# Canada, U.S. differ on how army best secures Afghanistan



## McG (11 Dec 2005)

> *Canada, U.S. differ on how army best secures Afghanistan*
> Canadians leave rebuilding to pros
> Terry Pedwell
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (11 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Canada, on the other hand, draws a bureaucratic line between what the military does -- providing security -- and what aid agencies are expected to accomplish. Canada's international development agency will ultimately decide which projects receive funding.



Agreed, let the soldiers be soldiers, and the Aid Agencies be Aid Agencies. Simple and sweet, so long as that "bureaucratic line" isn't misconstrued, and is clearly defined and managed.


----------



## SpruceTree (11 Dec 2005)

I was recently at a panel discussion on exaclty this sort of thing (A CF major and several aid agency reps) - defining the relationship between aid agencies and the military. A couple points stood out.
First, in a place like Afghanistan, the military is actively engaged as a belligerant against part of the population. Aid agencies seen to be openly working with the military might be construed as one  with the military and attacked. Often the agency's protection is its perceived neutrality, CIDA or USAID notwithstanding.
Second, in the case of Iraq, one of the agency reps mentioned that when the US was doing its thing in Falluja, the USMC contacted the aid NGOs and expected them to go in and rebuild/deliver aid to the city after it was "pacified"(the USMC used this word according to the rep) - the military had factored the agencies into their plans and expected them to shoulder the burden of redeveloping the city under US protection. This would have sacrificed their neutrality and made them resistance targets per my previous point. The NGOs apparently bristled at this.
I study international development and would appreciate any commentary or insight others would have...


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (11 Dec 2005)

In these cases, isn't a Westener just a westener all the same? I mean, these aid NGO's are going to be attacked at the will of insurgents wether or not they have armed protection, right? It doesn't take much to get past a couple of troops and set off an IED. 
I don't know for sure or not though, but these terrorists seem to be killing anyone they feel like, this war seems to have no such thing as neutrality.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Dec 2005)

I see someone in Ottawa speaking on this point:



> The U.S. military is more hands-on, picking projects to finance, and then obtaining funding from agencies, including USAID, the American government's foreign aid branch. It sends a civil affairs team to identify projects that, first and foremost, will boost security.
> 
> Canada, on the other hand, draws a bureaucratic line between what the military does -- providing security -- and what aid agencies are expected to accomplish. Canada's international development agency will ultimately decide which projects receive funding.



Saying "Our way is better because the US military machine doesn't.blah...blah...blah...and our way is better because its the way we Canadians do it."

the US way is CIMIC (or atleast what I understand it to be), ours is letting another Gov't organization screw up on thier own.


----------



## SpruceTree (11 Dec 2005)

Whiskey_Dan,
Not all insurgents are terrorists and vice versa. There are many different guises of non-uniformed combatant. In Iraq for example there are more than a few groups with varying agendas. Some target occupiers, some target anyone they don't like - all have some political goal usually aligning with kicking out the foreign solidiers,  destroying domestic rivals, or furthing some religious cause.  It is irresponsible to assume they all want the same thing and will use the same means to get there. If that were the case there would only be one group to fight. 
Some resistance type groups allow civilian, non-government organisations come in and fix the local well or provide some medicine, but would draw line at a company of soldiers. The Red Cross/Crescent, MSF, and others get access to all kinds of places you couldn't put military unit without a fight. That being said, in some situations the soldiers can provide security so the aid groups can operate. There is no standard format. As well, all aid/development agencies do risk assessments, and no conflict area is completely safe for them but they recognise this as part of the job.

There is also a difference between government aid org's (CIDA, USAID etc) and NGOs. Gov't agencies are ultimately tools of gov't policy and will only go and do what they are told. In this sense there is a political agenda behind their operations. They will fund only approved NGOs that fit/help their political mandate. I volunteer locally for an NGO sponsoring and supporting refugees that recently lost CIDA funding because the gov't change policy.  Non-gov't organisations  are often international in staffing and so are not constrained by specific gov't policies. Many are also small and not constrained by large bureaucratic structures and careerist civil servants like their nationalised cousins. 

I should also add that there are now thousands of NGOs of vastly varying quality and purpose. Some are very legitimate and very good at what they do, whereas others are essentially fronts for anything from religious/political ideologies to organised crime.

Hope that helped. edit: to remove really sad grammatical error.


----------



## SpruceTree (11 Dec 2005)

Armymedic,
Maj. ____ addressed CIMIC at the talk I mentioned. CIMIC's job is that of facilitator for the CF's tasks.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Dec 2005)

The US has a good civil affairs program with money available for projects without the red tape. The bottom line is that we are both able to help the afghan people. Our ways may be different, but we have been doing this since 2002.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12162004_2004121604.html

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7589


----------



## SpruceTree (11 Dec 2005)

tomahawk6,
yeah, the military has definite advantages in the red-tape dept over other gov't groups.


----------

