Afghanistan?



## sneak and peek soldier (13 Feb 2006)

PUBLICATION:  National Post 
DATE:  2006.02.13 
EDITION:  National 
SECTION:  World 
PAGE:  A10 
COLUMN:  Matthew Fisher 
BYLINE:  Matthew Fisher 
SOURCE:  National PostCANADA  
ILLUSTRATION: Colour Photo: Sylvia Pecota for National Post / Canada hastaken a leading role in Kandahar, but has not received much attention for it -- due in large part to the country's lack of international media presence.  
WORD COUNT:  723 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking credit where it's due: Canadian efforts deserve recognition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BBC, Sky News and all the London newspapers have reported again and again in recent days that Britain is about to take over command from the United States in southern Afghanistan and that British troops are to lead the war against the Taliban. 

This claim has a gallant imperial ring to it. But it is untrue. 

The new multinational brigade that is to take over from the Americans in southern Afghanistan in early March is to be led by Brigadier-General David Fraser of Canada. 

As for the fighting to be done under Brig.-Gen Fraser's command, a Canadian battle group is being deployed in the province of Kandahar and a British battle group is to be deployed in the neighbouring province of Helmand. 

The jingoistic British media has created the misperception that Britain is a player in Afghanistan. The reality is that until now, the Brits have had a very thin presence (Gurkhas from Nepal, mostly) in Kabul and a small provincial reconstruction team in one of the quieter corners of the country. 

Meanwhile, it is a fact that for several years the Canadian army has done some of the heaviest lifting in Kabul. 

Douglas Hurd, the U.K.'s erudite former foreign secretary, was fond of boasting that Britain punched well above its weight internationally. This may generally be true. One of the reasons that such claims can become exaggerated is because the British media are forever doing this. 

Canada has been punching well under its weight for decades. But when the country does take a leading role, as it did under then Brigadier-General Lew MacKenzie in Sarajevo, then Brigadier-General Romeo Daillaire in Rwanda, then Lieutenant-General Rick Hillier in Kabul, and now with Brig.-Gen. Fraser in Kandahar, Canadians hardly know about it, so how can there be any expectation or hope that the world might be impressed. 

Of course, you get what you pay for. 

The Canadian media has virtually no overseas presence, especially compared with the British media. Through its highly respected World Service, the BBC, for example, faithfully transmits all of Prime Minister Tony Blair's pronouncements on foreign affairs, even if Britain plays a marginal role in most of the international crises that flare up. 

Another major reason why Canada's voice internationally is almost inaudible is because it has starved its military for so long that whenever push comes to shove, it needs others to get there and stay safe. 

The U.S. Air Force and Russian and Ukrainian charter airlines are forever moving Canada's kit. For the mission in Kabul and the new one in Kandahar, local air transport and air cover has been or will be provided by German, Dutch, Turkish, American and British helicopters and fighter jets. 

A third reason that Canada has little clout internationally is that it has had few distinguished and knowledgeable foreign ministers. What most of Canada's top envoys have had in common when they have travelled to hot spots were the same pained expressions of compassion on their faces. And these ministers have travelled a lot, sometimes with overblown entourages, and almost always in considerable luxury. 

Only two of Canada's recent plenipotentiaries managed to establish international reputations. Lloyd Axworthy was regarded as a joke or an enemy by our closest allies because of his silly ideas about soft power and his congenital antipathy for the United States. Bill Graham was beginning to impress before Paul Martin yanked him aside so that Pierre Pettigrew, an overgroomed lightweight, could commute to his home in Paris. 

Many countries choose foreign ministers with years of government, academic or business experience abroad and an ability to speak four or five languages. Stephen Harper's first foreign minister, Peter MacKay, fits an all too common pattern. Mr. MacKay's resume betrays only the slightest interest in world affairs and that interest is in that righteous old Canadian standby, human rights. 

Perhaps Prime Minister Harper, like so many prime ministers before him, does not value the foreign affairs posting except as a perquisite to be dispensed to solve some of the problems of Cabinet making. 

It is unfair to judge Mr. MacKay now. He has a good reputation as a parliamentarian. Perhaps he will rise above his resume and his predecessors. 

If Canada is to ever punch its own weight, and get fair credit for what it does internationally, its media must do a bigger and better job overseas, its military must become more self-sufficient and Ottawa must appoint experienced foreign ministers with informed, potentially influential voices.


----------



## GAP (12 Jul 2006)

Revived thread because this article belongs in a thread regarding the "reconstruction of Afghanistan"   GAP

Nation building in Afghanistan
The London Free Press  12 July 2006
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2006/07/10/1676648.html

Let's hope there was more truth than spin in Lt.-Col. Ian Hope's claim last week that Canadian soldiers had made enough progress in Afghanistan's Kandahar province to enable reconstruction work to take root. 

The commander of the Canadian battle group said the Taliban "are on the defensive" in Kandahar, enabling the international community to plan new clinics and roads. 

Large donors such as the United States Agency for International Development and the World Bank have promised help, as have rich countries such as the United Arab Emirates. 

If Hope is right, that is good news on two fronts. Canadians prize the role of their troops as peacekeepers and nation-builders, a role that has given way to combat since they were redeployed to Kandahar. Fighting the Taliban is necessary, but we would all like to see more building. 
More on Link


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Revived thread because this article belongs in a thread regarding the "reconstruction of Afghanistan"   GAP
> 
> Nation building in Afghanistan
> The London Free Press  12 July 2006
> ...



Let's just hope the UAE doesn't start by building Wahhabi mosques which they're known to do....


Matthew.


----------



## GAP (12 Jul 2006)

+1

Just because we are non secular here in Canada...I sometime wonder whether the decision makers in Reconstruction ever give an ounce of thought to the eventual use of the facilities they build?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jul 2006)

Make them build one for each sect,....all interconnected.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jul 2006)

Fisher and Wattie of the Post are good and know their stuff; Blatchford of the Globe is just a great reporter with a head and heart.  Mike Blanchfield and another Ottawa Citizen journalist live on Access to Infomation and leaks.  The latter two need subscriptions to Aviation Week, for a starter.

Mark
Ottawa


----------

